Methods
Deliverance ministries focus on casting out the spirit or spirits believed to cause an affliction. The method of casting out varies. Some adherents directly recite Biblical examples in prayer intended to command a demon to depart an afflicted person, and do not believe an ordained clergy is required to perform the deliverance.
Ministries also organize the removal from homes of items that are believed to harbor demons, including fantasy or horror novels, and artworks / artifacts depicting pagan gods. Members are instructed to burn items that are related to idol worship, "demon drawing" symbols and music that summons demons.
For some charismatic Christians, deliverance ministries are activities carried out by individuals or groups aimed at solving problems related to demons and spirits, especially possession of the body and soul, but not the spirit as ministries like Ellel Ministries International, Don Dickerman Ministries and Neil T. Anderson explicitly teach that a Christian can not have demons in their spirit because the Holy Spirit lives there, though they can have demons in their body or soul due to inner emotional wounds, sexual abuse, or Satanic ritual abuse. This is usually known as partial possession or demonic infestation, as opposed to outside demonic oppression which does not reside in any of the 3 parts of a person: body, soul, spirit.
Read more about this topic: Deliverance Ministry
Famous quotes containing the word methods:
“In inner-party politics, these methods lead, as we shall yet see, to this: the party organization substitutes itself for the party, the central committee substitutes itself for the organization, and, finally, a “dictator” substitutes himself for the central committee.”
—Leon Trotsky (1879–1940)
“The methods by which a trade union can alone act, are necessarily destructive; its organization is necessarily tyrannical.”
—Henry George (1839–1897)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)