CHRISTIANS AND DEMON POSSESSION
CHRISTIANS AND DEMON POSSESSION
The central feature of the deliverance model of spiritual warfare is the belief that a true believer can be demon possessed. The proponents, however, do not prefer to use the terminology "demon-possessed." They instead refer to it as "demonic control," which can, if not resisted, become control from within. In fact, the chapter that deals with demonic indwelling in Dr. Anderson's book, The Bondage Breaker, is called, "The Danger of Losing Control."</p>
Dr. Anderson writes, "In New Testament Greek the term 'demon-possessed' does not exist. It is only one word - daimonizomai (verb), or daimonizomenos (participle) - which is best translated 'demonized.' "9 The fact is, the verb daimonizomai does refer to demon-possession. Its meaning is derived, not merely from its etymology or root meaning, but from its usage in context. Every occurrence of the term indicates, either in the immediate context or in the parallel accounts, that a demon resides within the person. This is seen by the reference to the demon being cast out, or coming out of the victim.
For example, Matthew records that:
A Canaanite woman came out from the region, and began to cry out saying, 'Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David: my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed' [demonized]...then Jesus answered and said to her, 'O woman, your faith is great: be it done for you as you wish,' and her daughter was healed at once (Matthew 15:22,28).
The parallel passage in Mark gives full explanation of what the term "demonized" meant. He says:
A woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit, immediately came and fell at His feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter ...and He said to her, 'Because if this answer go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter' (Mark 7:25,26,29).
Clearly, the term "demonized" was a technical term describing someone who was indwelt by a demon. Every usage in comparison with a parallel passage bears this out. It is significant to point out that this terminology is never used of believers, and is never used when describing Satan's attacks on believers.
The insistence of making this unfounded distinction is in the end a semantic smoke screen. Irrespective of the terminology, Dr. Anderson clearly teaches that a believer can be indwelt by a demon.
He writes:
Perhaps we should state the question this way: Can an evil spirit and the Holy Spirit occupy the same space in a human life? The god of this world occupies a place in our atmosphere, and so does the Holy Spirit, and Satan presently has access to our Father in heaven. So it should not be thought impossible that demonic influence can partially control the life of one in whom the Holy Spirit also dwells.10
Once again, Dr. Anderson shows his aversion to actually saying "demon-possessed," but his meaning is clear: a believer can be indwelt by a demon.
An Experience Based Position
Astoundingly, the basis for concluding that believers can be demon-possessed is not scripture, but what is referred to as "clinical experience". The primary authority to which Dr. Anderson and other proponents of deliverance ministry appeal is the book, Demon Possession and the Christian, by C. Fred Dickason. Dr. Anderson indicates his support of Dr. Dickason's views, when, after stating his belief that Christians can be demon-possessed, he writes, "If this possibility is difficult for you to swallow, I encourage you to read Demon Possession and the Christian, by C. Fred Dickason".11 In this book, Dr. Dickason goes from passage to passage seeking to support his view. After looking at every pertinent verse, Dr. Dickason acknowledges that a solid biblical basis simply cannot be built to prove that believers can be indwelt by demons.
Charles Craft commenting on Dickason's conclusion writes:
He exhaustively examined every scripture reference that could relate to the issue and found none to prove conclusively either that a Christian can or cannot be demonized. Without a clear scriptural position then, we need to consult those with experience in dealing with the problem under consideration. Those who work with cancer patents know that Christians can and do develop cancer. Likewise, those with 'clinical' experience with Christians having demonic symptoms have overcome their doubts and concluded that Christians can and regularly do carry demons.12
Incredibly, Craft says that "clinical experience," is the final basis for concluding a Christian can be demon-possessed! This is Dr. Anderson's final appeal, as well as his reference to Dickason shows. Dr. Dickason himself states:
I have encountered, from 1974 to 1987, at least 400 cases of those who were genuine Christians who were also demonized...I would not claim infallible judgment, but I know the marks of a Christian and the marks of a demonized person. I might have been wrong in a case or so, but I cannot conceive that I would be wrong in more than 400 cases.13
So here we have it. Clinical experience is the final basis for theology, and from this we build an entire system of practice and technique!
The scriptures that Dr. Anderson appeals to, to support his case, refer either to nonbelievers or to external attacks from Satan. None even remotely concerns demonic indwelling in a Christian. The following are two of his examples. He refers to Luke 13:10-18, which says, "There was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit, and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all." She is referred to as a "daughter of Abraham" in verse 16. Dr. Anderson says, "This woman was not an unbeliever. She was 'a daughter of Abraham', a God fearing woman of faith with a spiritual problem."14
This type of hasty conclusion and reading into the text is a common practice of Dr. Anderson's. The phrase "daughter of Abraham" was simply a term for a female descendent of Abraham, not necessarily a saved woman. Not all Israel is Israel (Romans 9:6). Jesus said to the Pharasees, "I know you are Abraham's offspring" (John 8:37). He also said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day" (John 8:56). No one would venture to say the Pharasees were saved. Yet, Christ said their father was Abraham, in a physical sense. Referring to this woman as a daughter of Abraham is a general reference to her physical lineage, not that she was necessarily saved. Dr. Anderson also reads far more into the text when he refers to the armor of God in Ephesians 6:10-17.
Dr. Anderson says, "What is the purpose of armor? To prevent the enemies' arrows from penetrating the body and injuring the soldier. If it is impossible for Satan's arrows to penetrate us, there would be no need for us to put on armor."15 How someone can deduce, from an arrow penetrating the flesh and causing injury, that a demon can, therefore, indwell a Christian, I don't know. If a gunman shoots at me and a bullet lodges in my body, you may conclude that he has injured me, but you can not conclude that he indwells me! According to Dr. Anderson, somehow you can!
Dr. Anderson, following Dickason and Merrill Unger before him, builds his case on his "clinical experience" of demon-possessed people. He narrates case after case of "Christians" who are demon-possessed. Story after story is recounted of people that he regards as Christians who, among other things, are drunkards, drug addicts, schizophrenic, darvon junkies, and in general, people in "bondage to sin."
One example is of a young woman named Janelle. Dr. Anderson writes:
Janelle was a Christian woman, with severe emotional problems, who was brought to me by her elderly pastor. Janelle's fiance, Curt, came with them...as Janelle told me her story, I realized that the accuser of the brethren had really done a number on her.She had been the victim of one abuse after another as a child and adolescent. Her background also included a sick relationship with a previous boy friend who was involved in the occult. Over the years, she had come to believe Satan's lies that she was the cause of her troubles, and that she was of no value to God or, anybody else. Her self-perception was down in the mud. Recognizing Satans familiar strategy, I said, 'Janelle, we can help you with your problem, because there is a battle going on for your mind, which God has given us authority to win'. As soon as I spoke these words Janelle suddenly went catatonic. She sat as still as astone, eyes glazed over and staring into space. [After enlisting the prayers of her fiance and the pastor, Dr. Anderson continues] "As soon as Curt began to read the prayer, Janelle snapped to life. She let out a menacing growl, then lashed out and slapped the paper out of Curt's hand...I addressed the demonic influence in Janelle, 'In the name of Christ and by His authority, I bind you to that chair and I command you to sit there.16
This case is representative. Here we have a woman living in immorality, filled with hatred with a demon speaking out of her. Dr. Anderson, as he does regularly, assumes the person is regenerated. If a profession of faith is made, and the facts of the gospel can be stated, then the person is categorized as a Christian. Nowhere is the biblical warning of false believers, or the possibility of a deceived faith addressed. Jesus' warning about the many who will say, "Lord, Lord" (Matthew 7:23) does not enter in. The Lord's warning of "rocky soil conversions" (Matthew 13:4,20) is not taken into consideration. The apostle James' warning that there is a faith in Christ and in God (James 2:1,14-26) that is non-saving does not enter into his analysis. At the heart of his analysis of a persons' salvation is a concept of faith that is purely intellectual.
Biblically, true faith in Christ is a repentant faith (Acts 20:21). It is a faith that has come to see the gravity of sin and idolatry (I Thessalonians 1:10). It is a faith that has received Christ, and as such no longer loves darkness, but comes to the light (John 3:19). What Dr. Anderson has done is to give credence to easy believism. Apparently Dr. Dickason's comment, "I know the marks of a Christian!" and Dr. Anderson's recognition of a Christian, has nothing to do with a changed life. In those cases where Anderson sees change, repentance is demanded, and the renouncing of Satan and turning to Christ is involved. Biblically, this would indicate a true conversion, not a defeated Christian who finds victory (I Thessalonians 1:10). Biblically and historically it described, not a true Christian delivered, but a sinner repenting and trusting Christ in true conversion. The entire deliverance theology is built on the false premise that believers can be demon-possessed, and this, in turn, is based on a faulty view of faith and the work of the Spirit that occurs in conversion.
This experience-centered approach to theology and practice is the most dangerous aspect of this deliverance model. There has been a subtle unwitting shift from scripture to external authority. Dr. Dickason writes:
The burden of proof lies with those who deny Christians can be demonized. They must adduce clinical evidence that clearly eliminates any possibility in any case, past or present, that a believer can have a demon...We must note that those who deny that Christians can be demonized generally are those who have not had caunseling experience with the demonized. Their stance is largely theoretical.17
His appeal to experience as the final authority is alarming. The proof of the doctrine, he says, is "clinical evidence". Moreover, the reason some doubt that Christians can be demon-possesed is that, in Dickason's words, "they have not had the experience!" Their position is "largely theoretical!" Could we not say largely biblical! The undercurrent here is that scripture is not sufficient when it comes to this critical area. The authority now is experience, and those who have this experience are to be regarded as experts.
We have come full circle in the Evangelical church. Luther stood before the Diet of Worms and declared, "Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything."18 Luther refused to bow to the experts and "clinicians" of the Roman Catholic church. Today large numbers of evangelicals have gone beyond scripture and allowed their "expert clinical experience" to decide theological positions, and to determine practice. Is the new Evangelical position, "Unless I am convicted by conscience and my 'expert clinical experience,' I will not recant!" If this be so, we have left the moorings of the Reformation. We will find ourselves adrift in a sea of relativism and mysticism, far from the rock of "Thus saith the Lord."