DEVIL’S ADVOCATES
THE NEW CHARISMATIC DEMONOLOGY
“Can a Christian have a
demon?” If one were to make a list of “hot” religious questions of our
day, would this one be among them? It would depend on whom one asked.
Most theologians of whatever stripe would likely respond to this query
with blank faces. Even among Evangelicals the relevant demons today
are those “principalities and powers” of social evil that one reads
about in Sojourners. Yet among a sizable percentage of those
Christians involved with the Charismatic movement, the question takes
on vital (shall we even say existential?) relevance. We refer of
course to the “Deliverance Ministry" and its leaders including Don
Basham, Frank and Ida Mae Hammond, and Pat Brooks. These people are
quite certain that Christians may be “demonized" (not “possessed,” a
term avoided for apologetical reasons), and that many in fact are.
Worse yet, they usually don’t suspect it. Worst of all, most don’t
want to hear about it! The present discussion will raise three points
in connection with this “Deliverance Ministry.” First, what scriptural
basis might be claimed for Deliverance? Second, does the repudiation
by most Evangelicals and Pentecostals of Deliverance itself have
theological significance? Third, what is the psychological utility of
such an apparently unpleasant doctrine as Deliverance?
Bible and Belial
Turning first to the scriptural question, we
should try to locate just where the Deliverance Ministry becomes
exegetically controversial. There is almost universal agreement
between Evangelicals that in New Testament times, as represented by
the gospel accounts, many unfortunate individuals were
demon-possessed. Claiming to believe the biblical accounts and to
accept the world view implied therein, most Evangelicals and
Pentecostals would agree that such demon affliction can still occur
today. But can a regenerate Christian fall prey to such bondage? Here
is the point of conflict.
Most would answer in the negative, while the
Deliverance advocates, a minority, would respond affirmatively. Let
us note at the outset that the evidence is not completely clear. This
is so because demon-possession is treated almost exclusively in
descriptive passages of the gospels. The stories of Jesus' victories
over Beelzebul and his hordes are told primarily to glorify Jesus.
They denote the coming of the Kingdom (Reginald Fuller) and the
victory of Jesus over the demonic Powers (Ernst Käsemann). But what do
they have to say about regenerate believers, partakers of the Spirit
after Pentecost? This remains unclear since it is not the didactic
concern of the evangelists. So the question must be dealt with by
inference.
On the one hand, most Evangelicals and
Pentecostals point out with obvious force that if the coming of the
Kingdom denotes freedom from demons, then the "sons of the Kingdom"
must have such freedom as their birthright. And surely demon-spirits
cannot reside in those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Would the Holy
Spirit share his temple (1 Cor. 6: 19) with devils? Surely not! The
issue thus seems settled.
That is, it seems to be settled if we look no
further. And in fact one senses in much anti-Deliverance literature
that its writers have no intention of looking further. If they did,
they might find that the Deliverance ministers do indeed have an
exegetical leg to stand on. Deliverance advocates are quick to point
out that much of the apparent force of their opponents' objection
comes from their characterization of demon-affliction as "possession."
In fact no such inference is necessary. The Greek text yields only
"demonization." As trivial as the distinction might at first sound, it
is important because the anti-Deliverance criticism depends on the
spatial imagery: the same body cannot contain demons and the Spirit at
the same time. In all fairness, though, it should be noted that demons
are often commanded "Come out of him" (e.g., Mk 1:25), implying
indwelling.
But all this is perhaps to make too much of
imagery. After all, what Christian really thinks Christ's living in
one's heart means that he is located in the cardial cavity? The really
important question is that of the Christian's "kingdom" right to
liberty from demons. And here it is hard to deny that Deliverance
ministers have both New Testament and Evangelical theological
categories on their side. As Bultmann and others have described it,
there is an "indicative-imperative" dialectic in the New Testament, at
least in the Pauline literature. The Christian is exhorted to live in
the Spirit (Gal. 5:16), yet told that he already lives by the Spirit
(Gal. 5:25). How are the imperative (what the believer must do) and
the indicative (what is already true of him) related?
Paradoxically, the Christian must "become what he
is." As Bultmann summarizes Paul: "The way the believer becomes what
he already is consists... in the constant appropriation of grace by
faith" (Theology of the New Testament, p. 332; c£ also his
The Old Man and the New Man). This schema is recapitulated in
traditional Evangelical theology. Here we find the distinction between
"positional" and "experiential" truth. The idea is that certain things
are true of a believer by virtue of his position "in Christ," yet the
extent to which his experience, his day-to-day life, matches up to the
heavenly prototype depends on his success in "appropriating" the
positional riches of Christ. For discussions of this distinction see,
e. g., Lewis Sperry Chafer's Salvation or Miles J. Stanford's
The Green Letters. Certainly Pentecostals ought to be
more at home than anyone else with this frame of reference, from their
doctrine of the Baptism of the Spirit as subsequent to regeneration.
The fullness of the Spirit is the birthright of every believer, yet it
will not be experienced until consciously appropriated.
Now what does this have to do with the minority
voice among Pentecostals, the Deliverance Ministry? Quite simply, the
latter see complete deliverance from demons in the same terms. Though
every Christian is entitled to it, this liberation must be consciously
claimed. And this may occur at any point after regeneration. Thus, at
least temporarily, a believer may find himself demonized until he
claims his "deliverance" via exorcism. Seen this way, it is hard to
deny a legitimate theological pedigree to the Deliverance Ministry.
Advocates may certainly point to precedents both in the New Testament
and in Evangelical theology.
Beelzebul and Bultmann
So far our discussion has attempted to mediate
the Deliverance debate in terms of the exegetical and doctrinal terms
usually employed, but there is another, far more important,
theological question implied in all this. This is the question
preliminary to the much-debated problem of "demythologizing," the
translation of the self-understanding of the New Testament Christians
into modern, non-supernatural categories. The position is mostly
clearly stated by its chief advocate, Rudolf Bultmann. In his famous
essay "New Testament and Mythology," Bultmann claimed that "modern
man" does not in fact hold to the worldview of the New Testament, with
its supernatural entities and interventions. Evangelical critics have
easily been able to reject such an allegation. After all, do they
not both live in the twntieth century and accept
supernaturalism? Yet this was not quite Bultmann's point. He meant
that no one today really lives as though he believed in the miraculous
world of the New Testament, and actions speak louder than words. What
we are going to argue is that the Deliverance Ministry forms the
exception that proves the rule, that at least on the important matter
of demons most Evangelicals simply do not share the New
Testament worldview.
Let us return momentarily to the exegetical
question. Just what is the New Testament view of demon activity? What
does demon-possession (or "demonization") mean? This eerie condition
might manifest itself in the forms of frenzy (Mk. 9:18), supernatural
knowledge (Mk. 1:24), superhuman strength (Lk. 8:29), common illness
or handicap (Lk.13:11), or various combinations of these symptoms.
Most "Bible-believers" would claim to believe that nothing has changed
since New Testament days. Yet there is in fact a curious limitation in
their picture of demon activity. While the gospels regard
demon-activity as a common cause of serious illness, as most
prescientific societies do (see Victor Turner, The Drums of
Affliction; I. M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion), modern
Evangelicals by and large do not. Instead, they picture demonization
almost exclusively in terms of fits of blasphemous frenzy a la The
Exorcist. And instead of the commonplace occurrence of demon
affliction we see in the gospels, most Evangelicals expect it to occur
only among foreign pagans or occultists in California. In the synoptic
gospels it seems like Jesus is thronged by demoniac sufferers on every
street corner. But when a middleclass suburban Baptist gets arthritis
or pneumonia, will it even occur to him or her to call in an exorcist?
When was the last time you offered your
condolences to a neighbor whose son is demon-possessed? Demons are
just not encountered in everyday life, contrary to what one would
expect if the New Testament worldview still held good. With
Deliverance believers, on the other hand, the picture is altogether
different. As is well known, they attribute almost any serious problem
or sickness at least potentially to demons. (See the amazing list of
demon-symptoms in the Hammond’s Pigs in the Parlor.) The remedy
is exorcism, even self-exorcism. Once again, the reality of the
demonic is encountered in everyday life, in the form of sickness, not
just frenzy, and here at home, not just in far flung mission-fields.
Will the real upholder of the New Testament worldview please stand up?
The seriousness of the question thus posed should
not be missed. Evangelicals and mainstream Pentecostals do not have
much trouble in recognizing fanaticism when they see it in the
Deliverance Ministry. Yet it seems to be the latter who adhere more
closely to the biblical world-picture! And of course this case is only
one of several degrees on a scale. Mainstream Evangelicals have
traditionally written off all Pentecostals and Charismatics as
fanatics because of their practice of glossolalia and prophecy. The
strained rationalizations of the Dispensationalists could not mask the
fact that it was Pentecostalism that was closer to the New Testament
picture.
Taking it a step further, Liberals have shaken
their heads in bemusement (or amusement) at the
Evangelical-fundamentalist belief in “the Rapture," the miracles of
Christ, etc. All of this they regarded as superstition. In all these
cases, the criterion seems to be the same. Basically each group stops
short of the next because of its greater or lesser grip on everyday
reality as most people experience it. To venture very far away from
"normal" reality seems "fanatical,” and some venture farther than
others. The difference between the Deliverance Ministry and mainstream
Evangelicalism-Pentecostalism raises (or should raise) Bultmann's
question with acute clarity. Even to Pentecostal believers, Bultmann's
charge has force: do you really believe in the New Testament picture
of reality? And if you want to be consistent, which path will you
follow--Deliverance, or demythologizing? Finally, let us consider the
Deliverance controversy in a more psychological light.
The Firewall
From this perspective, we will ask why anyone
would want to embrace a notion so repulsive as that one may himself be
demon-possessed and in need of exorcism. Our answer seems to lie in
what we would honestly have to call a tradition of elitism within
Pentecostalism. In both the Holiness and Pentecostal Revivals,
possessors of the "Second Blessing" faced, and notoriously often
succumbed to, the temptation of patronizing outsiders as second-class
Christians. Among Pentecostals, the gift of tongues might function as
much as a badge of elitism as an evidence of the Spirit. This division
has recently been repeated in mainline Protestant congregations with
the spread of the neo-Pentecostal, or Charismatic, movement. Militant
Charismatic prayer cells regard other parishioners as not yet having
arrived at the group's own spiritual plane. Now, as if not satisfied
with such an elite status, some Charismatics have found a new
shibboleth which makes them the elite among the elite. This shibboleth
is the ministry of deliverance from demons.
Deliverance advocates feel that they are privy to
the devil's best kept secret. Most Christians are being victimized by
Satan but are prevented by their doctrinal views from recognizing it!
The faithful few have found out the secret and try to warn their
fellow Charismatics. But few will listen; thus deliverance advocates
become a persecuted, elitist minority. This is very satisfying for
some people who seem to thrive on this sort of messianic self
conception.
The factor of guilt also plays a major role here.
As mentioned above, the Deliverance Ministry is only the latest
development in the American Holiness-Pentecostal tradition. This
tradition has been one of perfectionism. It has been believed that
once one has experienced "entire sanctification" or "the Baptism of
the Holy Spirit,” or both, one is responsible for, and capable of,
maintaining a largely sin-free life and attitude. To eradicate sinful
actions and attitudes, one need only remain faithful in devotional
practices and "claim the victory" by appropriating God's power over
spiritual and moral problems. The Deliverance Ministry is able to
admit that even after the Spirit-filled believer has done all this,
some problems and sins seem to remain.
The attribution of particularly stubborn problems
to demons allows one to avoid frustration and guilt. To err is no
longer human, it is demonic. If the believer has been sanctified, what
other culprit is left? If on the other hand he has "backslidden" from
his sanctified state, the believer may readily enough admit his guilt
and repent. But if he has tried his best without results to deal with
a "besetting sin," the appeal to demons can at least get him off the
moral hook.
The same dichotomy occurs in the specific case of
sickness. Here, too, Pentecostals have been perfectionists. That is,
they have often claimed that it is never God’s will for the believer
to be ill, but that the believer can "claim his healing" which, like
salvation itself, was automatically provided for at Calvary. The
healing is readily available if only one’s faith is strong enough. As
one might well imagine, this last catch has saved face for the
Pentecostal claims only at the cost of great guilt for those seekers
who came away without being healed. They had thought their faith was
sufficient, but it must not have been after all! Since they weren't
healed, what other possibility is there? Once again, Deliverance
advocates (and here many other Charismatics as well) step forward with
an alternative to guilt. They cheerfully announce that the seeker
really was healed! The only reason this is not apparent is that
Satan is counterfeiting the symptoms, in order to make the believer
doubt! This is a rationalization widely used in Charismatic circles.
In short, the devil has again been used as an alternative to human
failure, so that one may resort to exorcism instead of feeling guilty.
Which was it: a lack of faith, or Satanically-counterfeited symptoms?
Probably only conscience will tell.
The Deliverance Ministry has been able to supply
a shrewd theological device for escaping the frustration that
inevitably accompanies perfectionism. Yet how long can the device
work? What is the believer to conclude if the demonic sin or problem,
or the Satanically "counterfeited" symptoms do not leave when rebuked
in Jesus' name? At this point, one suspects, the whole system may
backfire. Mustn't the would-be exorcist (or self-exorcist) conclude
that his faith in the power of the name, or blood, of Jesus wasn't
strong enough? Or maybe even that such a lack of faith is itself
demonically-produced?
Believe it or not, something very much like this
reasoning has already appeared in Deliverance literature, where Don
Basham warns any skeptical reader that stubborn refusal to believe in
the Deliverance Ministry is quite possibly caused by demons!
Apparently, no Deliverance minister has yet attributed the failure of
exorcism to demonic crippling of faith. This would indeed be a vicious
circle. One is reminded of the gospel text (Mt. 12:43-45) wherein the
expulsion of one demon only results in its return with seven others
worse than itself.
In conclusion, our examination of the Deliverance
Ministry reveals it to be more than the internecene squabble it is
often taken to be. Instead it raises questions crucial to the
integrity of Evangelical-Pentecostal religion. Do believers really
adhere to the New Testament worldview, as they claim, or are they
ready to admit with Liberals that New Testament supernaturalism must
be modified? And what about the perfectionism so common to
Pentecostal Charismatic spirituality? Are its promises realistic, or
mustn't something be amiss if believers must fall back on a series of
"fail-safe" maneuvers culminating in the Deliverance Ministry? In view
of these questions, it seems that the Deliverance controversy is far
more theologically important than is commonly supposed.