Must you know a demon’s name in order to cast it out?
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 28, 2007
Several years ago, I was at a ministry event in which the emphasis was deliverance. I happened to be seated near the front, so when the altar call was given, there was little distinction between those sitting on the front row and those who had actually come forward for prayer. One of the ministry team members must have assumed that I needed prayer too. He grabbed me by the head, put his hand on my chest and proceeded to violently extricate two demons: python and leviathan.
This was not a complete surprise for me since, before the "exorcism", the speaker had explained the spiritual significance of the python. Apparently, the word python comes from the Greek word puthon, a spirit of divination that Paul cast out of a woman in Acts 16:16 and the name of a serpentine dragon that guarded the oracle of Delphi. Leviathan, on the other hand, is the beast that God challenges Job to drag out of the sea with a hook. Although extinct, it now apparently inhabits the bodies of 30-something men.
Anyhow, the incident got me thinking about "naming the spirits" and whether it's a legitimate practice. I've heard supporters make reference to the demon in Mark 8:31, who identified himself to Jesus as "legion." Others say that "legion" was not the demon's name, but merely an acknowledgment that there were so many spirits inhabiting the man that it would take too long for them to all state their names. I've heard some proponents identify evil spirits with the names of Old Testament villains such as Jezebel. Others connect spirits with diseases, mental illnesses or specific sins such as anger or incest.
From the maniacal hatred of Adolf Hitler to the murderous destruction of the Ebola virus, some behaviors, illnesses and even governments can take on a supernatural and otherworldly element that we can only attribute to the god of this world. Truth be told, "the spirit of ____" appears throughout Scripture in reference to dizziness, despair, a destroyer, prostitution, impurity, stupor, timidity, antichrist and falsehood. However (with a few exceptions), these instances seem to be identifying a general attitude or influence affecting a group of people rather than a personal entity inhabiting an individual.
We Westerners are often too quick to find natural explanations for supernatural occurrences, but shouldn't we guard against the other extreme--creating an elitist or "specialist" view of encountering the spirit world? I've heard some argue that if you can't identify the demon, you can't cast it out ... that one must understand the intricate hierarchy and structure of the spirit world in order to command its minions.
Thankfully, for those of us confused by such daunting prospects, the only "skill" Jesus ever identifies as being profitable for expelling demons is prayer and fasting.
copyright 2007, Strang Communications
28 February 2007
Name That Demon
Must you know a demon’s name in order to cast it out?
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 28, 2007
Several years ago, I was at a ministry event in which the emphasis was deliverance. I happened to be seated near the front, so when the altar call was given, there was little distinction between those sitting on the front row and those who had actually come forward for prayer. One of the ministry team members must have assumed that I needed prayer too. He grabbed me by the head, put his hand on my chest and proceeded to violently extricate two demons: python and leviathan.
This was not a complete surprise for me since, before the "exorcism", the speaker had explained the spiritual significance of the python. Apparently, the word python comes from the Greek word puthon, a spirit of divination that Paul cast out of a woman in Acts 16:16 and the name of a serpentine dragon that guarded the oracle of Delphi. Leviathan, on the other hand, is the beast that God challenges Job to drag out of the sea with a hook. Although extinct, it now apparently inhabits the bodies of 30-something men.
Anyhow, the incident got me thinking about "naming the spirits" and whether it's a legitimate practice. I've heard supporters make reference to the demon in Mark 8:31, who identified himself to Jesus as "legion." Others say that "legion" was not the demon's name, but merely an acknowledgment that there were so many spirits inhabiting the man that it would take too long for them to all state their names. I've heard some proponents identify evil spirits with the names of Old Testament villains such as Jezebel. Others connect spirits with diseases, mental illnesses or specific sins such as anger or incest.
From the maniacal hatred of Adolf Hitler to the murderous destruction of the Ebola virus, some behaviors, illnesses and even governments can take on a supernatural and otherworldly element that we can only attribute to the god of this world. Truth be told, "the spirit of ____" appears throughout Scripture in reference to dizziness, despair, a destroyer, prostitution, impurity, stupor, timidity, antichrist and falsehood. However (with a few exceptions), these instances seem to be identifying a general attitude or influence affecting a group of people rather than a personal entity inhabiting an individual.
We Westerners are often too quick to find natural explanations for supernatural occurrences, but shouldn't we guard against the other extreme--creating an elitist or "specialist" view of encountering the spirit world? I've heard some argue that if you can't identify the demon, you can't cast it out ... that one must understand the intricate hierarchy and structure of the spirit world in order to command its minions.
Thankfully, for those of us confused by such daunting prospects, the only "skill" Jesus ever identifies as being profitable for expelling demons is prayer and fasting.
copyright 2007, Strang Communications
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 28, 2007
Several years ago, I was at a ministry event in which the emphasis was deliverance. I happened to be seated near the front, so when the altar call was given, there was little distinction between those sitting on the front row and those who had actually come forward for prayer. One of the ministry team members must have assumed that I needed prayer too. He grabbed me by the head, put his hand on my chest and proceeded to violently extricate two demons: python and leviathan.
This was not a complete surprise for me since, before the "exorcism", the speaker had explained the spiritual significance of the python. Apparently, the word python comes from the Greek word puthon, a spirit of divination that Paul cast out of a woman in Acts 16:16 and the name of a serpentine dragon that guarded the oracle of Delphi. Leviathan, on the other hand, is the beast that God challenges Job to drag out of the sea with a hook. Although extinct, it now apparently inhabits the bodies of 30-something men.
Anyhow, the incident got me thinking about "naming the spirits" and whether it's a legitimate practice. I've heard supporters make reference to the demon in Mark 8:31, who identified himself to Jesus as "legion." Others say that "legion" was not the demon's name, but merely an acknowledgment that there were so many spirits inhabiting the man that it would take too long for them to all state their names. I've heard some proponents identify evil spirits with the names of Old Testament villains such as Jezebel. Others connect spirits with diseases, mental illnesses or specific sins such as anger or incest.
From the maniacal hatred of Adolf Hitler to the murderous destruction of the Ebola virus, some behaviors, illnesses and even governments can take on a supernatural and otherworldly element that we can only attribute to the god of this world. Truth be told, "the spirit of ____" appears throughout Scripture in reference to dizziness, despair, a destroyer, prostitution, impurity, stupor, timidity, antichrist and falsehood. However (with a few exceptions), these instances seem to be identifying a general attitude or influence affecting a group of people rather than a personal entity inhabiting an individual.
We Westerners are often too quick to find natural explanations for supernatural occurrences, but shouldn't we guard against the other extreme--creating an elitist or "specialist" view of encountering the spirit world? I've heard some argue that if you can't identify the demon, you can't cast it out ... that one must understand the intricate hierarchy and structure of the spirit world in order to command its minions.
Thankfully, for those of us confused by such daunting prospects, the only "skill" Jesus ever identifies as being profitable for expelling demons is prayer and fasting.
copyright 2007, Strang Communications
18 February 2007
Mitt @ Regent
What has a Mormon to do with an evangelical university?
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 18, 2007
Under "normal" conditions, I would resist the urge to write another post on Mormon presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. However, when a friend and Regent University alum sent this to me, I just couldn't resist. As the official press release from Regent reads, the school is "pleased to announce that Mitt Romney will deliver the Regent University Commencement Address on Saturday, May 5, 2007."
Founded in 1978 by Pat Robertson, Regent has a reputation in the evangelical and secular world for its academic standards--particularly in the areas of law and communications. (On Feb. 11, students from Regent University's School of Law won the American Bar Association's Negotiation Competition. Regent succeeds last year's winner, Harvard Law School, in claiming the top prize for legal negotiation.)
As the Regent press release notes, "Romney joins Al Gore, Bob Dole, Wesley Clark, Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, Hanan Ashrawi and others as recent principal speakers on the Regent University campus." Kudos to Regent for exposing its students to individuals who do not necessarily fit the right-wing, evangelical stereotype. (I can't help but wonder if Dershowitz's Harvard would ever invite Robertson to speak ... )
That being said, what are we to think when a university which exists "to bring glory to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit" invites a practicing Mormon to deliver the commencement address? From my observation, college commencement speakers are usually chosen because they represent models of success that graduating students may someday attain. As an entrepreneur and family man, Romney deserves our respect. But, as a Mormon, his religious beliefs are far from conventional and are contradictory to the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be that Romney's appearance at Regent is the result of two converging political dynamics? The first is that Romney must allay the concerns of the evangelical voting public by downplaying Mormon distinctives and aligning the religion as merely another "denomination" within the broad landscape of American Christianity. Giving the commencement address at a prominent evangelical university definitely helps accomplish this objective. The second is that Pat Robertson may see Romney as the only candidate capable of effectively challenging the democratic juggernauts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, he may be willing to overlook the conflict of Romney's faith and Regent's mission for the purpose of enhancing Romney's reputation among evangelicals.
copyright 2007, Strang Communications
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 18, 2007
Under "normal" conditions, I would resist the urge to write another post on Mormon presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. However, when a friend and Regent University alum sent this to me, I just couldn't resist. As the official press release from Regent reads, the school is "pleased to announce that Mitt Romney will deliver the Regent University Commencement Address on Saturday, May 5, 2007."
Founded in 1978 by Pat Robertson, Regent has a reputation in the evangelical and secular world for its academic standards--particularly in the areas of law and communications. (On Feb. 11, students from Regent University's School of Law won the American Bar Association's Negotiation Competition. Regent succeeds last year's winner, Harvard Law School, in claiming the top prize for legal negotiation.)
As the Regent press release notes, "Romney joins Al Gore, Bob Dole, Wesley Clark, Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, Hanan Ashrawi and others as recent principal speakers on the Regent University campus." Kudos to Regent for exposing its students to individuals who do not necessarily fit the right-wing, evangelical stereotype. (I can't help but wonder if Dershowitz's Harvard would ever invite Robertson to speak ... )
That being said, what are we to think when a university which exists "to bring glory to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit" invites a practicing Mormon to deliver the commencement address? From my observation, college commencement speakers are usually chosen because they represent models of success that graduating students may someday attain. As an entrepreneur and family man, Romney deserves our respect. But, as a Mormon, his religious beliefs are far from conventional and are contradictory to the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be that Romney's appearance at Regent is the result of two converging political dynamics? The first is that Romney must allay the concerns of the evangelical voting public by downplaying Mormon distinctives and aligning the religion as merely another "denomination" within the broad landscape of American Christianity. Giving the commencement address at a prominent evangelical university definitely helps accomplish this objective. The second is that Pat Robertson may see Romney as the only candidate capable of effectively challenging the democratic juggernauts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, he may be willing to overlook the conflict of Romney's faith and Regent's mission for the purpose of enhancing Romney's reputation among evangelicals.
copyright 2007, Strang Communications
Mitt @ Regent
What has a Mormon to do with an evangelical university?
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 18, 2007
Under "normal" conditions, I would resist the urge to write another post on Mormon presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. However, when a friend and Regent University alum sent this to me, I just couldn't resist. As the official press release from Regent reads, the school is "pleased to announce that Mitt Romney will deliver the Regent University Commencement Address on Saturday, May 5, 2007."
Founded in 1978 by Pat Robertson, Regent has a reputation in the evangelical and secular world for its academic standards--particularly in the areas of law and communications. (On Feb. 11, students from Regent University's School of Law won the American Bar Association's Negotiation Competition. Regent succeeds last year's winner, Harvard Law School, in claiming the top prize for legal negotiation.)
As the Regent press release notes, "Romney joins Al Gore, Bob Dole, Wesley Clark, Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, Hanan Ashrawi and others as recent principal speakers on the Regent University campus." Kudos to Regent for exposing its students to individuals who do not necessarily fit the right-wing, evangelical stereotype. (I can't help but wonder if Dershowitz's Harvard would ever invite Robertson to speak ... )
That being said, what are we to think when a university which exists "to bring glory to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit" invites a practicing Mormon to deliver the commencement address? From my observation, college commencement speakers are usually chosen because they represent models of success that graduating students may someday attain. As an entrepreneur and family man, Romney deserves our respect. But, as a Mormon, his religious beliefs are far from conventional and are contradictory to the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be that Romney's appearance at Regent is the result of two converging political dynamics? The first is that Romney must allay the concerns of the evangelical voting public by downplaying Mormon distinctives and aligning the religion as merely another "denomination" within the broad landscape of American Christianity. Giving the commencement address at a prominent evangelical university definitely helps accomplish this objective. The second is that Pat Robertson may see Romney as the only candidate capable of effectively challenging the democratic juggernauts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, he may be willing to overlook the conflict of Romney's faith and Regent's mission for the purpose of enhancing Romney's reputation among evangelicals.
copyright 2007, Strang Communications
by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, February 18, 2007
Under "normal" conditions, I would resist the urge to write another post on Mormon presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. However, when a friend and Regent University alum sent this to me, I just couldn't resist. As the official press release from Regent reads, the school is "pleased to announce that Mitt Romney will deliver the Regent University Commencement Address on Saturday, May 5, 2007."
Founded in 1978 by Pat Robertson, Regent has a reputation in the evangelical and secular world for its academic standards--particularly in the areas of law and communications. (On Feb. 11, students from Regent University's School of Law won the American Bar Association's Negotiation Competition. Regent succeeds last year's winner, Harvard Law School, in claiming the top prize for legal negotiation.)
As the Regent press release notes, "Romney joins Al Gore, Bob Dole, Wesley Clark, Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, Hanan Ashrawi and others as recent principal speakers on the Regent University campus." Kudos to Regent for exposing its students to individuals who do not necessarily fit the right-wing, evangelical stereotype. (I can't help but wonder if Dershowitz's Harvard would ever invite Robertson to speak ... )
That being said, what are we to think when a university which exists "to bring glory to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit" invites a practicing Mormon to deliver the commencement address? From my observation, college commencement speakers are usually chosen because they represent models of success that graduating students may someday attain. As an entrepreneur and family man, Romney deserves our respect. But, as a Mormon, his religious beliefs are far from conventional and are contradictory to the basic doctrines of orthodox Christianity.
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be that Romney's appearance at Regent is the result of two converging political dynamics? The first is that Romney must allay the concerns of the evangelical voting public by downplaying Mormon distinctives and aligning the religion as merely another "denomination" within the broad landscape of American Christianity. Giving the commencement address at a prominent evangelical university definitely helps accomplish this objective. The second is that Pat Robertson may see Romney as the only candidate capable of effectively challenging the democratic juggernauts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, he may be willing to overlook the conflict of Romney's faith and Regent's mission for the purpose of enhancing Romney's reputation among evangelicals.
copyright 2007, Strang Communications
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)