Monday, June 9, 2008

Hypnotism

About 10 days ago, my wife and I were on our first cruise. We didn't attend most of the nightly shows, but one of them that we did attend featured a "comic hypnotist." Inviting 12 participants from the audience who were willing to be hypnotized, he asked them all to concentrate on his words and put eight of them under his spell, dismissing the other four to return to their seats. He then proceeded to make these eight unfortunate people perform all manner of embarrassing activities such as performing a ballet, sniffing each other's shoes, and sobbing uncontrollably. While most of the audience roared with laughter, I sat there with a sick feeling in my stomach. This was my first time to see a live hypnotism and something about it seemed unnatural.

I am convinced that hypnotism is not a gimmick. It really works. I marveled at the absurd acts these eight people performed without even cracking a smile (that is what convinced me the most). But the sheer power that the hypnotist had over these individuals frightened me. If he had told them to go jump off of the edge of the ship, I believe they would have done it.

That evening I had a theological crisis. All sorts of questions emerged from the event: How is it possible for one human to be able to control the minds of other humans? What evil could be done if this were used by the wrong person? Why would God, who in my view seems to value human free will very highly, allow this utter destruction of free will? If these people acted like this and were seemingly unaware of their actions, could we all be hypnotized by God and not know it? (I know this sounds absurd at first, but consider: does God manipulate us to any degree? Surely if a hypnotist could manipulate someone, then God could at least change our desires or our inner dispositions at his every whim?)

And more questions emerge that relate to my earlier entries entitled "Virtue in a Pill." If a hypnotist could "cure" me of my sinful impulses such as the desire for other women or outbursts of anger or even my difficulty with listening to others, then why should I not go and have it done right away? In other words, can a hypnotist do what I've been asking the Holy Spirit to do for me only quicker and more effectively? Which leads to a deeper question: Assuming that the Holy Spirit could be more effective than a hypnotist if he wanted to, then why doesn't He do it? If God has the power to instantly sanctify me and I earnestly ask Him to do it but He does not, then when I do sin am I ultimately to blame or is God? A good hypnotist is able to help people out of depressions, addictions, etc and we do not blame him for doing so; in fact, we praise such a doctor for healing his patients. But if God could act as the Great Hypnotist but does not do so even to the patient who is keenly aware of his own sickness and pleads for help, then isn't this blameworthy? Wouldn't we shame a human who acted in such a way?

The other alternative, of course, is that although God can instantly sanctify a person, He may have very good reasons for choosing not to. We can only speculate at what such reasons might be, but my best theory is this: God actually prefers for us to struggle with sin than to be instantly alleviated from it. Perhaps within this struggle is a greater good -- the long, slow, painful development of character, for example. But does this mean that God actually prefers sin over holiness in certain circumstances?

Allow me to illustrate: Al is an alcoholic. Al asks God to instantly cure him by removing from him his desire for booze. God has the power to do this. I imagine that if Al went to a doctor and asked to have his desire for booze removed and the doctor had the ability to do it, the doctor would in fact do it or he would be in some way morally blameworthy. But God does not instantly cure Al and, in fact, watches him struggle with the addiction for years even to the point that his marriage is broken and he loses his job. Al attends AA meetings and does everything within his own power to break himself free, but he continues to relapse once or twice a month. His spirit is willing, but his flesh is weak. But the question is this: if Al does go out and get hammered one weekend, who is to blame? Is it Al or is it God? It seems to me that God is more to blame than Al.

Hypnotize me, O God, and do it now. Amen.

4 comments:

  1. Greg,
    Ken Collins emphatically presents the Wesleyan notion, or at least his interpretation of Wesley, 'That a person may be saved if he [sic.] will, but not when he will'. From my own experience, as a person who was once an IV morphine drug addict, who has now experienced the liberating power of the gospel, I can think of no instance whereby a person has earnestly sought God, and found dissatisfaction at the existential-volitional level.

    Further, I think of a lecture I watched of Moltmann at ATS several years ago. In this lecture, among many things, Molmann emphasizes the exercise of 'pathos commentary' as an exercise of the spectator. In other words, from Moltmann's perspective, whether it is hypothetical speculation or informed commentary, in true Gertzian categorization, the only person who can speak to what is taking place in a person's life, viz., when that person is experiencing hardship, e.g., the alcoholic Al, is the person under discussion-in this instance Al. All else is speculation.

    Finally, I want to comment briefly on this matter of hypnotism. You are right, this is something that is real and quite serious-no laughing matter. And, I appreciate your theological sensitivity and honesty in addressing this. In short, I am not so sure it is not some form of demonic possession, especially after having seen demonic possession in the American drug culture, and also in an exorcism I was humbled to take part in while in Uganda. If it stands that hypnotisms is some form of demonic possession, it certainly makes sense that people would lose their free will. 'Satan's minions seek to bind in the shadows, God's Son seeks to liberate'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for these reflections, Jon. As I witnessed hypnotism, I too suspected something akin to demonic possession. It's interesting that we thought of the same thing. Keep the comments coming. They are very helpful to me.

    I have heard Collins' quote before and take great comfort in it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Greg,

    Yea, it is an interesting idea. I was kinda throwing it out there for discussion. The question I keep running into is: What is the world does this statement (if but not when) do to the traditional thinking of altar theology, and a number of other things as well. Part of me really likes it, and part of is left with a lot of questions . . .

    ReplyDelete
  4. I understand the tension you're wrestling with. Phoebe Palmer certainly parted with Wesley on this and her influence has been felt in the holiness tradition and its altar theology. Personally, I believe in multiple conversion experiences, partial conversions, and grand crisis conversions -- to each his own. Therefore, I don't think the altar call is outdated, but I think we must present the timing of salvation as ultimately resting in God's hands and not our own. I disagree with those strains of the holiness tradition which teach that the timing of initial (and full) salvation is in our own hands. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek it "now" though.

    ReplyDelete

All comments and all perspectives are welcome provided they are given with gentleness, consideration, and respect.