Back in my low-rent Christian singing group days, we met a pastor who ministered in a southern Minnesota town. He was a fascinating fellow, an eccentric dresser, and a great extrovert with many wild stories to tell. He’d been a hippie before his conversion, and he told stories of his adventures with some occultists he’d lived with for a while in California. (Rory Bohannon in Wolf Time is based, in part, on him.)
Thinking back on our acquaintance, I don’t believe he was a fraud. His stories were sometimes spooky, but they lacked the self-aggrandizement of Mike Warnke‘s fabulations. I believe he was seriously trying to convey spiritual truth, and using the stories to draw us in.
And there’s one thing he said that I’ll always remember. “When you talk to people about the occult,” he said, “they almost always respond in the same way. They say, ‘I don’t believe in it—tell me about it.’”
The sexiness of the occult is something that’s troubled me for years. It’s something I tried to express in Wolf Time—the idea that it isn’t necessary for Satan to do wonders to seduce people through magic. The guilty appeal is enough on its own. Just as humans lust to know what’s under another person’s clothing, they lust to find secrets underneath the visible skin of the universe. It’s the gnostic temptation. We want to be the ones who know, the ones who enjoy the power that comes from discovering what the other kids can’t guess.
Joe Carter writes about Chick Tracts over at First Things. Chick Tracts offend me deeply, and always have, if memory serves. And I think it’s for much the same reason. The tracts assume a level of knowledge of the spiritual realm which we simply don’t have. Many of the historical assertions in the texts are false; urban legend at best. Many of the others involve “spiritual truths” which aren’t clearly taught in Scripture.
It’s a recurring theme in my books that Satan’s chief power is the power of the lie. Any lie will do for him. He’s equally happy to tell a Satanist that Darkness will conquer, or to tell a Christian that music with a back beat will inevitably lead to demonic possession. The way out is always to repent and submit to Jesus’ lordship, not to learn some magic word or technique that will give us power over elemental forces.
That’s why Halloween doesn’t bother me much.
I don’t give away candy, it’s true, but that’s because middle-aged single men giving candy to children is, like, creepy.
Good one, as usual, Lars.
Like Jude teaches, we shouldn’t have an arrogant attitude toward spiritual hierarchies (as many do), but we don’t need to cower either. Not if we are in Christ.
Amen! “We tremble not for him. His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure.”
Halloween, at least for me, is the holiday when we make fun of spooky stuff. A vampire may be scary, but a five year old dressed as a vampire is cute.
That’s one way to deal with scary things. Life has things that are really scary, and I want my kids to be able to make fun of them as a self-defense mechanism.
They say his biggest lie is that he,satan,convinces most that he does not exist.The Church has,in her Tradition always used exorcism, Holy water,Blessed salt, Saint Michael prayers, Rosary, Eucharist….all as spiritual weapons and protection.
Unfortunately, the foundation for all these items is RC Tradition, not Scripture.
It doesn’t matter whether the forces of evil are really out there or if they are just an illusionary manifestation of our own imperfections. Either way, they feel real and have to be dealt with.
The Screwtape Letters method seems to work best for me. If exorcism works better for other people, they should use that instead. People need to believe they have the capacity to do good (at least to the level of responding to grace) before they’ll do good.
BTW, Greyhound, where do you draw the line between Scripture and RC Tradition? Do you know when the decision to include certain books in the New Testament was taken, and that the people who made it are different from the people who decided on RC Tradition?
One of the early councils, the Nicene if I recall correctly, first codified the New Testament canon as we know it. But documents from as early as 150 AD indicated that most of the books that were later canonized were already considered as authoritative.
Greybeard, so if we found evidence of exorcism around 150 AD would you consider it a valid Christian practice?
Regarding Chick tracts, you know they’ve entered into complete irrelevancy when someone makes a Chtulhu parody of them. If you really want to read it, google “Who Will Be Eaten First?” Be warned, though, that it contains some of George Carlin’s seven words you can’t say on TV.
Ori, I look to the Bible as the sole authority in all matters of faith and life. Rosaries, Crucifixes, and Holy Water may be useful in reminding Christians of what God has done for us in sending his Son Jesus to die for our sins. However, the Bible makes no mention of any such objects carrying any spiritual power. I see very little if anything Biblical in either what I know of RC exorcism procedures or what I’ve seen of modern day pentecostal practice. Rather, it appears that all the rigamorole is better suited to impressing the observer with Satan’s power or with the exorcist’s ability instead of bringing glory to God.
Greybeard, from where does the Bible draw its authority? How do you know the Revelation is a Biblical book, but “The Hypothetical Gospel According to Judah Iscariot” isn’t?
I’m not asking this to be thick, I’m really interested in how Protestants answer that. We Jews have a similar issue, with the laws of the Pentateuch (the written Torah) being interpreted and modified by the oral Torah (written down in the Mishnah and the Talmud, mostly).
“Satan’s chief power is the power of the lie”
Very interesting, Lars, and very true. I’m working on a scene in my book right now that deals with this.
I’ve maybe seen one or two Chick tracts I like—the rest are plain awful.
Ori; since no one answered your question, I’ll offer a few comments. (This is not an area of expertise.) In both Jude and the book of Revelation, we read that the canon is closed. (“The faith once and for all delivered to the saints.”)It’s my understanding the apostles were instrumental in deciding much of the canon. (e.g. Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as the word of God)
– a collection of articles on the subject (from the Reformed perspective) can be found at Biblicalstudies.org
– http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/canon.php
Ori, Unfortunately I don’t have all the arguments for the veracity of Scripture at my fingertips. I long ago concluded that I would accept the Bible as I have it as the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Having reached that conclusion, I have spent the ensuing years studying what the Bible says rather than constantly re-examining why I should study it. Reading Martin Luther’s commentary on The Papacy In Rome; An Answer to the Celebrated Romanist in Leipzig (1520), from Selected Selected Writings of Martin Luther Vol. 1 Page 209, I ran across a quote that summarizes the approach I have generally taken towards defending the Bible,
It’s been a while since I’ve visited this blog. You’ve got some fine postings and comments here.
To alter Greybeard’s quotation from Luther, “It is most deplorable that we should attempt with our reason to defend the Koran when the Koran is rather our defense against all our enemies, as the Prophet (blessed be he) teaches us. Would he not be a great fool who in the thick of battle sought to protect his helmet and sword with bare hand and unshielded head? It is no different when we try with our reason to defend the Koran, which should rather be our weapon.”
I’m a member of a church in the Lutheran Confessions tradition and I like Luther’s remark (pasted below as printed by Greybeard), but unfortunately I think we have to be careful about such assertions, particularly if speaking or writing in the presence of members of mainline churches or unbelievers.
“It is most deplorable that we should attempt with our reason to defend God’s Word when the Word of God is rather our defense against all our enemies, as St. Paul teaches us. Would he not be a great fool who in the thick of battle sought to protect his helmet and sword with bare hand and unshielded head? It is no different when we try with our reason to defend God’s law, which should rather be our weapon.”
Greybeard, I can see how your argument would work for somebody who is already Protestant. But it doesn’t work for people who don’t share your scripture (Jews, for example), or don’t share the belief in its primacy vs. tradition (Catholics, for example).
Sr, interesting link. I wish I had more time to read.