I find myself this week going back and forth over how much I should engage the “unclean spirits” and the modern mind problem in my sermon.
We are not told whether the man with the unclean spirit has a mental or physical ailment. It may be that the spirit is hidden from others. Perhaps the congregation is stunned when the man bursts out because he seemed so “normal” up to that point.
Whatever the case, the exorcism in the middle of a Sabbath service stirs things up. And, I am told, for 21st century people stirs up all kinds of questions. People come to this text with questions about faith healing and science.
Are these questions getting in the way of Jesus and the gospel or are they the doorway to Jesus and the gospel?
How explicitly should the sermon engage these questions?
And how should they be engaged?
Since the next couple weeks with Mark we will be getting a series of healing stories, it might be best to bring these questions up and deal with them directly this Sunday. Or is this falling into a mistake by placing the emphasis on the wrong things?
These are some of the questions I’m thinking about and praying about this week thanks to the Revised Common Lectionary.
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
I am very aggravated with preachers who gloss over the exorcism stories and approach these stories in a Bultmanian way (treating them only as mythology). I understand that most Methodist preachers do not think in terms of demon possession in this day and age. I wonder what Wesley said about such things. It seems to me that he might offer some helpful insights. If I were listening to your sermon, I would LIKE to hear your discomfort, your honest questions, and your best reflections on this topic.
You may want to look at some of the writings of John Wimber (the founder of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship) and other Vineyard theologians on this topic. As you preach through Mark this year, this might be helpful supplemental reading.
As I said in a previous post, I spent a year in a psychiatric hospital as a CPE chaplain intern. I have seen the amazing difference the proper psychotropic drugs can make in a mentally ill person’s life. I am clear that mental illness is often a chemical imbalance that can be addressed in a medical way. I have also seen healing miracles and exorcisms. Those are just as real. As I read Wesley’s journals, I see evidence of such miraculous power in the early Methodist movement. I long for our people to experience this kind of wonder again.
Thank you for this and your other comments, Holly. I think Wesley had no problem with the concept of evil spirits, but in his sermon on the catholic spirit (I think) he said that the devil in Wesley’s day was more subtle than in former times and demons and evil spirits did not make such fantastic and public displays as in the days of Jesus. It is an interesting discussion, actually.
I share your convictions about the power of both medicine and the Spirit.
The questions in my post are more representative of the questions and doubts I suspect some in the congregation might have. I wonder what the best way to engage them is.
Or … I wonder if the sermon should have its center and heart somewhere else.
At the moment, I’m moving more toward a focus on the nameless man with the unclean spirit and how he experiences Jesus and his word about the kingdom and repentance.
It is only Thursday, though, lots of time for the Spirit to move in another direction (it blows where it will) before Sunday.
In my view all of the mainstream churches bound to a set lectionary showed cowardice in not removing this story from the rota when they had the chance (back in the 70s)
I say this because I think there is warrant for believing that Jesus bound Satan and put an end to this kind of possession once and for all. I choose to believe that possession and exorcism in our time are staged or auto-induced phenomena that require not spiritual ministration so much as physiological treatment (for epilepsy, etc.), psychological counseling (for personality disorder, etc) and theological correction.
This means the words which Jesus spoke to the young man are no longer useful to us and represent a temptation. Instead of ‘come out of him’ we should be saying something more like “Come out of it” or “Snap out of it!”
John, I’m not sure why the reading should be taken from the RCL even if your belief about Jesus is correct. If anything, reading this text then becomes a bridge for speaking about the very issues you raise in this comment.
Having said that, I’m not expert on the construction of the lectionary.
John, I understand your point about ‘a bridge’ but any argument for removal of a story from the lectionary also has some great preaching challenges to offer – in some of the texts that were not included. Years ago I made a study of what was excluded from the Episcopal Church’s lectionary (which resembles the RCL in many places I think).
But there is a lot of positive value in a lectionary – I worry for example that the many little churches without this kind of guidance get way too much of a particular pastor’s notion of what’s worthy.