Criteria for Recognising Cases of Demon Possession: A Response to John Woolmer – Part 2

In his book “The Devil Goes Missing?” John Woolmer presents 5 criteria for recognising a case of demon possession:

1. Being simultaneously attracted to and repelled by Jesus. 

2. Speaking in voices not one’s own – this can be unknown languages or manners of speech untypical of the person themselves. 

3. Possessing super-human strength. 

4. Engaging in self-harm. 

5. Having wild or blazing eyes. 

In Part One I discussed the first two criteria, commenting that the real-life examples Woolmer provides are far from convincing. In this part I examine criteria 3-5.

3. Superhuman Strength

Woolmer’s example of the strength criterion concerns a man – James – who called to his manse and collapsed, unable to talk. After confessing to having beaten his wife, he asked Woolmer to go and see if she was OK. Woolmer went to James’ home and found his wife was calm. She told Woolmer that her husband was “a binge-drinker and these things happen.” By the time Woolmer returned to his own home, where James had been left with some of Woolmer’s friends, the dining table was upended and James was growling and gnawing at one of the legs with 4 policemen trying to restrain him. Woolmer reports that on another occasion James broke a chair he was sitting in and later Woolmer thought James was about to pull a pew out in Woolmer’s church. 

Super-human strength? I hardly think so. In passing, Woolmer mentions a crucial detail about this man, describing him as a “large, tall ex-marine…over 6-foot.” That certainly puts things in a different light! I’m not far off 6 foot and currently weigh 182lbs, and I reckon I could make it difficult for 4 policemen to restrain me. Breaking a chair or almost breaking a church pew strike me as feats that are well within the natural capabilities of a large, tall ex-marine.

4. Self-Harming

Woolmer remarks that self-harming is often a symptom of physical or sexual abuse, or severe emotional distress. Mental health problems such as anxiety and depression can cause self-harm up to and including suicide. Oddly, the example Woolmer provides is of a woman who engaged in self-harm, but about whom he says, “there was nothing demonic in her actions, but they did display an inner turmoil which needed to be addressed.” So, after years in deliverance ministry Woolmer illustrates an example of a criterion for demon possession that by his own admission didn’t actually involve demon possession? 

5. Wild/Blazing Eyes

The example provided by Woolmer of “wild/blazing eyes” isn’t obviously a case of possession either. It involves a woman in the midst of depression who had suffered at the hands of her abusive Mason father. After Woolmer had prayed to cut her free from masonic influence, “her eyes had changed. They looked much clearer. The depression had lifted.” It’s great that Woolmer was able to help a woman in the midst of a deep depression, but we must be careful not to read more into the case than there actually is. Eyes can convey all manner of emotions: from joy to anger, and they can flash from one emotion to another incredibly quickly. Often “wild/blazing eyes” is symptomatic of psychosis, drug addiction, extreme anxiety, and even minor infections. My late father in law would always have a wild look in his eyes when he had nothing more sinister than a urinary tract infection. Others simply have a wild look about them for no other reason than that’s simply how they look! To be fair to Woolmer, I think he would readily agree. However, he presents no way to differentiate between a case of demon possession and something completely natural, and this is perhaps my biggest criticism of him concerning any of his 5 criteria.

Although these are the main criteria Woolmer discusses, he does add others: unexpected deafness, mocking laughter, severe shaking, inability to speak, inexplicable fear, retching, and uncontrollable coughing. Space prevents me dealing with each of these, and I fear the reader is bored enough already. Suffice to say much the same can be said of all these symptoms. There’s just one other that almost all “exorcists” or practitioners of “deliverance ministry” speak of, and I suspect it’s the crucial one: discernment. Often it’s described as a feeling or sensing that such and such is the case. What are mere mortals supposed to do, then? It seems we can do one of two things: we can take the word of the ‘spiritually enlightened’ when they tell us that someone is demon possessed, on the grounds that they’re in tune with the powers that be; or, alternatively, and more reasonably, we can remain skeptical and resist the notion that someone’s spiritual feelings provide good enough grounds for accepting a case of demon possession when there are perfectly good alternative explanations at hand.

Stephen J. Graham

 

Criteria for Recognising Cases of Demon Possession: A Response to John Woolmer – Part 1

What is required before we can rationally believe in something like demon possession? It seems to me that the defender of demon possession must clear 5 hurdles: 

1. They must provide a coherent account of what a demon actually is. 

2. They must provide reason to believe such entities actually exist. 

3. They need to present and defend an account of how possession is supposed to happen. 

4. They must provide criteria outlining how we can recognise a possession when one occurs. 

5. They need to present cases of actual possession. 

It is with Nos. 4 and 5 that I am concerned in these 2 articles. 

In his book “The Devil Goes Missing?” John Woolmer  – who for years has been involved in “deliverance ministry” – takes his cue from the story of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark Chapter 5, and presents five chief criteria for recognising a case of possession, criteria which he claims to have witnessed in his own deliverance ministry. 

Woolmer’s five criteria are: 

1. Being simultaneously attracted to and repelled by Jesus. 

2. Speaking in voices not one’s own – this can be unknown languages or manners of speech untypical of the person themselves. 

3. Possessing super-human strength. 

4. Engaging in self-harm. 

5. Having wild or blazing eyes. 

After laying out these criteria, Woolmer is careful to add: “they do not guarantee the presence of demons. Many psychiatric patients will exhibit similar signs and we must not rush to make diagnoses.” 

I think that’s worth noting, since the examples Woolmer himself provides are far from convincing.

In this Part I will look at the first two of these criteria, dealing with criteria 3-5 in Part 2. 

1. Being simultaneously attracted to and repelled by Jesus

Woolmer’s entire book is largely anecdotal. Concerning this first criterion, he tells us the story of a woman who came forward for prayer – willingly – but as she approached the altar there was a “violent reaction” and she “was thrown” to the ground. Woolmer adds: “We all had the impression that she was trying to levitate, which was something she claimed to be able to do.”   

As with so many of Woolmer’s anecdotes, there are few details provided. I’ve heard before the claim that possessed people would levitate if they weren’t being restrained, but frankly I wish people would just let go of them to see what happens! The upward force of a person on the ground trying to get up can easily feel like the person is rising – or, “trying to levitate.” Moreover, a person throwing themselves to the ground would look very much the same as someone who, allegedly, “was thrown.” These are certainly plausible aspects of an alternative explanation for what was going on. This woman may have had a personality that was prone to hysterical outbursts. She may have been suffering from schizophrenia – hence the attraction-repulsion episode. Perhaps she was an exhibitionist who was simply playing a scripted part. All these explanations are not even mentioned by Woolmer, and yet they seem eminently plausible in a case like this, and have been well known to feature in other similar cases of purported possession. 

2. Speaking in Strange Voices or Languages

Woolmer claims that people sometimes speak in languages not their own, or in tongues that “sound menacing.” He describes a creepy episode with a couple who called to his manse to make a complaint about something or other. In the course of the conversation the woman said, “I’m in league with the devil!” When Woolmer invited her to renounce the devil she screamed: “I renounce God!” Her demeanor then suddenly changed and she adopted the voice (and gait) of an old man. Woolmer describes her behaviour as “spiritually menacing” and tells us how she began speaking in a “strange guttural voice…like Latin backwards being spat out like a machine gun.” Woolmer began to speak in tongues himself and somehow calm was restored.  

What are we to make of this episode? Well, the key is provided by Woolmer himself: “We learnt from the medical profession that she had a personality disorder.” Seemingly, this woman would often speak in the voice of a person she called Hilda, and would show marks on her arms and throat which, she claimed, were from having been tied up and burnt at the stake in a previous incarnation. She also claimed that being anointed with holy oil burned her skin. 

Woolmer doesn’t say why he identifies this case as one of possession, since it is clear – and medically verified – that this woman was psychologically damaged. She had a personality disorder of some kind and was quite possibly engaging in a spot of imaginative play-acting, adopting certain cliches of possession: a guttural voice (the kind we are prone to imagine is used by evil spirits, thanks to movies such as The Exorcist) and being burned by anointing oil (hat-tip again to countless possession horror movies). 

In another case, Woolmer mentions an experience from his time in Zambia: “One of the women, or to be more accurate the spirit speaking through her, said “Go away. I m not leaving this person!” She was speaking in perfect Oxbridge English…a good mimic of mine.” Again, there’s little need for an other-worldly explanation when an appeal to something simple like mimicry will suffice.

Whilst it’s hard to judge from the scant details provided by Woolmer, we can at least say that thus far he’s presented precious little that would plausibly lead us to think that these criteria of demon possession really were instantiated.

I will discuss criteria 3-5 in Part 2.

Stephen J. Graham

The Devil & Evil: A Response to Woolmer & Green

In his book “The Devil Goes Missing?” Anglican minister John Woolmer suggests it isn’t possible to have a coherent doctrine of a loving God without also having an understanding of, and a belief in, the existence of Satan.  

He quotes approvingly from fellow Anglican Michael Green: 

“I believe the Christian doctrines of God, of man and of salvation are utterly untenable without the existence of Satan…The fallen nature of man and of everything he does, the self-destructive tendencies of every civilisation history has known, the prevalence of disease, together with nature, red in tooth and claw, unite to point to an outside enemy. I would like to ask theologians who are sceptical about the devil how they can give a satisfactory account of God if Satan is a figment of the imagination. Without the devil’s existence, the doctrine of God, a God who could have made such a world and allowed such horrors to take place daily within it, is utterly monstrous. Such a God would be no loving Father. He would be a pitiless tyrant.” 

Woolmer regards this as “a really important statement,” adding: “Remove Satan from our world view and we are inexorably challenged by the dark thought that God is at best incompetent, and at worst malicious. Human nature alone, however fallen, cannot really explain the horrors of Auschwitz, Stalin, Mao, Rwanda, Islamic State and all the rest.” 

It seems to me that Green and Woolmer make several errors.  

Firstly, events in the natural world appear to be the result of natural laws, not personal agency. The scientific evidence at our disposal – from fossil records, biological evolution, to cosmology – testifies to a universe which has developed over a very long time by a gradual process operating according to known laws of nature. These laws operate with uniform regularity. They certainly don’t appear to be the work of personal agents misusing their free-will. When a volcano erupts we are able to exhaust the reasons why in purely natural terms. Positing a personal agent for causing it is not something we either need to do or have any reason for doing.

Secondly, Woolmer and Green provide no reason why the moral evils of which they speak aren’t simply attributable to human agency. Why must we must posit a demonic influence behind Stalin or Mao? We know through our own experience that humans are capable of such evils. Surely the fact alluded to by Green himself – “the self-destructive tendencies of every civilisation history has known” – demonstrates that there is something dark in human nature itself quite apart from outside spiritual influence? We are moral creatures, and thus capable of the extremes of both good and evil. We are also natural creatures which can be broken – socially, psychologically, and emotionally – hence the existence of sociopaths, narcissists, and psychopaths. Moreover, we are learning all the time how humans can become broken: by culture, society, environment, upbringing, and genetic defect. If Woolmer and Green are going to put all this down to an outside agency they owe us some reason why it is that humans couldn’t possibly do such evil things off their own bat. As things stand, Green & Woolmer give us no such reason. Moreover, the bible itself frequently speaks of the nature of human beings in somewhat gloomy terms, and without chalking any of it up to demonic influence.

Thirdly, though they deny it, their view lapses into a quasi-dualistic position involving ultimate good and ultimate evil. Green in particular stresses that the devil is responsible for all manner of natural evils, not to mention the corruption of human civilisations. He appears to suggest that God had nothing to do with this and thus we must invoke the devil to make sense of it. However, is God not still sovereign? Green (and Woolmer) will say “of course he is,” and yet Green’s protestations are only valid if the devil is some kind of equal and opposite being to God. If God is truly sovereign, then the existence of the devil doesn’t solve the problem Green thinks it does, because we must still deal with “A God who could have made such a world.”

This brings us to the nub of this third error: their view doesn’t really solve the problem of evil and suffering in the way they think it does. Suppose it is true that the existence of Satan explains all manner of natural disasters, disease, the violence inherent in the natural world, and even the corruption of human civilisations. Where did Satan come from? If we want to avoid the kind of dualism we find in, say, Zoroastrianism wherein the forces of good under Ahura Mazda war constantly with the equal and opposite forces of evil under Angra Mainyu, then we must acknowledge that Satan himself was created by God. This brings us once again to the nub of the problem of evil: how evil and suffering exist in a world in which there is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent supreme power. God is still wholly responsible for the world.

We find here a problem faced by all theodicies that emphasise the fall as the reason for evil. Such theodicists seek to uphold the notion that God created all things good, but also that free creatures misused their free will, fell from grace, leading to all the evils in our world. It’s a neat way to uphold the goodness of God on the one hand and the guilt of the creature on the other. Except for a glaring problem, that is. Schleiermacher pointed out that this traditional picture was unintelligible. The problem is that we have unqualifiedly good beings, existing in the presence of God, inexplicably committing sin. If a creature sins, surely it was not flawless to begin with, and thus the creator – God – must share the responsibility for their fall. Schleiermacher adds: “the more perfect these good angels are supposed to have been, the less possible it is to find any motive but those presupposing a fall already, eg arrogance and envy.” In fact, this consideration led thinkers like Augustine to suppose that those angels who fell were simply predestined by God to do so. Had they shared the same blessedness of the good angels, they would never have fallen.

I find myself on the side of Schleiermacher here. God is not absolved of responsibility for evil by the existence and nature of Satan. On the contrary, He remains ultimately responsible for it, and thus we must look elsewhere for an explanation of evil, something Green and Woolmer don’t do. 

This brings me to my final point: Green and Woolmer display an ignorance of the philosophical literature wherein many theistic philosophers present defences and theodicies that make sense of the enigma of evil without resorting to “the devil did it.” For instance, Swinburne argues at length that the world must be ordered the way it is for humans to operate with significant freedom. Alternatively, John Hick draws our attention to how evils are necessary for our development towards God-centred being. Others, such as Paul Helm, argue that God has greater goods in mind which necessitate the world we live in, or something like it, goods which we perhaps cannot know. Or, maybe, Stephen Wykstra and William Alston are correct to say we can’t know God’s morally sufficient reasons for causing or permitting the existence of evils around us, but if we otherwise have good grounds for believing God is good, then the existence of evil isn’t a defeater for theism.

Whatever reason there might be for believing in the existence of the devil and other demonic beings, their existence is not required for making sense of the existence of God or the nature of the world.

Stephen J. Graham