Checking Out Glimpses of the Devil

I'm not sure what possessed me to go to the library that day on my way home from work last week, but during my book browsing I was delighted to see M. Scott Peck's new book, Glimpses of the Devil. I didn't even know he had written it, but I knew I wanted to read it.

I checked it out and read it in two sittings. A well-respected psychiatrist and Christian, Peck is an extraordinarily insightful writer. Not only are his words profound, they are easy to read, as I had already learned from reading his previous books People of the Lie and The Road Less Traveled. That's my favorite kind of writing: profound and readable.

Peck writes two credible accounts of real-life exorcisms that he led. And he believes, in both cases, that he encountered not just lower-rank demons, but also their commander-in-chief: Satan himself.

He was skeptical of the existence of demons until he came across his first case of possession about twenty years ago. It made a believer out of him.

Equipped with insights from the late Malachi Martin's book (Hostage to the Devil) and numerous personal conversations with Martin, he decided to be the lead exorcist in a team he assembled. In this his latest work, Peck finally describes what he witnessed (and videotaped) and offers his commentary, much of which comes from his background as a science-minded psychoanalyst. Not only does he describe his successes, he notes what he believes were his mistakes and glaring oversights -- all in the interest of helping others who are interested in studying demonology and possession.

Some things stood out to me:

1. Unlike the accounts of the popular case behind The Exorcist movie, his accounts were not filled with sensational paranormal events such as bodily levitation or untouched objects being slung across the room. The supernatural evil he saw was more subtle, though no less real. Interestingly, he criticized the Catholic Church's guidelines which recommend delaying an exorcism until more sensational demonic signs are witnessed.
2. Peck believes that the 33-day exorcism that inspired the movie The Exorcist could've been reduced to three days had the exorcist known to separate the demon from the demoniac. In the early state of "Pretense," it is easy to confuse the demon with the victim: you're not quite sure who's speaking, and it can cause great confusion. Once the demon is forced to shed its pretense -- when it is clearly distinguishable from the victim -- then the hardest part of the battle is won.
   
3. Peck seems to pride himself in being nondenominational. He mentions that when he converted to Christianity, he didn't know if he should be Orthodox, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, or "even Southern Baptist," because it would take so long to sort out all the issues. This was disappointing coming from such a good thinker. Also, he mentions having occasionally celebrated the Eucharist with someone, "consecrating" the elements himself. As someone who is looking to join the Catholic Church, I winced at this, but I understand Peck is acting in good faith.
4. Finally, as did Malachi Martin, Dr. Peck believes that the victim of possession plays the most important role in his or her own exorcism. It's a matter of the will, wherein the victim must choose between darkness and light, between lies and truth.
   

I wondered whether my fascination with reading accounts of the demonic and exorcisms was symptomatic of an unhealthy curiosity, but I believe it has helped me more clearly see the reality that there is indeed a "dark side," an invisible realm in which powerful and truly evil spirits are working toward our destruction.

All the more reason to "put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand" (Ephesians 6:13).