Can people who have become Christians still suffer the lingering effects of demonic or occult activity from their past lives? Certainly this is a real issue for many pastors.
I have traditionally said that the victory of Christ on the cross over the powers was so absolute that Christians have no reason to fear demonic influence or even to inquire after it. Additionally, I think the charismatic movement has had a disastrous and disgraceful influence in evangelical Christianity on this very issue, causing people to fear quite unnecessarily and to doubt the power of the cross of Christ and to become fascinated with the very things that they should not become fascinated with (with all due and sincere respect to my charismatic brothers and sisters many of whom would acknowledge these kind of excesses anyway). My goodness, some of the silly things I have heard about ancestral spirits and the freemasonry etc etc!
BUT: is this really all there is to say? Let me take an analogy: Christians are not to fear sickness and death anymore because of their hope in Christ. And yet of course we still experience sickness and death and have to deal with them. Or: I know several Christians who have depression. Becoming Christian did not alleviate them of their depression though in some ways it has helped them to be better at managing it and more determined to and they do have assurance that they won't carry their mental illness into the resurrection body.
Now: can we make a parallel with demon possession here? Is it possible that merely being reassured about the victory of Christ over the powers and principalities does not mean freedom from the influence of malignant spirits of whatever kind? Is there a place for the Christian to seek deliverance from a certain kind of influence in their life just as they might go to counselling in order to help them with an addiction they have brought with them into the Christian life? And: what kind of action would help?
9 comments:
The word for demon possession (at least in the gospels - its a long while since I looked at this) means literally to be exercised (note not exorcised) by a demon. That is, to be run about by the demon.
To my mind this speaks of controlling influence, but the christian has the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit in them, thus any demon would need to bind this strong man in order to gain control of the metaphorical house. The christian is now the temple of the Holy Spirit to state it concretely and no demon can take up residence in God's abode.
So I am not sure that we should speak of christians and demon possession, that is demon control.
That said, I can't see any reasons why we couldn't talk of demon harassment, or demon affliction. Assuming Job was an OT saint then we have someone afflicted and harassed in every way by demons, but he was not controlled.
Yes, "demon harassment" is a better way of explaining what happens I think.
Wayne Grudem has an interesting chapter on Satan and demons in his Systematic Theology. He comes to some, um, 'interesting' conclusions, such as demons can see you but they can't read your mind. So if they want to bug you then they will do so on the basis of what they hear you say and what they see you do, but your secret thoughts are safe. He also gives instructions for banishing demons so that they can't attack you.
As I said, interesting.
I remember discussing this with Deryck Sheriffs, my MA Course leader. His comment was how in discussing with missiologists they were shocked to see things happening which their theology and told them was impossible.
It would seem that a helpful distinction between possession, (by definition impossible for a Christian) and demonization (harassment?) can shed some light on the issue.
Brother Mikey, I think that your concession is a lot bigger than you would like it to be. At the end of the day, the Bible doesn't give us a lot of teaching about angel/demonology, which is presumably one of the reasons, alongside the sheer frisson of it all, for all the daft speculation concerning them. Thank goodness the apocrypha aren't in our Bibles anymore or we'd have all sorts of weird stuff we'd have to believe.
But when it comes to demonisation, I don't really think we have a biblical mandate to suppose that Christians are any more immune from it than from any other consequences of the fall e.g. sickness, sin and death. It is true that Jesus always expelled demons, but then he always healed the sick too which we're not so hot at anymore.
So I'm inclined to assume that those Christians who have experienced immediate and dramatic transformation through deliverance ministry are telling the truth.
But that doesn't mean we go about delivering people of anything and everything - not everything Jesus did consisted of exorcism either! A lot of the things some pentes assume are demons are just us being sinful and refusing to take responsibility. I have tried to expel my demon of lust many a time but to no avail - cos that's ME not the enemy!!
Demons in the NT are usually clearly identifiable. They draw attention to themselves. So we shouldn't go looking for them - they'll usually make a pest of themselves to us!
Well, I think you strike an appropriately Lutheran tone here (of course!): the devil's work is tempting us to sin. We are certainly not immune from him in this regard, though we are empowered to resist him.
Those Christians who have had the experience: I believe they are telling the truth insofar as they interpret it. The question is, what biblical framework and language have we got to help inform and interpret their experience?
Perhaps the language of Ephesians with the continual emphasis on the "ultimate" nature of the Messiah's rule/control over the principalities and powers "both seen and unseen." In addition we have Paul's prayer for the strengthening (NB not control) by the Spirit in the "inner man."
None of this language detracts from the substantiality of demonic power but severely relativises it.
BTW, let me be heard speaking of a particular charismatic excess as an excess and one I don't find to be ubiquitously present in charismaticism; and also, let me not be heard to be being uncritical of my own version of evangelicalism and the logs in its eye.
"The question is, what biblical framework and language have we got to help inform and interpret their experience?"
Quite a bit, surely!! The gospel testimony is to the potential for evil/unclean spirits to afflict people to varying degrees. Deliverance in the name of Jesus when it takes place is instant, dramatic and total. Deliverance does not always take place due to the lack of faith, prayer and fasting of Jesus's followers. Where this fits with experience, great. If experience is at odds with biblical testimony, I would assume that there is something else going on too.
Hmm - my question is, can we read off the gospels to our experience in just this way? In the sense that what is happening to Jesus is something quite particular to him, and it is BEFORE his death and rez, which change everything, surely.
Post a Comment