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