The record of Jesus’s direct interaction with demons, and his multiple teachings concerning them, is so detailed and explicit, one can’t develop a theology of demons without very significant consequences to our understanding of Christ:
A theology without demons could be developed only in conjunction with a theology/Christology that entailed a Jesus that was either:
completely susceptible to absorbing erroneous superstitions of his culture, and so deluded that he believed he was actually conversing with these non-existent beings,
A Jesus who knew good and well that the demonic was a myth, but was perfectly happy to perpetuate (and embellish) said falsehood, hence we don’t know what other things he claimed to speak about with similar weight and authority that he was also lying to us about (Final resurrection of the dead? was he lying about that one too?) or
The multiple accounts of Jesus interacting with demons, casting them out, and teaching his disciples about these things are all so corrupt and fictionalized that we dare not trust anything else in any of the gospels to give us even the most remotely accurate description of who Jesus was, what he did, or what he taught.
To be clear (I should have been clearer), my main point is not that the OT ‘never’ mentions demons (I’m a Catholic, and hold Tobit to be inspired, for one), but rather that demons are not ‘consistently’ seen as being of the utmost importance. I would expect them to be more prominent if they were.
I lean towards the view that Satan exists as a figure who opposes us (as in enticing us to sin). It’s the ‘afflicting’ demons that are so prominent in the New Testament I have more of a problem with.
I don’t think the Priestly Blessing (which invokes God as an apotropaic guard) would exist if there was nothing out there.
They aren’t really, … unless and until my residence becomes infested or I become possessed. In case of either, 911 does not have wherewithal to respond.
There’s not much left that doesn’t have a name, is there?
That’s fair. For that matter, demons aren’t particularly prominent in the New Testament apart from the gospels. Of course, that would hardly be surprising if Jesus is who he claimed to be…. Someone who had the ability to recognize the demonic forces behind what we normally see in a way not quite so available to the rest of us.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
111
I wonder if it could be argued that the distinction between demonic possession and mental illness is a false dichotomy. If God works through nature, using evolution to create life, or using human medicine to cure disease, is it possible that the forces of darkness could also work through nature as well? Could demonic powers work through mental illnesses, such as clinical depression or schizophrenia, to advance their malevolent purposes the same way God might work through vaccines or therapy to restore the world? This is one approach I have taken to reconciling the demonic possession versus mental illness issue. this does not mean that all instances of demonic possession in scripture are actually mental illness or vice versa, since they are distinguished in scripture. On the other hand, it does mean that we might need to be more careful in avoiding the imposition our own categories, inherited from the 18th century Enlightenment, onto scripture. The ancients do not seem to have made the same distinction between natural and supernatural that we do today. This is true as late as the 17th century when astrology and astronomy were seen as being essentially within the same discipline.
This just perpetuates the terrible stigma of mental illness and epilepsy, and is very cruel. We have effective drugs and other therapies to treat mental illness and epilepsy.
I am not saying that people with mental illness are possessed and I am not denying the effectiveness of treatment with drugs and therapy. I am just saying that demonic powers may be able work through mental illness the same way they could work through anything. I do not think this view requires every case of mental illness to be because of demonic possession and I do not think it conflicts with treating mental illness as mental illness. If we were to come to the conclusion that demonic activity was behind a mental illness, the proper response obviously would not be to stigmatize the person suffering from mental illness as “demon-possessed,” but to treat the mental illness with drugs and therapy to close that door way.
Our roots go back to the Roman Catholic church, but we don’t do exorcisms these days. Perhaps noodling on the internet will bring up the odd Episcopalian doing an exorcism, but I’ve never heard of one.
I take it your former churches got involved with demonic possession?
I know next to nothing about the history of the RC church in relation to the demonic, but found this recent OP ed in the LA Times, suggesting that it is making a comeback:
We might not be able to know based on external evidence. I also do not think it matters. If there is both a physical and spiritual part of reality, everyone regardless of their mental health is going to be affected by them and we need to consider both of them. We need to both administer the proper medications and therapy and pray over them. This is true whether you are talking about someone with schizophrenia or someone who just has had a rough day.
I’m guessing that’s what you do on the internet. I “google”, but have never “noodled.” Is noodling more fun?
You are funny. You manifest an intense interest in a post that I didn’t send to you and apparently no interest in a post that I did send to you.
Words from the first link:
"The BOS does not provide a rite of exorcism, but it gives these guidelines: ‘Those who find themselves in need of such a ministry should make the fact known to the bishop, through their parish priest, in order that the bishop may determine whether exorcism is needed, who is to perform the rite, and what prayers or other formularies are to be used.’ Liturgies of the Episcopal Church retain elements of exorcism. Following an ancient tradition, several prayers of the catechumenate call for release from the powers of evil. More commonly, spiritual cleansing and deliverance is the practice of those who pray, “Deliver us from evil.”
Words from the second link that I sent you:
“Today an exorcist is a person appointed by the bishop to perform a rite of exorcism. An exorcist is usually but not necessarily a priest.”
Ir’s not commonly a practice that occurs on a weekday evening service or during a Sunday High Mass, so I’d be surprised if you ever saw date, time, and “exorcisee’s” name printed in your church bulletin. But it is not impossible, just unlikely. Check with your Bishop and see if he or she will let you attend one.
I believe that evil may sometimes cause illnesses, either directly or through affecting the lifestyle and thinking of a person. Yet, we should not give the impression that a large part of mental illnesses are caused by evil spirits. There are at least two reasons why that would be a bad idea.
Many people who have mental illnesses are sensitive, with little hope and prone to take the most negative alternative as possible in their case. If a person with mental illness gets the false idea that (s)he is demon possessed, that may lead to negative consequences like loosing all hope.
The second problem is that many (most?) people cannot handle the idea of demon possession in a balanced way. Those with mental illnesses would not receive a positive attitude. Some would be driving demons from all people with mental illnesses, others would avoid such persons. Some sceptics might treat these persons as inferior stupids just because someone claims that there is demon possession involved. When a person with mental illness would come to church after such teaching, few would like to sit beside this person. This kind of behavior would have an adverse effect on the health of the person with mental problems.
Words are powerful, both in a positive and negative sense. We should be careful how we use this power.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
122
I was put on standby to assist my Anglican vicar in a ‘low key’ exorcism and had a ‘preliminary’ one myself, 12 & just 10 years ago. His predecessor related a disturbingly affective account. My epistemology has changed since. In other words this is normal below the large Reformed surface.
But no exorcism. The candidate is not considered to be possessed by demons
I haven’t heard of any. That is not an official doctrine of the church.
You won’t find demon possession in our creeds, catechisms, or modern books of common prayer.
The Tudor Books of Common Prayer? Maybe. When you have a historic church with deep roots,
some things can change over hundreds of years. I prefer this church over some recent pop-up church.
What’s the connection between the phrase separated from the sentence by a period? Were you trying to say: “If there’s no exorcism, then the candidate is not considered to be possessed by demons?” 'Cause if that’s what you were trying to say, then you take me for a fool and I protest you’re doing so. Of course, if there’s no exorcism, it’s because the candidate was not considered by the Church’s duly authorized person(s) to be demon-possessed. Who, in their right mind, would automatically assume that Episcopalian authorities would, in the name of the Episcopalian Church, authorize and appoint people to exorcise demons from people who were not considered to be possessed by demons?
S-O W-H-A-T!!! A “policy or practice” doesn’t have to be an official doctrine of the church to be the way we do things here. If you have a complaint with the quotation in my post that you quoted above, take it up with Bishop Michael Curry, not me. I didn’t make up the words in the quotation, the Episcopal Church did. I just quoted what the on-line dictionary of the Episcopalian Church says.
I don’t give diddly-squat what Episcopalian creeds, catechisms, or modern books of common prayer say about demon possession. I just quoted something that the on-line Episcopalian Church Dictionary says, that apparently distresses you deeply. I don’t control what the official Episcopalian Church Dictionary posts on-line. You’re harassing me. Cut it out or I’ll report you to the moderators and ask them to put a stop to it.
