Mercy Supporter Comments

BDC has made some thorough comments on this post.  I feel that they deserved to be held for consideration and have done so in this post lest some readers miss the discussion.  Note that these postings are taken out of context and if you have time skip to the thread and read them.

I agree with you Sean, yes I should turn the criticism on myself – but of course, I did not claim that my own commentary was not a construction in itself.

Okay I’ll grant you that.  I felt it was perhaps a little condescending to assume that many of us have not the ability to step back and view the situation. 

To those who are saying that I am completely unaware or have not experienced the program, and have no clue what staff members do, please withhold that judgement. I have not revealed my name BECAUSE of my very close and long-running involvement with the program, as well as the need to protect my professional interests.

Thank you for the clarification of you position.

Like I have said in other blogs, there is certainly a need for MM to look at some of its practices, I am not denying that at all. And, perhaps the allegations are restricted to one home, so these claims should not be generalised to MM as an international organisation.

Initially this was what I thought.  That it might be restricted to one home or even to Australia.  But from what I have seen and been advised – some of which I am not a liberty to disclose, the problem is institutionalized  in Mercy practices.   

Sean, let me address those things you feel I am skirting around…
I would also like to point out that ‘exorcism’ (from a primarily Christian point of view, which of course the program takes, and is explicit in this approach), is entirely warranted in certain circumstances, yet is entirely damaging in others – it is quite possible that MM has stepped over the mark at points, and should be held accountable for this, if that is the case. However, the model of ‘exorcism’ MM practices is quite different to the one seen your favourite horror movie.

I would like to point out at this juncture the use of the word Christian.  I was raised a Christian and exorcism was never considered warranted.  I think we must distinguish here that Pentecostal Christianity is significantly different as to be almost a different religion from mainstream moderate/ liberal christianity. 

I also think I have a rather balanced view of what the exorcism entails at MM and while it may look to a person of sound mind and body like vigorous prayer rather than battle royal with the monions of Satan (ala The Exorcist) to a person who is bordering on psychosis the experience will be very different.

To understand MM, one must delve into the practices of the pentecostal movement as a belief system. The idea of ‘demonic oppression’ is based, in part, on Ephesians 6:11-12 "put on the full armour of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms". Putting aside your proclivities about religion and the bible, MM holds the belief that not only is there emotion, cognition, physiology, behaviour and one’s environment involved in the development of psychopathology, there is also a spiritual element.

 

I understand the background, the pentecostal belief system.  I understand the motivation of the people carrying out the exorcism,the spiritual warfare.  But their belief does not make their actions right nor ensure that their actions do help rather than harm.

Enshroud this belief in the authority of the bible, back that up with certain types of  "christian counselling" and suddenly you have people with no psychological training, acting with written authority to carryout "treatment"  for which there is no credible evidence of efficacy.

Coming from this 6-part perspective, MM (in their counselling model) addresses the first five parts first, as it is believed that these, along with the spiritual (demonic) factors contribute to, and perpetuate the disorder that follows. The sixth part, ‘demonic oppression’ is addressed last, as it is believed that the first five parts provide the foundation for, or ‘open the door’ to, demonic oppression.

 

Let me guess that the first 5 parts have a basis in cognitive therapy? 

So that when we get to the point where the client is beyond that sort of treatment its all sheets to the wind and it must be demons.

I find it very hard to accept the idea of casting out demons

1. It has no basis in reality
2. The phenomena of Deliverance ministry only "strangely"gained prominence  after 1973 (a certain film was released at this time no guesses as to what it was)
3. It seems to me to be an attempt to legitimize the Pentecostal movement, as to that point in time the Catholics were the authority on exorcism.

Unfortunately, there are some pentecostal perspectives that forget the first five parts and focus solely on the sixth – something which I suspect one or two staff members may have been guilty of (in fact, I am well aware of specifically which staff have gone over the top).

Because there is no real authority?  No basis in evidence?  I can justify me actions by my own interpretation of the bible.  There is no central authority for training exorcists, no regulation. At least the catholics understood the value of regulating theirs. 

Because any idiot with a bible preaching deliverance is still an idiot.

MM needs to be careful when recruiting staff members, that they are not overly zealous in their approach to the spiritual aspect of mental disorder. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

I am still against anyone promoting deliverance ministry as a valid treatment.  Unless there is credible evidence that it works and does not cause harm.  I think if it were widely publicized that deliverance ministry were practiced there would be no support from the wider community.  And rightly so, why should we support something that is not valid.

Separation contracts between ‘suspected lesbians’. Again, one must be aware of pentecostal belief in order to make this practice intelligible. Without going into the century-long debate about gay ministers (a favourite one with the media), again it is believed that homosexuality is not ‘God’s intention’ for humankind. THis is a tricky one, as homosexuality is not just an act, it is an identity – thus someone who identifies as a lesbian may feel that Christianity (and everything associated with it) rails against their very self-concept and worthiness as a person. I won’t go into this debate, as this is not the place. However, MM is a pentecostal organisation, and thus follows the same ethos.

 

Understood.  The fact that there is de facto government support through centrelink payments for something that is illegal – discrimination against homosexuals is disgusting.

But on your point about MM being a Pentecostal organisation.  This fact is not widely known( or wasn’t) their treatment  including deliverance ministry was denied I would argue that in order to cast the net as wide as possible that MM emphasised the Christian aspect and buried completely the Pentecostal.  This was deliberate because they knew they would not get support from the wider community.

I would like to know if there is ANY young woman who has applied to this program and has NOT been aware of the churches that MM affiliates with, and thus the fact that it is a pentecostal organisation. If not the church affiliation, the application form should have alerted one to this. May I ask why one would want to enter the program if they did not agree with the ideas discussed above? It puzzles me.

 

See my point above.  The application form asks lots of questions about your spirituality and is not forthright in a identifying itself as a pentecostal institution.  To pentecostal christians it may be obvious but to the non-religious there would be no differentiation.

I am sure an answer will be provided to the above, and the debates about the evilness/goodness of MM will continue. You are now well aware of where I stand, although I bring with my debate a call for checks and balances – both to the program itself, and to the views expressed by both sides. Perhaps together we can construct an argument MM will take heed of.

As for MM closing; again, consider my question about whether we should shut down the public mental health system as a result of a few bad apples?

No you put programs under review, and charge those guilty of mistreatment. 

I think MM are fundamentally incapable of changing, not because the will wouldn’t be there but because the belief system of the institution would preclude it. 

Related posts:

1. Mercy Ministries still delivering … the mentally ill from Demons that is. Nancy Alcorn...
2. Exorcism (see Deliverance)… or so it says on page 427 of Restoring the...
3. X-mercy Story – More Musings from Naomi…   The following is a response of sorts to the...