Ship of Fools: Exorcism

Thread: Exorcism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024550

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

I had never heard of George Patterson, but his associate, Geoffrey Bull, is a well-known name in Brethren missionary history, having written about his experience of being imprisoned by the Chinese after their invasion of Tibet in 1951.

While the whole obituary is interesting, I was particularly struck by the claim that Patterson had exorcised Keith Moon.

Liberals of course will deny the existence of demons and explain their so-called activities by psychological and physiological causes.

At the other extreme, some penties are capable of producing a demonic explanation for anything remotely untoward in the lives of individuals, churches and nations.

Like, I suspect, other evangelicals, and conservatives from other traditions, I find the subject of demons something of an embarrassment.

It is difficult to deny their existence in the face of Scripture, but we are desperately afraid of attributing to demonic activity anything which could conceivably be a manifestation of a medical or psychiatric condition instead, and require the appropriate professional treatment.

Any thoughts about - or experience in! - this area?

[ 15. January 2013, 06:58: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

This must be some strange usage of the word liberal I wasn't previously aware of. Do you mean skeptic?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

He means, I believe, liberal Christians tend not to read the bible as literally as do conservative Christians. But, yes, that still implies some skepticism.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Liberals of course will deny the existence of demons and explain their so-called activities by psychological and physiological causes.

This liberal believes in demons.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Any thoughts about - or experience in! - this area?

I did an essay and presentation on demonic possession for a pastoral counselling course at university a few years ago.

Did a fair bit of reading around and found it curious to note that exorcisms and exorcism ministry in such denominations like Catholicism and Anglicanism are on the rise.

I know that in my diocese we have an exorcist that is licensed for this special ministry by the Archbishop.

Cut a long story short, I concluded by agreeing with Scott Peck (M.D.) that writes in his book (People of the Lie) that evil is real, but very rare in cases of psychiatric illnesses.

I'd take the same road outside psychiatry. Evil, demons etc. are real, but not ubiquitous.

[ 15. January 2013, 07:09: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I've got a lifetime's experience of not encountering demons, or have I? I'm not sure what those who believe in demons would count. Perhaps things I see every day but call something else?

I believe in evil. I think sexism is evil, for instance, and though I wouldn't use the term supernatural evil, I might describe it as transcendental evil, in that it is a force that operates in and through people and is more than the sum of individual choices. But people who believe in demons tend not to be concerned about sexism, in my experience.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm no expert on this stuff nor encountered it very often - even in my full-on charismatic days - but it strikes me, very broadly, that whilst Catholics and Anglican exorcists seem to go round exorcising particular spaces - haunted pubs, poltergeists, things that go bump in the night - charismatic exorcists seem to go in for exorcising people ... which is obviously a lot more harmful potentially ...

There were some high profile cases back in the 1970s in the UK of people who died under apparent 'exorcisms' and one dreadful incident where one highly unbalanced bloke who had apparently been 'exorcised' and filled with the Spirit/speaking in tongues etc became convinced that his wife was demon possessed and promptly went home and ripped her face off with his bare hands.

In passing sentence, the Judge said that the CofE cleric and the local Methodist minister and their followers ought really to be the ones in the dock ...

I suspect it was incidents like this that meant that an emphasis on exorcism and so on wasn't as prominent in subsequent UK charismaticism ... other than at Ellel Grange and other odd-ball outfits.

I've not heard of the Keith Moon incident. Sounds rather dubious to me.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Someone committing a terrible assault after an exorcism doesn't falsify the belief that he had a demon, does it? Couldn't it just mean that the exorcism failed? And if you believe in demons, wouldn't you believe they could kill someone?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It could do ... but it might also call the practice into question. If one took a very literal approach to this, then one could cite that Jesus didn't appear to fail in his exorcisms, or the thing in Acts with the sons of Sceva, 'Jesus we know and Paul we know but who are you?'

Whatever our view of demons and so on, it strikes me that this particular incident - and I've read the details and they aren't pretty - was a case of over-zealous charismatic practice going badly wrong, with a highly vulnerable person convinced of the reality of demons by the actions of a charismatic vicar and Methodist minister and going and literally taking the matter into their own hands.

It also begs the question of the reality of the apparent filling with the Spirit/speaking in tongues event (at least in this particular instance) ... if someone is supposed to be 'filled with the Spirit' then we would expect a rather different outcome to the murder of one's own spouse.

Of course, there are the troubling verses, if one wishes to be literal, in the OT about the Holy Spirit falling on Samson and him going out and wasting Philistines as a result ...

Of course, those wedded to a particular understanding of demonology etc could put up rather reductionist explanations as to what went on in this particular case - but then, I suspect that such people would take a rather reductionist line on most things.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I find it very surprising really that people can still believe that demons, evil spirits, etc exist, in the face of all the medical and scientific information, plus total lack of any such object ever.

I think it is a pity that there is a belief in even metaphorical ones.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it very surprising really that people can still believe that demons, evil spirits, etc exist, in the face of all the medical and scientific information, plus total lack of any such object ever.

I think it is a pity that there is a belief in even metaphorical ones.

I agree.

Even Jesus believed epilepsy was caused by demons didn't he? We know different now.

The causes of people's actions are far far better known today. I don't believe in ANY supernatural beings - I don't even think God is supernatural. I think S/he is part of everything that is, not outside it.

I don't use the phrase 'dealing with his demons' but plenty of people, who don't believe in supernatural beings, still do. Maybe metaphorical demons confuse matters?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think Susan is right in the Christian sense. In Mark's Gospel for instance, Christ's ministry begins by casting out demons and I think thats part of the Christian faith - the casting out of suspicion, of community wreckage through belief in sprites and evil spirits. Christ casts out these destructive beliefs. If you have ever been anywhere where there is a strong belief in this kind of thing you can see how it produces suspicion, distrust and just how much it can destroy communities and relationships, and there's a larger more sinister line to it as well - see Miller's The Crucible as an example.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it very surprising really that people can still believe that demons, evil spirits, etc exist, in the face of all the medical and scientific information...

What possible scientific evidence can you have that demons ie evil spirits don't, or can't, exist? What is the relevant "information"?

OK, those who are seein g them on every corner also have no evidence that they do exist (or if they have they haven't shared it) so there is no reason for you to start believing in them in the absence of evidence, but that's a long way from saying that you c an prove they don't exist.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it very surprising really that people can still believe that demons, evil spirits, etc exist, in the face of all the medical and scientific information...
What possible scientific evidence can you have that demons ie evil spirits don't, or can't, exist? What is the relevant "information"?

OK, those who are seein g them on every corner also have no evidence that they do exist (or if they have they haven't shared it) so there is no reason for you to start believing in them in the absence of evidence, but that's a long way from saying that you c an prove they don't exist.

Ken, that's not your best work. It's a full toss and can be sent straight to the boundary by reference to Russell's Teapot.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

When Doris and Boogie say that 'metaphorical demons' terminology isn't helpful, what do you mean?

Do you mean that someone who is described as having, say, a demon of laziness, is not meant to be understood as possessed by an actual evil spirit, but just struggling with chronic laziness in an ordinary human way?

In an non-literal way, it is useful or at least okay, surely, for people to describe their 'demons', when referring to their personal faults. One can be hag-ridden without actually being hag ridden, if you see what I mean.

Personally, I'm inclined towards the natural explanations first and foremost. But I feel there must be something supernatural about God's interaction with the world, if for no other reason than to explain the resurrection. With regard to demons, it would appear that medical science offers at least a rational explanation for many of the vagaries of human behaviour. If one's default position is 'unless there are other provable explanations, that's the one I'll stick with' - that's sounds pretty reasonable to me.

However, it's possible some people can only be most effectively helped taking into account their own spirituality and personal beliefs.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

quote:
I know that in my diocese we have an exorcist that is licensed for this special ministry by the Archbishop.

I think ALL CofE Dioceses have a diocesan exorcist. I have met one, then retired, when at a retreat in scotland. Characteristically I found him to be very reticent and reluctant to discuss details. I know that the correct procedure to follow in any case of suspected supernaturally induced pastoral situation is first and foremost to report it to the Bishop. Local ministers are not licensed to deal with such phenomenon ‘on their own’ and without experienced supervision things can go badly ‘wrong’.

I think a major cause of confusion is the superstitious stereotypes conjured in the mind by Hollywood movies, Hammer Horror films, Dennis Wheatly novels etc. along with a presumption that demonic activity MUST necessarily equate to the image presented by the language of The Gospels.

There is no reason to suppose that, just because Jesus dealt with the occasional problematic pastoral situation by appearing to directly address an ‘independent entity’, which then gave an autonomous reply, (presumably uninitiated by it’s human host), that Jesus was confirming the actual existence of whatever he was appearing to converse with.

Multiple personality is a classic example of behavior which could be categorized as ‘demoniacal’. When communicating with a person effected in this way it can save a lot of time and help the person to feel ‘listened to’, if the therapist is willing to engage with them somewhat in their current delusional state, rather than constantly confronting the patient with ‘a reality’ they are at present, unable to comprehend.

I may be wrong, but I think most of the incidents of, so called, demonic possession of human beings is merely the result of misplaced, distorted or impaired human personality, due to perhaps a medical condition, trauma beyond the minds capacity to handle properly (particularly in childhood), or moral degradation (crime / debauchery), or prolonged drug abuse or other stress physical or mental or abuse of mental faculties i.e. witchcraft.

That human behavior which is most commonly described as ‘demonic’ seems to be exhibited by those who seem to have little or no control over their own actions and seem incapable of appreciating or taking responsibility for their own behavior. Often blatantly denying responsibility and protesting their innocence, even in front of witnesses or video evidence. This points to a serious lack of personal ‘sense of self’ or self awareness. An underdeveloped ‘core’ of personality easily influenced by others, to their own ends. Pathetic individuals, yes; But Demon possessed? Probably not.

ALL human beings seem to have this capacity to suppress ‘self awareness’ and deny responsibility for the harm that they may do. Shifting the blame is a game that started with Adam, passed to Eve, and left the serpent with not a single leg to stand on.

What we might label as ‘demonic’ is merely an exaggerated form of the personality defects common to the entire human race. WE are all capable of ‘rage’, ‘greed’, ‘fear’, ‘hate’, ‘envy’, ‘lust’ and ‘pride’ and we all feel better when our own misdemeanors are eclipsed by the more blatantly apparent sins of OTHERS.

Now that we no longer have The News of the World to feed our insatiable desire for self justification and provide the victim scapegoats upon which to pile all our miserable offenses, what ever will we do? Read the Daily Mail I suppose.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Why can't we just accept some people are poorly, some are not very nice, some are ill but not diagnosed and so on.

Surely we don't need to take the human condition into the realms of fantasy and metaphysics. We are people and we suffer from the ailments of people. We don't need demons any more.

I appreciate the irony of a Christian pointing this out, but Christ was God. He spoke in the langauge of the times, so someone who was ill probably did have a demon in them according to Jews in the 1st century! We don't need that euphamism anymore.

We can call a nasty person simply a nasty person and a poorly person as simply a poorly person with such-and-such illness.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It could do ... but it might also call the practice into question. If one took a very literal approach to this, then one could cite that Jesus didn't appear to fail in his exorcisms

But the disciples failed in Mark 9, so it would seem possible that today we might fail through lack of the right sort of prayer, say.

I'm curious about why a dreadful outcome should discredit the whole practice. I don't know the case you mentioned, but it sounds as if the consequences made people think they had been deeply foolish and meddled in matters they should have left well alone. A very sensible conclusion in my opinion, but I don't see why someone who believes in demons would think that. Isn't their world view left intact?

As ken reminds us, there can never be direct evidence for the non-existence of anything from bigfoot to demons. People do hang onto such beliefs with extraordinary persistence. Why not in this case?

It's as if they were found out, as if they had only been playing at exorcism, and then reality jumped up and bit them and their pretended belief collapsed.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm no expert on this stuff nor encountered it very often - even in my full-on charismatic days - but it strikes me, very broadly, that whilst Catholics and Anglican exorcists seem to go round exorcising particular spaces - haunted pubs, poltergeists, things that go bump in the night - charismatic exorcists seem to go in for exorcising people ... which is obviously a lot more harmful potentially ...

There were some high profile cases back in the 1970s in the UK of people who died under apparent 'exorcisms' and one dreadful incident where one highly unbalanced bloke who had apparently been 'exorcised' and filled with the Spirit/speaking in tongues etc became convinced that his wife was demon possessed and promptly went home and ripped her face off with his bare hands.

In passing sentence, the Judge said that the CofE cleric and the local Methodist minister and their followers ought really to be the ones in the dock ...

It seems that this example actually contradicts your first paragraph.

Secondly, some might infer from your second paragraph that being 'exorcised' and filled with the Spirit/speaking in tongues etc is part of the charismatic problem which you have (smugly?) 'left behind' and is so-evidently something to do with the 'ripping off the face' incident.

Why do you mention tongues, etc, in the same sentence as exorcism - if not to suggest that it's all part of the unbalancing process that led to that poor woman's murder?

I see a bit of prejudice creeping in here?

[ 15. January 2013, 11:58: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Liberals of course will deny the existence of demons and explain their so-called activities by psychological and physiological causes.

This liberal believes in demons.

And this liberal deals with what's put in front of him. If someone comes to me and says "I'm being haunted," my first response isn't going to be "Isn't that a rather outdated way of viewing things?"

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by e;rogheaCofE:

quote:

Now that we no longer have The News of the World to feed our insatiable desire for self justification and provide the victim scapegoats upon which to pile all our miserable offenses, what ever will we do? Read the Daily Mail I suppose.

But its a demonic rag mopping up on human misery and bigotry....oh wait, those metaphors are unhelpful aren't they.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I see here (scrolling to the bottom) that Milton Keynes has been an exorcism hotspot. [Two face]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I see here (scrolling to the bottom) that Milton Keynes has been an exorcism hotspot.

Have those concrete cows been frightening people again?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Someone I know well insists that on his conversion 30 years ago the people praying for him cast out several 'demons', evil spirits which had latched onto him when he had been playing with ouija boards and such like. Whether or not they had been influential in his life, he said that a weight lifted from him and his prior drug addiction has never returned.

I keep an open mind. There are some things people experience which haven't been explained by science.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
When Doris and Boogie say that 'metaphorical demons' terminology isn't helpful, what do you mean?

Yes, after I'd written the post, I thought, 'The trouble is, we don't have other words strong enough and familiar enough to take their place in metaphorical terms.'

quote:
Do you mean that someone who is described as having, say, a demon of laziness, is not meant to be understood as possessed by an actual evil spirit, but just struggling with chronic laziness in an ordinary human way?

Yes, I agree with this and quite a lotof the rest of the post.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

quote:
Someone I know well insists that on his conversion 30 years ago the people praying for him cast out several 'demons', evil spirits which had latched onto him when he had been playing with ouija boards and such like. Whether or not they had been influential in his life, he said that a weight lifted from him and his prior drug addiction has never returned.

As I said though, any approach that gets results is OK. It matters little if 'demons' exist in reality or not. What matters is that the person being 'delivered' of them is convinced they are now gone and is now able to live a normal life exhibiting the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the culmination of which is SELF control.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And this liberal deals with what's put in front of him. If someone comes to me and says "I'm being haunted," my first response isn't going to be "Isn't that a rather outdated way of viewing things?"

Sounds sensible; would you go along with the idea of exorcism at any stage in helping someone?

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think there is no justification for there to be any kind of official exorcist in any religious group nowadays, as this panders to ideas that have been long since superseded by factual knowledge.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And this liberal deals with what's put in front of him. If someone comes to me and says "I'm being haunted," my first response isn't going to be "Isn't that a rather outdated way of viewing things?"
Sounds sensible; would you go along with the idea of exorcism at any stage in helping someone?

Yes I would, though obviously I wouldn't make that decision: it would be up to those who specialise in that ministry. "Exorcism" as such describes only one small part of what's involved in people's perception of spirits, demons, hauntings and such like, and in the CofE it's a ministry of last resort. There are all sorts of pastoral and ritual responses you would consider first.

quote:
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think there is no justification for there to be any kind of official exorcist in any religious group nowadays, as this panders to ideas that have been long since superseded by factual knowledge.

From my own experience, which I won't discuss in detail, I disagree. Though 25 years ago I would probably have agreed. It's probably worth pointing out that it won't be an "exorcist" who practises the ministry anyway: these days it's usually a "ministry of deliverance team", which will often include medical and psychiatric practitioners.

Many years ago, I did ask an "exorcist" what his first action would be if someone said their house was haunted. His response was "check the plumbing". It's in the nature of the ministry that these are sensible, level-headed people with their feet firmly on the ground.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Many years ago, I did ask an "exorcist" what his first action would be if someone said their house was haunted. His response was "check the plumbing". It's in the nature of the ministry that these are sensible, level-headed people with their feet firmly on the ground.

I can't remember where I heard this, but someone (probably someone on this board, on a blog) noted a diocesan exorcist's quip that his primary role was to avoid doing exorcisms. Exorcists are presumably, like you say, grounded people with counseling-psychology training/experience as well as a good dose of common sense.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Someone I know well insists that on his conversion 30 years ago the people praying for him cast out several 'demons', evil spirits which had latched onto him when he had been playing with ouija boards and such like. Whether or not they had been influential in his life, he said that a weight lifted from him and his prior drug addiction has never returned.

The danger is when excessively keen Christians with overactive imaginations start telling vulnerable people that they have all these demons in the first place. They can create confused, frightened people who may harm themselves before anyone can help them. Surprisingly, I've seen this happen in a CofE church, where you wouldn't expect it.

Posted by catthefat (# 8586) on :

Some people are posessed by a demon that makes people believe in demons.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
The danger is when excessively keen Christians with overactive imaginations start telling vulnerable people that they have all these demons in the first place. They can create confused, frightened people who may harm themselves before anyone can help them. Surprisingly, I've seen this happen in a CofE church, where you wouldn't expect it.

I agree. In his case, as he tells it, nobody suggested any such thing. They offered to pray for him. He agreed, reluctantly. They prayed. The 'spirits' surfaced, and were exorcised one by one, all within the prayer session. The people from the church later suggested that his dabbling might have attracted them.

He doesn't go around suggesting to people that they might have demons. He does try to deter people from dabbling.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

A friend of mine believed that a church we both belonged to had a dragon, as he put it. That is to say, although everyone was extremely pleasant and relaxed most of the time, there were occasional outbursts when somebody did something minor. Over-reactions that would have people unhappily meeting in secret and coming up with ultimatums and generally behaving in a way at odds with their personalities.

Knowing the history of the church and its deep hurts, I could see why a sort of panic gripped them at the first hint of anything unpredictable, and a terror that once conflict started it might rapidly get out of control.

A dragon was a great image. Asleep for such a long time that no one new would believe it existed, but those who remembered would know the shocking ruin that would follow if it was roused.

Perhaps a helpful image in that, once we knew it was there and that many in the church were terrified of it still, we behaved differently, keeping everyone very calm in stressful times.

But, of course, we knew it was only an image. There are no dragons in north London. Or are there? No, there really aren't.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Multiple personality is a classic example of behavior which could be categorized as ‘demoniacal’.

It is known these days as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).

My wife has had a fair bit to do clinically with sufferers from it (largely as an outcome of her extensive work with survivors of childhood sexual abuse, which almost invariably precedes DID), and has also written some theological reflection on it.

She, like me, theoretically believes in demon possession on the basis of the scriptural record, but has always scrupulously distinguished it from DID.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it very surprising really that people can still believe that demons, evil spirits, etc exist, in the face of all the medical and scientific information, plus total lack of any such object ever.

I think it is a pity that there is a belief in even metaphorical ones.
I agree.

Even Jesus believed epilepsy was caused by demons didn't he? We know different now.

The causes of people's actions are far far better known today. I don't believe in ANY supernatural beings - I don't even think God is supernatural. I think S/he is part of everything that is, not outside it.

I don't use the phrase 'dealing with his demons' but plenty of people, who don't believe in supernatural beings, still do. Maybe metaphorical demons confuse matters?

How can you possibly know that any of the people exorcised by Jesus had epilepsy?

Why do you think using the word "demons" metaphorically is confusing, but using the word "God" metaphorically isn´t?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I do believe demons exist, and possession too, and I suspect you'd get a similar answer from any missionary to a third world context. We've been asked to perform exorcisms, though I'm shamefully glad we never had to follow through--requesters decided the necessary accompanying life changes were too much, and decided to move house instead. (as if a demon couldn't follow a moving van!) [Disappointed]

Whatever.

I do think that possession is far rarer today than it was in Jesus' time, possibly because the devil/demonic powers were making a special effort then in view of the incarnation.

In any case where someone starts talking this way our first advice is "get to a doctor for a full checkup" and then proceed if necessary with psychiatry, etc. And checking out the drains etc. is a really good idea. It would take a heckuva lot for me to conclude something was a case of possession. Demonic harassment (external) is more common IMHO; but that doesn't call for exorcism, just for major prayer. Preferably by as many faithful and down-to-earth Christian friends as you can scare up.

I'm actually writing a book on this subject right now (the harassment, I mean). We've had a good 25 years of it. Well, either that or we're shit magnets in a really, really, REALLY extreme way, and defying the mathematical odds on the same scale as a lottery winner.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

When people didn't understand as much as we know now about mental health, it was understandable to believe in demons. People behaving strangely and cruelly; others suddenly descending in to madness or being convulsed by fits.... It's natural to say to yourself "what evil thing is causing this?"

But I have to say that in this day and age, a belief in demons that require exorcism is stepping back into a past age which denies what we now know.

Yes - there are still areas of life where there is mystery - where science and medicine cannot yet explain it all. And yes - there is undeniable evil in our world. But the evil lives in the hearts of people - it is not some disembodied force "out there" preying on innocent and vulnerable people.

Whenever I have seen "exorcism" taking place (especially in charismatic churches), I have always seen a lot of hype and froth and very little Christianity. I have seen Christians being cajoled into thinking that "Satan has got a grip" on them and living in fear, doubt and self-loathing. Exorcism in such situations has always (in my experience) been about someone exerting undue power over someone more vulnerable than them.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

That's interesting, Oscar the Grouch. Since we can't find direct evidence that demons don't exist, I think it's more helpful to ask about the social phenomenon of belief in them.

You suggest it often accompanies abuse of power over vulnerable people. I think that it undermines a proper sense of personal responsibility and diverts attention away from complicity in injustice.

I think as well that belief in demons is a choice freely made, not usually the result of evidence. The reckless charlatanry that Gamaliel described seems to have been discredited in his and others eyes not because of evidence that it was wrong, but because of evidence that it had been a wilfully wicked and foolish decision to adopt the belief.

Thinking about demons from inside the scientific mindset, I'm prepared to consider evidence. But none is offered that will ever get me to believe in them. Instead, the right to believe is asserted, and that fact I can't disprove them is used to defend this belief.

But I don't think it is a belief. I think it's a choice, and one that suits reactionary viewpoints.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Oscar the Grouch and hatless
I'm nodding in agreement with your posts.
I think that every concession to demons etc and exorcism is a backward step and leads away from truth. There have to be better ways of educating people away from belief in such things, however long it takes.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Deleted duplicate - IE couldn't display page or something

[ 16. January 2013, 08:25: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think that it undermines a proper sense of personal responsibility and diverts attention away from complicity in injustice.

I agree - and wonder why otherwise responsible people are willing to undertake 'exorcisms'. There are other ways of putting people's minds at rest!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think that it undermines a proper sense of personal responsibility and diverts attention away from complicity in injustice.

I agree - and wonder why otherwise responsible people are willing to undertake 'exorcisms'. There are other ways of putting people's minds at rest!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Mudfrog, I said that 'broadly' RCs and Anglicans go in for exorcising spaces - not 'exclusively' ...

Also, I would suggest that tragic incidents like the one I related might have led them to that kind of inclination.

I can understand why you might be suggesting some prejudice on my part but I can assure you that this isn't the case.

I only mention the 'tongues' thing in this instance insofar as the people who performed the 'exorcism' took that as a 'sign' that the disturbed individual had been cleared of demonic influences and filled with the Spirit instead. The fact that he then went home and murdered his wife might suggest alternative conclusions.

I'm not using this individual case to dismiss the practice of speaking in tongues nor of exorcism per se - and as hatless says, it is open to various interpretations.

No, rather, what I'm doing is using a rather extreme example of the need - which we would all accept - to exercise caution and - apropos of other discussions we've had about 'assurances' and so on, not be too ready to use experiences in and of themselves to assess what is going on spiritually.

Does that clarify my position?

[Smile]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think that it undermines a proper sense of personal responsibility and diverts attention away from complicity in injustice.

I agree - and wonder why otherwise responsible people are willing to undertake 'exorcisms'. There are other ways of putting people's minds at rest!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

We (mainly) have a view of exorcism that is based on two sources of information. The bible and Hollywood (perhaps the Daily Mail or NOTW - pretty much the same thing).

In the former we can easily read all sorts of things into it - like the claims above that epilepsy is to blame - but the fact is, we weren't there. It's also true that the beliefs at the time allowed for a real life demonology. All sorts of things were "explained"y reference to that world view.

Skip forward 2000 years and we have Hollywood and the popular press. There are no pretensions to truth here -- and so we are confronted by the sensational that is so extreme, it makes the whole thing laughable. The danger is that you then laugh off or dismiss real issues in people's lives: they are almost certainly not demonic but their very nature causes real hurt to the people affcetd. An approach to care or cure that focuses on the physical may just work but given the distress is mught not: this is where pastoral care really kicks in to deal with the spiritual issues that affect the physical (After all, everyoen is "spiritual" today aren't they like good post modernists: spiritual is the new religious).

Quite the most sensible approach to all this has been the comments above above those who are involved in delieverance in real life, today. Sane, sensible, looking for a physical or psychological explanation (that also includes the spiritual). A readiness to work as a team: the importance of medical help from a variety of disciplines. A desire to deal with any presenting issues in a variety of ways and being open to explanations for behavious and events that may include extreme spiritual concerns that merit the label "possession."

Anyone wanting to go into this kind of "ministry" should be banned from doing so. It is not for the amateur: our state church whilst getting so much wrong gets this one right - there are "experts" around. They are the most grounded sensible and matter of the fact people I've ever come across - and yes I know more than one. They aren't all raving charismatics either, they come from across the theological spectrum but all have one aim: to care for a very distressed person or persons.

With love, care and help there can be a cure. But for some (very few) there is no obvious solution in medical terms even with all kinds of help from a multidisciplinary team and approach.
Is that where deliverance or rather tarhgetted prayer is required ? Perhaps but never in a power situation.

The actions that take place are far from the shouting and screaming of myth and drama. Quiet reflection, prayer and above all listening to the person are crucial. Too much emphasis is put on method by places like Ellel Grange - the hard work should be in the care not working ou "which demon" is in there.

Please don't dismiss prayer in these circumstances as an expression of a power imbalance. Don't forget the same power imbalane occurs in every medical consultation where the healthcare professional is et up - however implicitly - as the healer, with you as the "client." (Beware of this language particularly - the root of client is "dependant."

Most, if not all, ministers will have had people coming to them claiming to be possessed. That's easy to deal with in one way: if possession IS real then it won't announce itself so directly. [I had one such example last week but I know the treatment this guy is having and the side effects his medication can cause ....]. Almost everyhting can be explained even by such basic things as plumbing, drains under houses, underground water, illness, loneliness etc etc.

There remains though the exceptions. Are we to ignore the possibility of spiritual influences which are harmful not benign, and thus deprive people of the help, prayer and support they may need to make them whole again?

For the record, though I'm sure it doesnt' matter much at all, I do believe that people can be affected by adverse responses or harmful expressions of spirituality. I don't rule out possession nor do I rule it in easily.

Experience over 35 years suggests that there are a few instances where it could be a possibility. In one (in the case of an abusive church leader across 3 denominations over a 25 year period), it seemed a reality. My flesh crawled in the presence of this man and I didn't even know at that time that, at the heart of his success, lay abuse of vulnerable and broken people.

That doesn't mean that it's real in all cases - it patently isn't - but don't throw possbility out of the window and deny what little help someone can get.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE] There are other ways of putting people's minds at rest!

Such as? (Genuinely interested not sarcastic!)

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

ExclamationMark

quote:
but don't throw possbility out of the window

It sounds so sensible to admit that, though it might be very, very rare indeed, and though those who press us to believe that they have a demon are almost certainly not to be believed, and those who seem drawn to deliverance ministry should similarly be avoided, yet we shouldn't rule out the possibility that there are demons and demon possession. It's always better to be open minded and to consider fresh evidence, isn't it?

And yet, though it's possible there will be photographs and video of the amazing Loch Ness plesiosaur on the internet this afternoon, and if there are such photographs I would, of course, have to say wow! and heavens! and who'd a thought it, it's true after all! in reality I do dismiss the possibility.

Monsters in Loch Ness don't actually impinge on me much, unless I'm in two minds about camping on the banks one foggy night. Demons do, though. They offer an alternative hypothesis for dealing with illness and destructive behaviour which, if accepted, would lead to different treatment for that illness and different response to that behaviour.

Just keeping in mind the option of demons as a possible explanation will change the way we respond to people. And if they know we entertain that hypothesis, if we have a diocesan deliverance team, for example, that knowledge will affect the way some people present themselves to us. It seems safer, not to close my mind, but to decline to give the possibility house room.

On top of that, if it turned out to be true that there are an order of beings who can possess humans, our whole world view would take an immense knock and almost every aspect of life would have to be re-thought. For instance, if there are demons, and if the Hollywood stuff about old burial grounds is true, then decisions about where to live, which shop to visit, which route to take, how to explain accident statistics, whether or not it's worth taking antibiotics if you live that side of the road, whether burning incense sticks matters more than reducing saturated fats, etc. etc. are all going to need reassessing.

But does anyone really believe in demons to this extent? Does anyone really believe in demons at all?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
My flesh crawled in the presence of this man and I didn't even know at that time that, at the heart of his success, lay abuse of vulnerable and broken people.

That doesn't mean that it's real in all cases - it patently isn't - but don't throw possbility out of the window and deny what little help someone can get.

This is the sort of statement that really bothers me - along with those who reckon they 'deal' with demons.

It simply perpetuates the fear of something unseeable and terrifying. There are plenty of real things to fear - no need for invisible demons.

Of course there are evil people who make your flesh crawl. That means you are perceptive and intuitive as to their hidden flaws - it doesn't mean they are possessed.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
There are other ways of putting people's minds at rest!
Such as? (Genuinely interested not sarcastic!)

For a start to let them know that no being exists to hurt them which can't be seen by their own eyes. To refer them to the right medical help if their problems are mental or psychological. to reassure them of God's love and pray with them, if that's what they want.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Isn't there another way of understanding exorcism that is still done in the Orthodox tradition (I think it's part of the baptismal rite, but I could be wrong) and doesn't involve demons crawling out of the woodwork Hollywood style?

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

When I began working as a minister before any funeral, baptism or wedding (still waiting for one of those)I was asked for an exorcism.

The lady concerned said she felt 'presences' in her home. I called my boss and the 2 of us visited. My boss talked through her experiences and any involvement in occult practices (but all very low key)and then we prayed in each room as a house blessing not 'exorcism' and held communion together.

Pastorally she was taken seriously, not dismissed as mistaken, we neither confirmed or denied her interpretation. She was cared for and we offered the space and all in it to God.

She reported peace in the home afterwards. I tend to think it is a case that she was at peace from the anxiety that had worked up.

I cannot deny the possibility of ghosts, demons or anything else. But I don't consider it a probability.

As it has been said CoE diocese have designated people, had my boss not had experience the probable next step for me would have been to contact my Anglican colleagues to find out who the designated person is and discuss with them.

As it has been said they are very grounded people who don't rush into things and yet remain open to the possibility of the improbable.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

Actually, fletcher, traditional teachings by the Eastern and Western churches have very little connection with Hollywood, as you can imagine. The trouble is, in reading the ancient rites without knowing what you are reading, one cannot easily tell whether the writer is employing metaphorical imagery for didactic instruction, or is using a more literal statement of faith and expectation.

I suggest, for starters, that the catechetical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem (whether actually the work of Cyril or not is debatable, but nevertheless gives us a solid picture of early church practice there). Cyril reflects the view that the way of expelling evil spirits was taught to the apostles by Christ. The power over evil spirits is in a way a confirmation of the reality of Christian faith and the fruit of spreading the Good News.

The exorcism was quickly connected with the sacrament of baptism. Before baptism, catechumens underwent the so called exufflatio rite . The catechumen turned west and blew and spat as a sign of contempt for the devil. These gestures have a symbolic and biblical character: west is the symbol of night and Satan’s dwelling place, as opposed to east, symbolically connected with the Second Coming and Christ – “The Sun King”. To be understood literally or metaphorically? This custom remains in the Greek rite. The celebrant blew in the face of the catechumen referring to the words of Paul's injunction at 2 Thess 2:8.

After this rite came the consignatio (sealing) rite – the sign of the cross was made on the catechumen’s forehead. This meant offering them to Christ and – through a complete adherence to Jesus – completely breaking any tie with the evil spirit.

In some churches these rites were followed by taking previously exorcised salt. This rite had a double meaning: salt symbolises wisdom and the cure for sickness and decay. Thanks to this combination it had a very distinct meaning of exorcism.

Many modern baptismal liturgies have remnants of exorcism rites, within both protestant and Catholic traditions. For instance, in the Anglican Prayer book here in Austrralia there is a disconnected statement by the celebrant of the baptism: "May Almighty God deliver you from the powers of darkness....." without any actual exorcistic rite prior - not good liturgy, me thinks.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Thanks EL, it was the practice of throwing salt into the water that was at the back of my memory on this one.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

LC suggested that any missionary in a 3rd world context would support belief in demons etc.

I worked amongst the Batonga people in the Zambezi Valley for a number of years. Sure they believed in "demons" ( or rather in the 'evil' spirit of some departed ancestor bent on making life hell for them.) But I dont.

I think that such 'beliefs' can be psychologically explained.

I also think that believing in a legion of demonic spirits out there tempting, if not causing us to do evi,l is really an abdication of responsibility. 'Not me Guv. I was persuaded beyond my power to resist'

Jesus also said something about evil coming from within and not from outside of us.

Whether or not dealing with people who believe in demonic possession requires us to assume the standpoint of their belief is debateable. But that is only a starting point.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE] There are other ways of putting people's minds at rest!

For a start to let them know that no being exists to hurt them which can't be seen by their own eyes. To refer them to the right medical help if their problems are mental or psychological. to reassure them of God's love and pray with them, if that's what they want.

Thanks for the response Boogie - really thought provoking.

I have to say that the experience I described was like (and has been like) no other I've been through. Yes, perception and intuition play a part (and i couldn't have known at that stage from human POV the nature and scale of his offences). By the same token, there was obviously much more to this but I guess that's the way I've chosen to process it.

You refer to medical help, by which I guess we include include psychological and psychiatric. I'm not opposed to either but (being provocative), aren't they both forms (and perhaps means)of exorcism in the sense that they seek change and promnote removal?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

I was reading through this thread and this Baudelair quote came to mind:

quote:
He did not complain in any way about the bad reputation he enjoyed all over the world, assured me that he himself was the person the most interested in the destruction of superstition, and admitted to me that he had only been afraid for his own power one time, and that was the day when he had heard a preacher, more subtle than his colleagues, shout out from the pulpit:

"My dear brothers, never forget, when you hear the progress of enlightenment vaunted, that the devil's best trick is to persuade you that he doesn't exist!"

or in the vernacular of Carroll as most of us know it:

quote:
The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world that he didn't exist.

I could also go on and use Old Harry's Game, but enough quotes I think!

Just because in the past people have attributed disease to demons et. al. does not then lead to the conclusion that the belief in said demons etc. is backwards and unrealistic in the modern world and that exorcism is not a still much needed (though within strict control and regulation by the Church) today.

If we accept the simple premise that Hell and the Devil exist in some form is it such a logical leap to believe that demons as part of that picture do not also exist?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If we accept the simple premise that Hell and the Devil exist in some form is it such a logical leap to believe that demons as part of that picture do not also exist?

I don't accept this 'simple' premise at all. All hellish states are man made imo.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it very surprising really that people can still believe that demons, evil spirits, etc exist, in the face of all the medical and scientific information...
What possible scientific evidence can you have that demons ie evil spirits don't, or can't, exist? What is the relevant "information"?

OK, those who are seein g them on every corner also have no evidence that they do exist (or if they have they haven't shared it) so there is no reason for you to start believing in them in the absence of evidence, but that's a long way from saying that you c an prove they don't exist.
Ken, that's not your best work. It's a full toss and can be sent straight to the boundary by reference to Russell's Teapot.

The teapot would refute any demand that Susan Doris accepts that demons exist without evidence. But I'm not complaining about that. What I'm complaining about is the idea that somehow modern science or medicine has accquired information that makes it stupid to "still" believe in demons, in a way it wasn't once upon a time. What information is that then?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If we accept the simple premise that Hell and the Devil exist in some form is it such a logical leap to believe that demons as part of that picture do not also exist?
I don't accept this 'simple' premise at all. All hellish states are man made imo.

Well then everything is hunky-dory. I guess in your theological view everyone gets saved by God? Or are some people still not saved?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Well then everything is hunky-dory. I guess in your theological view everyone gets saved by God? Or are some people still not saved?

Yes - in my view everyone is saved who wants to be. Those who don't cease to exist. No hell, just non-existence.

I don't believe a God of love could countenance a living hell for anyone, however evil.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it very surprising really that people can still believe that demons, evil spirits, etc exist, in the face of all the medical and scientific information...
What possible scientific evidence can you have that demons ie evil spirits don't, or can't, exist? What is the relevant "information"?

OK, those who are seein g them on every corner also have no evidence that they do exist (or if they have they haven't shared it) so there is no reason for you to start believing in them in the absence of evidence, but that's a long way from saying that you c an prove they don't exist.
Ken, that's not your best work. It's a full toss and can be sent straight to the boundary by reference to Russell's Teapot.
The teapot would refute any demand that Susan Doris accepts that demons exist without evidence. But I'm not complaining about that. What I'm complaining about is the idea that somehow modern science or medicine has accquired information that makes it stupid to "still" believe in demons, in a way it wasn't once upon a time. What information is that then?

I suppose it's information about the causes of illness, which are far less mysterious to us than they once were, because we know more about infections, the nervous system, some mental illnesses, parasites, etc. That does seem relevant.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If we accept the simple premise that Hell and the Devil exist in some form is it such a logical leap to believe that demons as part of that picture do not also exist?
I don't accept this 'simple' premise at all. All hellish states are man made imo.

Whether any of us accept the premise or not, it doesn't stop it being true - if it is.

If what you refer to as "hellish" is seperation from God, then is that seperation possible only through the action of humanity or might there be other forces at work? Is man really that big?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE] ... just non-existence.

Isn't it hell when everyone else is saved and those, by virtue of annihilation, are excluded from that? You've just moved the goalposts one step and instead of blaming God for rejecting people, you're blaming people for not choosing to be saved (rejecting God).

It doesn't fit with what you've said else where ...how can the kind of loving God you postulate in your response allow destruction on the scale of annihilation even if a person has chosen it? Surely "love" demands an override of choice in these circumstances?

It just doesn't make sense IMO.

[ 16. January 2013, 16:41: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE] ... just non-existence.
Isn't that hell when everyone else is saved and those, by virtue of annihilation, are excluded from that?

Non-existence isn't hell, it's nothingness. In fact it's what atheists believe happens to everyone after death.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE] ... just non-existence.
Isn't that hell when everyone else is saved and those, by virtue of annihilation, are excluded from that?

Non-existence isn't hell, it's nothingness. In fact it's what atheists believe happens to everyone after death.

We were talking about those who believed in the possibility of salvation, not atheists. In that case, it is hell to those who don't choose to be saved. So, humanity can choose whether to experience conciousness ("saved") or not (annihilation) on or after death?

[ 16. January 2013, 16:44: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I would say that those who could not bear to be in God's presence wouldn't be forced to be.

(But this is way off topic [Smile]

)

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

How do they know they can't bear to be in God's presence until they are?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

This thread has gone way off topic. But Boogie needs defending even if she is merely chasing a red herring.

The point of 'annihilation', or 'ceasing to be' is that the persistent rejection of God's love and truth results in increasing spiritual blindness and deafness. To the point at which we cannot recognise truth when we see it or hear the Word when spoken.

Such blindness and deafness renders us incapable of any kind of response. We are morally incompetent and impotent. Which means we cease to be 'human' in any significant sense.

Its the only alternative to universalism.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
How do they know they can't bear to be in God's presence until they are?

We don't - that's why I think God has patience and waits. We get to choose to be with God when we meet God, not the 'glass darkly' version we see now, in this life imo.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world that he didn't exist.

I think his greatest accomplisment might be convincing people that he is so powerful he can get inside people, circumvent their free will and control their thoughts and actions. Doesn't this sort of thinking make the Devil more powerful than God?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I tended to avoid this thread, simply because of the tendency to see exorcism as one of those medieval things that people without enough knowledge formerly did, along the lines of treating illness with shamanism. However, since you're also talking of evil, I felt I had something to contribute.

There are evil acts or situations, such as the evil acts killing, mutilation and torture of war, but these may be done, and I think usually are, by non-evil, everyday people. Like the people who easily turned up the electricity on mild encouragement in the Stanley Milgram torture experiment discussed in university psych textbooks. The issues in war and other generically evil situations seem to be those of lack of moral fibre, judgement and manipulation.

That all said, there do appear to be evil people. I've met two. From those experiences I would say that being in their presence seems to violate normal human experiences of other humans. There was no sense of engagement, no spark, and a sense of a great disconnect, almost as if this living person was colder than death, a sense of menace, and of disregard. It's the sort of experience that you say afterword 'oh, that's what they mean', with so much more insight as to the theory of what evil really is. Psychologically, I understood both had delusions and paranoia, but neither accounted for what the experience on the visceral, experience of them sense.

I asked a priest about one of the experiences. He talked in a way that suggested to me that he hadn't had a parallel experience, was more fearful and less curious than I. After, I wondered whether clergy get lay people asking about such things very often. It did seem clear to me that if the person to be subjected to the exorcism did not hold the same belief about it, they either had to come to understand it the same way as the exorcist or it would simply miss. Which made me consider that perhaps demons are arising within humans, like a cancer growing.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

That all said, there do appear to be evil people. I've met two. From those experiences I would say that being in their presence seems to violate normal human experiences of other humans. There was no sense of engagement, no spark, and a sense of a great disconnect, almost as if this living person was colder than death, a sense of menace, and of disregard. It's the sort of experience that you say afterword 'oh, that's what they mean', with so much more insight as to the theory of what evil really is.

Yes - they are psychopaths. I have met one. It was like looking into the eyes of a reptile. No humanity there.

Horrible - but not demonic.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I do have a problem with the concept of a bunch of invisible superhuman entities wandering around parasitising on humans and only able to be dealt with by specialist holy people. The problem is in accepting that a good God has set up a world including this. Now maybe we are supposed to accept that there was a generation of angels that went wrong - but why allow them free rein to torment us? And maybe we have inherited the vulnerability derived from the error of our forebears, and the fallen angels are our justly deserved punishment, and if we are very very good they can't touch us.

It seems to me that some people want to live in a world more like those in fantasy stories.

Now those tribal malicious ancestors sound a lot more likely to me. Someone who was never very nice in life and died without having grasped that they had hanging about and making a nuisance of themselves doesn't require a God who has made a world with predators we can't see or deal with. And should respond to some sort of prayerful approach.

Mind you, even that doesn't quite convince my scientific training.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

While the whole obituary is interesting, I was particularly struck by the claim that Patterson had exorcised Keith Moon.

Er, first thing that came to my mind was, did Keith Moon (assuming we're talking about the late drummer for The Who) know he'd been exorcised? Or was Patterson randomly exorcising folks, sort of like the LDS baptizing folks without asking?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

That all said, there do appear to be evil people. I've met two. From those experiences I would say that being in their presence seems to violate normal human experiences of other humans. There was no sense of engagement, no spark, and a sense of a great disconnect, almost as if this living person was colder than death, a sense of menace, and of disregard. It's the sort of experience that you say afterword 'oh, that's what they mean', with so much more insight as to the theory of what evil really is.
Yes - they are psychopaths. I have met one. It was like looking into the eyes of a reptile. No humanity there.

Horrible - but not demonic.

There's a little more than psychopathy going on. Psychopathy not necessarily containing the delusions and paranoia, and can contain superficial, manipulative charmingness. So as I understand, which is why these two people really bothered me.

I do allow that something more than psychological processes are going on, but I would, like you, tend to avoid the "demonic" ideas. But I'm not going to say it doesn't exist, as I've been proved rather wrong about many things.

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

As a little light relief, might I refer you to the writings of Phil Rickman?

I stress that his Merrily Watkins series are fictional, but they deal with the working life of a Diocesan Exorcist (Deliverance Minister) in the present-day church. Phil is not a Christian himself, but the list of his advisors and contacts is most impressive.

Is exorcism real or just a medieval throwback? I don't know, but I'll keep a carefully open mind on the subject. In the absence of concrete evidence, 'science' is hard-put to prove that something doesn't exist, particularly if the 'something', if it does exist, is not the sort of thing that is going to show up on any instrument.

If you will excuse me saying so, taking the view that,"Because I cannot see it, it doesn't exist" rather flies in the face of present-day experience. So we cannot see demons? We cannot see radio waves or electricity, but they are none the less real for all that. Admittedly, we have instruments that enable us to measure their effects. So far, nobody has invented an instrument that can measure the effects of demons. That does not prove that such an instrument cannot be invented. Nor does it prove that demons do not exist.

I'll tread warily on the subject. In my 50 something years I have encountered a number of things that were difficult to explain by conventional means. Does that mean that they were 'demonic'? Possibly. And then again, possibly not. But just because I cannot prove the matter one way or the other, I do not have grounds to dismiss the existence of demons.

I'll keep my powder dry, and my holy water to hand ... [Big Grin]

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

I have witnessed an exorcism as a non-participant from a distance of about eight feet. I was at a church weekend conference just over 20 years ago, and at the end of the morning teaching session I was sitting at the front taking a few minutes of quiet to think over the message of the session while everyone else went to lunch.

The speaker (a chap called Tom Marshall*) and a woman from the church were talking a little way in front of me, and over the next five minutes or so, he proceeded to evict a demon from her. I was not party to the background that led to the event, or to the process whereby the (presumed) problem she was experiencing was identified as demon-possession, and my memory of the event is rather hazy.

But I do remember that he spoke to her (or rather to the demon in her) commanding it to reveal its name. In responding, she spoke in a voice that was definitely not her normal speaking voice – it was deeper and more guttural. Tom Marshall then commanded the demon to leave her and go to some spiritual destination of which I cannot remember the full description, but one where it would be subject to God’s judgement and destruction. I think there was a short time of further prayer and that was it – the two of them left the room, leaving me as an inadvertent but informed and privileged witness.

Several observations. There was never anything scary or dramatic about it. Contrary to Oscar’s report, there was no hype or froth at all.

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
...
Whenever I have seen "exorcism" taking place (especially in charismatic churches), I have always seen a lot of hype and froth and very little Christianity. I have seen Christians being cajoled into thinking that "Satan has got a grip" on them and living in fear, doubt and self-loathing. Exorcism in such situations has always (in my experience) been about someone exerting undue power over someone more vulnerable than them.

It was all done quietly and calmly; there were no histrionics or shouting. Tom Marshall simply spoke in an authoritative way – as those who have true authority never need to raise their voices. There was no element of one person exerting undue power over someone more vulnerable, just the power of God working to bring freedom. As has been said before, the reality of the Holy Spirit acting in the human sphere is usually in inverse proportion to the amount of fuss made about it.

And the credibility of what I witnessed was supported by the assessment of Tom Marshall’s character that I had gained from hearing him speak and teach. He taught with a calm authority, wisdom, and insight, yet these were combined with humour and warmth that made him very engaging. One could have both a deep respect for him, and also feel that he would be great company to go down the pub with for a beer. His spiritual authority was further enhanced for me by my experience of asking for his prayer for me personally, in response to which he gave me a prophecy that was fulfilled two months later.

In the exorcism I saw nothing that didn’t conform to the Biblical pattern, and in response to:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Even Jesus believed epilepsy was caused by demons didn't he? We know different now.

I would trust the discernment of the incarnate Son of God on matters of spiritual reality over and above anyone else who has ever lived. If Jesus identified demons as spiritual entities, then they exist.

Angus

*Had to use tinyurl because ubb won’t allow parentheses in an HTML tag.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Even Jesus believed epilepsy was caused by demons didn't he? We know different now.
I would trust the discernment of the incarnate Son of God on matters of spiritual reality over and above anyone else who has ever lived. If Jesus identified demons as spiritual entities, then they exist.

Jesus was a man of his time. There is no way he could be expected to know the causes of epilepsy, any more than anyone else did then.

He was able to be wrong, of course. That's what made him human.

I don't believe in demons - if I'd lived in Jesus time no doubt I would have. Understanding moves on.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

A Pilgrim's problem is that he/she doesnt really believe that Jesus was truly human

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What I'm complaining about is the idea that somehow modern science or medicine has accquired information that makes it stupid to "still" believe in demons, in a way it wasn't once upon a time. What information is that then?

It is the total lack of any actual demon other than as an idea. People talk of many kinds of demons, devils, etc etc but they are part of
fiction however strongly believed in. I think this is one of those cases where it is up to those who believe they have an existence outside of the human imagination to convince us non-believers. The words won't go, as they are an integral part of the language, but that's fine if understood as an alternative name for aspects of human thought and behaviour.

The information that we have is that understanding the psychology more means a better way of providing medication and treatment to do the healing. Of course there is still a long way to go, but given time maybe exorcism will become a part of history.....

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Phil Rickman's books are interesting. I've been waiting to see if anyone here had an opinion on them, as I had found out about them on a couple of other places, neither concerned with religion. Some of the stuff he writes fits in with things I have heard of from what I might call folk sources - not people with a particular religious position to fit things into. Some with one or two things I have experienced myself which do not fit in with my scientific background and have not submitted to strict scepticim. But some of his stuff is farfetched - I am not at all convinced by anything to do with leys (though he is in the original source landscape of that sort of idea) or ideas which originated in the 60s or thereabouts. And some of it is there because he is writing in a particular genre which wants big drama and fringe horror. Can't remember any actual demons.

[ 17. January 2013, 10:32: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I like Phil Rickman's books as escapism and fantasy. I spent a long time in Hereford city - and county - so I love wandering the place in my mind while I read, recognizing landmarks and roads and streets etc. Particularly the cathedral, bishop's palace and precincts. Happy days!

I like Merrily Watkins' character as a fiction. But that's precisely what it is. The Deliverance Ministry approach of Hereford Diocese is definitely not represented by a lone, (initially) inexperienced female - mentored by a weird guy in Wales with a made-up vocabulary for the spirit world!

Rickman writes a fabulously over-the-top Hammer horror style fantasy. But I wouldn't like to think anyone believes it's true.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Susan Howatch does enjoyable and credible fiction on the topic of ministries of healing in the Anglican church.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Even Jesus believed epilepsy was caused by demons didn't he? We know different now.
I would trust the discernment of the incarnate Son of God on matters of spiritual reality over and above anyone else who has ever lived. If Jesus identified demons as spiritual entities, then they exist.

Jesus was a man of his time. There is no way he could be expected to know the causes of epilepsy, any more than anyone else did then.

He was able to be wrong, of course. That's what made him human.

I don't believe in demons - if I'd lived in Jesus time no doubt I would have. Understanding moves on.

Considering that Jesus is God and it is by Jesus that all things were made, I would think He knew exactly what the causes of epilepsy were/are. Those Jesus exorcised were suffering demonic possession, not epilepsy, and He treated them accordingly.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

If we believe that by invitation the Holy Spirit will come to dwell within us, and experience the same, why is it not possible for evil spirits to gatecrash if we come to their attention by 'dabbling'? Jesus indicated as such here.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Even Jesus believed epilepsy was caused by demons didn't he? We know different now.
I would trust the discernment of the incarnate Son of God on matters of spiritual reality over and above anyone else who has ever lived. If Jesus identified demons as spiritual entities, then they exist.

Jesus was a man of his time. There is no way he could be expected to know the causes of epilepsy, any more than anyone else did then.

He was able to be wrong, of course. That's what made him human.

I don't believe in demons - if I'd lived in Jesus time no doubt I would have. Understanding moves on.
Considering that Jesus is God and it is by Jesus that all things were made, I would think He knew exactly what the causes of epilepsy were/are. Those Jesus exorcised were suffering demonic possession, not epilepsy, and He treated them accordingly.

Jesus was God INCARNATE so his knowledge would be limited. He said, for example, that he did not know the date of the parousia - only the father did.

Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on :

I was once teaching a Polish Jesuit English when he started to tell me about a number of exorcisms that he had assisted at.

Anyway, to cut a long story short the said Jesuit told me that once when he and the other priest were trying to verify whether the affected person was under some kind of demonic influence or not they pressed a number of different cloths on the back of the person's neck. One of the cloths was actually the priest's stole at which point the person was lifted off the chair and thrown violently across the room by hands unseen.

It certainly made me think twice about dismissing Scripture's clear language about demons as unenlightened.

Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on :

Here's a link to the Mount Rainier Case which provided the inspiration for William Peter Blatty's book:

quote:
Some of the phenomenon was quite peculiar. “One was the amount of spittle that the boy could discharge: there would be half-a-pint at one time. At times he would ask for a glass of water and it would be given to him, although it was known what would happen. It would be spat back on the bystanders. While the priest read the exorcisms, two others would hold a towel in front of his face to protect his glasses, but it was useless; the spittle would go under the towel, over the towel or around the towel and strike directly on the priest’s glasses, and the boy’s eyes would be closed the whole time. Another phenomenon was excessive urination. During the seizures the boy would utter the vilest obscenities, curses, blasphemies and ribald songs, all in a high falsetto voice that was off key.” It is noted that at one stage, the exorcist had to protect himself with a pillow, for the boy’s head moved like a cobra, aiming non-stop with spittle for his face.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
I was once teaching a Polish Jesuit English when he started to tell me about a number of exorcisms that he had assisted at.

Anyway, to cut a long story short the said Jesuit told me that once when he and the other priest were trying to verify whether the affected person was under some kind of demonic influence or not they pressed a number of different cloths on the back of the person's neck. One of the cloths was actually the priest's stole at which point the person was lifted off the chair and thrown violently across the room by hands unseen.

It certainly made me think twice about dismissing Scripture's clear language about demons as unenlightened.

Sensational reports like this require very strong verification, about which 2 priests reporting it is not enough. In somewhat parallel, 30 years ago when I was a Scout leader, we were camping by a lake and had hiked to another lake through the bush down a game trail. The teenaged boys were really slow and lethargic. I talked to another leader, and we told them a bear was coming down the trail after us. This hurried everyone back to our campsite. There was no bear. I invented it. Yet several boys said there definitely was one, said they saw it, and kept to their story of seeing and even hearing it snort. We told them that we made it all up, and this did not change their belief. It gave and gives me great pause about reports such as your's. Like you, not dismissing it, but wonder about objective reality versus perception.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Jesus was a man of his time. There is no way he could be expected to know the causes of epilepsy, any more than anyone else did then.

He was able to be wrong, of course. That's what made him human.

He was a man of his time, but he was also God Almighty. There seem to be things he did not know--e.g. when the Second Coming would occur--but such ignorance seems to have been part & parcel of his relinquishing his full divine power. Extending that relinquishing to an ability to be wrong, especially about spiritual matters, pretty much makes a mockery of the communicatio idiomatum.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
He was a man of his time, but he was also God Almighty. There seem to be things he did not know--e.g. when the Second Coming would occur--but such ignorance seems to have been part & parcel of his relinquishing his full divine power. Extending that relinquishing to an ability to be wrong, especially about spiritual matters, pretty much makes a mockery of the communicatio idiomatum.

There will have been plenty he didn't know - or he wouldn't have been human. Yes, he had God's character, and was full of God's Spirit. But he couldn't have had God's knowledge. No human can - it would make them unable to function. He wouldn't have anything like the kind of scientific or medical knowledge we have now. He wouldn't know that the Earth wasn't flat, that the sun doesn't go round the Earth etc etc. He certainly wouldn't have had knowledge of mental illness we have now.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Anyone else read This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness by Frank Peretti?

Angels and demons clash over small town America and social workers (child services) are evil pawns of the devil who falsely accuse parents of child abuse and kidnap their children.

Great stuff.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

There was a huge fad of Peretti about 20-25 years ago. I read them myself. So long as nobody takes them seriously they're a fun read. But I have a feeling they are intended to be taken seriously.

Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
I was once teaching a Polish Jesuit English when he started to tell me about a number of exorcisms that he had assisted at.

Anyway, to cut a long story short the said Jesuit told me that once when he and the other priest were trying to verify whether the affected person was under some kind of demonic influence or not they pressed a number of different cloths on the back of the person's neck. One of the cloths was actually the priest's stole at which point the person was lifted off the chair and thrown violently across the room by hands unseen.

It certainly made me think twice about dismissing Scripture's clear language about demons as unenlightened.
Sensational reports like this require very strong verification, about which 2 priests reporting it is not enough. In somewhat parallel, 30 years ago when I was a Scout leader, we were camping by a lake and had hiked to another lake through the bush down a game trail. The teenaged boys were really slow and lethargic. I talked to another leader, and we told them a bear was coming down the trail after us. This hurried everyone back to our campsite. There was no bear. I invented it. Yet several boys said there definitely was one, said they saw it, and kept to their story of seeing and even hearing it snort. We told them that we made it all up, and this did not change their belief. It gave and gives me great pause about reports such as your's. Like you, not dismissing it, but wonder about objective reality versus perception.

Certainly I would think the same as you since this is a second hand account. I am pretty sceptical about these things myself. Talking to the person to whom it happened gave me a sense of certainty that I would not expect on the part of someone who hears about the event at a remove. So file it under "Interesting" rather than "Certain".

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
There was a huge fad of Peretti about 20-25 years ago. I read them myself. So long as nobody takes them seriously they're a fun read. But I have a feeling they are intended to be taken seriously.

I feel so old right now.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Here's a link to the Mount Rainier Case which provided the inspiration for William Peter Blatty's book:

quote:
Some of the phenomenon was quite peculiar. “One was the amount of spittle that the boy could discharge: there would be half-a-pint at one time. At times he would ask for a glass of water and it would be given to him, although it was known what would happen. It would be spat back on the bystanders. While the priest read the exorcisms, two others would hold a towel in front of his face to protect his glasses, but it was useless; the spittle would go under the towel, over the towel or around the towel and strike directly on the priest’s glasses, and the boy’s eyes would be closed the whole time. Another phenomenon was excessive urination. During the seizures the boy would utter the vilest obscenities, curses, blasphemies and ribald songs, all in a high falsetto voice that was off key.” It is noted that at one stage, the exorcist had to protect himself with a pillow, for the boy’s head moved like a cobra, aiming non-stop with spittle for his face.

That sounds very like a description of a
complex partial seizure that has acquired some flourishes in the retelling over a prolonged period. The cobra-like movement description especially reminded me of the writhing movements you can see in such seizures.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

I asked a priest about one of the experiences. He talked in a way that suggested to me that he hadn't had a parallel experience, was more fearful and less curious than I. After, I wondered whether clergy get lay people asking about such things very often.

That's quite an interesting question.

At one time, I was part of the volunteer Church Visiting Team (CofE) whose function was to follow up (mainly non-churchgoing) people who wanted some further contact e.g. mainly post-bereavement/funeral. Visiting could go on as long as someone wished though were typically between 6 - 10 weeks.

After a number of assignments, the Vicar himself requested me to visit Miss A (visting appointments were normally administered by the Chair of the Visiting Team). He had been to seen her once following the death of her mother but wanted me to visit as "a female is more appropriate in this case". Naively, perhaps, I thought maybe Miss A had some issues with men*.

Turned out Miss A, while in not really a socio- or psychopath, to me was a sort of Spiritual Sink - I felt drained of all joy and hope after an hour with her (and, having had first-hand experience of severe depression, it wasn't just the generally dragginess of listening to a depressive!). After 3 or 4 visits, I felt like I was wading ankle-deep through sewage all the time - not just when with her.

I went to our local Cathedral mid-week communion service and asked to speak to the clergyman afterwards. I explained what had happened, how I was feeling - while not totally unsympathetic (he blessed me and said if it continued, to come back for annointing), I didn't get the impression he really knew about this stuff other than theoretically. If I go to a solicitor for legal services, I want to know that they have done it numerous times and understand my needs and their part in the business. Same with any professional. Maybe the Cathedral priest did the best he could but, to answer the question, no, I don't think most clergy get lay questions about this often - which could, of course, mean it's not OCCURING that often, of course.

*It was later discovered that the Vicar was a sexual maniac, wife-beater and all-round nutjob who was also delusional enough to imagine every female he encountered was lusting for him (he was quite stunningly ugly); guess he just didn't fancy Miss A! So how much of the bad feeling was down to Miss A and how much down to Revd Nutjob, who can tell**

**Amusing story: Church jumble sale. Organist running the bookstall. "What sort of books do you like, J?" , he said. "Fantasy-Horror", I replied. "Oh", sez Organist, "you'll be wanting the Vicar's collected sermons then" [Big Grin]

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Anyone else read This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness by Frank Peretti?

Angels and demons clash over small town America and social workers (child services) are evil pawns of the devil who falsely accuse parents of child abuse and kidnap their children.

Great stuff.

Goodness, that takes me back. My GP* is a born-again charisma-nutter - this fool actually gave me these books to read as a treatment for my severe depression. Fortunately, even battling with the Dog, I knew it was sensationalist shite -badly-written too.

*known privately to me as Dr Snakehandler, aka Snakey

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
I was once teaching a Polish Jesuit English when he started to tell me about a number of exorcisms that he had assisted at.

Anyway, to cut a long story short the said Jesuit told me that once when he and the other priest were trying to verify whether the affected person was under some kind of demonic influence or not they pressed a number of different cloths on the back of the person's neck. One of the cloths was actually the priest's stole at which point the person was lifted off the chair and thrown violently across the room by hands unseen.

It certainly made me think twice about dismissing Scripture's clear language about demons as unenlightened.
Sensational reports like this require very strong verification, about which 2 priests reporting it is not enough. In somewhat parallel, 30 years ago when I was a Scout leader, we were camping by a lake and had hiked to another lake through the bush down a game trail. The teenaged boys were really slow and lethargic. I talked to another leader, and we told them a bear was coming down the trail after us. This hurried everyone back to our campsite. There was no bear. I invented it. Yet several boys said there definitely was one, said they saw it, and kept to their story of seeing and even hearing it snort. We told them that we made it all up, and this did not change their belief. It gave and gives me great pause about reports such as your's. Like you, not dismissing it, but wonder about objective reality versus perception.

Yes but have you also seen the the Invisible Gorilla Experiment.

The human brain is weird.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It's like a joke I tell people. I say, "A bus leaves the terminus with 10 people on board. At the first stop another person gets on and no-one gets off. At the next person two people get on and three people get off" ...

You go on doing this for some time, making sure in your head that you still have a positive number of passengers on board! Eventually you say, "And finally the bus gets to its destination: HOW MANY STOPS WERE THERE?" Very few people can answer - they've all been doing the mental arithmetic.

Actually I thought the Gorilla Experiment was going to be a double-bluff and that there would be no such Ape at all (well, I suppoe there wasn't really).

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

The Invisible Gorilla is a simple application of a well-known piece of the stage conjuror's art - Misdirection. People will look where something is happening, or where there is a sudden disturbance or loud noise. Conjurors use this fact to conceal what is important. So an assistant will walk onto stage, flashily dressed (or, more likely, hardly dressed at all [Big Grin]

) carrying something that she will then, noisily, drop. She will scurry around a small part of the stage trying to pick up whatever it was she dropped. She will then hand it to the conjuror in time for him to place something like a live chicken or rabbit into it - something that he has apparently 'produced' out of thin air whilst she was trying to pick up the dropped object.

The misdirection lies in the fact that, whilst all attention was on his clumsy assistant, the conjuror simply reached behind the curtains to his other assistant who quietly handed him the live chicken ...

Very few, if any, of the audience will notice this vital detail.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A Pilgrim's problem is that he/she doesnt really believe that Jesus was truly human

I was sorely tempted to make some suggestions as to what shamwari’s problem might be, but I decided that I would refrain from being quite so patronising, and simply respond as follows.

I don’t think that I have any problem in believing that Jesus was truly human. Of course, the whole subject of the kenosis of Christ is a long-standing theological debate, on which I’m sure there must have been discussion threads here in the past. But even if we admit that the incarnate Christ’s omniscience was limited by his human nature, there is a way in which he could still have been fully informed about spiritual nature.

At his baptism by John as recorded in Matt 4:16-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:29-34, Jesus receives the Holy Spirit who remains on him; and at many times during his ministry, Jesus is recorded as praying to his Father in heaven. This spirit-endowed relationship would have allowed him access to all the omniscient resources of God the Father, for any incident or situation which he would encounter in his ministry. Also, Jesus had (has?) a triune role of Prophet, Priest, and King, and the discernment and communication of spiritual knowledge is within the role of prophet, just as it was for any of the Old Testament prophets such as Moses. Jesus's ignorance of the date of his return to Earth in glory would be consistent with God the Father withholding that specific information from him, and not necessarily indicate (in contradiction of several previous opinions) his generalised ignorance of spiritual matters.

There’s an interesting tangent, in that when Jesus ascended to heaven, he took his human nature with him (Daniel 7:13-14 is the classic reference for this), and as a man, as well as God the Son, now reigns on high on God’s right hand – the first-fruit of human nature in the heavenly realms. So I’m rather reluctant to view the risen and ascended Christ as being in any way hindered or defective in his godly knowledge because of his human nature. Whether that is relevant to the nature of Christ in his pre-death and resurrection state can be debated, but could indicate that being human is no obstacle to full godly nature in this case. I suspect that the hymn-writer got it right in the words: ‘Our God contracted to a span, incomprehensibly made man’.

The same indwelling Holy Spirit and relationship with God the Father that was seen in Jesus is available to any disciple of Christ today, with the very big caveat that Jesus was sinless and perfect, while we today are most definitely not. Within the community of the church, it is therefore possible for a disciple to work under the authority of Jesus, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, to discern and banish demonic powers, as Tom Marshall did. But it seems regrettably rare for this to happen in practice. Perhaps this is because the close resemblance of the disciples of Christ to their master is also regrettably rare. And I also guess that in many cases of modern-day exorcism, a veil of discretion is drawn over the event for the benefit of all involved, which seems entirely appropriate to me. I knew of another CofE minister who had a ministry of exorcism, and I vaguely remember that he was very reluctant to say anything about his experiences. Sensationalist publicity-seeking is the opposite of godliness in this area of minstry.

Which brings me on to the subject of Frank Peretti’s books. I think that they are evil, misleading, mind-polluting tosh. My sympathies go to Jahlove, and I endorse the description: ‘sensationalist shite’. I once had the misfortune to attend a church where several members thought Peretti’s books were a reliable source of spiritual information and world-view. (Aaarrghh! [Disappointed]

) Godly spiritual discernment is far too rare.

And shamwari, who posted

quote:
A Pilgrim's problem is that he/she ...

might like to notice the name with which I sign off my posts, which seems pretty gender-specific. I’ve never met a woman called Angus; I shall get very upset if I ever do.

Angus

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Sorry for the double post, but on the subject of the conjuror’s technique explained by Darllenwr, the ability to conceal actions by the distraction of an assistant is much enabled by the physiological fact that any person is functionally blind for the duration of the time that their eyes are moving from one point to another. So in the split second that the audience is moving their direction of visual attention from the conjuror to the assistant who has suddenly appeared, or made a loud noise or whatever, the conjuror can do something that nobody in the audience is physiologically able to see – unless they have deliberately forced themselves to keep their point of visual attention completely fixed on the conjuror. Which is all but impossible to do in the circumstances.

Angus

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I also think that believing in a legion of demonic spirits out there tempting...is really an abdication of responsibility.

Well then.

I guess that means we can just kick St. Antony the Great, St. John of the Ladder, and all those other kooky Desert Fathers right to the curb.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

You refer to medical help, by which I guess we include include psychological and psychiatric. I'm not opposed to either but (being provocative), aren't they both forms (and perhaps means)of exorcism in the sense that they seek change and promnote removal? [/QB]

Doesn't a tonsillectomy seek change and promote removal? Doesn't all medical treatment seek change and removal of disease?

People who present at emergency rooms in a psychotic state are usually calmed and restored by an injection of Haldol. Has the ER doctor performed an exorcism?

There is something about self-appointed exorcists, and people in churches who claim for themselves the power to discern demons that seems incredibly dangerous and egotistical to me. Yes, Jesus could command a demon to leave a person and the demon would leave him (or Jesus knew that "has a demon," was the ancient term for "has schizophrenia/epilepsy/whatever" and because he was Jesus the person was cured. That doesn't mean anyone else can do that. Why not spit on your hands and cure blindness?

I have no issue with charismatics who speak in tongues or have visions. I respect the people who feel moved to things like snake handling, if it strengthens their faith, but exorcism means meddling with another person's brain. It means encouraging someone to give up life saving medicine and to put on a temporary act of "cured," for the satisfaction of an audience and the vanity of the exorcist. And I don't mean that every minister who performs exorcisms is a flashy showman but at some level he is claiming more power for himself than I think is ever safe.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

There is something about self-appointed exorcists, and people in churches who claim for themselves the power to discern demons that seems incredibly dangerous and egotistical to me. Yes, Jesus could command a demon to leave a person and the demon would leave him (or Jesus knew that "has a demon," was the ancient term for "has schizophrenia/epilepsy/whatever" and because he was Jesus the person was cured. That doesn't mean anyone else can do that. Why not spit on your hands and cure blindness?

I have no issue with charismatics who speak in tongues or have visions. I respect the people who feel moved to things like snake handling, if it strengthens their faith, but exorcism means meddling with another person's brain. It means encouraging someone to give up life saving medicine and to put on a temporary act of "cured," for the satisfaction of an audience and the vanity of the exorcist. And I don't mean that every minister who performs exorcisms is a flashy showman but at some level he is claiming more power for himself than I think is ever safe.

If someone is a self-appointed exorcist who insists on false testimonies in public sessions for his or her self-inflation, I agree that this is dangerous and has nothing to do with God.

If, however, God wants to use someone to pray and request that any demons (if they exist) depart, to the glory of God and the benefit of the person who is suffering, and if this calling has been discerned and recognised by an organised church which oversees it, that is a good thing.

It's better that anyone who already thinks they are troubled by a demon should go to the latter rather than the former for spiritual succour and prayer. They would also be advised to seek help from the medical profession.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

It's better that anyone who already thinks they are troubled by a demon should go to the latter rather than the former for spiritual succour and prayer. They would also be advised to seek help from the medical profession.

I thought that such terminology was just used historically when people didn't understand mental illness. I guess people talking to the medical profession now about fears of being demon possessed would be investigated for mental illness as a matter of course.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I thought that such terminology was just used historically when people didn't understand mental illness. I guess people talking to the medical profession now about fears of being demon possessed would be investigated for mental illness as a matter of course.

That's right, and they may well steer clear for that very reason, leaving them potentially at the mercy of those who set up open meetings for their own glory.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Another thought occurs to me on this subject, specifically the denial of the existence of demons, and the explanation of their so-called activities as having psychological and physiological causes.

The spiritual forces of evil are not stupid – the ‘serpent’ of Gen.3 is described as being ‘more crafty than any other beast of the field...’(3:1 ESV). So it is entirely feasible that in demonised people the demon could influence the person to behave in a way that could be mistaken for a psychological or physiological illness. In this way, naive Christians lacking spiritual discernment, or dismissive of the spiritual revelation given by Jesus and recorded for our information in the Bible, can be hoodwinked into thinking that nothing involving the spiritual is going on at all. So the only effective remedy of exorcism is never even considered as an option, and the demon can carry on with its malign influence unhindered. It has been said that Satan’s most effective tactic is to convince people that he doesn’t even exist, so it isn’t a surprise if demons try to do the same.

And the other extreme, the sensationalist drivel produced by the Peretti school, being such blatantly exaggerated unbelievable scaremongering, also brings into discredit the balanced, informed, discerning view that can be seen in Jesus, and those (such as Tom Marshall) who put His teaching into practice.

Yes, this belief is very open to abuse by some, as noted (for example) by Chorister and Twilight, but the ministry of exorcism can be validly exercised by mature, responsible Christians, working in a mutually accountable and supportive ministry team, in which satisfying an audience or bolstering ones own vanity are inadmissible motives. The openness to abuse should not be allowed to entirely invalidate a ministry that can bring release, freedom and wholeness to afflicted people.

Angus

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0