RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Olson, Ken. Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1992.
Here we have the story of a Lutheran pastor turned psychiatrist turned exorcist. Olson’s account is gripping, well-written, and very practical. It is not for the spiritually immature or faint of heart. He shows you evil for what it really is.
He is correct to note how Babylonian and Egyptian magick informed later occultic narratives (Olson 28ff). He has an excellent section on the Santiera cult and Wicca.
As with other sensitive, yet Evangelical exorcist accounts, driving out demons is only part of the programme. The soul must be healed as well. This is where Olson’s role as a Christian counselor helps. St Paul tells us not to give the devil a foothold.
Criticisms:
I have two criticisms. One is of omission and the other is of commission. Orson has a very sensitive and astute understanding of the occult. He explains how Satanists psychologically destroy victim’s psyches, which creates split personalities. No argument here. He even noted how Satanism has infiltrated the higher level of societies. Again, no argument. He missed the coup d’etat by failing to point out that the CIA’s MK-Ultra Program (Monarch Mind Control) is the exact same thing, per method and goal, as Satanic ritual abuse. This is not accidental. Olson has a section on Crowley, yet Crowley himself was an Allied agent who shared intel with US and British governments.
The other criticism is more serious. Olson is correct that Jesus came to heal, but he errs in saying, “He did not come to give us sickness and suffering so that God can be glorified” (191). Well, it depends. Nobody, not even the most masochistic Christian, says Christ came to give suffering. That’s a red herring. I think Olson meant to say that “suffering is not so that God can be glorified.” If that is what he means--and to be fair that is not what he said--then he is wrong (cf John 9:1-2).
Conclusion:
The book is dated in some ways (published 1992). There is the scare over Dungeons and Dragons. I make no judgment either way on that phenomenon. Some of the descriptions of ritual abuse are quite graphic and would make G. R. R. Martin run away like a little girl. (This is why I wouldn’t make a good counselor. I would become vigilante on Day 1 and get arrested on Day 2.) Be forewarned. Yet, Christians need to be aware of how to handle this.
Here we have the story of a Lutheran pastor turned psychiatrist turned exorcist. Olson’s account is gripping, well-written, and very practical. It is not for the spiritually immature or faint of heart. He shows you evil for what it really is.
He is correct to note how Babylonian and Egyptian magick informed later occultic narratives (Olson 28ff). He has an excellent section on the Santiera cult and Wicca.
As with other sensitive, yet Evangelical exorcist accounts, driving out demons is only part of the programme. The soul must be healed as well. This is where Olson’s role as a Christian counselor helps. St Paul tells us not to give the devil a foothold.
Criticisms:
I have two criticisms. One is of omission and the other is of commission. Orson has a very sensitive and astute understanding of the occult. He explains how Satanists psychologically destroy victim’s psyches, which creates split personalities. No argument here. He even noted how Satanism has infiltrated the higher level of societies. Again, no argument. He missed the coup d’etat by failing to point out that the CIA’s MK-Ultra Program (Monarch Mind Control) is the exact same thing, per method and goal, as Satanic ritual abuse. This is not accidental. Olson has a section on Crowley, yet Crowley himself was an Allied agent who shared intel with US and British governments.
The other criticism is more serious. Olson is correct that Jesus came to heal, but he errs in saying, “He did not come to give us sickness and suffering so that God can be glorified” (191). Well, it depends. Nobody, not even the most masochistic Christian, says Christ came to give suffering. That’s a red herring. I think Olson meant to say that “suffering is not so that God can be glorified.” If that is what he means--and to be fair that is not what he said--then he is wrong (cf John 9:1-2).
Conclusion:
The book is dated in some ways (published 1992). There is the scare over Dungeons and Dragons. I make no judgment either way on that phenomenon. Some of the descriptions of ritual abuse are quite graphic and would make G. R. R. Martin run away like a little girl. (This is why I wouldn’t make a good counselor. I would become vigilante on Day 1 and get arrested on Day 2.) Be forewarned. Yet, Christians need to be aware of how to handle this.