Ghost in the machine: "Technical difficulties" or

[Darias]

I drove myself to church today, as I do on a weekly basis. I attend a Baptist church. It has a modern worship service which features rock music, and has a huge screen with which to watch the pastor from his location in the main sanctuary. The modern service is held in what is essentially a basketball court.

After worship was over, we were watching a guest speaker on the big screen. About half-way through his sermon, the sound system malfunctioned and we couldn't hear what he was saying.

The announcement-guy in our service apologized and said that they would try and re-establish the connection -- and they did -- no problem.

But after the sermon was over, the announcement-guy (who is essentially the guy who coordinates the worship band and the ushers and gives the announcements) said that he firmly believed that Satan was trying to distract everyone from the message -- yes, apparently instead of a technical problem, it was a demonic problem. He was completely serious, and this isn't the first time I've heard him express that belief.

Needless to say, I face-palmed.

What's with the mythical magical thinking? Why was that necessary? Why couldn't he have just apologized for the technical difficulties instead of blame it on Satan, as to scare people into accepting the message was truth and that the "devil" didn't want them to hear it?

Sometimes it's just all I can do to go to church... the superstition is ridiculous, the fundamentalism is intoxicating (wives submit to your husbands, and if you got a question about the Bible, ask your husbands at home). It's mentally exhausting and spiritually draining just to go to church.

I wish my fellow believers would just love a little more, worry about doctrine and devils a little less.

So what do you think? Was there a ghost in the machine or was it a technical burp?

[Slopeshoulder]

I think he's an idiot and you need to find a new church. One that suits your intelligence and discernment.

Hard to say more really.

[Darias]

I think he's an idiot and you need to find a new church. One that suits your intelligence and discernment.

Hard to say more really.

It's a little more complicated than that. I go to church with my family (I live with them). I live in the Bible belt where you have one baptist church after another -- most we've visited only have hymns for worship -- and that will put you to sleep IMO.

We are not official members of the church, but the church, including the guy who thinks technical difficulties are demons, has been very supportive for our family when my dad was in the hospital (for Guillain–Barré syndrome). They visited him a lot and I'm sure his faith (strength to carry on) and the friends and family helped him -- plus the fact that he was already a healthy triathlete -- ushered in a quicker than normal recovery.

Most of the main people in charge of our 7000 some odd member church know us. So it's not like I can just stop going to church.

Some days are more pleasant than others -- the pastor can be funny even though hes a fundamentalist -- but other days I just strongly disagree with him to the point where I have a headache.

But I can't really get out of it. I do feel that my Sunday mornings could be better spent (especially with my studies because I'm falling behind in my Spanish class). However my family equates church attendance with loving God -- so I kinda have to just grin and bare it.

I do enjoy giving to their missions service though; they help feed children in Uganda.

The worship music is great, except they make Jesus the focus of worship, and rarely ever mention God -- and that bothers me a little since how Jesus worshiped God when he was on earth and said "The Father is Greater than I."

But anyways, so yeah -- I'll just have to carry on a lil' longer and endure it. At least I know I have the gift of long-suffering.

[theopoesis]

Hi Darias:

I hope you are well.

I drove myself to church today, as I do on a weekly basis. I attend a Baptist church. It has a modern worship service which features rock music, and has a huge screen with which to watch the pastor from his location in the main sanctuary. The modern service is held in what is essentially a basketball court.

Used to go to a church identical with this in North Carolina. My take on matters is that this isn't the best model for church, but that's a side note.

After worship was over, we were watching a guest speaker on the big screen. About half-way through his sermon, the sound system malfunctioned and we couldn't hear what he was saying.

The announcement-guy in our service apologized and said that they would try and re-establish the connection -- and they did -- no problem.

But after the sermon was over, the announcement-guy (who is essentially the guy who coordinates the worship band and the ushers and gives the announcements) said that he firmly believed that Satan was trying to distract everyone from the message -- yes, apparently instead of a technical problem, it was a demonic problem. He was completely serious, and this isn't the first time I've heard him express that belief.

Needless to say, I face-palmed.

What's with the mythical magical thinking? Why was that necessary? Why couldn't he have just apologized for the technical difficulties instead of blame it on Satan, as to scare people into accepting the message was truth and that the "devil" didn't want them to hear it?

I think your last comment is problematic. You are assuming a motive for which there is no evidence. Why must someone who believes in the supernatural necessarily be using that belief as a scare tactic toward power? I, for one, believe in the supernatural because it is commensurate with the Bible, my personal experience, and my general philosophical take on the world. I have no fear of these realities. It reminds me of a hymn line from Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress is our God" -

The Prince of Darkness grim. We tremble not for him; his rage we can endure, for lo his doom is sure. One little word shall fell him

Could we not equally posit the fear/love duality which you emphasize in this post is a power ploy to earn respect for your more liberal position? Perhaps the best approach is a charitable one that assumes a moral motive for all parties until evidence to the contrary exists.

Sometimes it's just all I can do to go to church... the superstition is ridiculous, the fundamentalism is intoxicating (wives submit to your husbands, and if you got a question about the Bible, ask your husbands at home). It's mentally exhausting and spiritually draining just to go to church.

My recommendation is to find a church whose medium is not a TV screen and who does a little more careful exegesis of the idea of submission, without throwing out the Biblical text altogether.

Out of curiosity, what is the point of Christianity in your opinion if the supernatural (here labelled as "superstition") is removed?

I wish my fellow believers would just love a little more, worry about doctrine and devils a little less.

What is doctrine? The best analysis of the question by thinkers as divergent as Lindbeck and VanHoozer suggests that doctrine is itself constructive of the social reality in which Christians are to live. The language of doctrine creates the existential, interpersonal, emotional, and intellectual framework within which terms like "love" can have semantic meaning.

To simplify... suppose a new Christian read this statement and completely bought into the matter and then asked: "Darias, what is love?" You would have several options for explanation. You could appeal to a particular narrative as an example of love to demonstrate. This, for example, is what is done in 1 John 3:16 - "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers." However, what is this narrative without doctrine? How did Jesus lay down his life for us if not as a propitiatory substitute and sacrifice? How is this sacrifice an example of love if it were not unnecessary due to Christ's divinity? How is his life laid down "for us" if we do not have any idea of sin and eternal judgment? And so, the social reality and rhetorical framework of doctrine makes the narrative of Jesus' life meaningful in terms of love. In other words, narrative assumes a shared community of shared rhetorical nature (i.e. doctrine) in order to make sense (read Stanley Fish, Is there a text in this class?. Not a fundamentalist or really a Christian btw).

Suppose you decide against a narrative. You could also answer "what is love" by appealing to a particular ethical maxim. The golden rule is one example: "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 19:19). Love, then, is grounded in a specific set of actions manifest as an ethical maxim. Even this statement assumes a common reality of understanding. How ought one to love himself? Who is one's neighbor? (This, after all, is the direction Matthew takes it). By whose authority is this ethical maxim binding? Each of these questions is answered through a paradigmatic framework of language. The Christian believes this maxim is not fully clear apart from the doctrinal truths of being created in God's image (hence the need to love oneself). It is not clear apart from the doctrine of salvation, whereby Christ offers salvation to all nations and breaks down ethnic barriers. One's neighbor is not simply one's tribe. It is not fully clear apart from the dogmatic and doctrinal claim that it is a commandment spoken by the Designer of the universe and commensurate with that design. You may not have to use "doctrine" per se to justify an ethical maxim, but you will use its functional equivalent. Otherwise, a maxim is an empty utterance.

Let's suppose you appeal to neither narrative nor ethical maxim. Perhaps you appeal to an emotional or experiential framework to explain what love is. This is a frequent form of appeal. However, both recent and ancient ideas suggest that for such an appeal to be religious, there must be doctrine in the picture. In ancient times, thinkers like Symeon the New Theologian or Gregory Palamas suggested that religious experience of God must share common themes to escape the problems of relativistic experientialism. If God is the same God for you and for I, our experiences of God most have some common elements. In more recent times, scholars like Samuel Wells and Stanley Hauerwas are promoting what is known as "ecclesial ethics." In short, these scholars suggest that the liturgical practices of the church shape the experiential framework of believers with reference to God as an important source of moral formation. When I first heard this, I thought it was crazy. But let's think it through for a moment. In a liturgical service you have set times for confession, and if you take this seriously it compels you to develop a theological anthropology which views yourself as a sinner. After the prayer of confession, there is a declaration of forgiveness from God, and this declaration is a source of hope and healing. Then there is a time of intercession, where individuals are taught to develop concern for those in the church, the community, and the world. And so forth and so on. The basic structure of liturgy, when taken seriously, bends the emotions toward specific ends (including love) within a structural framework such that the experiences of each individual are similar enough that individuals can still constitute a collective church with collective spiritual experiences. Otherwise, experience is reduced to individualistic existentialism, and "religion" ceases to exist. This is why the Greek Orthodox Church (the tradition in which Palamas and Symeon wrote) has maintained the same liturgy from John Chrysostom since the fourth century. This is also a reason to be suspicious of a rock and roll church. Are you experiencing emotions and moral formation that a rock concert would also promote, or are you being shaped by a theologically informed liturgy? Theology/doctrine is here again vitally important. What is confession without a doctrine of sin? What is intercession without a doctrine of the sovereignty of God? What is the benediction without a theology of mission? You get the idea.

I am belaboring the point, but I wish to make myself clear. Without doctrine, you do not have religion. Without doctrine, you do not have a religious community. And without doctrine, a word like "love" is either lexically defined (and hence not religious at all but totally secular), or it tends toward emptiness and lack of meaning altogether. Theology and doctrine properly used (even demonology) creates love and not fear. To accuse the church of fear mongering through the idea of Satan is to either identify your church as an unhealthy church or to indicate that you do not understand the fundamental nature of theology. It is not, however, to demonstrate that the very possibility of speaking of "Satan" is counterproductive to the purpose of religion (which you seem to imply is to love).

So what do you think? Was there a ghost in the machine or was it a technical burp?

I think this question is only peripheral to the things you wished to voice in the introduction leading up to this question. I also think it is impossible to know whether a demon was in the machine.

That being said, I will defend the right and even necessity of the religious to be able to speak of the supernatural (including demons). After all, the religion of Christianity is supernaturalistic through and through. From Genesis to the virgin birth to the resurrection to the eschaton, the worldview, paradigm, and rhetorical system of Christianity is supernaturalistic. And it is precisely the language of Satan and demons which pushes against the technocratic and materialistic paradigm out of which is born nihilism and a-moralistic pragamtism.

Best regards,

theopoesis

[Darias]

[font=Impact]1.[/font]

I drove myself to church today, as I do on a weekly basis. I attend a Baptist church. It has a modern worship service which features rock music, and has a huge screen with which to watch the pastor from his location in the main sanctuary. The modern service is held in what is essentially a basketball court.

Used to go to a church identical with this in North Carolina. My take on matters is that this isn't the best model for church, but that's a side note.

Our primary reason for sticking with this church was because it was relatively close to our house, and because in comparison to several of the other Baptist churches in our area, this one features the best worship music.



[font=Impact]2.[/font]

After worship was over, we were watching a guest speaker on the big screen. About half-way through his sermon, the sound system malfunctioned and we couldn't hear what he was saying.

The announcement-guy in our service apologized and said that they would try and re-establish the connection -- and they did -- no problem.

But after the sermon was over, the announcement-guy (who is essentially the guy who coordinates the worship band and the ushers and gives the announcements) said that he firmly believed that Satan was trying to distract everyone from the message -- yes, apparently instead of a technical problem, it was a demonic problem. He was completely serious, and this isn't the first time I've heard him express that belief.

Needless to say, I face-palmed.

What's with the mythical magical thinking? Why was that necessary? Why couldn't he have just apologized for the technical difficulties instead of blame it on Satan, as to scare people into accepting the message was truth and that the "devil" didn't want them to hear it?

I think your last comment is problematic. You are assuming a motive for which there is no evidence. Why must someone who believes in the supernatural necessarily be using that belief as a scare tactic toward power? I, for one, believe in the supernatural because it is commensurate with the Bible, my personal experience, and my general philosophical take on the world. I have no fear of these realities. It reminds me of a hymn line from Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress is our God" -

The Prince of Darkness grim. We tremble not for him; his rage we can endure, for lo his doom is sure. One little word shall fell him

Could we not equally posit the fear/love duality which you emphasize in this post is a power ploy to earn respect for your more liberal position? Perhaps the best approach is a charitable one that assumes a moral motive for all parties until evidence to the contrary exists.

I should have wrote "as if..."

But you are right in that he could have been completely honestly and genuinely concerned about the demonic attack on our sound-system. I don't think he had any malicious intent. I certainly don't believe he was lying on purpose or anything.

But the results are the same. To claim that the "daddy of all evil entities" magically inhibited the sound-system, as to try to stop the message (aka unquestionable truth) from being preached -- still affects feeble, fearful minds. It still scares people into believing that the message was truth and that the devil has magic powers.

Let's assume this is possible. Does it make sense theologically? Why would God allow the devil to try to prevent His truth from getting out to lost souls? Do you think God and the devil battle it out, as if the forces of good and evil are of equal strength? If God is omnipotent, then God controls everything Satan does (or can do) -- so why would God allow the devil to affect the sound system? Was God too busy? Did he forget to put his angels around our church to protect our technology from demons?

In all seriousness, such a baseless claim is indeed superstitious and ignorant, regardless of the motives of the individual, which I'm sure were pure (he's a nice guy).

When our car runs out of gas, we don't blame the devil. We don't pray over it to help get it started, we go to a gas station and fill it up.

When the remote control won't change the channel to TBN, we don't blame satan for keeping us from hearing truth -- we simple replace the batteries in the control.

When the sound system goes down, we don't pray God to drive the demons out of the wires and dials. We get someone to go fix it.

And when the problem is resolved, we don't tell people that Satan was trying to keep them from hearing the message, which scares them into thinking that the message was Truth (unquestionable) and the devil is out to get them.

Instead we say, sorry for the technical difficulties folks, now take this message to heart and pray and study, think objectively, learn, and have a blessed day.


I wish the guy would have said that instead.... Is that too much to ask?

[theopoesis]

Thanks for the quick response, Darias. I'm done with work for the day, so I'll be quick to respond too.

I should have wrote "as if..."

But you are right in that he could have been completely honestly and genuinely concerned about the demonic attack on our sound-system. I don't think he had any malicious intent. I certainly don't believe he was lying on purpose or anything.

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.

But the results are the same. To claim that the "daddy of all evil entities" magically inhibited the sound-system, as to try to stop the message (aka unquestionable truth) from being preached -- still affects feeble, fearful minds. It still scares people into believing that the message was truth and that the devil has magic powers.

The rhetoric of "magic" and "feeble" is noted. I do hope for the sake of this conversation that I can prove to be more than feeble.

I also wonder if the result is the same. Perhaps a survey would be relevant, but in my time in churches which include this sort of rhetoric, I still never felt any fear of the demonic. Nor am I aware of anyone within my circle of confidence who has ever claimed a similar motive. (My circle includes groups who have performed an exorcism, btw). I think the assumption that demons leads to fearful, mindless adherents needs to be established and not simply claimed. That was partly the reason I cited Luther's hymn. One of the men generally considered best at dissecting the Christian mind claims that mind contains no fear of the demonic.

Let's assume this is possible. Does it make sense theologically? Why would God allow the devil to try to prevent His truth from getting out to lost souls? Do you think God and the devil battle it out, as if the forces of good and evil are of equal strength? If God is omnipotent, then God controls everything Satan does (or can do) -- so why would God allow the devil to affect the sound system? Was God too busy? Did he forget to put his angels around our church to protect our technology from demons?

You ask questions, then immediately label any potential answer as "superstitious and ignorant." (see your next sentence in the quotation below). Therefore, I am understandably hesitant to answer these questions.

For now, I will focus my discussion on the validity of speaking of the "demonic" and the "supernatural" at all. I will only offer a brief theological footnote to the questions that you pose. My purpose is to show that the rhetorical framework of doctrine, which I argued above is constructive of the Christian life, can adequately answer the questions you raise.

A robust doctrine of the fall suggests that this world, through the allowance of God, has fallen into sin through human decision. A robust doctrine of sin suggest that sin is not merely a wrong action, but also a spiritual oppression, an interpersonal division, and an ontological malady. If you are not aware, the doctrine of sin and the doctrines of christology and soteriology are critically linked. In other words, we must know what we are saved from in order to fully understand how we are saved. If sin is just wrong action, then a moral exemplar Jesus is sufficient. However, if sin is spiritual captivity through voluntary participation in the kingdom of Satan, then salvation is deliverance from Satan and transference into citizenship of a new kingdom, the kingdom of heaven. Likewise, the interpersonal division of sin between God and humanity suggests a substitionary atonement and imputed righteousness unto spiritual adoption. Similarly, the ontological corruption of human nature through sin suggests an incarnate God who transforms human nature through a new birth into a new nature.

Given the link between sin and salvation, and given the Christian belief in a savior who delivers us from evil, I find no theological basis for rejecting the use of terms such as "demons" or "Satan." Especially given the doctrine of eschatology and the current transcendence of the Father, I find a semi-monism of omnipotent God and Satan's temporary reign to be no theological problem at all.

A final note: A thorough systematic theology would now turn to analyze theological anthropology to question whether the human experiences of sin and God are in agreement with these basic tenets. If you are interested, I could continue into this aspect, or I could unpack anything above. However, for the purposes of this post, I think I've made my point.

In all seriousness, such a baseless claim is indeed superstitious and ignorant, regardless of the motives of the individual, which I'm sure were pure (he's a nice guy).

This all depends on what counts as valid evidence. Only when we know what counts as evidence can we say a claim is "baseless" (i.e. without evidence). If you only allow scientific evidence, then you are justified in making this claim. However, I reject limiting evidence in this way, and am currently working on an essay for nygreeneguy on scientism. Perhaps you'd be interested in hearing my thoughts?

If, however, the Scriptures, or experience, or even philosophy/theology are valid sources of knowledge, then perhaps this individual is not making as "baseless" of a claim as you suggest.

When our car runs out of gas, we don't blame the devil. We don't pray over it to help get it started, we go to a gas station and fill it up.

When the remote control won't change the channel to TBN, we don't blame satan for keeping us from hearing truth -- we simple replace the batteries in the control.

When the sound system goes down, we don't pray God to drive the demons out of the wires and dials. We get someone to go fix it.

And when the problem is resolved, we don't tell people that Satan was trying to keep them from hearing the message, which scares them into thinking that the message was Truth (unquestionable) and the devil is out to get them.

I have bolded all of the times when you used the words "we" or "our." It seems you are projecting. Quite probably, you do not pray in these situations, but your OP itself seems to be proof that some people in fact do pray in these situations. Moreover, the entire argument seems to be a false appeal to popularity. Just because people don't do these things does not mean that they shouldn't do those things. Furthermore, there is a decent chance in this subforum that "we" (in the sense of the majority) do pray in these situations.

The fundamental question seems to be whether the supernatural has any influence in the day to day operations of this world. On faith, I claim that they are. I've seen things (a paralyzed girl walking, an "insane" criminal exorcised, cured, and released in such a dramatic fashion that his secular psychologist converted to christianity, etc.) that lead me to believe my faith is not foolish. But I also know that it is easy to read supernaturalism into non-supernatural situations. Who is to proscribe limits to the supernatural? Certainly not I.

Instead we say, sorry for the technical difficulties folks, now take this message to heart and pray and study, think objectively, learn, and have a blessed day.

I wish the guy would have said that instead.... Is that too much to ask?

Yes and no. Regarding the no: Perhaps wisdom should have directed the man to say what you suggest. But you seem to have a deeper issue with the very linguistic framework the man used. In light of this, I must also say that, Yes, you are asking too much.

In asking, you seem to be claiming authority to demarcate what is/isn't appropriate theological language, what does/doesn't happen supernaturally, and what this language and supernatural orientation should direct the human toward emotionally and existentially. Given your lack of credentials (no offense, but I'm not a prophet either), I see no reason why you should have the authority to change the trajectory of the Christian tradition as it has existed for 2000 years. So yes, you are asking too much in seeking to prevent mention of "superstitious" elements like Satan.

[Darias]

[font=Impact]1.[/font]

But the results are the same. To claim that the "daddy of all evil entities" magically inhibited the sound-system, as to try to stop the message (aka unquestionable truth) from being preached -- still affects feeble, fearful minds. It still scares people into believing that the message was truth and that the devil has magic powers.

The rhetoric of "magic" and "feeble" is noted. I do hope for the sake of this conversation that I can prove to be more than feeble.

A.) There are two reasons why I used the termonology "magically"

• 1.) Because I want to be real and tell it like it is. Demonic supernatural intervention, if it exists, would indeed function magically -- and the results of the demonic miracle would therefore be unexplainable by natural means.
  
  2.) I also use the word "magically" to demonstrate just how absurd I think this particular instance was. You can understand and appreciate that sentiment because I take it you do not believe in magic either.

B.) When I said "feeble, fearful minds," I was referring to those in the audience, whether they were young children, gullible adults, or emotionally distressed unbelievers who are desperate for answers -- good-hearted people all.

• 1.) Don't make this out to seem like I used an ad-hominem on you.
  
  2.) I was not mocking people who genuinely believe in demons. I was expressing disgust in the fact that some Christians blame the devil for perfectly ordinary events (And it was particularly outrageous to me in this case because right after he said that, he led everyone into prayer and invited un-believers to accept Jesus).
  
  3.) And this bothers me because the people who might have come to faith that day -- either out of fear that the devil was trying to prevent them from hearing the message, or for whatever reason -- may look back on that day in the future and think, "hey, I was tricked." They might even fall away from belief in God solely because they've come to believe a strong connection between theism and obvious superstition.
  
  4.) It bothers me because for the children who were there, such rhetoric causes them to forsake rational inquiry, aka discernment, for magical thinking. And such thinking is absolutely fatal for a sustained belief in God. Examples:
  
  • * Billy prays for a new bike, but God doesn't magically give it to Him -- Billy starts to question God for failing to come through for him.
    
    * Pat Robertson grows up believing that the devil affects sound systems, that Satan causes light bulbs to burn out, that sicknesses are caused by demons...
    
    He comes of age and now hosts a widely popular Christian news show called the 700 Club.
    
    In 2010, an earthquake devastates Haiti. Robertson responds by claiming that this natural event was caused by a wrathful God, and that the hundreds of thousands of children who perished under the rubble are punishment upon a largely Christian nation -- a nation which tolerated a few believers in Voodoo.
    
    Many Christians and non-believers across the world hear this rhetoric and thus associate ignorance with Christianity and either fall away from the faith, or forever reject the idea of believing in God.
  
  5.) My point is there is a direct correlation between superstitious beliefs and ignorance. If someone thinks sound systems are affected by demons, what's to stop them from believing that burned out light-bulbs aren't the work of the devil? Pretty soon, they might start believing that tornadoes and nice weather are the effects of God's favor or wrath upon countries.
  
  But those who recognize that this is folly, whether they are outside or within Christianity, might begin to feel that there is a correlation between stupidity (like that of Pat Robertson's) with belief in God in general. And I find that to be tragic.
  
  In sum, such ignorant rhetoric, like that used by the announcement-guy, is more harmful for Christianity and Theism in general, than it is beneficial -- unless we are banking on the blind ignorance of believers, such rhetoric needs to stop. Otherwise we are preventing rational people from coming to faith -- and how could we blame them?

[font=Impact]2.[/font]

I also wonder if the result is the same. Perhaps a survey would be relevant, but in my time in churches which include this sort of rhetoric, I still never felt any fear of the demonic. Nor am I aware of anyone within my circle of confidence who has ever claimed a similar motive. (My circle includes groups who have performed an exorcism, btw). I think the assumption that demons leads to fearful, mindless adherents needs to be established and not simply claimed. That was partly the reason I cited Luther's hymn. One of the men generally considered best at dissecting the Christian mind claims that mind contains no fear of the demonic.

A.) Belief in malevolent entities does not impede one's reasoning abilities. However, blaming malevolent entities upon every-day events, whether that be waking up late, or having a cold etc. -- that's when reason flies out the window.

B.) Claiming that "Satan is at work trying to prevent you from hearing the truth" for a perfectly explainable technical difficulty -- which has happened before -- just might scare a few people into accepting Jesus, particularly the children who were there -- or any non-Christian gullible enough to believe that's what was happening.

C.) I'm not afraid of devils. When I was a fundamentalist, I wasn't afraid of them. I reasoned that "since God is protecting me, I have nothing to fear" (not-so for the wide eyed-gullibles in church last week who weren't yet saved).

In fact there were only a few times when I was genuinely afraid of them. The first time I thought I had been possessed was when I first entered puberty. (I'm serious). I was ignorant of what was happening to me and I thought that Satan had gotten a hold of me. Another thing which convinced me I was possessed was the fact that I had re-occurring episodes of sleep paralysis. That coupled with stress of not being able to magically end the affects puberty via prayer, led to depression -- which furthered my delusional thinking.

Fortunately, "Truth" set me free, when I realized that sleep paralysis was a sleeping disorder, that puberty was a natural part of life, and that masturbation wasn't a sin.

I haven't been bothered by demons sense -- and I have no fear of them. And I'm pretty sure they weren't in church last week.



[font=Impact]3.[/font]

Let's assume this is possible. Does it make sense theologically? Why would God allow the devil to try to prevent His truth from getting out to lost souls? Do you think God and the devil battle it out, as if the forces of good and evil are of equal strength? If God is omnipotent, then God controls everything Satan does (or can do) -- so why would God allow the devil to affect the sound system? Was God too busy? Did he forget to put his angels around our church to protect our technology from demons?

You ask questions, then immediately label any potential answer as "superstitious and ignorant." (see your next sentence in the quotation below). Therefore, I am understandably hesitant to answer these questions.

If I may be so blunt, you are understandably hesitant to answer my legitimate questions because you have no adequate answer for them. Am I right?

This is essentially the same cop-out move I have gotten time and time again from several Christians in this forum. What ever happened to 1 Peter 3:15?



[font=Impact]4.[/font]

For now, I will focus my discussion on the validity of speaking of the "demonic" and the "supernatural" at all. I will only offer a brief theological footnote to the questions that you pose. My purpose is to show that the rhetorical framework of doctrine, which I argued above is constructive of the Christian life, can adequately answer the questions you raise.

A robust doctrine of the fall suggests that this world, through the allowance of God, has fallen into sin through human decision. A robust doctrine of sin suggest that sin is not merely a wrong action, but also a spiritual oppression, an interpersonal division, and an ontological malady. If you are not aware, the doctrine of sin and the doctrines of christology and soteriology are critically linked. In other words, we must know what we are saved from in order to fully understand how we are saved. If sin is just wrong action, then a moral exemplar Jesus is sufficient. However, if sin is spiritual captivity through voluntary participation in the kingdom of Satan, then salvation is deliverance from Satan and transference into citizenship of a new kingdom, the kingdom of heaven. Likewise, the interpersonal division of sin between God and humanity suggests a substitionary atonement and imputed righteousness unto spiritual adoption. Similarly, the ontological corruption of human nature through sin suggests an incarnate God who transforms human nature through a new birth into a new nature.

Given the link between sin and salvation, and given the Christian belief in a savior who delivers us from evil, I find no theological basis for rejecting the use of terms such as "demons" or "Satan." Especially given the doctrine of eschatology and the current transcendence of the Father, I find a semi-monism of omnipotent God and Satan's temporary reign to be no theological problem at all.

A final note: A thorough systematic theology would now turn to analyze theological anthropology to question whether the human experiences of sin and God are in agreement with these basic tenets. If you are interested, I could continue into this aspect, or I could unpack anything above. However, for the purposes of this post, I think I've made my point.

Except my problem has nothing to do with whether Satan is mentioned in church -- nor does it have to do with people who believe that Satan exists. It has to do with interjecting supernatural evil for perfectly explainable everyday events right before leading the service into prayer -- inviting sinners to get saved. Whether such an act was intentional or not -- it is a scare tactic. In the very least it causes more discerning non-Christian individuals in the congregation to sigh and reject the notion of believing in God; why should they if they think it entails being superstitious?



[font=Impact]5.[/font]

In all seriousness, such a baseless claim is indeed superstitious and ignorant, regardless of the motives of the individual, which I'm sure were pure (he's a nice guy).

This all depends on what counts as valid evidence. Only when we know what counts as evidence can we say a claim is "baseless" (i.e. without evidence). If you only allow scientific evidence, then you are justified in making this claim. However, I reject limiting evidence in this way, and am currently working on an essay for nygreeneguy on scientism. Perhaps you'd be interested in hearing my thoughts?

If, however, the Scriptures, or experience, or even philosophy/theology are valid sources of knowledge, then perhaps this individual is not making as "baseless" of a claim as you suggest.

A.) First, how can there be any physical evidence of a supernatural cause?

(Hint: There can't.)

B.) There was no evidence for his claim -- he just said it because he felt it was true. There was no investigation to confirm he was right about what he said.

C.) Are you suggesting that buggy sound-systems are flawless machines which can only fail by cause of demonic intervention? No; of course you wouldn't. The most reasonable explanation is to say that it had a short, and cut out. Either way, there was a physical solution to the problem; the sound team didn't just pray over the dials -- they fixed the problem, which was a physical problem.

D.) The only hard evidence we have is physical proof. Anything else by definition is not evidence. But I'd like to hear your essay.

E.) And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his bottom when he hopped. The problem is: The Bible is errant, experiences are subjective (as in my case), and philosophical/theological ideas is at best speculative -- at worst hog-wash.

Our understanding of the word is based upon reason and facts and theories (collections of tested experimentation, reasoning, and facts).



[font=Impact]6.[/font]

When our car runs out of gas, we don't blame the devil. We don't pray over it to help get it started, we go to a gas station and fill it up.

When the remote control won't change the channel to TBN, we don't blame satan for keeping us from hearing truth -- we simple replace the batteries in the control.

When the sound system goes down, we don't pray God to drive the demons out of the wires and dials. We get someone to go fix it.

And when the problem is resolved, we don't tell people that Satan was trying to keep them from hearing the message, which scares them into thinking that the message was Truth (unquestionable) and the devil is out to get them.

I have bolded all of the times when you used the words "we" or "our." It seems you are projecting. Quite probably, you do not pray in these situations, but your OP itself seems to be proof that some people in fact do pray in these situations. Moreover, the entire argument seems to be a false appeal to popularity. Just because people don't do these things does not mean that they shouldn't do those things. Furthermore, there is a decent chance in this subforum that "we" (in the sense of the majority) do pray in these situations.

The fundamental question seems to be whether the supernatural has any influence in the day to day operations of this world. On faith, I claim that they are. I've seen things (a paralyzed girl walking, an "insane" criminal exorcised, cured, and released in such a dramatic fashion that his secular psychologist converted to christianity, etc.) that lead me to believe my faith is not foolish. But I also know that it is easy to read supernaturalism into non-supernatural situations. Who is to proscribe limits to the supernatural? Certainly not I.

A.) I said "we" as in us Christians.

B.) Are you proposing that believers should pray for God to keep their cars running when they know that they are out of gas and can easily reach a gas-station? Isn't that testing God? I mean when our children are sick we take them to the hospital if we are able -- we don't test God and expect a miracle to occur not when "God has given us what we need" to take care of a situation.

C.) I've never seen miracles happen, none that couldn't have had a simple explanation for their occurrence. If you base your faith in God on unquestioned, unexplained "signs and wonders," be my guest. But I cannot base my faith upon such things.

D.) Yet there are many Christians who believe in some supernatural things, like the life and death and re-animation of Christ, or in Genesis -- yet these folks don't go around everyday saying "demon" this and "demon" that. They don't thank God for literally giving them good whether while blaming the devil for rain.

E.) Just because you believe in some miracles, it doesn't mean that you must believe in day-to-day supernatural intervention -- and even if you did, why would you blame the supernatural for such simple and explainable things, such as a short in a faulty sound system? And why would you defend someone else for doing the same thing?



[font=Impact]7.[/font]

Instead we say, sorry for the technical difficulties folks, now take this message to heart and pray and study, think objectively, learn, and have a blessed day.

I wish the guy would have said that instead.... Is that too much to ask?

Yes and no. Regarding the no: Perhaps wisdom should have directed the man to say what you suggest. But you seem to have a deeper issue with the very linguistic framework the man used. In light of this, I must also say that, Yes, you are asking too much.

In asking, you seem to be claiming authority to demarcate what is/isn't appropriate theological language, what does/doesn't happen supernaturally, and what this language and supernatural orientation should direct the human toward emotionally and existentially. Given your lack of credentials (no offense, but I'm not a prophet either), I see no reason why you should have the authority to change the trajectory of the Christian tradition as it has existed for 2000 years. So yes, you are asking too much in seeking to prevent mention of "superstitious" elements like Satan.

A.) How am I changing the course of an entire religion by asking why an adult Christian leader wasn't responsible and discerning enough to know that what he said was superstitious, ignorant, fear mongering, and potentially damaging for those of the faith and for the converts who joined the faith (as I have explained in this post) ???

[theopoesis]

Darias:

Frankly, your tone consistently drives me to outrage. I'm taking some time to proofread my post a few times before I respond so that I don't speak in anger. I'll post in a day or two. If terms such as "Fear mongering" and "ignorant" and the like persist, I might need to bow out for good. I'm doing my best to continue a charitable dialogue with you, as you claim other Christians have denied you this courtesy. I believe you deserve as much. Forgive my weakness in developing anger.

Best regards,

theopoesis

[Darias]

Darias:

Frankly, your tone consistently drives me to outrage. I'm taking some time to proofread my post a few times before I respond so that I don't speak in anger. I'll post in a day or two. If terms such as "Fear mongering" and "ignorant" and the like persist, I might need to bow out for good. I'm doing my best to continue a charitable dialogue with you, as you claim other Christians have denied you this courtesy. I believe you deserve as much. Forgive my weakness in developing anger.

Best regards,

theopoesis

I created this thread as an expression of frustration over an event which occurred within my church. I posted in the Holy Huddle in the attempt to gain some Christian sympathy without being charged of posting just so non-believers could use this example to attack the faith.

However, when you entered this thread, you began assuming left and right "language," "wording," "motive". I haven't appreciated your tone either.

Could we not equally posit the fear/love duality which you emphasize in this post is a power ploy to earn respect for your more liberal position? Perhaps the best approach is a charitable one that assumes a moral motive for all parties until evidence to the contrary exists.

I usually do not post angrily. I have not changed my style of debate since I've been here -- I am a strong debater, and I use satire as well as words which I find appropriate to the situation.

I don't know why you are taking it so personally as if I'm hurting you. This is not the first time this has happened. Someone else said one of the youtube videos I posted drove them to tears.

I'm not someone who enjoys provoking or upsetting people, so I apologize, but I'm not going to apologize for my opinion on the matter.

In my opinion, if someone blames the devil for a burnt out light-bulb, an empty tank of gas, a sound system malfunction, a belly ache, etc.

... I would have to dub such thinking as ignorant -- but I'm not saying the individual is stupid. I'm just saying that the light bulb burnt out and you should get a new one; the tank is empty so fill it up; the sound-system is buggy, so fix it; you have a belly ache, so take some Pepcid AC.

You don't blame the devil when you make a mistake do you? No.

So that's why I was annoyed that someone blamed evil for something so common and frequent as a short in the sound-system. And that type of thinking, I strongly feel, is harmful for those in the faith. Many people can see that it wasn't evil that caused such a basic malfunction to occur -- it just happened because it's defective and they should get a new one. People who know better might not have come to the faith just because our announcer said something I frankly found to be "dumb."

And he's a nice guy, I'm thankful for him visiting my dad when he was sick. I appreciate the support he gave us, but I am perturbed whenever he says stuff like that.

If that enrages you, I'm sorry -- that wasn't my intention. I'm just trying to let you know how I feel about what happened.

If this discussion is only going to make you angry and upset, then further discussion is not worth it. And I apologize for even creating this thread in the first place; I should have kept my opinions to myself.

[theopoesis]

Darias:

Here's the rub. You're certainly not hurting me, and I'm nowhere near the brink of tears. You don't need to regret starting this thread. God will make use of it. Also, to be blunt (and I mean no offense), I could frankly care less whether a demon stopped the video of your megachurch rock concert, or whether it was a technical difficulty. Perhaps I misread you in your initial post. If I did, I apologize. If you are wanting to just talk about the guy's comment, then I really have nothing to say in this thread. But if that's your only intent, I have to ask about the side commentary throughout the entire thread and the OP on supernaturalism and the validity of doctrine. If you only want to comment on an incident, why comment on Christianity and the church as a whole with such comments as:

Sometimes it's just all I can do to go to church... the superstition is ridiculous, the fundamentalism is intoxicating

I wish my fellow believers would just love a little more, worry about doctrine and devils a little less.

If you only want to denounce a guy's specific action and don't want to attract opposition, why use inflammatory rhetoric and universalizing statements such as these?

To claim that the "daddy of all evil entities" magically inhibited the sound-system, as to try to stop the message (aka unquestionable truth) from being preached -- still affects feeble, fearful minds. It still scares people into believing that the message was truth and that the devil has magic powers.

philosophical/theological ideas is at best speculative -- at worst hog-wash.

How am I changing the course of an entire religion by asking why an adult Christian leader wasn't responsible and discerning enough to know that what he said was superstitious, ignorant, fear mongering, and potentially damaging for those of the faith and for the converts who joined the faith (as I have explained in this post) ???

Words like "absurd" and "stupidity" and "ignorance" and "delusional" (all used elsewhere) aren't exactly the way to treat other positions with respect. You come in and immediately denounce doctrine in favor of love, and then denounce theology as hog-wash. You equate those who accept the supernatural with "fundamentalists" and with "ridiculous superstition." And then, when someone comes in to attempt to defend theology and supernaturalism, you step back and say, "What's going on? I'm just talking about this guy on Sunday morning, not theology or supernaturalism in general." If that's the case, why the blanket statements and insulting vocabulary towards all conservative Christians? Why the red herrings in your own OP? That's why I was angry. You insult those like me and denounce the core of my faith as "hog-wash" and then you play the victim card as if I am persecuting you because you are "liberal."

Then this one really got to me...

If I may be so blunt, you are understandably hesitant to answer my legitimate questions because you have no adequate answer for them. Am I right?

This is essentially the same cop-out move I have gotten time and time again from several Christians in this forum. What ever happened to 1 Peter 3:15?

This question ticks me off more than anything because right after the sentence you quote in making this accusation, I answer your question in attempting to defend demons, Satan, and the supernatural as perfectly fitting within theology. You are completely wrong. Is it copping out to tell you that coming and starting a thread that thoroughly insults those who are different than you (while sidestepping the logic of my first posts) is a detrimental way to have a conversation? Or is it copping out to play the victim card when I'm here trying to ignore your vitriol and to have a conversation with you? I was merely trying to point out that you ask for a theological justification for appealing to spiritual forces, and then before I even answer, you claim that such a response is necessarily ignorant. How does this motivate me to continue in this conversation if I know whatever answer I give will be considered "ignorant"?

Just because you believe in some miracles, it doesn't mean that you must believe in day-to-day supernatural intervention -- and even if you did, why would you blame the supernatural for such simple and explainable things, such as a short in a faulty sound system? And why would you defend someone else for doing the same thing?

In my first post, I said very clearly, "I also think it is impossible to know whether a demon was in the machine. That being said, I will defend the right and even necessity of the religious to be able to speak of the supernatural (including demons)." I'm not defending the guy's specific claim, and frankly the guy has a lot to learn if the sermon is on TV and the music is a rock concert. But if you come into the Holy Huddle room and denounce doctrine and a subset of Christians, I'm going to challenge you on it every time. Don't come here looking for sympathy unless you give a sympathetic read to those you denounce. Don't come here with the lone intent to voice frustration over an isolated event and then make a blanket claim that doctrine should be downplayed. I'm going to challenge you on a claim like that every time. In the same way you think this event misled individuals, I think your claim and tone misleads those who would read this post. If you remove the insults and the blanket statements, I'm never going to waste time on a thread like this. But if you continue in present form, you've found yourself a consistent adversary. I will challenge you on every front.

I stated very firmly in another thread that those who refused to dialogue with you are not acting in Christian charity. This is the truth, and I stand by it. For this same reason, I cannot refuse to debate you. Instead, when your inflammatory rhetoric drives me to rage, I'll tell you I'm taking a break so I don't say something insulting. I figured an explanation for my absence was a courtesy, but I might be wrong.

But here's the other side of the coin, Darias. You are a Christian who preaches the emphasis of love, so act like it. Check your language. Cut back on the sarcasm. Don't denounce the core of other people's faiths as "hogwash". I've taken classes under Bart Ehrman. E.O. Wilson once called me an idiot when I tried to justify theism in a class he was lecturing in. I went to a seminary full of liberal (and that's a technical term), post-liberal, and neo-orthodox theologians. All of them disagreed with my perspectives, but not a single one was so insulting as you have been in this thread. Anger is my weakness, so if you have any love for a brother in Christ, do me a favor and cut back, ok?

I'm not on the verge of tears because you are challenging my faith. No offense, but you're not that strong of a debater. I am at the edge of my restraint before I start applying some labels of my own. Apparently, you think I've come close to that already. I apologize, and any "left and right" language, "motive" and "wording" was assumed in my posts only as a counterbalance to claims you had already made about other positions. I was applying your own "strong debater" skills to yourself to show you how it ran both ways. If that offends you, imagine how your posts offend me when you use these methods first and then added insulting labels, direct insults to my beliefs, and sarcasm.

And that is why you will see opposition here, Darias. I don't denounce you as a non-Christian. I see you as a Christian who sarcastically and insultingly opposes my opinions and then plays the victim card to try to make me look bad when I'm here trying to turn the other cheek and discuss the validity of doctrine and supernaturalism with you. You think it's "hog-wash", and I think you're wrong. And I think its a point worth standing up for.

I'll let you decide whether to continue discussion in this thread. I won't respond again unless you request it. But know that any future threads that start with similar tones and similar blanket statements that catch my eye will also warrant my opposition. And you'll know why I am there. Not because I think you are "liberal" or "non-Christian" or because I hate "liberals" or "non-Christians" (the groomsmen at my wedding this summer included a liberal soon to be episcopalian priest and a semi-secular semi-hindu man, as well as an evangelical missionary), but because I think your tone and your blanket statements are an affront to the truth, and I believe it is my responsibility (as per 1 Peter 3:15) to resist you. Moreover, now that I've seen you start a thread requesting Christians debate you instead of just dismiss you, I find it a duty to oblige.

Best regards,

theopoesis