A Critique of “On Killing” by Lt. Col. D. Grossman, USA (Ret.)

Introduction:

The late great, theologian/philosopher Cornelius Van Til observed that, “There are no brute facts, only interpreted ones.” Modern research on the psychology of learning supports him; our brains are not organic computers that add “this fact” to that “fact” to arrive at a logical conclusion but rather we process information within “paradigms” or “worldviews.” A worldview is built upon the presuppositions we accept, and the ones we reject. Furthermore, our worldview tends to make us see what we expect to see and believe what we already assume to be “believable.” In fact, worldview determines whether a particular “fact” is even regarded as a “fact!” For example, research has shown that we all tend to accept as “facts” that which supports our worldview, but misinterpret, under-value or even reject those “facts” that would over-turn them.

When a culture shares the same basic presuppositions, there can be (and often is) much meaningful discussion about the best way to extrapolate from those presuppositions; but when the culture has multiple presuppositions vying for acceptance, people tend to talk past each other. For example, is there such a thing as “man-made global warming?” For those on the “yeah” side, such a question itself is ridiculous; “Everyone” KNOWS that carbon dioxide is warming the planet!” For those on the “nay” side, the “Warmists” refuse to acknowledge that not all glaciers are shrinking (some are actually growing), polar bear numbers are not diminishing, but actually increasing, and that any actual warming is a part of a natural cycle of climate change. They then point out that global temperatures have actually lessened over the past decade (besides which, after the coldest winter in decades, why can’t those “Warmists” see that solar output is the real factor in any global temperature variance?). The “Warmists” insists that the “Deniers” are misinterpreting the data; that all these “facts” are simply aberrations, and that a temporary cool down is simply to be expected before the next great, global temperature spike! After all, we all KNOW that man has been destroying the environment!

There can be no meaningful discussion between the two camps because both begin with different presuppositions, interpret the “data” consistently with those basic assumptions, while placing high value on evidence that supports their position and rejecting any evidence that would undermine them. However, the consequences of both presuppositions are severe; if man-made global warming is happening, it will cause environmental devastation. To prevent it will require drastic changes to our economic, political and social systems; which in turn means that governments are demanding unprecedented power to deal with the “threat.” If on the other hand, man-made global warming is not happening, then the State accruing such power (and handicapping our industrial base) is likely to destroy the economic and political foundation of all industrialized societies.

Our God is the true God; therefore, by necessary implication, any paradigm that denies Him must end in futility, confusion or error; “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” Yet, the Proverbs also say, “Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes.” At least one modern application would be to identify the underlying presuppositions of those outside the faith, and then, using their own arguments, demonstrate that their conclusions are contradictory, arbitrary and ultimately self-defeating. Remember, the unregenerate man “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rms 1:18ff) and creates intellectual, rational justifications for his rebellion against God. The first step in evangelism and apologetics is to “blow away the smoke screen” by which sinful men attempt to hide from the truth of God’s word. Only God can grant repentance to such a man (2 Tim 2:22ff); our job is to always be “ready to give a defense of the hope” that is within us (1 Peter 3:16).

In light of the above, let us examine how presuppositions color our evaluation of the world by looking at Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s book, “On Killing;” a serious, academic examination of how to transform “peace-loving” civilians into soldiers willing to take human life. This is not a review of his entire book (which honestly, reads more like a Master’s thesis and deserves better treatment than we can give it here) but rather a critique of his underlying presuppositions and how those basic assumptions color his interpretation and extrapolation of various “facts.” Because his premises are wrong, his conclusions are invalid and must inevitably lead to dangerous infringements of our rights. A Biblical explanation will then be offered for why people kill and the morality behind it.

The Humanist Premise: People are NOT “Natural Born Killers”

First, some background; Lt. Col. Grossman is attempting to fuse his own military service, with his academic education in psychology and history to address very important issues. However, several problems quickly become apparent. First, he admits upfront that he was personally never under fire during his military career, which means he really knows nothing more about the subject than any other academic. Granted, he talked with many combat veterans, but he lacks the personal experience that would give him the necessary framework to evaluate his theory. While in many areas of study a lack of personal experience may not be necessary for an objective evaluation (and may actually hinder the assessment), here Grossman is dealing with what is happening inside the human psyche during warfare. There used to be a term for a combat veteran; someone who had “seen the elephant” meaning only a man who had actually experienced combat could really understand it. Grossman is thus in the position of a virgin talking about sex or a childless person giving parenting advice; it is not that he cannot have a valid opinion, but that any opinion is based only on a theoretical understanding. Real life experience can and most likely will change his perception and evaluation

Secondly his education in psychology leads him to interpret the data through the lens of such discredited “experts” as Freud and Kubler-Ross; one a brilliant charlatan, the other morphed into a practicing medium, talking to the “dead.” In what purports to be a serious, scientific study of the psychology of killing, he chooses presuppositions from two people with literally no scientific credibility. Science earns its right to be heard because it is based on certain methods of observation validated by statistical analysis. Freud and Ross were not scientists but philosophers; they interpreted what they observed without any empirical evidence to assess whether their observations were correct. A “scientist” without statistics is just another form of witch-doctor scampering around a fire. Is the shaman really invoking the supernatural, or is he is just uttering gibberish to scare the gullible?  Without statistical verification, nobody really knows – and Freud and Ross did not have that verification.

Colonel Grossman then begins his study with the assumption that man is simply another evolved animal; and since same-species killing is rare amongst most animals, therefore humans killing other humans must be an aberration. He insists that we have a basic, hard-wired biological inhibition against killing each other that must be overcome before the average person can take human life. He must then interpret all the “data” available in light of this basic humanist, evolutionary presupposition.

For example, one of his main lines of reasoning comes from studies of how many soldiers actually fired their weapons in historic engagements; i.e., studies have been done since WWII indicating that less than 25% of soldiers actually fired their weapons in combat. Furthermore, in the days of massed infantry units firing single shot, black-powder weapons (when the two sides faced each other in open terrain and traded volleys), far fewer people died in these encounters than one would expect, based upon the technology and the tactics of the time. His research shows that most of the bullets must have missed; otherwise, the sheer number fired would literally have decimated both sides within minutes. Instead, the combatants sometimes traded volleys for considerable amounts of time, with the casualties being dramatically less than what one would normally expect from such exchanges; unless, he concludes, both sides were intentionally missing.

And that is the crux of his argument; everything else is based on the presupposition that humans have a natural inhibition against killing members of their own species and that this inhibition must be overcome by a variety of training techniques. Successful armies in the past supposedly learned these techniques through hard won experience as generation, after generation went to war with their enemies; perhaps a type of “natural selection” process where armies that developed them did better than armies that did not. Modern armies can develop and improve these same techniques by using studies in psychology, conditioning and social pressure; but there are severe consequences of doing so. He then winds up by criticizing “action” movies and arcade video games as potentially training civilians to overcome this natural instinct, as well as opining that the private ownership of firearms makes killing more likely.

Problems in Interpretation of the Data

The first problem with Grossman’s thesis does not require a Ph.D. in psychology or history to appreciate; people have been killing each other from the very beginning of human history. In fact, rather than needing to be taught to kill, the opposite would seem to be true; children need to be civilized not to kill each other; as illustrated in “Lord of the Flies” (which is just as credible a source as Freud or Ross, not to mention, far more entertaining). Hobbes, trying to defend the divine right of kings, said that man’s life in his “natural estate” is nasty, brutish and short. This folk wisdom has been widely accepted by Western culture all the way back to antiquity; but with the advent of Humanism, modern humanist psychology accepts as a basic presupposition that Man is innately “good” but “corrupted” by early learning experiences (Freud), poor socialization (Rogers) or inadequate reward systems (Skinner).

In the same way, Grossman’s acceptance of humanist and evolutionary presuppositions cloud his argument; he presupposes that we are simply another type of animal, and since animals rarely intentionally kill their own species (unless being specifically bred for it like Pit Bulls), then therefore humans killing their own species must not be “natural.” However, is there any evidence of this anywhere in the last five thousand years of recorded human history? To the contrary, the evidence strongly supports that killing seems to be “natural” to every culture in competition with others for scare resources; cultures that are more pacifistic, tend to get conquered, enslaved, or exterminated (or in rare cases, marginalized into geographical areas where there is little to no competition for resources).

If one “answers a fool according to his folly,” one could argue from an evolutionary perspective that natural selection practically demands that humans willing to kill would tend to survive and pass on their genes while those unwilling to do so would tend to die out, and not pass on their genes. For example, in many species of cats, both large and small, a male will, if given the opportunity, often devour new born kittens; the loss of the kittens then puts the mother back into heat so that the male can breed with her and so pass on his genes. Hence, “natural selection” tends to encourage the adoption of those genes that make male cats eat the babies of their own species and eliminate the genes of those males that do not.

Thus, in the case of humans learning to kill each other, it could be argued that “hundreds of thousands” of years ago, one proto-human developed a random mutation that gave him the ability to kill other members of his own species rather than just drive them off in ritualistic displays as is common amongst certain species of apes. Would this “abnormality” not give his descendants an advantage over every other proto-human who let his competitors survive to possibly spread their genes some place else?

Now, the Christian worldview rejects this explanation for the origin of killing behavior; however it is mentioned to show how the presuppositions of evolutionary theory and modern humanist psychology are self-contradictory; that Man is both an evolved animal and at the same time “naturally” good until his social environment makes him into a “killer.” And the inevitable implication of Grossman’s presupposition is that we can eliminate violence and killing if we change the environment. Of course, that desirable condition can only be achieved if men are willing to be controlled, to be “conditioned” by some all powerful group with a benevolent agenda; Brave New World, here we come!

The second problem with Grossman’s main presupposition is that his conclusion does not match up with the data we do have for people who are not conditioned by the military but nevertheless learn to kill; who is most likely to become a violent thug in any Western society? Grossman makes a fundamental error in logic by correlating playing violent video games with those who commit violent crimes. However, “correlation does not imply causation;” simply because two pieces of data are associated does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. To know if there is a causative relationship, one would have to demonstrate that a significant percentage of all children who play violent video games, regardless of other factors, become killers. However, crime reports over the past fifty years demonstrate that the person most likely to become a violent criminal is someone from a broken home, with no strong, caring father figure. Granted, murders can happen in any social class; for example, an otherwise “normal” person can feel betrayed by their spouse and in a fit of rage, lash out and murder them. The murderer did not have to undergo any specific psychological techniques to enable them to kill another human being; their rage was sufficient motivation. So called “normal” people can kill others because of any number of perceived advantages they might receive. However, these murders, though more rare than television police dramas would have us believe, are of less concern to most people than the fear of the criminal class of predators.

America’s extraordinary murder rates are almost always concentrated in certain social classes; the ones where the father is usually absent from the home. It is not a racial issue, but a family one; for example when black and white crime rates are compared and the existence of intact two parent families is factored in, the rates are very similar. Therefore, it is no stretch to conclude that the high incidence of crime amongst certain minority groups in America is a result of the loss of the two-parent family; the higher the illegitimacy rate, the more likely that children will tend to commit crimes; including violent ones.

Thus, there is something about the intact family that is necessary to teach children how to be civilized, how to resolve their conflicts, develop their gifts and become responsible, contributing members of society; and consequently, not prey on others. If that social training is not done by the parents (and the evidence does not support that day care, public schools and churches are reasonable substitutes), then that “natural” inclination is not inhibited, and individuals (almost always males) are more likely to be involved in violent crime. Every culture, every social class will still have some murders (i.e., unlawful taking of another life) but with intact, two parent families, the overall incidence will be greatly lowered. Even from a humanist, evolutionary perspective this view ought to be self-evident; after all, the “traditional” human family supposedly evolved over tens of thousands of years! However, because of industrialization and urbanization, as well as the “new” morality that encourages recreational fornication and removes any social stigma from illegitimacy or divorce, families have been breaking apart for the past fifty years. We are now witnessing the enormous social damage that comes from a fractured family; a family system that “evolved” to socialize us so that we could live and cooperate together to create a civilization!

The third problem in Grossman’s analysis is his assertion that historical firing rates in battle supports his main thesis that humans do not “naturally” kill; and in fact will even, albeit “unconsciously,” conspire with the enemy NOT to kill each other. However, there are other, more plausible explanations for why either so few soldiers actually used their weapons in a battle, or missed otherwise “unmissable” targets (i.e., mass firing at enemy soldiers less than fifty paces away).

The simplest explanation is that there is a great deal of difference between firing muskets at a clay embankment (which Grossman reports one Prussian general doing to determine the accuracy of firing by volley) and shooting at an enemy when he is shooting back at you. Grossman’s lack of personal experience under fire may be leading him to underestimate just how terrifying combat actually is. Therefore he does not appreciate just how likely that even though a soldier might have gone through all the properly practiced motions, he may be simply unaware of where he was aiming when pulling the trigger (surviving journals demonstrate that many soldiers actually closed their eyes when firing their weapons). Guns are not magic; the projectile goes in the direction where the barrel is pointed. And if soldiers flinch at the recoil, or pull the trigger too briskly, then the barrel may be pointed someplace other than he intended.

In a like manner, when fired, black powder weapons give off a huge smoke cloud, a tremendous “bang” and have considerable recoil. Historical records demonstrate that the British army achieved remarkably high kill ratios compared to other armies of the time because they were one of the few nations wealthy enough to train their soldiers with live ammunition; hence the soldiers grew accustomed to the noise, smoke and recoil associated with firing a weapon. Surely, that had some effect on their accuracy under fire, especially compared with other armies that could not afford to practice with live ammunition?

Grossman gives another example from the battle of Gettysburg where the muskets of the dead were collected. An amazing number of these single shot, muzzle loaded rifles were found with multiple bullets loaded into the barrel; which shows that the soldier loaded his weapon, but failed to actually discharge it. Grossman concludes that the loaded, but unfired weapons support his case that the average soldier of the War Between the States had a natural inhibition against killing! The soldier might have gone through the complicated procedure of loading his weapon and pointing it in the general direction of the enemy (because otherwise, according to Grossman, he would risk the social displeasure of his peers and superiors) but refused to actually fire it because inside, he did not want to take another human life.

Yet, there is another plausible explanation of the same phenomenon; battles are terrifying and confusing. One of the first things lost in a highly stressful situation is fine muscle control. To fire those muzzle loading weapons, a percussion cap had to be fitted on a nipple. When the trigger was pulled, the hammer came down on the cap which then ignited the powder in the barrel, firing the weapon. However, that percussion cap is small and “fiddly;” I have tried to fit them while at the relative stress-free local shooting range; and in an embarrassingly number of times, fumbled the cap and dropped it. So, is it really any wonder that during all the noise, confusion and danger of a 19^th century battlefield, a lot of soldiers would go through the gross mechanical process of loading their single shot weapons, and then fumble, drop or even forget to put the percussion cap on the firing nipple? Yet, Grossman asserts that these men would willingly expose themselves to cannon and rifle fire in a battle line, even charging enemy positions, but would not actually fire their weapons because of some instinctual inhibition against killing. However, if their motivation was not to kill, why not fire their weapon over the heads of their enemies as Grossman insists their smooth bore musket predecessors did?

Or is it more likely that when men actually pulled the trigger on their loaded weapons, the percussion cap was either missing, or ineffective, (after all, manufacturing standards during that time were often suspect) or in the terror of the moment, forgot to actually pull the trigger? The soldiers themselves might never have known that anything was wrong? After all, battlefields during the black powder era were not only filled with smoke, the explosions of rifle and cannon fire, but also the scream of wounded horses and the cries of shattered comrades. Is it not unreasonable that a significant number of men, confused, frightened or just over stimulated by the general stress of combat, might make such a simple mistake? We know, from the letters and journals of the time, that this was a well recognized, even common phenomenon; that many soldiers knew that under the stress of combat, some of their peers (especially new troops) would load their weapons but fail to fire them, even though the soldiers themselves were often convinced they had done so! However, Grossman ignores or undervalues the interpretation of events made by the men who actually fought in those battles because it conflicts with his presupposition about what must have “really” been going on.

This stress factor also holds true for firing rates in the two world wars and Korea; only about 25% of men were observed to fire their weapons in any given battle. However, is the best explanation that the men were “naturally hesitant” to kill the enemy, especially when their own lives, or the lives of their comrades was in imminent danger? The vast majority of soldiers who actually served during those wars would vehemently deny this was their motivation. The real reason is more likely to be found in that to fire at the enemy, one had to expose one’s self to the enemy’s fire in return.

In earlier wars, soldiers on both sides were formed into dense formations and traded volleys with each other at fairly close distances. However, with the widespread adoption of rifling and new, more accurate bullets, combat ranges were greatly extended; literally, from fifty paces to hundreds of yards. At the beginning of the American War Between the States, both sides still used the older tactics of fighting in densely packed formations; until they discovered that the greater range and accuracy of the new firearms technology was causing unprecedented casualties. It was eventually recognized that soldiers behind some sort of cover were able to engage the enemy effectively, while exposing their own side to fewer casualties (e.g., which the Union learned at Fredericksburg and the Confederacy at Gettysburg). The problem though was that the process of loading the weapon was cumbersome and difficult when crouching behind cover. By the end of the war, modern industrial technology was already creating new, faster firing weapons such as machine guns and multiple shot rifles.

Thus, modern wars have a lot more bullets flying around the battlefield; and if a target can be seen, it can be killed. This technical change has had a direct effect on infantry tactics; soldiers in the modern era need to find cover behind some sort of bullet proof barrier, revetment or barricade to be protected from the massive number of enemy bullets fired at them. However, to effectively return fire at the enemy, the soldier has to rise above that protection, visually scan the area, locate the enemy’s position, aim their weapon, fire their weapon and then retreat back behind protection. Every time he attempts to fire at the enemy, the enemy not only has the opportunity to fire back at him personally, but the soldier is also at risk of the thousands of random rounds being fired in his general direction (not to mention all the shell fragments from mortars, grenades and artillery). Battlefields are so dangerous, that entire units have been known to throw themselves down at the first few shots fired at them by the enemy; and without effective leadership will stay there. Is it any wonder then, that so few soldiers are able to fire their weapons in any particular engagement? It may be not so much that soldiers were unwilling to kill the enemy, but that it was simply too dangerous, given the tactical situation they were facing. It is possible that (1) only a few men out of an entire unit were in a position to actually spot the enemy and return effective fire at any one time, and (2) only the most aggressive soldiers will risk injury or death to return fire.

Furthermore, Grossman does not seem to deal fairly with the reality that most casualties in modern warfare come from crew served weapons such as artillery. He thinks that men can operate such weapons effectively because of the team work involved, as well as the emotional distance from the enemy as another human being. However, again, there may be other, better explanations. With the advent of industrialization and better technology, the killing power on the battlefield no longer depends on the individual soldier firing his weapon as many times as possible, but in accurately directing the firepower of artillery and machine guns; (something like 80% of all causalities on the modern battlefield result from artillery and machine guns). The Germans in World War II (widely, recognized as having fielded the most effective infantry on either side) deliberately built their infantry tactics around their machine guns, which had many times the firepower as the rest of the entire squad put together (750-1000 rounds of machine gun fire per minute vs. a few individual soldiers firing bolt-action, limited internal magazine rifles; magazines that then had to be manually refilled before they could be fired again). All modern armies today have essentially copied the German approach with the riflemen there to find and fix the enemy, protect the machine gunner, spot targets and carry extra ammunition – until the officer calls in the artillery to finish off the job.

Therefore, is it not just as likely that most soldiers in modern wars before Vietnam knew that their individual shooting was not the critical factor in the battle; that exposing themselves would just get them killed, while some were simply scared? Furthermore, the American battle rifle of both world wars and Korea used the 30.06 round that demands proper rifle placement on the body because the “kick” is significant. Getting into the right shooting position to handle the recoil is not always possible on the average battlefield. If you cannot get into that position (and to do so requires exposing yourself to enemy machine guns and artillery), you cannot fire your weapon; let along fire it accurately.

Grossman then compares earlier wars in the twentieth century with Vietnam where the firing rate went up to something like 90%. He attributes this to better training methods developed by the Army; and therefore indirectly, how civilians if trained properly, can overcome this “natural resistance” and become effective “killers” on the battlefield. The practice of earlier generations had troops learning basic marksmanship by firing at bull’s eye targets at set ranges. During the lead-up and involvement in Vietnam, soldiers were trained to fire at “pop-up” human shaped targets at various distances that more closely simulates the sight picture of enemy soldiers on real battlefields. This more “realistic” training may well have facilitated better situational awareness and firing by soldiers, but for what it is worth, it is likely that Grossman does not give enough weight to the change in technology. American soldiers since Vietnam have been equipped with the M-16 rifle and its variants. It shoots a .223 (5.56mm) cartridge with significantly less noticeable recoil (and far less lethality – but that is another discussion for another time). Therefore, it is far easier to shoot the M-16 than its M-1 predecessor; in fact, combat footage from Vietnam shows many soldiers routinely firing their weapons, one handed, over their cover, without ever exposing themselves.

This might also explain why so many thousands upon thousands of rounds were fired, for every one that actually hit an enemy soldier; a ratio that has increased almost geometrically in every war as technology has improved. The average soldier during the single shot, muzzle loading era carried 40 rounds into battle; the average soldier today carries HUNDREDS of rounds; with the experienced soldier carrying four times the “recommended” combat load.  However, rather than improved firing rates being the result of a more effective “killer training program” it could be that weapons are just easier to fire; after all, LESS people are being killed by bullets compared with artillery and bombs than ever before. The main point of infantry weapons seems to be to spray enough rounds at the enemy to force him to keep his head down, until your artillery or machine guns can finish the job.

Anecdotal stories from the Vietnam era demonstrate that a large number of incoming soldiers were woefully ignorant of basic marksmanship skills. In some units, when asked to fire at a 55 gallon drum at fifty yards away, most new troops would fire their M-16s, from the hip, on full auto; and the bullets would literally go everywhere. One tactic developed by some units was to identify the “Gomer Pyle” of the group and take him away for a few minutes of private instruction where he would be shown how to zero his weapon, practice breath and trigger control, acquire a proper site picture, etc. Then, that one private was then allowed to shoot at a similar barrel; and of course, put more rounds on the target than the rest of the group combined!

Thus, the training methods Grossman evaluates as being essential in overcoming the natural resistance to killing does not prove his point, but actually undermines it. More soldiers firing their weapons in battle does not translate into more aggressive “killers” because more enemy soldiers are not in fact being killed by that firing. This principle of more firing not translating into more hits can be illustrated from police work; there are many “close encounter” videos available showing law enforcement officers in a shoot out with an armed, hostile suspect. Sometimes it was “one on one” with a police officer having to draw and fire his weapon at point blank range (i.e., standing outside the driver side door and shooting at the subject sitting in the driver’s seat!). Other times, several officers faced off against a hostile less than twenty feet away. In both situations, the officers usually drew and emptied their pistols within seconds, many of which were large capacity semi-automatics (18 rounds). Literally, scores of rounds were fired at point blank range yet only a fraction actually hit the hostile! Grossman would have us believe that somehow, the “natural” inhibition against killing was affecting these officers aim; in other words, they were deliberately (though probably “unconsciously”) missing the target – even though their own lives and the lives of their brother officers were in imminent danger. However, is it not more likely that even trained police officers, when faced with a life or death situation, were so stressed that they simply were not aiming as carefully as they should? They were faced with danger, they responded by emptying their weapons as quickly as possible, and as a result, they missed most of their shots?

Thus, missing the “enemy” has little, or anything to do with some natural instinct against killing, just poor marksmanship in general, and that the fine motor control necessary to fire any weapon accurately is the first thing to be lost in any high stress situation. And there are fewer situations with higher stress than a battlefield with all the noise, carnage, confusion and risk of imminent death or grievous injury.

Grossman has accumulated some important information, but his presuppositions are such that he cannot properly evaluate the data. The “problem” is not that the average person has a natural resistance to killing; Grossman does not seem to factor in that if such a hesitance could actually be proven to exist in American soldiers it is just as likely to be due to the remnants of our once Christian civilization; children from “normal” families are socialized not to be unnecessarily aggressive (outside of ritualistic sporting activities). “Good” people are expected to be kind, sympathetic, and help others, not kill them. Sure, after eighteen years of this kind of “conditioning,” it may take some “training” to change the civilian’s orientation. But Lt. Col. Grossman seems to think that a recruit singing, “I want to be an airborne ranger, I want to live a life of danger. I want to go to Vietnam; I want to kill some Viet Cong” somehow contributed to the transformation of “innocent teenagers” into mindless killing machines (my words, not his).

However, if he said that in the presence of any conscript soldier from the time of Vietnam they would snort beer out their noses! We might have sung many such aggressive songs in cadence marching in basic training; but nobody took them seriously! They were in-jokes that we had at the “Man’s” expense. It was widely accepted that nobody with an IQ above room temperature would be influenced by this kind of jingoism; after all, the term, “ate up lifer” referred to any one, who at any time actually took the military stuff seriously! The sub-culture amongst enlisted men was that the military was a job; often tedious, usually restrictive of individual freedom, and always pregnant with the possibility of violence (to ourselves or others). You did what you had to do so that you could fulfill your military requirement, collect your benefits and then move on with the rest of your life; but nobody “bought” into the “killer” stuff.

Granted, times have changed - today’s army is composed of volunteers; and those who volunteer for the combat arms are likely to have a different motivation than those who enlist to become mechanics, truck drivers, office personnel or supply troops. Since volunteers for the combat arms already have a predisposition to want to fight, the “motivational” material is not creating a “killer spirit” but rather reinforcing one that already exists. The military may give a recruit the skills he needs to kill on the battlefield; but the underlying motivation comes from somewhere else.

Finally, given Grossman’s presupposition that humans have an innate inhibition to killing each other, one would therefore logically expect that those who went against that “natural” orientation would suffer some sort of traumatic, life altering, deleterious, psychological effect. He spends an entire chapter dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. That chapter itself demands a full essay to do it justice; however, books such as “Stolen Valor” demonstrate that the widespread belief in the horribly traumatized, dysfunctional and probably psychotic Vietnam combat veteran is a myth. Most vets claiming to suffer from PTSD never served in combat units, and were never under fire, let alone personally responsible for taking an enemy life. There may well be a biological justification for a percentage of combat veterans having some problems in that stress depletes the neurotransmitters necessary for “normal” thinking and feeling. No matter what the cause, the lack of proper neurotransmitters can cause depression, suicidal thoughts and general dysfunction. Normally speaking, over time, the body will recover and the individual will return to thinking and feeling normally. However, Grossman’s presupposition is that such symptoms result from taking another human life, not the stress associated with being under the horrendous pressure of the battlefield. After all, if so many doctors are diagnosing so many soldiers as having PTSD, then surely it must be a serious problem?

This brings to mind a psychological experiment covered in many introductory courses in counseling. A number of psychology undergraduate students were instructed to go to various mental health facilities and report one symptom; hearing a bell ring. Other than that one symptom, they were to act completely normal (or as normal as psychology undergraduates can act) and take notes about what it was like to be a patient. All the students were admitted for evaluation and immediately diagnosed as schizophrenic! Furthermore, when orderlies and psychiatrists asked them about why there were taking notes, the students replied truthfully that they were simply fulfilling a requirement for a class on what it was like to be a patient. The therapists then added “Delusional” to the diagnosis.

In other words, the psychiatrists expected to see schizophrenic people admitted to a mental health facility, and therefore interpreted every action of the “patient” in light of that assumption; they saw what they expected to see. In a significant number of cases, no amount of evidence could convince the psychiatrist that the students were not schizophrenic; and some had to be rescued by the university!

How does this relate to PTSD? Most modern, humanist psychologists assume, like Grossman, that people do not “naturally” kill other people. Therefore, any one who has done so must be mentally imbalanced, needing some kind of “treatment.” Every symptom therefore becomes self-validating evidence for the basic premise, and any conflicting evidence is discarded or ignored.

Studies demonstrate that the vast majority of combat veterans lead perfectly normal, stable lives after leaving military service. Their crime rate is actually less than the general population that did not serve in the military. Now in a large population, there are always some people at both ends of the spectrum; and therefore, when hundreds of thousands of soldiers serve during a war, simple statistics says that some of them will tend towards dysfunctional behavior in some way. If one assumes that PTSD is the cause, then every time a veteran comes to a VA hospital asking for some sort of help, his symptoms will be interpreted in light of that presupposition.

Furthermore, studies in the psychology of learning demonstrate that if there is a “culture” where the individual is told something, repeatedly, by different sources, many of them authority figures, the tendency will be to accept and internalize those statements, regardless of the accuracy. An example of this is the many poor souls convinced by sincere, but misguided therapists that they were victims of childhood sexual assault. False Memory Syndrome is the result of being told a lie, and then guided through a visualization process that creates a memory that seems absolutely real; even if the event never actually happened. The therapists assumed, before hand, that sexual assaults on children must be happening more frequently than was being reported. Since clients had no memories of such assaults, they had to be in denial, suppressing the memories. Then, usually under hypnosis, the client was guided through a process that created a memory. The client ended up convinced they were the victims of sexual assault and in some cases, innocent people went to prison. However, the assaults never took place even though the memory seemed so real. The therapists however often deny any culpability; they were simply acting out of their own presuppositions and interpreting the client’s problems consistently with those presuppositions. And when the evidence could not be found, they literally created a false memory to prove their case. In the same way, if veterans are told that their divorce, depression or general ennui in life is a result of PTSD, they have they every incentive to agree with the assessment; especially when the possibility of benefits is thrown in.

Now, the above is not in any way intended to dismiss the very real psychological trauma that some veterans experience as a result of their military service; it is not the stress and its effects that is being denied, but rather the idea that the stress resulted from violating some natural, inhibition against killing. This may be why most combat veterans will only talk openly with other veterans; a good rule of thumb is that the more that a former soldier is willing to talk about the men he killed in combat, the less likely that he ever saw any combat at all.

The public perception is that a man must somehow be traumatized by having taken another person’s life; therefore actual combat veterans simply refuse to discuss their experience with outsiders. They are told they are supposed to feel bad; but the reality is that most of them are simply happy to have survived; and usually proud of what they have done. But the culture keeps telling them that they must be “messed up” inside; those who have not experienced combat cannot really understand it so veterans simply do not talk about it, except to other combat vets. If such men ever do go for some sort of counseling, even for an unrelated problem (i.e., trying to forestall a divorce, dealing with the depression that comes from a lost job or a failed career), then the counselor will often hone in on the veteran’s combat experience as being the “cause” of the present plight.

The reality is that as long as a killing was “lawful” as in self-defense, war or a police action, generally speaking, the “killer” is just fine, emotionally and psychologically, unless he is told by his peers, family, community and therapist that he has PTSD. Grossman acknowledges this, but suggest that the well adjusted veteran is in denial, uses rationalization or some other psychological technique to either distance himself from his actions or hide from the “pain” of having killed. It must be so, because his presuppositions demand it; but the reality is that the average combat veteran is just as “normal” as anyone else. He killed, because it was necessary and then, put it behind him and went on to live his life. Grossman’s paradigm about why people kill fails.

The Biblical Alternative:

So, from a Biblical perspective, why do men kill each other? The answer is found, like many other questions, in the book of Genesis. God created the heavens and earth; and out of that earth made both Man (Gen 2:7) and Beast (Gen 1:24). The difference between the two is that God made Man in His image and breathed His own Spirit into what had been the “dust of the earth.” Basic Christian theology is that the “image” of God in man is not a physical one (for God is Spirit and does not have a body) but rather refers to Man’s reason, creativity, and moral sense. Thus, though Man does share some things in common with the beasts (for both were created out of the “earth”) he is also distinct from them because of the image of God built within him.

In the original creation, there was no death. Death entered the world as a righteous response of a holy God to Man’s rebellion against His sovereign rule; because of sin, God pronounced a death sentence against Adam and all his descendants. Now, we need to take a step back for a moment and look at what was reported here in Genesis. The sin that brought God’s righteous curse was more than simple disobedience; Adam had attempted a revolutionary act - he wanted to become like God and “know” (or “determine”) good and evil on his own. Ever since, the totality of Man’s being has been affected by that original sin; body, mind and soul. Our bodies grow old, weak, sicken and die, our minds plan wicked things (e.g., Rms 3:10ff), and we are spiritually dead until God in a gracious act, brings us back to life (Eph 2:1ff). However, the basic, sinful orientation of every human being is a desire to be as God, to have one’s own way, to lust, covet, deceive, or take what is not ours; and we will even kill if necessary to have our own way. The Apostle Paul is clear; wicked men suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rms 1:18); professing to be wise, they become fools (Rms 1:22) and worship and serve any one, any thing, other than acknowledge the One True God as Lord or obey His holy will.

In the fourth chapter of Genesis the first human murder is recorded; brother killing brother. God had rejected Cain’s sacrifice but rather than repent and offer the proper sacrifice, Cain brooded (Gen 4:6-7) and blamed his brother Abel. Eventually, this led to him killing Abel, and being banished by God. Cain did not have to undergo a complicated training process to overcome some “natural” resistance to killing his brother; he just had to follow his feelings of bitterness, resentment and jealousy.

In effect, the murder of his brother stemmed from the exact same motivation that caused his sacrifice to be rejected. God performed the first sacrifice in Genesis 3:21 when He killed an animal in place of enforcing His death sentence against Adam and Eve– thus establishing the idea of substitution. He then “covered” their nakedness with its skin; the word “covered” in Hebrew is the same as “atoned.” Hence, God instituted the ritual of a blood sacrifice as a short term “covering” of Man’s sin until His Messiah would come into the world; the future fulfillment towards which animal sacrifices pointed. Cain however did not want to worship God as He required; he did not offer a blood sacrifice, but one of fruits and vegetables. In short, he would determine on his own authority the “right way” to worship God, even if it went against God’s own divine example. Adam wanted to determine good and evil for himself, and so brought sin and death into the world. Cain wanted to determine good and evil for himself in how to worship God; and so committed the first murder.

However, there is likely more to the story than just this; God declared that sin deserved death; He was not only Life-Giver, but Death-Dealer. Therefore, sinful Man also wants to determine who will live and who will die by whatever criteria seems good to him. Cain thus showed himself to be a theological rebel, and then a moral rebel willing to kill: an inevitable implication of his basic presuppositions. Abel died because Cain refused to acknowledge any higher authority than his own will. Cain would be like God and judge who would live and who would die.

Thus, the Biblical account demonstrates two opposite aspects of Man’s nature; on the one hand, it recognizes that having been created in God’s image, every single human being reflects, in some way, His communicable attributes – i.e., that such things as love, kindness, justice, fellowship, mercy, etc., are all good and worthy in and of themselves. On the other hand, because of the taint of original sin, every aspect of Man is twisted by an inner orientation to want to be God; to place his will over others, to dominate when possible, or unlawfully submit when it suits his purposes to do so. Most of human history is a record of a few strong men dominating their weaker brothers; usually in the form of some sort of tyrannical or despotic civil government. Only with the flowering of the Reformation was the “divine right of kings” overthrown, giving the average person more personal liberty than had existed in any previous civilization. And of course, with that liberty came the unprecedented economic and social progress that so many take for granted as a “right.”

Hence, the more consistent men are with working out Biblical presuppositions about the nature of God and Man (and applying them in practical, day to day living), the more that God is pleased to bless and prosper their labors (cf. Deut 28:1ff). When men instead, reject God’s principles, a culture quickly spirals into social, political and economic chaos (Deut 28:15ff) which then creates the perfect environment for tyranny to grow. For example, God established many different laws to protect the family; the basic institution of any stable, civilized society. Perhaps three of the most controversial provisions in the Old Testament law were that adultery, sodomy and being a drunken, violent offspring were capital crimes. Some modern Christians are so shocked by God considering these issues as worthy of death that they have to create an entire theology around dismissing the relevance of all Old Testament laws.

Now, here, we are not defending the application of these laws into modern cultures; however, we list them because they demonstrate God’s concern about protecting the integrity of the family. We now know that generally speaking, lawlessness in society begins with lawlessness in the home. Therefore, to maintain a safe, prosperous and free society, requires that the culture as a whole support, endorse, and encourage the Biblical family.

However, even most Christians today take their model of the family from the secular world around them. They send their children to public schools, they reject the traditional Biblical role of the woman, they denigrate the man as being the head of the family, they tolerate fornication and embrace “no-fault” divorce, etc. And as a direct consequence, the literal God-given bulwark against social disintegration has been systematically undermined, and in some communities, actually destroyed. The result is an ever increasing number of young men who have never been raised to be moral, socially responsible and civilized human beings.

Thus, the one aspect of our nature battles with the other; we know, inside, that we are supposed to be one way – but the taint of sin creates a situation where any person, in any culture, can learn to kill and will kill if given sufficient motivation and opportunity. If there is any “resistance” to killing, it likely comes from the remaining bits of the image of God that all men still possess, in one way or another, and the sociological effects of growing up in a culture that has been deeply influenced by two thousand years of Christianity. However, the more consistent men become with godless presuppositions, the more violent they will inevitably become. If that violence is not constrained by an inner moral compass, informed by a Biblical worldview, and encouraged by an outer culture where these values are reinforced, it must be restricted by an ever more tyrannical State. In times of stress and danger, people will look for someone who promises them security, even if they have to give up their liberty to achieve it.

Life began with God, was a gift of God and therefore always belongs to God. As a necessary implication, life can only be taken on His terms. He has delegated the right to take life to the State, as His chosen avenger of evil (cf. Rms 1:13fff) as well as to the individual in self-defense (Ex 22:2). He gave in His holy Law, specific case law examples of how both the individual and the State are to exercise that right. We are not allowed by God to determine “good and evil” on our own, apart from His inerrant, infallible Word. Therefore, the State must not engage in wars of conquest, or to advance a godless agenda; it is not allowed to execute an accused criminal unless convicted on the evidence of two witnesses – and only then if the “crime” is actually a crime according to God. The individual is permitted to defend himself from a physical attack but is not allowed to take personal vengeance against another (Ex 22:2).

Finally, we live in an imperfect world; we seldom know all that we would like to know before being forced to make a decision. Sometimes, innocent men are killed by the State; and sometimes nations are not guilty of the “crimes” used to justify going to war against them. The fact that mistakes have been made, are being made and will continue to be made does not undermine the basic Biblical presupposition that there are times when killing is lawful and morally appropriate.

Video games do not create killers; and neither does the private ownership of firearms. The State, as God’s avenger of evil has a moral duty to investigate crimes, apprehend suspected criminals, and try them: and when the evidence is sufficient, convict and execute those guilty of capital crimes. However, since the Tower of Babel, men have placed their faith in a “Messianic” State that promises, if allowed enough power and wealth, that it will not only protect them from the violence of other men, but also lead them to greatness. The Soviet Union was supposedly remarkably free of crime under the Commissars; but the price was social, political and economic slavery. Vlad the Impaler (popularly known as “Dracula”) boasted that he could leave a gold drinking cup at a village well and that no one would steal it; because if anyone did, he would then brutally murder the entire village!

The average American simply wants to live his life, work at his calling, and raise his family without worrying about being at risk from dangerous predators willing to kill him for the watch on his wrist, or the shoes on his feet. Biblical Christianity provides the social support structure to encourage people to live wisely, justly and safely together. However, without that foundation, some other force must step in to keep people safe; and that usually means a secret police force, large standing armies, oppressive taxation and conscription (e.g., 1 Sam 8:11ff). And those in power want to remain in power; usually at any cost. They may be “idealists” but in the end, they think they know what is good and evil; and they are willing to use the killing power God delegated to the State to enforce their determination of right and wrong.

The Biblical view is that anyone, at any time can become a killer, unless there are inner moral beliefs, supported by certain cultural values. When the State assumes that it can determine good and evil, then we end up with the present chaos of the American justice system where 90%+ of the jailed population will return to a life of crime once released; where people will go to prison for saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time to the wrong person; but murderers will be allowed to walk free after a short incarceration.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, this also will he reap” (Gal 6:7). The growing number of killers produced by modern society is not a result of watching too many “action” movies, playing “violent” video games, the availability of firearms or an unintended social consequence of military training; instead we have mocked God, we have rejected His Law, we have thought we knew better than He – and our culture is dying from its own ethical poison.

Since all men are imperfect, all human societies will be imperfect; no State can ever fully protect all its citizens from those who would prey on them. However, a wide acceptance of Biblical presuppositions, supported by strong, intact families, and the right of every man to be armed for self-defense provides the best compromise. During the days after the War of Independence, businessmen could travel from Boston to Charleston carrying large amounts of gold and never fear being attacked. Not only was Christian morality pervasive during that time, but every man was assumed to be armed as well. In that era, when violent criminals were caught and convicted, they were executed, inhibiting the growth of the criminal class as a whole (while eliminating the “College for Crime” otherwise known as our current penal system). But modern man thinks he is wiser and more gracious than God; so the criminals are allowed to flourish.

All modern States (and those like Grossman who implicitly believe in its promises) begin with the presupposition that they can create the perfect society, if given enough money and power. They pass laws because they assume that laws can make people better. Even though they never fulfill any of their promises, the citizens just keep electing them year after year because they do not have a Biblical worldview to give them a reasonable alternative. The only real way to establish a safe, stable and free society is through creating strong Christian families which requires personal conversion, personal responsibility and individual hard work. However, it is always easier to blame the Republicans, the Democrats, Corporations, the Educational establishment, the Entertainment industry or some other “villain” for society’s problems (just as Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the Serpent, and Cain blamed Abel).

But in the end, God will not be mocked. If we hate and forsake His holy law, families will self-destruct, businesses will become non-productive because of oppressive taxation, workers will be unable to find jobs, and ever more young men will turn to violent crime. The State must either allow itself to be destroyed by increasing social turmoil, or become tyrannical to suppress those crimes.

The Christian, however, must go back to first principles. Many of us have allowed our faith to be infected with various forms of Humanism, just as the Medieval Church accepted alien presuppositions from Greek philosophy. Far too many believers are simply unwilling to work out the implications of a truly consistent, Biblical worldview. Some are even excited when the culture self-destructs because they believe it is a sign of the Lord’s Return. However, just remember, the end of our world, does not necessarily mean it is the end of the world. Most of the Middle East was once composed of Christian nations; but heresy, corruption and syncretism undermined the Biblical worldview and they eventually fell to Islam. Many of the people conquered by Muhammad’s armies must have thought it was the end of the world; but it was simply the end of their world. Have we learned nothing from their loss?

If we begin with Humanist or evolutionary premises, then we must reach Humanist and evolutionary conclusions; when we suppress the truth, even though we profess to be wise, we will become fools. Only God, in Christ, can save men from their sins. Only His holy and inerrant Word can provide the moral basis for how to live life in a manner pleasing to Him, and receive His blessing; and we cannot have His blessings without submitting to His will!

So, if we want to inhibit and even prevent lawless killing, let us be willing to do the hard work necessary to take “every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Let us be consistent with our profession that “Jesus is Lord” and call all men, in every area of life to submit to King Jesus; especially the civil magistrate. Let us always speak the truth in love, never losing heart in doing good to all men, but especially to those in the household of God (Gal 6:9ff). Let us build strong, multigenerational families by learning how to love our wives as Christ loved the church, and respect and submit to our husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:21ff). Let us honor our parents, and learn how to be honorable parents by bringing our children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:1ff). And let us repent of trying to determine good and evil apart from God’s own revelation, as well as deal with all anger, bitterness and covetousness in a proper and godly manner. Let us build strong communities by learning how to let “love cover a multitude of transgressions” and thus show how rich and wonderful life can be by making our churches a refuge from the lawlessness and wickedness of the world.

For Further Reading:

Below are listed some the sources used in the previous essay:

How to Make War: James F. Dunnigan, Quill Publishing, NY, 1983 (deals with infantry tactics, weapons performance and combat training)

Stolen Valor; (deals with the experience of combat veterans, false claims of PTSD and other issues)

Dirty Little Secrets of World War II, James F. Dunnigen, Albert A. Nofi, Quill, NY, 1994 (deals with tactics, problems, motivations, etc. of WWII combat soldiers)

The Institutes of Biblical Law, R. J. Rushdoony, Ross House Books, (deals with the sociological and cultural implications of Biblical law and their importance to social stability, security and prosperity)

In Defense of the Faith, Cornelius Van Til, (deals with a basic approach to Biblical apologetics)

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Conservative Theology and Conservative Politics
2. Why The “Assault Weapon” Ban Must Be Overturned.
3. Iron Sharpening Iron: Romantic Theology

Table of Contents

1. The Nature of the Spiritual World
2. The Inhabitants of the Spiritual World
3. The Origins of the War against God
4. The War between the Seeds
5. The Physical War against God’s Seed in History
6. The War and Direct Demonic Attacks
7. The War and Occultism
8. The War against the Soul
9. The War against God in the Intellect
10. The War against God in the World
11. Fighting the War and Winning

The Nature of the Spiritual World

God is a Spirit (Jn 4:24). Though every Christian knows the term “spirit,” we do not always fully appreciate what God meant when He chose that word to describe His nature. Part of the problem is that we can unintentionally impose modern concepts on the Biblical data. When God inspired the Scriptures to be written, He intentionally used the language and culture of His chosen authors. The Greeks and Hebrews were not modern academics, and sometimes the words they used to convey the wondrous truths He revealed to them did not always have the same degree of technical precision that we take for common today. Simply put, words were sometimes somewhat “malleable,” in that concrete terms could be stretched to fit more abstract concepts. Furthermore, in their writing, they did not always clearly distinguish between the two layers of meaning.

For example, both in Hebrew and Greek, the words we translate as “spirit” had meanings that ranged from “breath” to “air” or “wind”[1] and “life.”[2] Some linguistic scholars speculate that the word for “air” became associated with “breath”- after all, when we breathe, we can feel the air coming in and going out from our lungs.[3] “Air” and “wind;” are both something invisible that can be felt and the effects seen. It is then an easy connection from “breath” to “life” since one of the most obvious difference between a living person and a dead one is that the dead do not breathe. Thus, the ancients came to see “breath” as “the invisible essence of life” and by extension, that part of a man’s nature that makes his body alive and survives his death- his “spirit.”

The Bible itself uses just that imagery in God’s creation of man; after forming man from the “dust” of the earth He then “breathes” life into him (Gen 2:7). It is not a stretch then to see how this word for “invisible essence” could also come to include other “invisible” forces or beings.[4] Hence, “wind,” “air,” “breath,” “life” and “soul” or “spirit” are all related concepts because ancient people did not always clearly distinguish between them. In this view, human language was trying to make a connection between the physical world which can be seen and tasted, touched and smelled, to an invisible world that they believed to be just as real, but normally beyond our senses.

We can also argue this connection between “air” and “spirit” from a different direction; God created all things to reflect His glory, nature and being (Psalm 19:1ff, Romans 1:18-20, etc.). Therefore in His providence, He purposely intended there to be a connection between “invisible” but “powerful” forces such as air, breath, life and His own invisible yet powerful spiritual nature. In other words, part of the reason God created air, wind and breath was as an image or picture of His own being.

Without going too far afield, God reveals some things to us by analogy- the human mind, being limited, simply lacks the ability to comprehend certain aspects of reality other than by way of comparisons. Our understanding of the spiritual “world” may fall into this category; God in His creation, gave us pictures, images, shadows and types of a reality that is normally invisible to us, but which still affects our daily lives.

When faithful Christians read the Scriptures, they are often confronted with a certain degree of ambiguity (at least from our perspective) in understanding certain aspects of God’s revelation just because we are physical creatures. In some respects, God telling us about His invisible nature is like us trying to explain color to a blind man. We can convey true information to the person without sight; we can discuss the physics of light, how different angstroms affect color sensors in our eyes, etc., but that does not really help the person understand what we mean by “color.” In order to appreciate our description of a sunset, he needs to have sight (1 Corinthians13:12). Thus, any study of what God means by “spirit” will inevitably lead to some uncertainty and ambiguity for there are some things that are simply beyond our present ability to understand.[5]

Whether the association of “spirit” with “air” is a result of God’s providence in guiding human language, or a necessary fact of the revelation of His glory in creation, the Bible is clear that there is an “invisible” aspect to creation. God not only is a “Spirit” but created a “realm” distinct from the material world that we inhabit; “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Most Christians assume they know what the word “heaven” means and define it something like “the place where God lives.” Most think of “heaven” as a place of “bliss.” However, that is not quite the way Biblical cosmology uses the term (and in fact, many Christians unintentionally borrow their assumptions about “heaven” from Greek mythology; i.e., the “Elysian Fields”). God is omnipresent, filling every point of time and space with the entirety of His being; there is no “place” where God is “more” present than anyplace else (e.g., Psalm 139:7ff).[6] God existed before He created the “heavens and the earth.” Thus, the idea that God “lives” in heaven and looks down on the earth (e.g., Psalm 14:2) is probably better understood as a metaphor for something that otherwise may be beyond our ability to fully apprehend.

The word “heaven” and the phrase “heavenly places”[7] are perhaps better understood as referring to the “spiritual realm” rather than as “the place where God lives.” Granted the Bible itself does not always clearly differentiate between the physical “heavens” meaning the “sky, the sun, the moon, stars, planets” etc., and the “heavens” as being the realm of the spirit. Though the two words are often used almost interchangeably we do so in a similar way, even today. We can talk about the “heavens” poetically meaning the “sky” or about the “heavens” meaning the spiritual realm.

Perhaps the best way of understanding this is that our “physical” heavens (meaning the sky and all that it entails) are an analog, a picture of God’s “heavens.” The proper name of God is “I Am” (Hebrew YHVH) which is commonly understood to be a reference to His “self-existence” and “independence.” The God of the Bible depends on no one, or no thing for His own existence. He created all things to “reveal” His “glory” (e.g., Psalm 19:1ff). In fact, one definition of “glory” is the “visible manifestation of God’s invisible nature.”

Therefore, we ought to expect that every aspect of creation, in one way or another, reveals something about God and His nature (Psalm 19:1ff, Romans 1:18ff, etc.). Hence, in one sense, the physical “heavens” were created as a picture of the “spiritual” ones. If sometimes we confuse the picture with the reality, we are again faced with the very real dilemma of requiring human language to describe something that is by its very nature, outside of the normal experience of physical beings.[8] However, clearly, the Bible describes two “worlds” distinct from each other- the created material one that our senses can detect and the created spiritual realm which is normally invisible to us but nevertheless can and does affect us.

The Inhabitants of the Spiritual World

Furthermore, just as the Lord God made intelligent physical beings to inhabit His physical world, He also created intelligent spiritual entities to dwell in the “heavenly” one. Scholars are not agreed about just when in the creation process these spiritual beings came into existence; there are hints in Scripture that they were witnesses to God shaping and forming the earth (Job 38:7); so it is possible that He created them on the first day. However, since they are “created;” they did not exist in eternity with God. For our purposes, the real issue is that as “created beings” they, as the rest of creation, were intended by Him to glorify (i.e., to display or reveal) His nature.[9]

We commonly refer to these original spiritual beings as “angels;” which has caused some confusion for believers through the ages. The word “angel” is a transliteration of the Greek word “angelos” which simply means “messenger,” referring to one of their most common functions; they are often used in Scripture to convey “messages” to men, from God. However, it is just as legitimate to use this same term to refer to human messengers as well as celestial ones. Careful attention to context is necessary to properly understand to which type of “messenger” (celestial or human) the Scriptures are referring.[10]

As well as the Hebrew equivalent of “angelos” (malak – “messenger”), the Old Testament used two more specific terms to describe some of these spiritual beings; “cherubim” and “seraphim.” Cherubim (the Hebrew plural of “cherub”) are pictured in Scripture as being man-like, winged creatures often associated with guarding or protecting (e.g., the entrance to the Garden after Adam and Eve were cast out and images of them adorned the Ark of the Covenant).[11] While there are multiple references to Cherubim, Seraphim are mentioned only in Isaiah six.[12] Seraphim as well are described as winged (in this case, having six) man-like creatures and appear to have some function in the heavenly places of leading in worship.[13]

Since most of the references to Cherubim and Seraphim that mention their appearance occur in highly poetic or stylized passages it is debatable how much of their description should be taken literally. For example, in one place, Ezekiel describes Cherubim as having two faces, one of a man, the other of a young lion (Ezk 41:19) while in another, he describes them as having four faces and four wings (Ezk 10:21). Are these different types of Cherubim or just different poetical ways of describing spiritual beings? We are back to that analogical issue again; how well can finite creatures of flesh comprehend the inhabitants of the spiritual realm (creatures that by definition do not have bodies), without using some sort of metaphorical language? Thus, it is highly possible that the descriptions we are given are intended to be understood poetically; i.e., these are literary descriptions, not to be taken literally.

Though on occasion these celestial beings can take on human form (e.g., Genesis 18:2, 19:1-2, Judges 6:11-23, etc.) and appear as men; most commonly, the Bible assumes that their normal abode lies in the “heavens” from which they descend to the earth to fulfill their duties (e.g., note that they are still normally “invisible” unless God gives special revelation (e.g., Genesis 28:12).

The Origins of the War against God

The war against God began with a rebellion in this spiritual realm as some of these created, celestial beings chose their own pride over the glory of God.[14] They wanted to exalt themselves above God, to deny that He alone is the Lord of His creation. However, as celestial beings that had dwelt in the glory of God in the Heavens, this rebellion required them to suppress or deny what they knew to be true from their personal experience. Thus, inevitably, angelic rebellion had to begin with self-deception; self-consciously suppressing the truth they knew about God’s nature, becoming the “father” of lies.

When Paul was writing in Ephesus about this war, he was reminding Christians that their trials, tribulations, temptations and struggles were not just with the Roman imperial government or the idolatrous culture of the day, but with unseen spiritual forces in the “heavenly places.”[15] In effect, what we see here on earth in wars, persecution, idolatry, false religion, moral depravity or social injustice appear to be a manifestation of battles that are being fought in this spiritual realm. Hence, Paul exhorts us to use “spiritual” (invisible but yet powerful) weapons to fight this war; i.e., truth, righteousness, proclamation of the gospel, faith and confidence in our salvation.

Again, God in this passage is clearly using metaphorical language- the description of our “spiritual weapons” is taken directly from Roman military equipment and tactics. Roman soldiers conquered the known world not by being bigger, stronger or better warriors than their enemies. To the contrary, they were often considerably smaller (at least than their German ones), and wielded smaller weapons. Yet, the Roman legions routinely defeated the barbarians (who were on average a foot taller, much stronger and often armed with two-handed great swords) because they were equipped with the best armor available in the ancient world, and trained to protect and support each other in highly disciplined ranks. Man to man, the barbarians were usually better warriors; but the Romans (when led properly) were always better soldiers.[16] Paul’s point is that just as Roman soldiers, even when greatly outnumbered by barbarian hordes, could handily obliterate them, Christians could defeat their spiritual enemies by similarly trusting in their “spiritual” armor and standing together.

Yet implicitly, he is also telling us that just as the spiritual realm affects us, we affect what happens there! Our prayers, our submission to God, our faith in His providence, our dedication to truth, our faithfulness in proclaiming Jesus as Lord, in some way, is the key to winning the battles in the spiritual realm.

The war against God, though having begun in the “heavens” quickly manifested itself here on earth at the very beginning of human history. In Genesis chapter three, we have the first instance of direct human contact with these created spiritual beings in the Garden of Eden. One of them apparently possessed, controlled or manifested himself as (or even “was”) a “serpent;” that in turn, deceived Eve who then tempted Adam into sin.[17]

While we must be careful not to go too far beyond the actual words of the text, it is illuminating that the first earthly battle of this spiritual war the Enemy apparently worked through an intermediary, at least in some form. He worked through the Serpent to deceive the Woman. He worked through the Woman to tempt the Man into sin. Thus, we ought to expect (and we will find) that his normal mode of operation in this world is not by direct confrontation, but indirectly through deception and appeals to man’s pride. The Enemy had to lie to himself about who God was, and lied to his celestial peers, some of whom believed him. The Enemy then lied to Eve and deceived her. Once men accept his lies, they will then act consistently with those lies, fall into sin and bring God’s own judgment down on their heads.

The original sin in the Garden was not simply an act of theft or disobedience (giving the impression that God overreacted with His curse) but a human manifestation of this spiritual rebellion in the heavenly places. Adam deliberately ate from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil so that he could become like God, “knowing” good and evil (Gen 3:5). The “knowing” was probably not just “understanding” but rather “knowing” in the sense of “determining;”[18] in other words, Adam, wanted to replace God. Thus, his act was rebellion, a vain attempt to overthrow God and His rule and replace it with his own will. There is no direct evidence in the text that he understood at the time that he was joining in an angelic rebellion against God. However, we do know that he was not “deceived” about his intention (1 Timothy 2:11ff); he “knew” what he was doing. He wanted to become “as God.” His sin was the same as the original Enemy’s; to determine good and evil on his own terms, rather than God’s.

We should also note that the first temptation in the Garden was “occult” in nature. The word “occult” means “hidden” knowledge. The “Serpent” claimed that God was keeping important knowledge secret from Adam and Eve by forbidding them to eat from the Tree. To obtain this hidden knowledge, they had to believe lies about God, reject His Word and disobey His specific command. The reward would be “knowledge” and “godlike” power. This is the essence of occultism; that there is powerful knowledge that God wants to keep to Himself that can be revealed only to those initiated into its mysteries. The appeal of occultism in various forms has fascinated and haunted the human race ever since.

God’s reaction to Adam’s rebellion was to curse the Serpent, Eve, Adam and the very ground itself (probably meaning the entire physical creation). God specifically issued a death sentence against both the Serpent and the Man. However, He also promised that the Woman would be the means by which both the Serpent would be “crushed” and the Man redeemed (Genesis 3:15). God specifically declared that everlasting warfare would now exist between these two “seeds.”

Hence, at some point in time, perfect spiritual beings created by God, rebelled against Him. We can reasonably surmise that their motivation was the same as Adam’s; they wanted to be like God, and decide for themselves what was good, and what was evil. Their first recorded act in Scripture was to entice men to join this rebellion;[19] and everything else in human history in one way or another, is an outworking of this war against God. The human race forever more would be divided between the “seed of the serpent” and the “seed of the woman” at constant “enmity” with each other. The war in heaven was now a war on earth and every person would have to choose sides.

The War between the Seeds

Though the war against God began with a rebellion in the heavens by spiritual beings, the ultimate battle would be fought on earth; for it was here that the Serpent would be destroyed by the “seed of the woman.” Therefore, from the beginning, the Enemy[20] not only has hated anyone who does not side with him, he has also attempted to destroy the “seed of the woman” in a vain effort to deny God’s prophecy.[21] While the phrase “seed of the woman” is a direct reference to the future incarnation of the Lord Jesus, it can also be legitimately understood as a general term referring to those who side with God in this Great War, especially in the Old Testament. The Adversary cannot directly attack God; but He can attack His faithful followers.

Thus, ever since Eden, evil, spiritual forces, normally working through human intermediaries, have attempted to subvert, or destroy the “seed of the woman.” We find the next battle in this war when Cain murdered his brother Able. Cain though born of Eve, showed that he was of the “seed of the serpent” by refusing to offer a blood sacrifice to cover his sins (Gen 3:21).[22] In effect he was insisting that he would decide what proper worship of God would be. When his offering was refused, Cain was angry with God for rejecting his false worship, but he could not strike out at Him. He could however, strike out at his brother, who had offered the proper sacrifice.

Though there is no mention of our spiritual enemy in the text, Cain’s actions certainly fit within what we know from later revelation about how the Enemy works in the world. Note that Cain was the “first born” which in Biblical culture meant that he would have been the primary inheritor of the promise. Thus, when Cain allied himself with the spiritual rebels by refusing to worship God in truth the Enemy had already achieved a great victory; he managed to subvert what would have been the “natural” line of descent.

With Cain joining the rebellion, that left only Able as the seed of the woman. If the Enemy could remove Able, he could end the line that would one day destroy him. Therefore, regardless of what Cain thought his reasons were for murdering his brother, at least in some way he was being motivated or manipulated by the Enemy as the “seed of the serpent.” We might speculate that the Enemy used Cain’s jealousy, envy, arrogance and pride to entice him into murder. God’s plans however would not be denied and He gave the woman another son, Seth who would carry on the promised line of deliverance.

Notice however how this warfare was conducted; the Enemy worked through human envy and anger to accomplish his ends. A righteous man, just by being righteous was enough to make a wicked man seethe with murderous hatred. This will be a recurring feature of the “war between the seeds” throughout history; the allies of God are hated, oppressed, persecuted and murdered, not because of anything they have done, but simply for what they are.

As Biblical history continues to unfold, the war against God continues with an attempt to subvert the righteous “seed” by angelic beings cohabiting with human women producing monstrous offspring (Genesis 6:1ff) who in turn fill the earth with violence. Many modern commentators reject the idea that the Bible here is describing such human, angelic liaisons; and refuting that argument would take us on an interesting but ultimately profitless tangent.[23] But whether we have direct, spiritual interference or just godly men marrying ungodly, idolatrous women is really secondary to the point that one manifestation of the “war between the seeds” was a deliberate effort to eliminate the line of the “seed of the woman” by seducing (literally) the godly into idolatry and false religion.

This tactic appears frequently in the Old Testament; if the Adversary cannot destroy the seed of the woman by direct attack, he often subverts it with perversity and immorality. Illicit sexuality is the bait used to undermine allegiance to God (e.g., Solomon). The direct consequences of Genesis 6:1ff was a world so wicked, that God had to destroy it. Therefore it is not reading into the text to see this tactic as the Enemy’s attempt to entice men into such grievous sin that God would judge and destroy His creation. If God destroyed His creation, He would also eliminate the line He declared would destroy the Serpent. However, again God is greater than the wiles of the Enemy and preserved Noah and his family and repopulated the earth.

Yet immediately after the flood, the human race again is subverted into idolatry and wickedness. They wanted to consolidate their power and reach “heaven” by their own efforts.[24] God then confounded human languages, making it impossible for them to create a one world state or develop occult power. The nations are then dispersed across the face of the earth.

Within a few generations, it appears as if the Enemy has again won the war in the physical world. Idolatry and false worship are firmly established in every nation and even Abraham comes from a pagan family.[25] The Enemy’s lies seem to have been universally accepted; his victory in subverting the “seed of the woman” complete. Yet God calls Abraham out of an idolatrous culture and keeps him isolated from paganism by making him a nomad. God then promises Abraham a land for his descendants, and that through him, He would bless the entire world. God chose Abraham as the conduit of the “seed of the woman,” but twice his wife was kidnapped by idolatrous kings. If we read this account as a part of a connected story rather than as a series of isolated events,[26] it is not difficult to see this as another assault on the seed of the woman; i.e., an attempt to obliterate the promised “seed” by removing the woman God had chosen. Isaac later suffered the same problem, with both father and son being rescued by God. God therefore preserves the line which will culminate in the Enemy’s destruction.

Every child knows the story of Jacob and Esau; what we often fail to appreciate is that again, we have here the continued battle between the two “seeds.” Though God specifically said that the “older will serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23), Isaac refused to heed this prophecy and tried to give the blessing to Esau in defiance to God’s expressed will. When Jacob demonstrated that Esau was unworthy and had nothing but contempt for the blessings of God, Esau hated and persecuted him, driving him away from home. The “seed of the Serpent” thus continues to threaten and persecute the “seed of the woman.”

When Israel was enslaved in Egypt, Pharaoh (the epitome of the “seed of the Serpent,” an idolatrous, occult, despotic “god-king”) attempted to destroy the “seed of the woman” by executing newborn male children. Again God providentially preserves Moses, and uses the Enemy’s tactics against him. Moses is raised in Pharaoh’s own household, receiving a priceless education that would prepare him for his future role as the deliverer of Israel. Eventually God demonstrates His sovereignty by bringing judgment down upon Pharaoh’s entire kingdom.

However, the Enemy never stops his attacks. He deceives Israel throughout the Exodus by inciting them into idolatry, complaining and cowardice. Though the Enemy is not mentioned by name in these events, his hand can be seen in that Israel’s sins all stem from a failure to believe God’s promises. An entire generation never entered the Promised Land, simply because they did not trust God.

We can also see his tactics worked out in the situation with Balaam; though unable to directly curse Israel, Balaam showed king Balak how to have God judge them by having immoral women seduce them into idolatry (c.f., Rev 2:14, Nu 25:1ff, 31:16). During the time of the Judges, Israel fell repeatedly to foreign oppression by the hand of God as the “seed of the serpent” seduced the “seed of the woman” into false religion.

In many respects, all of Israel’s history is one account after another of the Enemy relentlessly attacking the “seed of the woman;” sometimes by outside enemies (Philistia, Moab, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria), more often by internal subversion as they fall into idolatry and false religion. Some godly men such as David are hounded and persecuted by demonically oppressed kings (e.g., Saul, 1 Sam 16:14) while others are seduced into idolatry (e.g., Solomon, 1 Kings 11:4-8). After Solomon, the kingdom is divided with the Ten Northern Tribes quickly falling into the most obscene idolatry, eventually being obliterated by the Assyrians in 721 BC.[27] Though the two southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin last a bit longer, they too eventually fell into occultism and false religion (2 Chronicles 33:1-6) with God destroying Jerusalem and allowing His own Temple to be leveled. Most of the remaining population of Judah was taken into captivity by the Babylonians.

With the destruction of the Ten Northern tribes and the Babylonian captivity, the Enemy may have thought he was winning his war of rebellion. The seed of the woman had repeatedly fallen to his lies, and God had apparently deserted them. By bringing the remnants to Babylon, he could further seduce them into occultism and false religion. However, God remembered His promises and returned a remnant to the Land. In one respect, the Babylonian captivity was a great blessing to Israel; being captives in a foreign land actually solidified the remnants of Israel as a specific people. Never again would they be tempted into idolatry. To preserve what remained of Israelite culture and religion after the return from captivity, Ezra gathered together the documents to form what we call today, the “Old Testament.” Nevertheless the pain and cost of idolatry was real; the Old Testament closes with the survivors weeping at all they have lost, entering four hundred years of prophetic silence.

During the time after the return from Babylon and before the incarnation of the Lord Jesus, the “Serpent” continued his tactics of subversion and genocide to eliminate the seed of the woman. The Greeks, under Alexander and his generals, introduced Greek philosophy, culture and perversity to Israel. Many Israelites succumbed, forming the group later known as the “Sadducees” who adopted some form of Neo-Platonism that denied the physical resurrection. When the despot, Antiochus outlawed circumcision (for the Greeks worshipped the human body and considered circumcision to be intentional mutilation) and murdered anyone who maintained the external mark of a covenant relationship with God, the Jews finally revolted.

However, though granted physical victory over their enemies, somewhere along the line the Israelites lost something central to their faith; they replaced true spiritual worship of God with external conformity to the tradition of the elders. The leading advocates became known as the “Pharisees” who changed the entire character of Old Testament religion. Both the “Sadducees” and the “Pharisees” would eventually form the main, theological opponents to the message of the Lord Jesus during His earthly ministry. Both groups demonstrate how the Enemy had eroded God’s revelation from the inside by deceiving those entrusted with His Word. The Sadducees reinterpreted their Bibles from the perspective of Greek philosophy; the Pharisees created their own rules and placed them over God’s Law. As a result, the Enemy was able to blind both groups to the identity of the Messiah when He eventually came. They preferred their religion, to God’s.

Eventually, Israel was conquered by the Romans who installed an Edomite, Herod as their king. Herod, wanting to ingratiate himself with the Jews, rebuilt the temple, making it one of the wonders of the ancient world. Though Israel hated Roman occupation and Edomite dominion, nevertheless, they took great pride in this temple; again, confusing the majesty of an external building with having a proper “spiritual” relationship with God on His terms (e.g., see Mark 13:1, John 4:21ff). However, God also began to create a great spiritual hunger within Israel. Many longed for the Promised Redeemer; not all had been seduced into man-made religion or philosophical compromise.

The penultimate[28] battle between the seeds came in the form of the Adversary’s attacks against the Lord Jesus during his earthly life. First, the Enemy attempted to physically murder Him as an infant by inciting the egomaniacal, homicidal King Herod. Then, the enemy attempted to subvert the Lord Jesus into sin during the temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4:1ff).[29] Finally, the Adversary worked through one of the Lord’s trusted disciples, enticing Judas into betraying the promised “seed” to the current, apostate religious establishment. He then managed to pervert justice in both “church” and state to have Jesus declared a blasphemer and executed. However, though the Lord Jesus’ “heel” was “bruised” by his death on the cross, He was raised again, and in doing so, redeemed His people, “crushing” the Adversary’s “head” (cf. 1 Cor 15:54-57).

By seeking to physically destroy the “seed of the woman,” the Enemy attempted to deny God’s revelation about his own destruction. If he can show that God’s prophecy cannot be fulfilled, then he has demonstrated that God is not God – and “saved” himself at the same time. Yet, without realizing it, his very persecution of the righteous becomes the means of his own destruction. God’s plan cannot be thwarted; He declares the end from the beginning and works all things, to bring about His sovereign will. The Adversary must have believed that he had won the war when he had the Lord Jesus crucified.[30] Yet, the atoning death of Jesus was the only means by which God’s own righteous wrath against sin could be appeased. By killing Christ, the Enemy actually caused his own destruction!

Since that time, he has continued to subvert or attempted to destroy Christ’s body, the church. Perhaps he is in self-denial, refusing to recognize his own failure; maybe he is just so full of malice that he wants to bring down as many as possible before his own ordained destruction. Either way, the war against God continues to follow the same pattern; deception, subversion, and outright persecution; yet the Lord is able to use even what appears to be the greatest defeats, to bring about His greatest victories.

The Physical War against God’s Seed in History

After the ascension of the Lord Jesus, the Enemy turned his attention to attacks against the church that composed His body (1 Corinthians 12:27). Unsuccessful in destroying the King, perhaps now part of his motivation is simply to impede the growth of God’s kingdom by any means possible. After all, the Lord commissioned His holy Apostles to “disciple” the nations; if they failed in that task, then God’s word would be overthrown.

Working through both a tyrannical state and an apostate “church,” the Adversary immediately began having Christians arrested, tortured, and murdered; Stephen being only the first of a long and honored line of martyrs. The situation of Saul, however demonstrated the grace of God in that He can and will convert His fiercest enemies into faithful sons; which provides a model of how He plans to bring the nations under the Lordship of King Jesus.

Undeterred, the Adversary continued to use every means possible to stamp out the infant church. He first tried direct persecution which simply spread the gospel from Judea, to Samaria and Antioch (and through them, throughout the Mediterranean).[31] Undeterred, the Enemy, beginning with the depraved emperor Nero and lasting until the fourth century, used the Roman state to harass, oppress, and martyr tens of thousands of Christians. Yet especially in the second century and beyond, as jaded, perverted Roman crowds watched Christians going to their deaths with hymns of praise on their lips, God used the courage and faith of His people to convert pagans to faith in Christ. Eventually, Rome bent the knee to King Jesus, formally declaring itself to be a Christian Empire in 325 AD.

However, this victory is short-lived. Starting in the later part of fourth century, Rome was first besieged and then fell to various barbarian invasions. The Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, Huns, Saxons, and other pagan nations invaded now Christians lands, looting, pillaging and devastating the remnants of the Empire. Was it a mere accident of history that at the exact same time that Rome (and her provinces) acknowledged Jesus as Lord, it was immediately attacked on every side by pagan forces deeply entrenched in shamanism and occultism?

Based upon what we know about the strategy of the Enemy as recorded in Scripture, it is not unreasonable to see the barbarian invasions as simply a continuation of the war against God. Roman paganism could not stand against the power of the gospel and the entire “civilized” world acknowledged Jesus Christ as Lord. Roman civilization allowed the gospel to travel freely and easily the length and breadth of the known world.[32] The barbarian invasions however, essentially destroyed the Empire, cutting Europe into a multitude of tiny, isolated fiefdoms. The barbarians created a “dark age” that lasted almost five hundred years and impeded the development and application of the gospel.

Yet, even here, God’s plan can be seen. As the barbarians looted and pillaged, they enslaved many thousands of Christians. These slaves did not lose their faith in Christ because of the difficulty of their situation but shared the gospel to their pagan captors. Many of these barbarians then converted to Christ, including their kings and princes![33] Once again the Enemy attempted to destroy the seed of the woman only to have them conquer his own “seed” with the power of the gospel!

Meanwhile, as barbarians invaded the West and were being converted, a new danger arose in the East. In the late sixth century, in many of the lands that had first acknowledged Jesus as Lord, many “Christians” adopted heretical beliefs, some falling into idolatry and outright demon worship. Others, though holding to more orthodox doctrine, nevertheless fell into the error of the Pharisees by replacing true faith with external religious ritual.

During this time, a caravan trader named Muhammad (570-643) began receiving strange visions from an “angelic” presence in a cave. At first he thought he was going insane, but was later convinced by his wife that “God” was speaking to him. He then began a new “faith,” which he called “Islam” (submission) which saw both Judaism and Christianity as imperfect and degraded forms of true religion. Islam would force “submission” via military campaigns for the next thousand years.

Islamic forces quickly conquered the Mideast and North Africa; lands that had been at least nominally Christian for nearly three centuries. They invaded Spain and seemed unstoppable until Christian knights providentially defeated them at the battle of Tours. For the next seven hundred years, Spanish Muslims (called “Moors”) would harass and persecute the remaining Christians. In all the lands conquered by Islam, Christians were oppressively taxed, forbidden to build new churches, and often had their children enslaved. However, if they converted to Islam, they could become full citizens under the new laws and escape these oppressions. Once adopting Islam though, it was a death sentence to convert to any other faith. Sadly, this attempt at subversion worked; though vestiges of Christian communities survived in Islamic nations, right down to the modern day, the gospel seemed to have been largely snuffed out.

The Crusades in the 12^th century and beyond were not, as commonly thought, aggressive wars of religious conversion started by Christian Europe. Instead, they were defensive wars to protect the “holy” sites in Israel as well as the thousands of pilgrims who journeyed there. The territory controlled by the Crusaders, even at the height of their power, was only a narrow strip of coastland bordering the Byzantine Empire in the North (the last remnant of the old Roman Empire) and Egypt to the West. We are not here trying to justify, rationalize or excuse the Crusades; just put them into perspective. Christians must see that world events are not random; that history is not just the product of economics, politics, trade rights, or whatever other explanation secular historians may provide.[34] There is a spiritual dynamic that affects how history unfolds.[35]

Islam was an all out frontal assault by our ancient Enemy on Christianity using invasion, conquest, murder, slavery and coercion in an attempt to suppress and destroy the gospel. And it almost worked. Though we must be humble when speculating on the providence of God in history, a strong case can be made that at least part of the reason why so many nations fell so quickly to Islam was that the Christianity believed and practiced was more ritualistic than heartfelt and sincere. Once again, the Adversary enticed Christians into false religion so that God would judge His own people.

In the 15^th century, Islam finally conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire and swept westward all the way to the gates of Vienna before finally being stopped. It is interesting that in roughly the same period, after seven hundred years of war, Spanish Christians finally managed to eradicate the last Moorish strongholds. However, the cost had been horrendous; the nation was so impoverished that the queen had to sell her own jewels to finance Columbus with three ships to explore new trade routes to the East.[36] Even as Constantinople was being sacked, God was already beginning the process of evangelizing and settling the New World.

Humanly speaking, one of the reasons why Christendom was able to stop Islam in the 15^th century was because the Tartars (i.e., “Mongols”) had invaded wealthy Islamic nations in the East in the 13^th. The Tartar hordes, though focused on India and China, still had sufficient forces left to obliterate entire Islamic nations in their western advance. In God’s providence, the attacks by the Tartar hordes was at least partially responsible for weakening or even stopping the Muslims.

Yet at the very time that God saved Christendom from external enemies, the Adversary had been effectively undermining the “seed of the woman” from within; from especially the 12^th century and beyond, the Roman Church had concentrated wealth and power in the papacy and ecclesiastical bureaucracy. Since wicked men are motivated by wealth and power, they used every wile to capture high positions within the Roman church. As a result, much of the Christian church forgot her mission, lost the gospel under a mountain of man-made rituals, becoming corrupt and depraved. However, in God’s providence, just as the church was in danger of smothering the gospel, the Reformation began in Europe.

The success of the Enemy in subverting the seed of the woman can be seen in that Luther was really not saying or doing anything in the 16^th century that other faithful men had not preached or practiced since the very beginning.[37] However, for political and social reasons, the church that guaranteed his safety at the Diet of Worms, sought to assassinate him; the age old attempt to murder the promised “seed.” God however used Luther (and some German princes), to begin a theological and spiritual revival that changed the world.

The Reformers, whether German, French, Swiss, Hungarian, Dutch, Scottish or English, differed in many important areas; but they all agreed that salvation was by faith alone in Christ, and not by religious works. They published the Bible in the common languages of the day, and encouraged the average Christian to read and study it as a counter to superstition and man-made religion. The Enemy then incited merciless persecution and slaughter of Christians for the next hundred years. Even as many parts of Europe unwittingly joined sides with the Serpent, God used that very persecution to send tens of thousands of believers to settle new lands where the gospel could flourish.

By the nineteenth century, new Christian nations were working out the implications of a consistent Biblical worldview and building healthy, happy, productive societies where liberty and justice were intrinsic to their cultures. These Christian nations then sent missionaries to areas untouched by the gospel for hundreds of years.[38]

However, even though the physical threats to the “seed of the woman” from the barbarians, Islam, the Mongols and even the Catholic Church were devastating, the real danger was always from within as the Enemy subverts the Faith. From the 18^th century and beyond, Christian “scholars” began to adopt some form of Humanism in opposition to revealed religion. Beginning initially as the logical outworking of Biblical presuppositions,[39] over time Christian humanism evolved into an idolatrous faith in the supremacy of reason over revelation. The first target was a concerted intellectual attack against the integrity and sufficiency of Scripture.[40] This “Enlightenment” then directly led to man attempting to create societies based on what seemed good to them, rather than God; the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The first nation to succumb to the new rationalism was France in the late 18^th century. Reason was enshrined as a goddess and Christianity suppressed. Eventually falling into tyranny and the “reign of terror,” the French Revolution set the standard for other revolutionary movements that would precipitate the most horrendous wars in history. Nation after nation attempted to overthrow the old established “Christian” order and create a “new” and “improved” society based upon some form of “reason.”[41] Literally, “heaven on earth” was promised if only people would adopt the new revolutionary religions. It did not matter what they called themselves, Socialists, Anarchists, Marxists, Fascists, Humanists, Feminists, nor is it significant for our purposes to dwell on where they disagreed. The one thing they shared in common was a hatred for God, contempt for His Word, and an unrelenting drive to destroy His church.

By the time of the twentieth century, Germany, Russia and China (as well as their puppet states in Africa and Asia) were responsible for murdering tens of millions of people in the Enemy’s latest attempt to stamp put the “seed of the woman.” Every Christian who remained faithful to Christ was a direct threat to the humanist agenda. When men believe they can determine good and evil apart from God, they place their faith in the ultimate expression of human power on earth; the State. This humanist state cannot allow a rival to its claim of being “god.” Therefore, it must suppress Christianity because our primary loyalty is to God, not them. If the State cannot coop the Church, it will persecute and attempt to destroy it.

Christians in the West must understand this dynamic; we have lived for so many generations in lands permeated by the gospel that we have forgotten that the Enemy hates us and wants to destroy us. A healthy, vigorous, committed church is a direct threat to his power and influence; if he can subvert it, he will. But if he cannot, he will seek to destroy it. Thus far, in the West, subversion has worked; most “mainline” denominations fell to the Adversary a century ago adopting Liberal Theology. Each generation has seen more people abandon the faith, and in some nations, there is but a tiny remnant of Christendom left.[42] When consistent humanists came into power in places like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Marxist Eastern Europe, Christians were hounded, harassed, imprisoned and murdered.

Yet, even where Christians have been attacked the most viciously, God always preserves a remnant. It is not an exaggeration to say that faithful Christians behind the Iron Curtain were pivotal in defeating Communism. Fifty years after the Communists in China expelled all Western missionaries and murderously suppressed the indigenous Church, the gospel grew a hundred fold. Even in poor, beleaguered Africa, whip-sawed between colonial paternalism (replaced by Marxist oppression) and its traditional occult paganism, has experienced a great revival of religion.

Though the physical attacks have caused untold grief and misery through the centuries they have never achieved the Enemy’s goals of eliminating the “seed of the woman.” To the contrary, where persecution has been the most severe, the church has often been the most pure. Perhaps his hatred for God and us is so intense that he simply cannot resist any opportunity to hurt us, even if in God’s providence it is inevitably counterproductive.

The War and Direct Demonic Attacks

The Adversary has on occasion used other, more perverse and direct tactics in his war against God. Though almost unknown in the Old Testament, by the time that God was about to bring His Son into the world, some attacks by the Adversary now took the form of direct demonic possession.[43] Inimical spiritual forces were able to actually take control of human bodies, dominating the personality inside. Those who were possessed appeared to have superhuman strength and supernatural knowledge, while also suffering various mental and physical afflictions.[44]

Yet as dramatic as these accounts of direct demonic possession might be, the number of afflicted people was always limited. The real work of demons appears to be to deceive men and entice them into false religion, not directly take possession of their bodies. If the heart of this war is the attempt to deny God the worship, honor and service that is His due, then convincing foolish men to worship something other than God is all that is needed to keep them as the “seed of the serpent.” He does not have to actually “possess” people to mislead them.

It is difficult to know what purpose demonic possession accomplishes for the Enemy; after all even the most hardened atheist is shocked and afraid of someone controlled by a demon. Certainly, there is a hint that some demons prefer possessing a person (or even animals) rather than the alternative (Matthew 8:31). However, if demons want to confuse men, why reveal themselves so directly? Perhaps part of the reason is that outright possession creates a condition wherein men are so afraid of the Enemy they are susceptible to the false comforts of idolatry and occultism. Or the answer might be as simple as that their enmity towards us is so great, that the pleasure of tormenting us through possession is occasionally worth revealing their true nature.

Though God does not give us all the details our human curiosity might want about how demons actually work in this world, we do know that as the “Father of Lies,” the Adversary distorts and suppresses the truth of God and His revelation. From the very beginning, he has worked through intermediaries to spread lies about God. He uses unlawful sexuality as a means of tempting men into far more serious blasphemies (e.g., Romans 1:24-27).[45] He ensnares men in error (2 Timothy 2:26) to do “his will” rather than God’s and blinds their eyes to the truth of the gospel (2 Corinthians 4:4). Demons are called “deceitful spirits” and the content of their lies the “doctrine of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). Idolatry and false religion are actually a form of worshipping demons (1 Corinthians 10:20, Rev 9:20).

It is almost certainly erroneous and overly simplistic to assume that a “demon” is behind every sin or that the Adversary is personally involved in trying to lead the individual believer astray. James says, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished it brings forth death…” (James 1:14-15) Our hearts are black with that inner orientation, inherited from our father Adam, to want to be as God, determining good and evil for ourselves. We then use the reasoning abilities God gave us to rationalize, justify and excuse our behavior. How the spiritual realm interacts with this process, or causes or influences it must in large part be left to speculation. However, no one can ever say, “the Devil made me do it” as an excuse.

Yet, demonic entities are directly involved in certain aspects of the war against God. In one such battle, Daniel was praying, asking God for aid but the angel sent to answer his prayer was delayed for three weeks by a demonic force called the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” (Dan 10:12ff). Eventually this celestial messenger had to call on “Michael” one the “chief princes” for assistance. Though caution needs to be exercised lest we make too much from this one, brief episode, it does offer a tantalizing glimpse into how this spiritual war affects the physical world. Apparently, there are spiritual forces (some of which are associated with specific human kingdoms- Dan 10:20) battling in the spiritual realms. And at least in some cases God’s providence allows those battles to interfere with an answer He is giving to the prayer of a righteous and “highly esteemed” man! On occasion even holy angels have to call on more powerful angels for assistance!

Thus, in some way, the problems, trials and difficulties we have in this life may have a spiritual dimension that we can never see, unless God Himself were to give special revelation. Perhaps one of the ways that evil kings, despots and dictators are able to achieve earthly power is due to unseen spiritual forces working in the back ground (i.e., how many other nations have wicked spiritual “princes” associated with them?). One might even argue that sometimes, when we ask for deliverance from sickness, adversity, persecution or disasters we do not always receive the answers we seek because of these same spiritual battles being fought in the “heavenly places.”

However, Christians need to remember that God deliberately did not give us a great amount of detail about this aspect of the war. He gives us hints, glimpses, and tidbits of information, enough to show us that such battles exist and are important. But the vast majority of His revelation has little or nothing to do with spirits, either celestial or demonic but with living in humble submission to His Holy will. In the Ephesians’ passage, Paul does not instruct Christians to go around “binding” evil spiritual forces or “casting out” demons; instead he simply reminds them that righteousness, truth, faith, obedience, and trust in His gospel were the means God gave us to fight and win this war. In some way, these ARE actual, spiritual armor and weapons that have an effect in this spiritual war; and the ones we are called to use on a daily basis.

No, this is not as “glamorous” or “exciting” as “casting down” demonic forces with a “word of power”- but it is the normal, usual way that we are to battle evil. It is significant to note that the sovereign Lord promised to forgive His people and heal their land if they simply humble themselves, pray, and seek His face (1 Chronicles 7:14) NOT if they “cast out demons.”

People have actually died under the hands of sincere but sadly ignorant Christians who tried to “exorcize” someone they thought was demonically possessed when it was more likely that the individual was suffering from some biochemical form of schizophrenia.[46] While not ruling our direct possession even in the modern world, an old adage is “If you hear hoof beats in the distance, think horses, not zebras.” In other words, we ought to expect to find common causes for common events; not leap to uncommon causes as an explanation. Strange behavior is sadly, all too common. Demonic possession however, even in Scripture, is unusual. Therefore when we see people acting strangely, we ought to look first for an explanation in “common” causes (such as sin, chemical imbalance, brain injury, etc.), rather than “uncommon” causes such as direct demonic affliction.

It is interesting to note that claims of demonic possession were almost virtually unknown in the modern Western world until the movie “The Exorcist” came out in the early 1970’s. However once those powerful images came into the mainstream of American culture, literally within just a few months, thousands of people claimed to be “possessed.”[47] Since that time, literally hundreds (if not thousands) of books, films, and TV shows have featured occult themes and demonic activity.[48]

Many sincere Christians solemnly testify to witnessing or even having suffered from similar direct demonic possession or affliction; accounts which are often either too quickly accepted by the overly credulous or contemptuously dismissed by those who find the whole subject slightly embarrassing.[49] However, “possession” is probably not the normal way that the Enemy conducts his war against God through us.

First let us realize that simply because a person may be thinking or acting bizarrely does not necessarily mean that demonic possession is the cause of it. There are many organic brain dysfunctions that can result in hallucinations, feelings of being “possessed” and what is called “religiosity;” a pathological condition of extreme religious mania. While the exact nature of how the “soul” interacts with the body is probably best left alone for right now, we do know that what happens physically to the brain can have a tremendous effect on a person’s thinking and emotions. For example, if someone drinks too much, the alcohol paralyses a portion of his forebrain associated with making moral judgments. When drunk, that portion does not work as well as it should; and the person may start saying or doing any number of inappropriate things as a result.

People who suffer from certain traumatic physical injuries to the brain may not be able to think as accurately or control their emotions as well as they could in the past. In the same way, in many forms of “schizophrenia,” the body produces certain chemicals that distorts the way people think and feel and perceive the world. Medication can restore this balance and help the person function more “normally.” A basic rule of thumb might be that if a person gets better when treated by psychotropic drugs, he probably was not demonically possessed.[50]

Some Christians think that we have a demon assigned to us personally to lead us into error, as say in C. S. Lewis’s wonderful but gritty fairy tale, “The Screwtape Letters.”[51] Well, we need to consider that though we do not know how many celestial beings God created, it was a finite number. Most scholars are agreed that “angels” were created as a “host” without the capacity for generation (one of the ways they differ from physical beings).[52] In other words God made just so many angels and we have no indication from Scripture that He has created any more since.[53] A specific number of that original host then “fell” into rebellion.

Taking these facts together, even if we do not know just how many angels were created initially, only a minority joined the rebellion and we simply have no idea how many of them are personally involved in specific battles against us as individuals. And of the number that originally fell, some have already been judged and “bound” (Jude 6) in “darkness.”[54] This means that the popular idea that every person has a personal demon tempting him into sin is probably unrealistic. There is every reason to think we greatly outnumber demons, and therefore since they are created, dependant beings, limited in time, space and power, they may not be as common as many people assume.

Much of the popular understanding of demons comes from the Medieval Roman Church. And while we do not mean to criticize, few of their conclusions were actually based on real Biblical data but on speculation influenced by Greek philosophy and mythology. One can see this in how angels have been traditionally portrayed in religious art; many artists painted them as females when Scripture is clear there are only males! And everyone is familiar with “cherubs” (the singular of the Hebrew word “cherubim”) pictured as little fat babies with wings![55]

Though hostile spiritual entities are real and dangerous, we must never give them too much credibility; their knowledge, abilities and powers are limited. Since they once dwelt in the spiritual presence of God, their knowledge of Him, in some ways, is probably superior to our own (e.g., James 2:19?); yet we also know that there are certain aspects of our situation that are beyond even holy angels’ comprehension (e.g., 1 Peter 1:12). Just because they are spiritual beings does not mean that they know everything; it is even possible that angels and demons may be as confused about us, as we are about them.

On some level, the enemy and his minions must know that their rebellion was doomed from the beginning and the fate that awaits them. But they continue in their futile war anyway; perhaps like foolish men, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness- refusing to recognize their own inevitable judgment. Perhaps it is even as simple as “misery loves company;” maybe they are just so full of hatred all they want to do is hurt as many of us as they can, before the Lord God finally destroys them.

The War and Occultism

Christians often become most uncomfortable with books and films with occult themes even though any serious analysis shows that demons have rarely (if ever) acted the way that they are popularly portrayed. While the Medieval church certainly believed in witches, wizards, werewolves and vampires, et. al., there is no credible evidence that such demonic phenomena has ever actually occurred.[56] Remember, just because a person claims he saw Big Foot is not in itself proof that a seven foot tall hairy ape lives in the Pacific Northwest!

As mentioned earlier, occultism has existed from the very dawn of human history. Even in the Christian West, witchcraft, in the form of dim remnants of the older pagan religions, continued to survive (mostly in rural areas) even when suppressed by culture, church and state. Shamanism, witchcraft and superstition are usually found in areas where the Christian gospel has not thoroughly penetrated the culture.

Occult practices differ from culture to culture but they all share something in common; the belief that men can control “god-like” powers if they possess “secret” knowledge, by undergoing the “right” sort of indoctrination and training. Most commonly, someone has to be “initiated” into such knowledge by some “higher authority;” and the “secrets” are usually hidden from the “average” person. Many men have claimed to have the ability to call up spirits of the dead, conjure spiritual beings, possess supernatural knowledge of the future or control “mystical” powers to control natural events or other people.

However, there is a significant difference between someone claiming to have supernatural powers and actually having them! Many Christians are perfectly willing to accept the claims of psychics, shamans and witches as true; but this is more a testament to their own credulity than to any actual evidence that men have ever had genuine supernatural abilities. So called “psychics” have at best, an accuracy rate for their predictions that is roughly equivalent to random chance. But when they do get one right, they conveniently ignore all the wrong ones, making it appear as if they have “occult knowledge.”[57]

Now, God specifically forbids astrology, divination, necromancy and witchcraft in the strongest possible terms (e.g., Deuteronomy 18:10, 14, 2 Kings 21:6, etc.); therefore we must abhor such practices. But we never need fear such claims nor do we have to give the Adversary any more credibility than the Biblical data warrants.[58] It can be argued that those practices are abominations just because they are blasphemous attempts to be “as gods.”[59] There are some “powers” that God did not give to us and He forbids us to seek them because they belong to Him alone. The unlawful attempt to possess such powers is just another manifestation of wanting to be God. But condemning the unlawful attempt to obtain or use “occult” powers is a completely different issue than whether any man has actually possessed those powers! Demons can achieve their ends just as effectively by lying to men as they can by actually empowering them.

Consider this; we know from Scripture that idolatry and false religion are the equivalent to worshipping demons (cf. Deuteronomy 32:17, 1 Corinthians 10:20, etc.). So, demons were always, in some way, the power behind idolatry and somehow involved in promoting and supporting ancient pagan beliefs. However, modern archeology has discovered what they call “god machines” in temple ruins from Egypt to Greece. These were clever mechanical devices (using steam or water power) that would “mysteriously” open temple doors, emit strange sounds as people entered the sanctuary or even cause “tears” to flow from the eyes of idols when a sacrifice was offered. These machines became especially popular in the third and fourth centuries AD as Christianity grew to be a serious rival to the “old” religions. In short, Christians doing real miracles meant that the pagans had to invent some means to at least appear to be able to do the same things.

Now if these demon-inspired religions could manifest genuine supernatural phenomenon, why would they have to resort to shams, scams and simple mechanical tricks? One very reasonable answer is that false religions never could do what they claimed, even when they were most consistent with worshipping demons.[60] They were forced to use the same kind of deception that every stage magician does today[61]- except they insisted it was real! And sadly, many people then and now were willing to believe them. After all, when the pagans went to their temples, the doors opened of their own accord, their “gods” cried out with eerie moans and their idols wept in appreciation for their sacrifices! But it was a fake, a trick, a sick, sad joke perpetrated on simple, credulous people.

Right down to the modern day, those claiming to possess supernatural powers cannot demonstrate those powers when subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny; it turns out that when they have tried, they are exposed as using those same simple tricks which only deceive the uninformed and gullible.[62] Now we are not saying that genuine occult phenomenon does not exist; just that apparently, it is extremely rare.

Why should demons who are limited in power and space (i.e., they cannot be every where at every time) waste that limited power when men are so willing to believe lies and tricks? For every genuine instance of demonic possession or demonstration of occult power, how many tens of thousands of people have simply been deceived? However, even if most “examples” are just shoddy tricks, the demons have still achieved their purpose of turning people away from God and His revelation. If men believe that shamans, psychics, spiritualists, diviners, astrologers and witches have real power, some, even Christians will turn to them rather than God and His Word. And not one demon actually has to manifest itself or use its power in the physical world to accomplish this.

Certainly there is genuine demonic activity in the world today;[63] but it certainly also fits into the strategy of demons to confuse, lie, and distort the evidence. People who refuse to think wisely and logically about the world open themselves up to all sorts of errors. Why then should demons allow themselves to be subjected to human rationality when they can perfectly accomplish their goals[64] with confusion and lies?

Thus, Christians ought not to give undue credibility to the occult claims. Children are not likely to inadvertently conjure up a “demon” by reading Harry Potter (or the Chronicles of Narnia).[65] Even if the music industry did hire Satanists to attach a demon to every record they sell[66] there is no evidence that any actually took the contract. Playing with “Ouija” boards, conducting séances and the like are clearly forbidden by God; even though it is unlikely that a real spirit is ever contacted that way.[67]

Furthermore, since demons want to deceive, it is extremely valuable for them to either terrorize some Christians with fear of the supernatural, or deceive others to focus on casting out imaginary “spirits” rather than teaching the truth of God’s Law. After all, a man known for being able to cast out “demons” will be highly regarded in the Christian community. But if there are no real demons available a man might be tempted to invent a few imaginary ones so that he will continue being highly regarded.[68]

And if he believes the lie about the demons even being there, it might just become easier to believe other lies, like justifying and rationalizing how he spends his time, and money, subtly transforming his ministry from the glory of God to making his pride the main focus. Perhaps he comes to think the rules of morality no longer apply to him, that he deserves to be treated not only with respect but also some financial rewards which means having an expensive new car, plush home, perhaps even a good looking secretary who thinks the “Great Man” is not understood or appreciated by his wife…

Lies are always dangerous and believing them always leads to trouble. We might escape the consequences for a while; but eventually, we will “reap what we sow” (Galatians 6:7). Meanwhile, the “exorcist” is not teaching a person how to handle their sin Biblically, live in love and harmony with others or how to rightly divide the word of truth. Instead, by blaming a demon and “casting” it out, he inadvertently allows the plagued Christian to go right on living his life based on what he thinks is good and evil…

The War against the Soul

We know that demons (fallen celestial beings) exist, are in rebellion to God and in some way, interact with and influence events in the physical world. We know that in the Old Testament, on occasion, evil spirits specifically deceived and afflicted certain men, driving them into deep depression and paranoid rages (e.g., 1 Sam 16:14, 23, 18:10, etc.).We know that at the time Jesus came into the world, there was an unprecedented outbreak of demonic activity where they actually possessed some people, driving them “insane” (Mark 5:1-5). We also know that Jesus demonstrated that He was the Messiah with authority over the spiritual as well as the physical realm by casting out such demons. He also gave that same authority to His 12 Apostles (Mark 3:15).

The question remains though, since the coming of the Lord Jesus and His victory over them at the cross, how do they affect us today? We can begin to answer this with the assumption that since the Enemy and his minions are spirits without material bodies, their primary attacks against us will also be immaterial; i.e., through the “soul.”

The word “soul” translates the Greek “psuche” and is another of those terms that theologians and scholars have struggled to define. The word is sometimes apparently used interchangeably with “spirit” meaning “living being, life principle…”[69] Generally speaking, the word “soul” is used to describe the immaterial part of a man that is united to a physical body giving it life while the word “spirit” can mean “the special gift of God which places man in relationship to Him.”[70]

Neither “soul” nor “spirit” was used precisely the way we would categorize them today. In English, we can distinguish between the “mind,” the “emotions,” the “will” as well as “soul” from “spirit.” It is not clear that the Biblical authors saw these categories quite as distinctly as we do, and it is questionable how accurately our words actually overlap in meaning with the Biblical ones. Perhaps since “soul” and “spirit” both refer to “invisible” aspects of man the ambiguity is a necessary consequence of that which by nature cannot be seen?

However, both words certainly point to an inner part of a man, that which makes him in the image of God. Therefore, our “soul” or “spirit” is that which distinguishes us from animals; we have a moral sense, we have a conscience, we are more than just the products of certain bio-chemical processes.[71] Something of us survives death and will be reunited with our resurrected bodies at the end of time. There is a part of us that has intelligence, emotions, will, and distinct personality.[72]

Thus, the soul, the immaterial, “spiritual” aspect of a man would seem to be a prime area for attack by the Enemy who too is a “spirit.” In 1 Peter 2:11 we are warned to “…abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.” In the immediate context of the passage, Peter is not necessarily exhorting believers to moral purity in the face of sexual temptation. While certainly including avoiding immoral desires, it should not be limited to it. The word “flesh” is used in Scripture as a general metaphor, referring to man placing his desires above God’s; we want, what we want, regardless of whether God says it is lawful. While the word “lust” certainly conjures up the image of illicit sexuality, it also means an overwhelming, passionate desire for something. Therefore, while “fleshly lusts” certainly applies to the temptation of immorality, it also includes the idea of people being dominated or controlled by any strong desires, especially those desires that are contrary to God’s will.

In this passage, it is not the Adversary per se that causes problems for our souls but our own “fleshly lusts” (which reminds us of James’ exhortation). Yet, nevertheless, there certainly appears to be a connection as the Enemy deceives us into sin by convincing us that we must have what we desire, regardless of whether those desires are lawful or not. He may not be responsible for giving us the desire, but he can convince us to allow our feelings to dominate our thinking.

We see something of this in the case of Saul who was afflicted by an “evil spirit.” The “spirit” drove him into dark depression and homicidal rages; somehow it was able to affect both his thinking and his emotions; i.e., his “soul.” Saul was already depressed and despondent because God had withdrawn His blessing. Saul knew that his own sin had brought about God’s judgment; and though he was “sorry” about having to face the consequences of his sin, he was never truly repentant. The “evil spirit” then was able, in some way, to make Saul feel even worse. However, the underlying issue was that Saul always lived according to his feelings; and as a result, there came a time when he was no longer able to control them. His “fleshly lusts” had nothing to do with sexual immorality; but everything to do with being controlled by his passions.

The music played by David could “soothe” Saul. Music can affect the production of certain brain chemicals; stimulating us in some ways, depressing us in others. However, since the “music” David played was probably some form of the Psalms he was composing at the time, glorifying God certainly must have some adverse effect on evil spirits!

If the main work of enemy spiritual beings is to distort or hide the truth (e.g., John 8:44), then we ought to expect them to use a multifaceted approach that will include the entire spectrum of human knowledge and experience. The last thing the Enemy wants is for anyone to think about any area of life from God’s perspective. Hence, at every opportunity, the Enemy attempts to destroy the credibility of God’s revelation and encourage sinful men to base their life, values and morals on what seems good to them, rather than God.

For example, when people sin, they will feel bad-at least if their conscience has not been seared. Because people do not enjoy feeling bad, they try various ways to feel better. God’s way is found in Genesis 4:67 where He confronts Cain; when his sacrifice was rejected, Cain’s “countenance fell” - meaning he felt depressed and angry. God told Cain that to “feel good” (to have his “countenance lifted up”) he needed to “do well.” In other words, to “feel” good, according to God, we have to “do good” (bad grammar notwithstanding). However, Cain rejected God’s counsel, wallowed in his bitterness and envy, and then murdered his brother. Saul did the same sort of thing; he never dealt properly with his guilt through repentance, which was then used by the Enemy, in some way, to motivate him to attempted murder of David.

One of the most effective ways that the Enemy wages war against our souls is by deceiving us into finding some other way to deal with those bad feelings than trusting in God’s gracious provisions. Nothing else can work, of course; because God created life, life must be lived on His terms. However, that does not stop sinful men from trying to live on their own terms, making a total mess in the process. Not every person of course goes as far as Cain and Saul; however, we still use the same “defense” mechanism.

Cain, like his father Adam, felt “bad” because of his sin. Adam had blamed Eve and God, (i.e., “the woman You gave me…”), Eve had blamed the Serpent,[73] but neither of them took responsibility for their sin. They tried to cover their “nakedness” with leaves; which can be understood as a futile attempt to “cover” their own sin. After God pronounced His curse, He atoned for their sins with an animal sacrifice.

Cain had a moral duty to offer a similar kind of sacrifice to atone for his sins. It is not idle speculation to assume that Cain was “feeling bad” even before God rejected his sacrifice because all men sin and fall short of the glory of God. Perhaps he tried to suppress those bad feelings; therefore he might have told himself that he had no need to make an atoning sacrifice; but the guilt was still there. Maybe he thought that as a farmer, his sacrifice ought to as good as Abel’s who was a shepherd. Regardless, he did not do what he was supposed to do and God did not forgive him. Consequently, he felt even worse.

Then, reading between the lines, he attempted to shift the blame to someone, or something else for why he felt bad despite God telling him precisely what had to be done. Somehow (perhaps with demonic assistance though the text does not say) he convinced himself that it was Able’s fault -so it was Able that was making him feel bad, not his sin. Therefore, if he could get rid of Able, the bad feeling would go away! Saul did exactly the same thing with David; he had lost God’s blessing because of his own sin. However, rather than take responsibility for that sin and truly repent, he blamed David. Therefore, he tried to “kill” his guilt by killing David.

If this sounds “insane” that’s because it is! Yet, people, even Christians routinely believe the same kind of lies every day; that someone or something else is making them feel bad; something other than their own sin, selfishness and pride. And once their thinking goes wrong here, it becomes ever more perverse and bizarre.[74]

Thus, from the beginning, we all have tried to find some way to deal with the pain of sin (anger, fear, loneliness, anxiety, bitterness, envy, jealousy, depression) through blame-shifting, denial, self-atonement, etc. We live in a moral universe governed by a sovereign moral God. When we do not “do well” (i.e., keep His commandments), we really do “feel bad.” The righteous are not holier by nature than the wicked; they are just those who handle their sins properly by trusting in God’s grace. The “wicked” on the other hand, are always trying to find some other means of dealing with the emotional, physical and spiritual pain of their sin than trusting in God’s provision.

The doctrine of “total depravity” does not mean that every person is as depraved as they could be; just that sin affects the “totality” of our being- including our minds, emotions, motivations, will as well as our bodies. The more consistent we are in rebelling against God, the more “depraved” or “bizarre” we become in our thinking (Romans 1:22, 28), passions (Romans 1:26), emotions (Romans 1:29) and actions (c.f., Romans 1:29-31). Like Cain, when men reject God’s revelation, their minds can and will lead them to rationalize and justify the most outrageous actions.

When Christians feel bad about their sins, some will be tempted to blame a demon- that way the problem is not their sin but some hostile spiritual being![75] Then using the amazing ability of humans to rationalize and justify our own actions, such people can suppress the painful truth and never have to deal with the real issue. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality and other formerly “shameful” sins were often at the root of the problems of people I have counseled over the years; especially of those who claimed to be “possessed.” In reality, they were doing exactly what James said men do; they were enticed by their own lusts until it gave birth to sin. As a result, they felt miserable, depressed, and sometimes even suicidal.

The problem though was not caused by a “demon” but of giving in to a sinful desire and then not dealing properly with the ensuing guilt. The demonic influence might be better found in the lies such people accepted that “they must give in to their feelings” or “you won’t be happy until you do what you really want to do” or even “It’s not your fault; they should not have treated you that way…” The desire to sin belonged to the person, the lies that justified, excused or made the sin “necessary,” may well, in some way, have been demonically inspired.

This tactic brilliantly serves the Enemy’s purpose; not only does unrepentant sin bring God’s judgment against His own people at the same time it effectively removes a warrior from our side. A Christian torn apart from guilt, who is depressed, despondent, angry, bitter, and confused in his thinking, is useless in fighting against the Enemy or extending God’s Kingdom. He feels terrible and takes up limited time, energy and resources in the church as they have to minister to him rather than reach out and minister the gospel to the world.[76]

Furthermore if we allow ourselves to be deceived about why we feel “bad” we are playing into the Adversary’s game; he has every incentive to make our lives as miserable as possible. In turn, that misery undermines the credibility of the gospel; after all, if Christians are psychologically traumatized, full of repressed sins, hostile, cold, embittered, confused, play mind games, etc., than why should anyone take our message of hope seriously (e.g., see 1 Peter 3:15-16)? Furthermore, when we are torn up inside with guilt and emotional pain, we cannot love and encourage others, destroying the one aspect of life that brings the most joy and peace; our love for one another.

On the other hand, since many modern Christians no longer think in Biblical categories, some will try to find an explanation for their afflictions that fits more comfortably with modern cultural standards. Today, the psychologist or psychiatrist has become in most people’s mind, the experts in showing us how to enjoy happy and productive lives.[77] Where in ages past, a person suffering from strong, negative feelings would immediately seek out his pastor- today people (even Christians) are more likely to go to a therapist or counselor of some type. What were once seen as problems of the “soul” are now regarded as “diseases” of the “mind;” and there is an ever changing “diagnostic” manual that explains to the “professionals” how to treat people with “psychological” or “emotional” problems.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to state that the entire discipline of modern psychotherapy is just the latest attempt to deal with the consequences of sin by some means other than the gospel. People generally go for “therapy” because something is not working properly in their lives and they feel “bad” about it. They may be lonely, fearful, depressed, or anxious. They may think that life is meaningless and have no hope. In short, happy, successful, well-adjusted people normally do not seek out counseling. Every counselor and every school of counseling is pushing its own formula for how to live a productive, meaningful and rewarding life; in effect they are offering their own definition of “good and evil.”

Jesus said, “I came that men might have life and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). There can be no true meaning, purpose or fulfillment apart from being right with God through Christ. Therefore, the Adversary must deceive people into thinking that they can have the abundant life Christ promised, without having Christ! When people feel bad, they are open to reevaluate what is really important to them. For the first time, they may be willing to recognize that their problems are caused by their heart- something wrong at the very center of their being. If the gospel is presented in a gentle, loving and comprehensive way, there is a window of opportunity here (if God gives grace) for that person to now see the real source of all their problems; their own rebellion against God and repent, trusting in Jesus.

Though every man is born as rebel, Christians are those who by the grace of God have been enabled to surrender to King Jesus and accept His amnesty. This is a different way of understanding the gospel than it is usually presented but in many respects it is not only a legitimate, but better explanation. Far too often the gospel is offered merely as a way of living a better life, dealing with one’s negative feelings, or as a means of escaping from hell. But this view implicitly makes man the center of the gospel.

However, from God’s perspective, wicked men have joined with demonic forces in a rebellion against His sovereign majesty and rule. As a result of that rebellion, they are living under God’s curse and suffer from all sorts of terrible problems. But the issue is not that people feel “bad” but that they are in sin! To borrow medical terminology; the “bad” feelings are a symptom of the problem, not the cause of them. Instead of destroying these rebels as justice demands, God chose to graciously redeem them by paying the price for their sins through His Son. “Salvation” requires that men admit and repent of their rebellion and accept God’s terms of peace by submitting to “Jesus as Lord” (Romans 10:9-10). To confess “Jesus as Lord” implicitly means that no one else, including man, is or can be Lord- that man is not God and cannot determine good and evil apart from Him. Hence, in essence, the gospel returns us to Adam’s position before the Fall; where he rebelled against God (and we all rebelled “in” him), Christians are those who have been given grace to repudiate that rebellion and acknowledge that God alone is God!

It is only once God has resolved cause of our problems (our sin) that the consequences (our emotional pain) can be dealt with. But God will not allow Himself to be used as just a way of feeling better. He is the Lord; He created us for His glory. Yes, the gospel will make mournful hearts glad, give peace and hope but only as rebels lay down their arms and accept the King’s amnesty on His terms!

Sometimes, when the gospel is presented from a “man-centered” approach, Christians can become very disillusioned when they find that “bad” things still happen to them, and life is not always easy, joyous and peaceful. They fail to appreciate that though “the serpent” has had his head crushed we are still hated and persecuted by those same inimical spiritual beings and their physical allies. The definitive battle has already been fought and won by the Lord Jesus at His death and resurrection. However, the “war” will continue until the Lord Jesus returns; and we ought to expect the Enemy to use the same tactics he has always used against us; physical attacks, subversion, betrayal and persecution. The Christian is no longer at war with God; but he has now earned the enmity of the Enemy.

This Enemy will do anything he can to prevent men from knowing, believing and acting on the fact that his counterfeit kingdom has been overthrown and that amnesty is now available. First he “blinds” the eye of the unbeliever so that they cannot see the glorious provisions of God (2 Cor 4:4ff). Then, like a wild bird he attempts to pluck the freshly sown seed before it can sprout and take root (Mark 4:15). He must get people’s eyes off the real cause of their problems; usually by showing them how like Adam, they can shift the blame to their parents, their friends, their bosses, their spouses, poor socialization, inadequate behavior reinforcement, low self-esteem-anything or everything except their rebellion to God. And even though he cannot prevent God’s grace from entering a human heart and changing a rebel into a son, he can and will attempt to make us as miserable or as useless in the war as possible. If he can convince Christians that their problems are caused by emotional “problems” that can only be solved by “professional” therapists, he has successfully blinded them to the real source of their pain.

Now again, we are not sure of the precise mechanics of this spiritual process; but the Lord Jesus said that “by their fruit you will know them” (Matt 7:16, 20). All psychotherapies are based on psychological theories, which in turn are derived from various humanistic philosophical assumptions about the nature of man. All agree that man is an evolved animal; most ridicule the thought of a “soul” being distinct from the physical body. And all have their own determination of what constitutes good and evil; a determination that seldom has anything in common with what God said in His Word. The “fruit” here certainly looks familiar so it is not difficult to figure out where it came from.

Though not wanting to deride or deny the complex and meaningful work of empirical psychologists,[78] secular psychotherapies routinely reject the only real solution for human problems- the gospel of Jesus Christ! Yet nevertheless, many of these false ideas were picked up and brought into in the church; the Adversary scored a major victory when we allowed the Humanists to reinterpret our Bibles!

Our “bad feelings” are caused by sin, not psychology; and demons afflict us in leading us to believe lies about why we feel bad, and what can be done to make us feel better. Perhaps it is as simple as helping create a climate where certain true ideas are suppressed while false ones are encouraged until they pervade every aspect of culture; it is easy to accept utterly false ideas when everyone else believes them; “Do not be conformed to the world…” is a recurring Biblical theme. Then, because we cannot live a rich, productive, peaceful and joyous life apart from God’s divine will, we inevitably suffer the emotional and psychological pain of sin. The Enemy then feeds us other lies on how to deal with that pain, which leads to feeling even worse… and the cycle, repeats ad infinitum.

The Enemy’s war against the soul also includes distorting our basic attitudes which in turn affect every other area of life. James contrasts two sorts of “wisdom;” one that is “earthly, natural demonic” with that which is from “above” (James 3:15) that is “pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering and without hypocrisy.” “Demonic” wisdom is characterized by bitter jealousy, selfish ambition and arrogance (Jas 3:14). It is possible that James here is using the word “demonic” in a more metaphorical than literal sense; i.e., since demons are selfish, arrogant and bitter, when Christians allow these emotions to control their actions, they are acting like demons (with no necessary thought that demons “cause” these attitudes).

However, either way, Christians are supposed to understand the differences between these two ways of “wisdom;” repenting of the one, and embracing the other. In other words, if a person is angry, depressed, anxious, bitter, jealous or full of enmity towards others, he may not need to have a demon cast out of him, but he does need to repent of his “demonic” attitudes. He is thinking like the demons think, and if he does not repent, he will act as they act. This should make us all tremble when we find ourselves consumed with pride, jealousy, or bitterness.

Nevertheless, one of the most successful tactics of the Enemy has been to convince Christians that they should live according to their feelings, rather than the will of God. This belief is now deeply rooted in our collective psyche; e.g., the popular movie Star Wars exhorts the young Skywalker to “follow your feelings, Luke.” When asked for an opinion about something important, the question is often not “What do you think about this…” but rather, “How does that make you feel?” Worship services in most large evangelical churches are self-consciously crafted today to generate a certain emotional response; the preaching may be a bit light, but oh, how we can “Rock with Jesus.”

Christians just want to “feel” a certain way and that becomes the criteria by which they judge everything else; i.e., “If something makes me feel good, well, it must be good! And if something makes me feel bad, then “it is bad!” This in turn carries over into how they handle life problems, deal with conflicts and conduct their relationships with others. For example like Cain, they assume that just because they are angry, someone else caused their anger and therefore are justified in lashing out, striking back, slandering, gossiping, tale-bearing or whispering (1 Peter 3:9). Many Christians do not have a “sober” self-evaluation, being unable to honestly and sincerely examine their own motives and attitudes (Romans 12:3). Thus, when their pride is hurt or they feel threatened by another in some way, they give in to these “demonic” feelings using their reason to justify why it is OK to have these attitudes, rather than acknowledge their sins and take God’s solution. Marriages are destroyed because a couple “fell out of love;” relationships are ended because “I can never forgive you for hurting me.”

Often, Christians end up being miserable, lonely, and frustrated because their feelings “told” them to act some way contrary to God’s will. Their life then consists of the things they can buy, mind numbing entertainment, or even what “experiences” they can have. They may not officially abandon the faith, but they never develop their spiritual gifts, and become effective warriors for the Kingdom. They settle for something that is far less than the rich new life in Christ God promises us in the gospel.[79] They accepted the lie, “I must follow my feelings” and caused untold damage to their own souls, and to the souls of others.

Now, it is not as if emotions are wrong; it is just that they are not a reliable guide to living an obedient and abundant life before God. Biologically speaking, our emotions are caused by various chemical compounds produced in our bodies; and our bodies can produce chemicals that make us feel a certain way, regardless of whether those feelings are the appropriate response to a situation.[80] Just because we feel sad, does not mean that we ought to be sad. Just because we feel angry, does not mean that we have a right to be angry; and just because life may at times look bleak, our prospects dim and we see no hope for the future, does NOT mean that God has forsaken us or His promises and provisions are not true. We are to live by faith, not by sight.[81]

Yet, it certainly appears that one of the ways that the Enemy successfully confounds, confuses and adds to our misery is in deceiving us into believing that we have to follow our feelings, rather than the clear teaching of God’s Word. Words like “duty” and “honor” have little meaning for even the average Christian today; the idea that there are some things that we must do, simply because they are the right thing to DO, is not a commonly accepted concept. Instead, many Christians assume that they must do what they feel, regardless of whether their solemn duty as a child of God demands something different.

For example, Scripture says “confess your sins one to another” (James 5:16). This is not precedence for being absolved by a priest or minister, but in context, a requirement to be honest and humble with each other, admitting our failures and frailties. We are supposed to confess to our brother so that we might be forgiven for our sins against him, just as we forgive him his offenses against us. But in my experience, the average believer will do almost anything rather than admit that he sinned against another. We will whine, complain, find fault, bicker, gossip, slander, whisper, excuse, or shift the blame (sound familiar) rather than simply say, “I have sinned against you-please forgive me.”

Here is a quick test to determine whether you have fallen prey to the Enemy’s lie; if married, how many times a week do you have to confess to your spouse that you sinned against them? I routinely ask this question of people coming for marriage counseling; and normally, people will respond with something like, “Well, maybe once or twice a year” usually over some major blow-up. However, do they really think that two sinners living in intimate proximity with each other so seldom sin against each other? A healthy Biblical marriage should have Christians confessing and repenting to their spouses multiple times every day!

But watch how the Enemy deceives us here; we know sin is “bad” and no Christian wants to think of himself as bad! So, either we can become really, “super” righteous “saints” who never sin (an impossibility-see 1 Jn 1:8) or we have to confess our sins and ask forgiveness on a regular basis. But admitting that we sinned, that we fell short, that we did not do what God required in a certain situation makes us feel bad because it hurts our pride. So, most Christians, rather than confess their sins, suppress them; pretending they did not happen, justifying or excusing them-most often blaming the other person. But if the sins are not confessed they cannot be forgiven; and unresolved sin inevitably leads to bitterness, frustration and contempt that can eat away at a relationship.

Often, marriages can be “saved” almost overnight, simply by teaching a couple to confess their sins to one another on a daily basis. This tends to make them keenly aware of how often they are offending the other party, and removes the self-deception that we use to excuse ourselves or blame others. Furthermore, both have to learn how to forgive by faith; to forgive simply means to “remit the penalty for an offence.” However, some people who are controlled by their emotion still feel hurt, wounded, angry, etc., and refuse to forgive. When this becomes evident, the counselor knows he is on track to identifying the real problem that is destroying this marriage. Forgiveness is non-optional for Christians; we must forgive because we have been forgiven. If we are not forgiving others, there is something fundamentally flawed in our relationship with God. By teaching people how to take time every day, to confess, and repent and forgive each other’s sins, we can actually helping build a couple’s relationship with God which in turn restores and strengthens their relationship with each other. Suddenly, a couple becomes tender, gentle, and kind- all the fundamental qualities needed in a strong Christian marriage.

The Enemy must rejoice over the folly of Christians; first he convinced them that they had to live according to their feelings. Then he twists them up in futile attempts to protect their silly pride, and thereby destroyed the greatest joy, comfort and hope we enjoy in this life-our loving, intimate relationships with one another.

In a similar way, in my experience over the past thirty years as a pastor, seldom do people leave a church because of actual doctrinal error or a failure on the part of the elders to properly govern the congregation. Almost universally, they left because they felt “bad” about something; maybe the pastor forgot to announce their birthday, maybe they had a disagreement with another person, perhaps they did not get their own way in a church business meeting- the reason does not matter.[82] Something “made” them “feel bad” and that was enough to justify them walking away (or even worse, walking away and trying to take as many other people with them as possible). As I was told in seminary thirty years ago “People do not come to church to feel bad;” we were actually encouraged not to preach too specifically against sin because it would convict people![83] Far too many Christians are perfectly willing to abandon good churches, and lose wonderfully intimate and loving relationships, rather than just work through the bad feelings and do what is right.

The Enemy also attacks our souls by burdening us with false guilt. The word “Satan” means “adversary” or “accuser” and refers to his role in accusing the brethren. The term actually means something like “prosecuting attorney.” When we sin, our conscience is convicted by the Holy Spirit; this is true, moral guilt and is a warning from God that we need to repent. However, if we are not careful, we can also become susceptible to suffering from false guilt. Even true moral guilt can lead to depression if the underlying sin is not dealt with properly. False guilt though is the sense of utter condemnation that comes from the Adversary; it is often associated with lies such as “you have committed the unforgivable sin” or “no real Christian could ever have thought that (or “said” that or “done” that).” Quite commonly false guilt manifests itself in ways such as “What’s the point, you will just sin like than again- you are just a miserable failure.” Or even, “Face it; you have sinned one too many times, God is fed up with you.” False guilt implicitly removes hope and denies peace, even when the believer has repented and confessed his sins.

Now, because every aspect of our nature is affected by sin, including our minds, Christians may not always know how to handle their sins in the proper Biblical way. When they are overwhelmed by the guilt of genuine conviction, they may try to atone for the sin by trying to do something “good” to make up for what they did wrong.[84] Some just “wallow” in the guilt; they think that they need to feel “bad” to pay for their sins.

These techniques do not and cannot work, and open us up to the attacks of false guilt; the only way to remove true moral guilt caused by sin is through genuine repentance, humble confession (1 John 1:9) and sincerely trusting in the complete sufficiency of the Lord Jesus who died in our place (1 John 2:1ff). Once we have done that, we ARE forgiven!

But the Adversary does not want us to believe God’s promises. Often, even though we have confessed our sins, we still do not feel forgiven. The Enemy then lies to us, continues to pour on the guilt and many sincere believers can become so twisted up inside that they can no longer function. Some become so depressed, that they simply withdraw from the battlefield. Others spend so much time looking inward that they have no resources left to minister to others. Either way, the Enemy has won a victory by removing another of our soldiers from the war.

However, our faith must be in the facts of God’s promises, not the strength of our feelings. If God says we are forgiven, we are forgiven, regardless of how much additional guilt the Enemy wants to pour on us. If we believe his lies that we have to live according to our feelings, at best, we will become miserable and depressed; at worst we can become so bizarre in our thinking that it affects every aspect of our lives.[85]

When we turn to Christ and the forgiveness He purchased for us on the cross, there is “no condemnation” (Romans 8:1). No matter how many times the “Adversary” accuses us, “You call yourself a good Christian and you …!” it is always a lie. If we listen to those accusations, we are accepting his lies before God’s truth- the age old problem again. We need to realize that of course we sinned! “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

However, we have an Advocate before the Father (1 John 2:1), the Lord Jesus Himself who mediates His own sacrificial blood shed on our behalf which “covers” (”atones for”) all our transgressions. Yes, when we sin, we should feel “bad” because we have offended a holy and righteous God. But once having confessed those sins, we are forgiven, and there is no one who can condemn us (Romans 8:33-34). But if we allow the Enemy to deceive us into lacking confidence in God’s promises, we can try to relieve those terribly painful feelings by the all the false mechanisms we noted above.

Furthermore, once we believe one lie, we are more susceptible to believing other lies. There is a tendency over time, to become consistent with our most basic beliefs.[86] Humans are not computers and none of us thinks as logically as we should and could; but once we accept something as “true” that belief will eventually work itself one way or the other in other parts of our thinking. Thus, when we accept the Enemy’s lie at one point, it tends to lead us further and further astray. It is not unlike trying to follow directions to some place one has never before visited. If you mess up one of the directions and turn left, when you should have turned right, every other direction will only lead you further and further astray.

When Christians get it wrong in dealing with sin, they cannot restore broken relationships or heal one another’s wounds. Even if they are “sincere” in wanting to help another, often, they simply make matters worse. Countless relationships have been broken, marriages destroyed, churches ripped apart by controversy and schism, with the name of Christ blasphemed amongst the Gentiles because Christians did not know how to deal with their sins or resolve problems Biblically. Rather than confessing, and repenting and letting “love cover a multitude of transgressions” instead, they bite and snap and destroy each other (James 4:1-10). The self-righteous Pharisee blind to his own hypocrisy is not just a problem the Lord Jesus dealt with in the first century; we have those same people with us today because they listen to the Enemy and do not trust in the forgiveness God has freely given us in Christ. In their own mind, they THINK they are doing the “right” thing but in reality they are acting as agents of the Adversary.

The solution begins with simply not basing our lives on our feelings but rather according to the unchanging standards of God’s Word. We all sin, frequently. We cannot hide from our sins or blame them on others. All we can do is confess them and throw ourselves on the mercy of a gracious and compassionate God. Since He forgives us, we have to forgive others, treating them with the same kindness, gentleness and grace that God treated us. This forces us to live more humbly, to be less judgmental, and to be kinder and gentler with one another. And we demonstrate that we truly are His disciples because we “love one another” (John 13:35).

The War against God in the Intellect

The term “philosophy” is a compound Greek word meaning “love of wisdom.” But as James points out, there is godly wisdom, and the demonic kind. From the beginning, the war against God was manifested in the intellectual realm by denying the truth of God’s own revelation and a futile attempt to find “knowledge” and “wisdom” apart from Him. Though God’s nature and glory is clearly revealed in His creation (though our sin distorts that image), wicked men refuse to acknowledge Him, because then, they would have to worship and serve Him.

Instead of using the rational facilities God gave them study to His creation and so glorify Him, sinful men lie to themselves and each other, trying to rationalize, justify or excuse their rebellion. Paul tells us that sinful men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rms 1:18) and warned us that “professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rms 1:22); when men reject the knowledge of God they end up believing all sorts of foolish, ridiculous things.

In antiquity, some men redefined His nature, making him a part of His own creation as in eastern pantheism. Others split up His divine attributes into separate individual “gods” or confused Him with His angels (polytheism) and then crafted an image that would “represent” that aspect and worshipped it, rather than the Truth (idolatry).[87]

In the modern era, men first tried to remove God from the “phenomenal” realm of fact, history and science, etc., and restrict Him to the “noumenal” realm of “spirit, idea, and morality.”[88] In effect, they asserted that God could not interact with the physical world (Kant, Deism, etc.).[89] Strict materialists then took the next logical step and denied His existence altogether, relegating faith in the spiritual to be the product of emotional or psychological pathologies (e.g., Freud, modern atheism).

In the 19^th century especially, the demon inspired attack against the intellect was two pronged. On the one hand, some scholars attempted to undermine confidence in the integrity of Scripture by developing “Higher” or “Literary Criticism.” Men asserted that they could demonstrate how the Bible was “really” written; in effect Man would sit in judgment over God’s word. Many were eager to embrace Higher Criticism just because it meant that they if they could reject the Bible, they could dismiss the Bible’s God. If they could dismiss God, then they can discard His Law. If they can discard His Law, then THEY can determine what is good and evil; it always seems to come back to that first temptation, doesn’t it?

The other approach was more direct; materialism tried to show that God was simply irrelevant because the scientific method was sufficient to understand reality without reference to the supernatural. After all, if everything we see can be explained as purely the result of natural forces, plus time, plus chance, why do we need a Creator? And if there is no Creator, Man is left as the sole proprietor of the earth; in effect, Man becomes God. Why do we need a “god” in “heaven” anyway when “Man” was developing “godlike” powers (by learning how to manipulate and control “natural” forces) on earth? For a while it must have seemed the ancient rebellion was finally successful; God could be safely set aside because Man and his reason had replaced Him.

Sadly, many Christians were seduced into these errors, even conservative ones. We thought we could establish a détente with Humanism by relinquishing the fields of science to the rationalists. But they did not stop there; we lost our best and brightest universities and seminaries to Liberal Theology because we required our future scholars to receive their education from institutions controlled by the materialists. Eventually, even our own schools and colleges hired professors that taught the Bible was just a human book and who openly doubted whether Jesus ever existed at all. The gospel had to be “de-mythologized” to make it acceptable to modern, scientific men. The “true” essence of “religion” was to give man a certain “feeling” of being “close” to the “Transcendent.”[90]

Please note the logical progression of these intellectual attacks; if one removes the supernatural from the Bible, it is no longer God’s Word to man, but rather, man’s thoughts about God; man then becomes the focus of religion, not God. Thus, God is not who He said He was, did not do what He claimed to have done and the scientists would now lead us to a perfect world of peace and harmony based upon their increasing power over the natural world.

At the risk of beating an already “dead horse;” notice the parallels with the first temptation; in the Garden, the Enemy began by calling God’s credibility into question. He cast doubt on the truthfulness of what God had said, and what the consequences would be in defying Him. Rather than trust God, man believed the Adversary, and brought sin and death into the world.

In the 19^th century, after fifteen hundred years of Christian civilization, the Enemy again successfully called God’s integrity and credibility into question – with whole cultures accepting his lies and rebelling against God’s authority. Ideas have consequences; what we believe really does affect how we see the world, and how we live in it. Within just a few decades, revolutions, massacres, and maniacs appeared and the seeds were sown for the chaos we see daily around us. Every non-Christian philosophy must suppress the truth of God’s revelation but in doing so they inevitably have to distort other aspects of their reasoning as well to remain consistent. The Enemy’s main focus has always been to lie about God, but once having accepted that lie, men’s thinking becomes distorted about every area of life. When men logically follow the implications of that flawed premise (“for in Him we live and move and breathe…”), they create belief systems that go further and further into absurdity.[91]

The schizophrenic we mentioned earlier suffers from the inability to properly interpret what his senses are telling him. Because his brain is not functioning properly, he may see things that are not really there, he may feel as if somebody (the CIA, the “government” or even “space aliens”) are secretly watching him or trying to persecute him. He may suffer from incredible mood swings that take him into the heights of creativity at one moment to the depths of suicidal depression in the next. The schizophrenic acts “strangely” because, in his mind, all these things are “true.” And he has a point of course; if the government WERE trying to kill you, you would feel threatened, insecure, frightened and take appropriate steps. It is not the actions that are “strange” but rather the belief system behind them that is not true to reality.

For example, in the 20^th century alone, tens of millions of people were murdered by their own national governments, with at least a hundred million dying in wars between various humanistic ideals.[92] It took six years to defeat the occult driven Nazis militarily; the demonically inspired Marxists continued to destroy the souls of entire nations almost to the end of the 20^th century before finally self-destructing.

This is what happens when men believe demonic lies and reject God’s revelation. They no longer see the world as it really is and though from their perspective they are acting “rationally” in reality, their attitudes and behaviors become increasing bizarre. While with hindsight, we can easily recognize the errors of National Socialism and Communism, we must not forget that at the time, both philosophies were highly regarded intellectual philosophies; it was only after the implications of their views became apparent that now modern men reject them.[93]

The trick is to expose the implications of a certain line of reasoning before it destroys entire civilizations. For example, most modern men accept in one form or another that Man is a product of random chance plus time; that human personality is simply the interaction of various chemicals. It is then not a far step to believe that people have no inherent value other than what the dominant powers give them. If the State has the right to determine good from evil, they also have the right to determine who is a “person” who is a “non-person.”

For example, Jews, Gypsies and Christians became “non-persons” in Nazi Germany and were executed for the “good of the State.” Royalist, Capitalists and Christians became “non-persons” in Russia and China being imprisoned or executed “for the good of the Revolution.” Babies in the womb can become “non-persons” in any modern nation, and “removed” with a quick lunch time stop at the local abortion clinic for the “good of maintaining the right of a woman over her own body.” And how long before the elderly who have “outlived” their “usefulness” are considered a “drain” on overburdened socialized health care and declared to be “non-persons?” Right now, every Western nation is considering legislation to murder the elderly or the brain damaged because treating them is too expensive (especially with a declining younger population). How long before they are actually rounded up and given a “sleeping pill” to “ease their suffering” for “their own good?”

All of these monstrous practices can and do flow logically and necessarily from the underlying demonically inspired philosophical belief that God is not God. If there is no God, there is no absolute good; just different choices with each man determining what is good in his own eyes. Therefore, there is nothing to restrain human evil, tyranny, oppression; the two most consistent humanist thinkers in history were the Marquis De Sade and Adolf Hitler. Neither recognized any definition of “good” other than their own will; both believed that “might makes right.” Both went down in history as monsters. Thankfully, most humanists are not consistent, yet, with their beliefs; a remnant of Christian morality still inhibits them. But if they continue to believe the Enemy’s lies, eventually, they will work out the implications of those lies in social policy, cultural values, and political programs creating “hell on earth.”

And in the war against God, the Enemy was able to win all these victories by convincing Christians that Jesus was not Lord of every area of life; just maybe the personal or the “spiritual.” We let the Materialists, the Humanists, the Marxists, the Socialists and the Feminists redefine our faith, capture our institutions and transform our culture according to their determination of good and evil. We lost these battles, at least partially because so many Christians, feared the “giants” of rationalism and materialism, and replaced the comprehensive redemption promised by God with a subjective, personalized religious experience. A Christian faith that is reduced to just obscure points of theological speculation or personal “spiritual” comfort is not the historic Biblical gospel that transformed the world.[94]

The War against God in the World

Since the dawn of time, the Adversary had been successful in deceiving the nations, leading them into idolatry, false religion, and political tyranny. As men believed his lies that they were little “gods,” they built splendorous cities and extensive empires based on the underlying assumption that the “God-King” was the intermediary between the spiritual and the material worlds. Authority was concentrated in the State as the supreme expression of Man’s power on earth; with the “God-King” ruling as a tyrant.

However, “god-kings” tend to be jealous for their own glory and so inevitably they battled amongst themselves for power and dominion. The history of the pre-Christian world is implicitly the story of sinful men acting out what it means to determine good and evil in defiance of God. Since one man’s definition of “good” may differ from another’s, the two cannot live in harmony unless one submits to the other. Idolatry served an important social function in providing a way of tying the individual to the “greater good” of the State; which of course required political tyranny, social repression, economic monopolies, forced conversions, and outright subjugation or destruction of one’s neighbors. We really do not appreciate just how wicked a nation can be when it has not been influenced by the gospel-Romans 1:20ff was written specifically to demonstrate that cultures without the gospel are truly “demonic.”

During antiquity, the “seed of the woman” consisted of a small, insignificant nation often overwhelmed by her larger, wealthier and more powerful neighbors. Israel would hardly rate a footnote in the annals of human history apart from the sovereign grace of God protecting, nurturing, and using her to bring His Son into the world.[95] However, with the coming Christ, for the first time, the gospel broke out from ethnic Israel and began to convert the nations. Satan’s long dominion over the world was broken as nation after nation repented of their sins and acknowledged Jesus as Lord. Though demonically inspired heresies infiltrated the church almost immediately, and Roman despots horribly persecuted and oppressed believers, Hell itself could not withstand the advance of God’s church (e.g., Matt 16:18).[96]

The Adversary no longer has the same power in the world today that he had before the Lord Jesus came. Yes he is real, but the gospel of Jesus Christ has been overthrowing his counterfeit kingdom for more than two thousand years; this is just what we have seen historically where the gospel has been preached. Incidents (real or imagined) of overt demonism tend to disappear when the gospel thrives in a society; first in Israel, then the Mideast, then North Africa, Greece, Rome and pagan Europe, the gospel literally expelled the demons and demon inspired worship. Over the past two millennia, whole continents converted to faith in Christ and sought (albeit inconsistently) to bring their lives into submission to His will.

And as a result, idolatry, occultism and paganism retreated into obscurity while morality, prosperity, justice and liberty flourished. This is a fact that most Christians just do not seem to appreciate; the gospel changes lives and those changed lives change the culture. Like leaven, the gospel is slow but eventually thoroughly permeates and affects every area of life (Luke 13:20-21).

However, when a culture that once had the blessings of the gospel rejects God, they in effect invite the demons back in. The modern world began as sinful men wanted the blessings of the gospel without having to submit to King Jesus. The Adversary has been tremendously successful in convincing foolish men that they can have liberty, peace and prosperity apart from God. Yet, every attempt to create a “utopian” society based on anything other than Biblical principles has quickly degenerated into chaos, revolution, tyranny, poverty and death.

The rise of Enlightenment Humanism in the 18^th and 19^th centuries was associated with the popularity of occult societies, especially in the formation of the various anarchistic and revolutionary movements that assaulted 19^th century European civilization.[97] Even as many in the West embraced a strict materialism, occultism (sometimes under a different name) was growing behind the scene. Darwinism was in many respects, simply a repackaging of ancient pagan Greek concepts of evolution. Nazi Germany was notorious for the promoting and adopting occult beliefs and practices; and few would doubt that Hitler was influenced by demonic forces.

Stalinist Russia, even though supposedly devoted to strict materialism, demonstrated that their beliefs and monstrous practices were fully consistent with demonic influence by murdering millions of their own citizens, especially Christians. Furthermore, the old Soviet Union spent considerable resources in “scientifically” researching various forms of occult activity such as telekinesis, precognition, “psychics” and the like. “Paranormal investigation” is just old fashioned occultism with a new scientific sounding name; and it was rife behind the Iron Curtain.

Most modern Western nations have embraced some sort of socialism; whether outright Marxism, some form of Fascism or the more “benign” form of the “nanny state” that promises to provide for every area of life. Men have been deceived into believing that the State can and will meet all their needs. It begins with envy; poor people are taught that they are the victims of the rich- therefore legalized theft (oppressive taxation) is practiced by the state.[98] At first, free education and health care, government retirement programs, generous welfare benefits and subsidized national industries that guarantees everyone a job seem like great blessings. However, over time, every socialist state eventually destroys itself as it penalizes productive, diligent citizens and subsidizes sloth and irresponsibility. The more consistent it is with its anti-God premises, the more quickly it self-destructs.[99]

Socialist nations often obtain power by promising “liberty” by which they mean “freedom to sin;” in other words, they appeal to the basest instincts of a people. Hence such nations often allow abortion, pornography, sodomy, adultery, etc. while actively suppressing or destroying the family. The promise of “liberty” though always comes at a price; personal freedom. The State will tell you how to raise your children, how to educate them, and will gladly confiscate your hard earned money in taxation to support what they think is “good.”

Furthermore, the family and church are both direct threats to their power and authority because they represent rival claims; the humanist State must either co-opt or destroy both institutions. [100] The State promises free education for your children, only if they provide the content of that education, which always has as its main goal indoctrinating them with their propaganda. Churches are commonly required to be registered (sometimes by offering them subsidies), and then forced to preach and teach what the State demands; or else the church will be shut down.

Ideas have consequences; a culture that rejects Christian morality in one area, will find that they have also lost something vital in another.[101] By embracing immorality, every modern, industrialization has seen their populations develop deadly values; e.g., sexually transmitted diseases are rampant amongst women under the age of 25, sodomites have a life expectancy something like thirty years less than heterosexuals, women demanding to have a career often find that they are often too old to have children. “Those who hate me love death…”

So, one does not have to have demonic possession to have demonic domination. If the real work of demons is to deceive and lead people away from Christ, then surely, any philosophy, any religious beliefs, any social system can be used for that purpose. In short a man does have to even believe in demons to be manipulated by them to suppress the truth.

In all these areas, the battles are often subtle; most Christians are easily deceived into “going along to get along” because never are the implications of adopting humanist assumptions worked out. The population, as in ancient Rome, is kept entertained with “bread and circuses” such as mindless television, sporting events and immorality so that they do not have time to actually see what is happening to the culture.[102] Since those who reject God implicitly believe that they ought to determine good and evil, obtaining and maintaining power becomes their primary goal in life. When the culture degenerates into lawlessness because Christian morality has been destroyed, the State will insist they need more laws, and more policemen to enforce those laws, yet never actually take the steps that would inhibit criminals. While crying over the plight of the poor, politicians will actually endorse and subsidize the very immoral behaviors that create poverty; while at the same time, they use the poor to vote themselves, and their friends, cushy, comfortable lifestyles at the tax-payers’ expense.

Over time, people have to work harder, and longer, for less and less real money. Poverty becomes more common with all the attending ills. Children grow up in divorced or single parent homes, essentially being raised by the State; and often becoming unrestrained, selfish and sexually promiscuous. Since all power is thought to be invested in the State, factions and schisms break out in society as various groups vie for control. Without Christian morality as the foundation of a society, the entire culture just cannot function; people do not work, they take bribes, they steal, they lie, they hate and murder. The State, not satisfied with the amount it extorts through oppressive taxation, must inflate the currency, making its money worthless, impoverishing the entire nation. Dissenters, or just anyone who points out that the “emperor has no clothes” are harassed, arrested, tortured, imprisoned and murdered. Eventually, the entire society either falls into revolution, factional warfare and crime as people battle over the few remaining scraps. Sometimes, they are invaded by a neighbor who wants their natural resources, but not their population. Hence, massacres and even genocide can occur.

The more capital a nation has, the longer it can survive before falling into chaos; just think of a profligate son living on his inheritance. For a while, everything may seem fine as he spends his inheritance. But one day, the inheritance is gone and he will be reduced to eating with the pigs just to survive. Men who reject God may appear to flourish for a while as they spend the capital laid down by our Christian ancestors; but the rot is already becoming terribly apparent in every Western nation. Our culture is in the process of imploding right before our eyes, because we have believed the Enemy’s lies.[103]

Fighting the War and Winning

The war in the spiritual realm demands that Christians fight certain battles in the physical one. For most of church history, Christians have insisted that their faith in Christ MUST manifest itself in changing the world around them. We were the ones who rescued exposed babies, built schools, started universities and created the very idea of a hospital; we established charitable institutions, ended slavery, restrained kings in their power, and protected a man’s right to his life and private property by creating free, safe and prosperous societies.

At least part of our battle against the Enemy means calling all men, in every area of life to submit to King Jesus. That means the politician making laws, the scientist in his laboratory, the businessman in his factory, the artist in his studio, all have a divine obligation to do their work for the glory of God; and we as Christians have an obligation to “disciple” them, teaching them to “observe all that I commanded you…”

In the 19^th century, whole cultures were deceived into believing that they could have the blessings of Christian civilization without having Christ. The church was ill prepared for this battle. We had reduced the Christian faith to a set of theoretical propositions, empty rituals, or emotional experiences, allowing the Enemy to undermine our faith from the inside. As the battle heated up and we began to see the cultures we built disintegrate into chaos (as per God’s warning in Romans 1:18ff) many believers decided to “opt” out of the war altogether and wait for the Rapture.

The great defeats of the 19^th century that enshrined Humanism, Darwinism, Marxism and Socialism were merely the latest manifestation of the original spiritual warfare in the heavens. Yet, many Christians chose to sit these battles out because they had accepted another of the Enemy’s lies; there is no victory in this world- only in the world to come.[104] In the end, we handed the Adversary all of Western Civilization hardly without a shot fired in return. If you want to know how our society became such a cesspool of wickedness and vice, look no further than Christians refusing to act as “salt and light” in the world.

Consider the most popular passage in the Bible for evangelical Christians-John 3:16 “For God so loved the world…” Most Christians know this verse so well they assume they understand what God meant here, without considering what the words actually say. This verse does not say that “God loved some people in the world” but that He loved “the world.” The word “world” in Greek (kosmos) means “pattern” or “system of things” and more specifically, the current order that is opposed to God.[105] Yet even though this “system” is in rebellion, the Lord God sent His Son to save it from its own sins. God is not just going to save some people; He promises to save “the world.” He will restore His entire creation to its original perfection through His Son’s atonement for sin. Just as He cursed the world because of Adam’s sin, He will save it through His Son’s righteousness; and the whole creation is eagerly awaiting its redemption (Romans 8:19-21).

His means of saving the “world” is through the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) in which He commanded His Apostles to “disciple the nations” teaching them to “observe all that I commanded you…” Again, many Christians misread this text as meaning something like “preach the gospel in foreign lands” but it actually says that we are to teach the nations how to obey King Jesus, to order every area of life to His glory as opposed to Man’s will. It is not just saving an occasional brand from the fire; but winning the nations themselves for Jesus. This view is quite foreign to most evangelicals today; but it was the motivation for the expansion of the early church and the evangelization of the pagan tribes invading the Roman Empire; this belief built Christian civilization in Europe, contributed to the discovery and settlement of the new world, and gave birth to the modern missionary movement.

In the past forty years, a small but growing number of Christians have rediscovered the importance of pressing for the crown rights of King Jesus, especially in the social and political realm. These believers know that for all its faults, inconsistencies and failures, Christian civilization is the only hope for a free, stable, safe and prosperous world. They have protested against pornography, abortion and attacks against the family. They put pressure on politicians, educated the public, and had some effect on restraining certain aspects of humanist civilization.

Yet, if we do not appreciate the spiritual nature of this war, many battles will be (and have been) needlessly lost. A nation will not be saved from calamity by changing the government, electing the “right” politician to office or having the “right” social programs enacted.[106] It certainly will not occur by taking up arms against the various tyrannical civil governments of the world.[107]

Instead, our “weapons” are “spiritual” in that as we live our lives humbly before God and proclaim Jesus as Lord of every area of life, and then work out the implications of that confession, He will give us victory. Remember, “All authority” has been given to King Jesus; and He will prosper and bless His people if they “humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways.” It is the gospel that transforms the individual, his family, and his community, destroying “…speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God… taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ…” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

This means that to win the battles we are called to fight in this world, Christians must first get their own personal lives in order, governing their families according to God’s Word and learning how to live together in peace and harmony in the church; we have to learn how to stand together. Yet, all too often, as our demonically inspired cultures degenerate into wickedness, tyranny and oppression, we bicker, slander and whisper against one another, tearing down rather than building up.[108] An army at war with itself is no threat to the Enemy. When we do not put on our spiritual armor, stand firmly together, and wield the actual weapons that God commanded us to use, the Enemy can and will steamroll over us. Yet rather than repent for our pride, arrogance and endless foolish conflicts with each other, we comfort ourselves by saying that “this is the way God ordained history to be.” It is easier to study our prophecy charts than actually DO something He commanded; live in humble obedience, self-sacrificial love, and gentle peace with each other.

Yes, we need to organize marches, join lawful protests, form political action committees, write books and newsletters, using all of the tools in a good activist’s arsenal. All of these “techniques” are public confessions that Jesus is Lord and every knee must bow to Him. However, all too often, the reason why such efforts do not seem effective in halting the onslaught of the Enemy is because Christians are jealous, envious, arrogant, disruptive, selfish and motivated only by their own gain.[109] Some Christian leaders refuse to work together because of their own pride and arrogance; helping a brother just might make him more popular. Others gleefully look for any failure or imperfection in a brother and attempt to use those to destroy “competing” ministries. Some Christians will destroy a church, ruin a pastor’s reputation, and even attempt to have him removed from the ministry just because they did not get their own way. Churches are often split into factions, parties and cliques where they spend more time fighting each other than battling the Enemy.

Until we learn to live together in love, and be humble with one another, and put our brother’s interests before our own (Phil 2:1ff), we cannot possibly hope to win the spiritual war in the heavenly places where the real battles are being fought (1 Peter 5:5ff). Only God though can remove the calluses from a hardened heart, or the scales from a blind eye. We desperately need the Lord God to give us a great revival of true religion; but until pastors and leaders understand what true, Biblical Christianity is, why should God entrust us with His precious saints if we are only going to mislead them?

The biggest threat to the early church was not the perverted, murderous sodomite Nero and his oppressive idolatrous Empire, but the long standing enmity between the “seeds.” Corrupt Roman civilization was simply at that time the current battlefield in the war against God. We won those battles by preaching and living the gospel. The early church for all its flaws, failures and flirtations with heresy (the “doctrine of demons”) was still able to demonstrate that the gospel was real and powerful by the way they were kind to one another, loved one another, lived in peace and served one another (Phil 2:1ff, Eph 5:1ff, etc.). God then blessed that church and the demons fled in fear.

What God did in the past, He can and will do again in the future. The demons may have returned, but they can be defeated, if Christians are simply willing to stand together, remain faithful, and use the divinely powerful weapons He has given us. But that means that we need to regain a comprehensive Christian faith; a faith based upon unconditional surrender to the Lordship of Christ. God’s victory is assured; however, whether we or our children will experience the blessings of that victory is another issue. Eventually, all His enemies will be subdued under His feet; but each and every one of us is going to stand before the Lord God on the Day of Judgment and give an account of whether we did our part in the war against His glory and rule.

First, clearly, we have no power in ourselves; God did not choose the strong, the noble or the wise to be His warriors but the weak and base and foolish (1 Cor 1: 26ff). Let there be no mistake here; God does not need our talents, wisdom or skills to be put down this rebellion against His righteous rule. God alone is the only one who can drive out demons, open blind eyes, and grant men repentance that they might acknowledge Jesus as Lord and know the joy and peace of the gospel. The Lord Jesus has been given all authority and rules the nations with His rod of iron, subduing His enemies; our victories in this world come about from His sovereign choice.

Yet, because of God’s grace and mercy, He chooses to work through us as the means by which His great victory is seen in time and eternity. Therefore, we begin by living humbly before Him, trusting in His Word and depending upon His kindness and mercy. As the battles rage around us, our primary task is to “stand firm” trusting in His providence protecting the brothers on either side.

Then, God is pleased to subdue His enemies as His people pray “without ceasing” (Ephesians 6:18). The Lord God promises to work through our prayers according to His will; He literally “delights” in the prayers of His people (Proverbs 15:8). However, the secret life of disciplined prayer though fundamental to basic Christian living, is something that many believers find extremely difficult to develop or maintain. For some, rather than as an expression of the amazing, intimate, personal relationship we are granted with Him, prayer can become a formality or a ritual, not much different than a “magical” incantation that people use in an attempt to manipulate or control God. Over the years, as a pastor, I have noticed that most Christians, no matter how knowledgeable they may be of doctrine, or fervent in service, often have deplorable habits of what was once known as “secret worship.” Many Christians pray irregularly at best. When they do pray, it is formulaic, like reading off a shopping list and seems done more for the feeling of comfort it engenders, rather than any real confidence that God will providentially hear and respond to our requests. Few seem to pray with passion and commitment that God can and will work through our petitions to change the world for His glory.

And the ones most committed to public “prayer” meetings, seem to be the worst at having “secret” worship. Like the Pharisees, some Christians love being seen as “prayer warriors” and are always demanding more “prayer meetings” but the content of those prayers seem more like self-aggrandizement than humble obedience. Furthermore, when Christians pray, it seems many assume it is an alternative to obedience; they have genuine concerns but the problem is that they are not living in submission to God. And in all these situations, the more vocal a person is in public prayer, the less (at least in my experience) committed they are to “secret worship.”

Secret worship is simply you, as a believer, ensuring that you spend quality time, every day, with the Lord in prayer and the Word. Prayer without taking the required, constructive action commanded by God is wasted effort. “If you love me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Prayer is not just asking God for something we want, but rather true, spiritual communion with the Living God where He works on us, changing us, strengthening us, convicting us and bringing our wills into conformity with His.

We are told in Scripture that we must “meditate” on God’s word, “day and night.” This is not the emptiness of eastern mysticism, but rather a focused attention on God’s Word wherein we study it so that we can by His grace, conform our ways to His (Josh 1:8). This kind of disciplined, prayerful meditation directed towards practical application is sadly, rare amongst many Christians today.[110] Instead, may Christians are perfectly happy to read into Scripture whatever meaning they want to find, to find some passage that gives them a feeling of hope and confidence without regard to actually doing what God commands. Our prayers are often not answered, because we are asking for the wrong things, in the wrong way, with the wrong motives. And we do not know any better because when we open the Word, we do not let God teach us what is wrong in our own lives.

“Secret worship” is not about praying a shopping list or conducting a doctrinal study of some obscure theological point; it is about giving to God the praise, adoration, and obedience that is His due, as God. Secret worship is often convicting as the Lord uses that time to strip away the lies the Enemy has convinced us to accept. Secret worship humbles us as we are faced with how far we have fallen short of His glory. However, ff we do not regularly seek to bring our wills into conformity with God’s revelation, our thinking can quickly go astray. We might begin to distrust God’s promises, doubt His love, and think we know better than He how to live our lives. And whether we realize it or not, without regular Secret Worship, we open ourselves to believing the Adversary’s lies. I even know some ministers (very successful ones too) who have NEVER done a personal Bible study; all the great wisdom they possessed came from borrowing from the “secret worship” of others.

When we do not have regular, quality time with God, sins are not dealt with properly, problems with others are not resolved kindly, and bitterness, frustration, depression and can grow uncontrollably. If we are not careful, we can easily excuse, justify or rationalize disobedience because we are severed from our spiritual lifeline to the Lord. Therefore, when we are called on to fight a particular battle, we are weak, untrained and ill-prepared. When we lose that battle, we then become discouraged from fighting other battles- and the Enemy wins by default.

Part of the problem as we noted previously is our failure to properly handle guilt; if you are in sin and do not want to repent, then the last thing you want to do is spend time alone with God where those sins will be exposed. No, it is far easier to suppress those guilty feelings for a while- maybe read a good book- do something for the church, cut the grass, anything other than actually deal with the issue. So many believers never have secret worship simply because it makes them feel “bad.”

An even more subtle error is to regularly read the Bible, but already have your mind made up what it must say; ensuring that the Bible can never tell you anything that you do not already believe! Many Christians have been taught to read whatever meaning they want into the Scriptures and can become quite offended if their “interpretation” is not accepted despite the fact that it may contradict the language, grammar, syntax, or vocabulary of the text itself. Whether they realize it or not, they have actually isolated themselves from the Lord’s correction, all the while thinking that they “study” the Scriptures! In effect, they will decide what God means in Scripture by what seems good to them! Without even realizing it, they have fallen victim to the most ancient of lies!

But the Lord will not be mocked. I suspect that in however the Adversary does his work in the spiritual realm, there must be considerable effort spent in trying to keep us from this spending quality time alone with God- time not just of academic, intellectual study but of earnestly bringing our hearts before the Lord in humility and repentance. “Secret worship” is more than prayer and a Bible study; it is the essence of our personal relationship with God wherein He works on our own heart, our own attitudes, our own weaknesses and sins, confronting and convicting us so that we might grow in grace and godliness. Secret worship is the source of our strength because it builds our walk with God.

Christians have offered a gamut of excuses why they cannot do regular secret and family worship; they are too busy, too tired, it seems too “legalistic;” but the reality is that, quite often, they value something other than God. They want God to protect them, provide for them, and comfort them; but they still want to live their lives according to what seems good to them. Therefore, they do not enjoy spending time alone with the Lord. Since we can do nothing of ourselves, and it is only His grace that can defeat the Enemy then when separated from God, we either become ineffectual, or may even fall into serious sin. An incompetent enemy is every general’s dream! Even better is one that goes out to battle with any ammunition![111]

And perhaps part of the problem is that Christians just do not appreciate the spiritual nature of the war against God, and us. They have been deceived into thinking, like the humanists, that life is purely a result of “natural” forces so they come to depend on “natural” means of living it. They do not appreciate that every day they are the targets of hostile, hyper-dimensional alien entities who seek their destruction by deceiving them into thinking they can live pretty much as they want. Christians then blame the weather, bad luck, poor choices, lack of opportunities, or other people for their problems.

Without trying to create unnecessary fear, if more Christians realized just how much the Enemy hates us, they might be better motivated to spend more time and effort to make sure they are well armored, and well trained in their weapons. After all, if you know that a ravenous, dangerous animal is prowling around your property, you will make sure you are armed before you leave the house (1 Peter 5:8). Every time you pray, and diligently meditate on God’s Word, repent of your sins, and treat your brother kindly and lovingly, you are protecting yourself from the beast lurking outside your door…

Speaking of weapons; our weapons are not of this world, but they are still weapons and it will take time and disciplined effort to become proficient in using them. Do not be discouraged if you find it difficult to schedule consistent secret or family worship, or if sometimes the Scriptures seem “hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). You have God’s Holy Spirit and He will open His word to you if you are humble, and teachable -but it will take work (cf. Proverbs 2:1ff). Paul said, “Discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness” (1 Tim 4:7) and discipline is never easy or “fun.” Worship can be wonderful, doctrinal studies can be fascinating, fellowship can be warm and encouraging but godliness will take some time and effort. Therefore, do not give up hope, especially in secret worship- God will give grace and power!

We must also appreciate that the realm of the “spirit” is more than a place of intellect or idea; as important as having true ideas may be- that is not the end of the matter. There are real hostile spiritual entities opposing us; battling the demonic is more than holding the right theological opinions or winning an intellectual debate. When people are deceived by the Enemy, it is not the clarity of our position or the cogency of our arguments that will open blind men’s eyes. Only God can grant repentance (2 Tim 2:23ff); and therefore, we need to trust in His grace, mercy and providence.

However, often, we are tempted into trusting something else. The Apostle Paul warned about the danger of those who placed too much emphasis in their knowledge of doctrine (1 Corinthians 8:1ff). Granted, God is truth and the pursuit of truth honors Him. Yes, the Enemy excels in lies; but how subtle his deception to convince us to focus on one truth, at the expense of other truths that may be just as important? We must recognize that we can fall prey to Enemy ourselves if we allow our love for truth to become a source of pride and arrogance. There are too many of the brethren who are haughty, contemptuous, and condescending towards those not quite at their “exalted” level of understanding. They can become impatient, frustrated and annoyed at others who do not immediately see things as “clearly” as they do. The issue is not whether they may have a better understanding of abstract theology, but whether or not their attitudes, their words and their actions demonstrate Christ-like character.

On the other hand, others of the brethren need to remember that truth IS something we must strive for in humility and love. There are too may believers today who think that being sincere is a substitute for truth- however, being sincerely wrong, is still being wrong! Yet I have known a great many of the brethren who are “proud” of their ignorance and like the fool of Proverbs, refuse to be corrected by any one at any time![112] The Enemy thrives where there is error and since he is the father of lies, he wants us to believe wrong things. The more confused we are in our thinking, the more lies we accept, the easier it is for us to go further and further astray. Therefore, the more arrogant he makes us in our ignorance, the less likely we will ever benefit from the wisdom of our brothers (Proverbs 27:17).

Thus, to protect ourselves from both errors requires us to have a love for truth, and a love for one another. These are both a necessary implication of loving God; and if one does not have both, one has neither (1 John 4:20). Some Christians deceive themselves by using their reason to justify or excuse being mean-spirited, envious, contentious, argumentative, jealous, or cruel to others. They think because they have won the argument, that they are right before God, even if they had to destroy a brother in doing so. The Apostle Paul has much to say about this kind of attitude (Titus 3:10), and this kind of Christianity (Romans 14:1ff). Others in an attempt to be gracious and kind, allow people to affirm and accept all sorts of serious doctrinal errors; and God has some things to say about that as well (e.g., Ephesians 4:15, 5:17, 1 Corinthians 5:8, 2 Corinthians 13:8, etc.).

There is simply no substitute for regularly hauling out our hearts and taking a good, long look at why we believe what we believe, or do what we do. Do we love the truth because it reveals God, or because it makes us look smarter than our brothers? Do we love the brethren because we love God and His truth, or want the approval of men? Either way, there is no excuse for not being kind, gentle and humble towards one another (cf. Gal 6:1ff, Eph 5:1ff, 2 Tim 2:23ff, etc.).

God wants us both to have both true knowledge of His will, as well as true application of that knowledge in humble, loving living. We need to recognize that arrogance and pride are the tools of the Enemy. In so far as it depends on us, let us strive to live at peace with all men, trusting in God, and doing what is right (Romans 12:17-18). If Christians simply learned how to live in love and kindness with one another, we could withstand any onslaught of the Enemy, destroying his forces and winning great victories.

Since the spiritual realm interacts and affects the physical realm, we all need to be aware that some of the problems, trials, fears, etc., we all suffer may have a spiritual component- i.e., we are more than just creatures of flesh and more than the flesh influences us. Therefore, when we are wearied of good works, depressed about various situations, tempted to give up hope, we must recognize that sometimes the enemy may be behind it. Granted, all these things may also be symptoms of physical or emotional exhaustion. Sometimes, like Elijah, we need to take some time off, rest and recuperate. However, at other times, it is possible that these extreme negative feelings, especially the ones that call God’s promises into question may be stimulated, in some way, by the Enemy’s lies. If we recognize this as an attack, we are less likely to believe him. We do not have to berate ourselves over failures or let false guilt side track us for “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.”

Furthermore, we need to remind ourselves daily that we are in a real war and wars are tough; people, even good people will get hurt. Therefore we must not be dismayed when our side takes casualties; especially if we are one of them! A man may die “before his time” or lose an important position from which he could have done great things for the Kingdom; God is in control. There will be times when we will have fought hard and long, and suffered great wounds; it may take time to recover until we ready for the next battle. Sometimes, people will hate us without reason, friends will stab us in the back, and even “good” churches will commit the most outrageous injustices; battles are always chaotic and “friendly fire” is always a danger. All these things can wear us down, tempt us to give up and withdraw from the battle- but we need to fight on anyway.

It has been said that wars are not won by destroying an enemy’s soldiers, but destroying their will to fight. The way to win a fight is to get up one more time than you were knocked down. We must realize that even though some of our best and brightest may fall, that sometimes, we may see humiliating defeats, the ultimate victory has already been won. Therefore, no matter how hard we have been hit, we just need to get up, one more time.

We must also appreciate that in this war, our fellow soldiers are not all heroes; sometimes they will be less than perfect- just as sometimes we are “less than perfect.” Yet God is still pleased to work through them (and us) to fight this war. So be kind to one another and help one another and do not be shocked or surprised when Christians fail you, disappoint you or even sin against you. Forgive others, just as you are forgiven, help when you can; and if you cannot help, at least stay out of the way of the heroes. Never worry about the overall strategy. God will do what needs to be done according to His own will; pay attention to the little bit of the battle right in front of you and do your duty.

And since this is a real war, the righteous ought to expect that the Enemy really does hate us, just for being righteous (cf. 1 Peter 4:12). Somehow many Christians assume that everyone, including the world, should love and approve of them, even though Jesus specifically told us to be wary when “all men speak well of you…” Christians often irrationally fear being ridiculed by non-believers; some are devastated just by not being accepted by them. Therefore they tend to “blend” in to the background, not wanting to “make waves” and are intimidated to never talk about the power of the gospel. We need to get over this. Sure, we certainly do not need to be pompous, hypocritical, arrogant or judgmental in our demeanor or relationships- but remember, the Lord is pleased to work through your witness to convert the wicked. If you deny Him before men, He will deny you before the Father (2 Timothy 2:12). Therefore, be strong and courageous, boldly proclaiming that Jesus is Lord without compromise; even if it means that some people may not “accept’ or “like” you. Certainly do not allow yourself to follow their example or determine your values; “Do not be deceived, bad company corrupts good morals.”

We must also never fear persecution or oppression. Remember, God is sovereign and regardless of what the Enemy thinks he is accomplishing, God allows it for His own glory and our purification (1 Peter 4:1). Every time the Adversary thinks he has won a battle, God turns that “defeat” into an even greater victory. Therefore we can live each day righteously and hopefully, despite affliction and adversity because God is working His will and glorifying His name regardless of circumstances.

Many Christians lose heart when the Enemy appears to have won some battle and of course, we need to take this war seriously; God really does work His will through our faithful, humble obedience. If we do not get out there and fight, we automatically concede that battle to the Enemy. But even if we lost every single battle God called us to fight in this life, it still would not change the fact that God is in control. It is very possible, that even in our greatest “defeats” He has placed the kernel of some unimaginable future victory. Just remember; when the seed of the serpent crucified our Lord, they must have thought they had won the war; but in reality, they lost everything.

In line with this, we must also keep in mind that since God decided that He would suffer for His people, as His children, being formed into His image (Romans 8:29) we will also suffer in this life (1 Peter 4:12). Every Christian will experience pain, hardship, adversity, disappointment, disease and death. Some Christians will be specifically targeted by the Enemy (or his human dupes) for intimidation, oppression, persecution and even murder. Others may find themselves suffering from poverty, hardship or ill health. But since we have God’s own promise of redemption, we can endure; even prosper despite affliction, because we will live not just for a few score years on earth, but with our Heavenly Father forever.

Therefore, we need to be courageous and face adversity with confidence and trust in the Lord-”Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous! Do not tremble or be dismayed for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.” (cf. Josh 1:9). Every Christian needs to be intimately familiar with Peter’s first epistle and refer to it constantly. Many Christians, especially in the comfortable West, assume that the gospel is about Jesus solving every problem so they can enjoy a life of ease and comfort. But that is not what Peter says; we will suffer, we will have hard times, things sometimes can and do get really bad. Our hope is not in escaping suffering, but in persevering through it to the glory of God. The pain comes first, and THEN the eternal rewards.

In the meantime, be thankful every day for the blessings that God has given you (Phil 4:6-7); rejoice that your spouse loves you, be content in the good work that God gives you to do with your hands, delight in your children and appreciate your parents, (despite their failures). Enjoy the wonderful Christians God gives you as brothers; honor the elders who teach you, and take comfort in your salvation. Take a walk and watch a sunset, savor a good meal, be happy that you have a roof over your head, and clothes on your back. Rather than focusing on what you do not have, take delight in the good things God has given you; and if in His providence, He decides to take some of these good things away for a while- then still rejoice, for you have been found worthy of an even higher calling and even greater wonders await you! “But to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation…” (1 Peter 4:12). God owes no one anything except death (Romans 3:23); therefore be thankful every moment for every good blessing that He does give you and be content (1 Tim 6:6).

Even though the Enemy hates us, persecutes us and attempts to destroy us, our main threat has always been when we allow ourselves to be deceived into sin. Unrepentant sin brings God’s judgment (e.g., Hebrews 12:4-22). Job is clear; the Enemy can do nothing to us apart from God’s will. However, if we believe his lies, we can put ourselves into a position where God as a loving Father will discipline and correct us; and that correction is painful. Never fear the Enemy, always fear God. Therefore do not stray into sin, and when you do, repent as quickly as possible.

Furthermore, never, ever argue with God when He allows something “bad” to happen; God is God and may do whatever He chooses to do. Of course He does things that you do not comprehend! He is God; to understand why He does what He does you would have to be God-and that is original sin all over again. Often in His providence He may not answer our prayers the way we would like them answered or deliver us from trials as quickly as we would like to be delivered. Many times, He may place us in difficult, even traumatic situations where our faith is stretched and tested.

Do not be like the “foolish women” and doubt His grace and goodness; “Should we indeed accept good from God and not adversity? In all this Job did not sin with his lips…” (Job 2:10). Yet many believers actually demand that God explain Himself because they are outraged that He would allow something “bad” to happen to them! Sometimes, because they cannot strike back at God, they lash out at their brothers, blaming them for the actions of God. When God humbles them in some way, they slander, gossip, whisper or backbite; perhaps the reason is that if they can put others down, they think they will not look so bad in comparison. But all this accomplishes is to destroy the unity of the faith and weaken the army of the Lord. Let a brother stumble in some way, and a pack of evangelical jackals will appear to rend him to pieces; and the reason is that often, God has been doing things in their own lives that threatens to humble them.

For limited creatures of flesh to question the actions of the Sovereign Lord God Almighty is arrogance indeed. Therefore, recognize these temptations for what they are; and when the Lord brings something “unpleasant” into your life, thank Him and trust Him. God can only do what is right, even if it really, REALLY hurts at the time. Do not blame Him, or your brother; accept His rebuke, learn from His correction and receive His forgiveness.

Which leads us to this; maintain an honest, sober self-evaluation; if you are not honest with yourself, you have opened the door for the Enemy and invited him into your life. Pride, arrogance, envy, spite, meanness, hatred, bitterness and malice towards others, regardless of whether there is a specific “demon” behind them, are inherently demonic traits. Recognize these demonic attitudes in yourself, and in others- and do not allow them into your life. Never try to justify, excuse or shift the blame; learn to take responsibility for your sins, and take the right actions. Do not concern yourself with what others are doing, or should be doing, but on what God wants you to do (John 21:21-22). In doing so, you thwart the Enemy’s most successful tactic; you remain at peace with God and others.

At the same time, cultivate kindness, gentleness, compassion, patience, forbearance and allowing love to cover a multitude of transgressions. This is how God treats us, and how we are to treat one another. This is how the world knows we truly belong to Him, because we love one another. Do not gossips or slanders steal your joy and peace; seek peace, be kind, and relish the love of the brethren. Discovering how to live in that love is one of the greatest blessings of belonging to God and gives us a taste of the eternal bliss that awaits His holy ones. It is also a large part of our strength and hope when the days are darkest. A Roman soldier separated from his legion was easy prey on the battlefield. In the same way, if Christians are separated from one another, or embittered against each other because of unresolved problems, the Enemy will devour us piecemeal. Isolated, we quickly fall; standing together, we cannot be defeated.

Finally, never let the Enemy steal your hope. Keep your faith focused on God and His glory, not on your trials and never on other people. Things will go wrong, people will hate you, sickness and adversity will surround you because we live in a fallen universe where demonic spirits battle God and us. Yet the victory is assured; the Enemy has been defeated- in the sovereign providence of God, he has ALWAYS been defeated. Trust in God, live humbly, obey His Law, and be kind to one another. Since our Adversary deals in lies, immerse yourself in our Advocate’s truth, rest in His forgiveness, and rejoice in your deliverance. Put on your armor, stand together, speak the truth in love, and eventually, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father Almighty.

No related posts.

Copyright © 2007, 2009 All Rights Reserved

The Reverend Brian M. Abshire, Ph.D.

Highlands Reformed Church

The Battle to “Save” Christmas. 2

Introduction: 2

Christmas is NOT a Biblical “Holy-Day” Colossians 2:26-29. 5

Is Christmas Even Worthy of Being Saved?. 7

Conclusion. 9

Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas. 11

Historical Origins. 12

Christmas as the Creation of the Victorians. 17

Santa Claus or Satan Claws?. 18

Why Have Some Christians Hated Christmas?. 19

But What about the Regulative Principle?. 21

Christmas Symbols. 24

Introduction and Review.. 24

The Nature of Symbols. 24

The Symbol and the Word. 25

The Analogical Knowledge of God. 27

Christmas “Symbols”. 28

The Battle to “Save” Christmas

The Rev. Brian M. Abshire

Introduction:

Recent years have seen unrelenting assaults on the public display of Christian images at Christmas. The Whitehouse (and other governmental agencies) and major retailers have substituted “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas,” even renaming “Christmas” trees to “Holiday” trees. Courtesy of the ACLU, there is also the ever popular “traditional” holiday game of finding and eradicating local nativity displays. And then of course, there are the many examples of public school children being forced to change the words from “Silent Night” to “Cold Light” so they can sing in a “Winter Festival” pageant. Even the Salvation Army has come under attack as their aid workers have been denied access to the sidewalks outside of certain department stores.

Some of the attacks on Christmas use a more indirect approach by trying to elevate “pseudo” or “wannabe” holidays” such as “Kwanza” and “Chanukah” as a part of the national celebration. I really do not mean to be offensive here but am at a loss for better ways to describe these “holidays.”

Chanukah, (the “Festival of Lights)” is a legitimate part of the Jewish liturgical calendar commemorating the great miracle in purifying the temple after its defilement by the Greeks. But in terms of religious importance it is the “St. Crispin’s Day” of Judaism; a non-Biblical, uninspired (i.e., God did not command it), minor historical celebration. In terms of the great Jewish “holy days” of Passover and Yom Kippur, Chanukah is simply, religiously, insignificant. Christians celebrate Christmas because it is the pivotal moment in human history where God became flesh and dwelt among us. Jews celebrate Chanukah as a reminder of God’s providence in preserving their religion and culture. The two simply do not compare in terms of importance.

Does anyone seriously believe that Chanukah would have any prominence if it did not happen to coincide with the Christian celebration of Christmas? I suspect that the only reason that the forces of Political Correctness require us to recognize Chanukah at all is that Jewish kids were pushing their parents for some of the external things that make Christmas so popular. Let us be honest; we have a Christian celebration with special music, decorated trees, colorful lights, wonderful presents all celebrating “peace on earth and good will to men. They have a minor Jewish “ritual” that consists of lighting some candles and playing with a dradle! Of course Jewish kids feel as if they are getting the short end of the stick!

Kwanza on the other hand is a purely invented “holiday” created by a 1960’s radical who wanted an African alternative to “Christmas.” There is nothing inherently wrong in trying to connect with one’s historical and cultural roots; however, Kwanza was not derived from any actual African celebration, religion or custom. Africa is a large continent with a wide variety of religions, traditions and practices, most of which would not sit well in any modern Western nation (can we say, “ritual scarification”). There certainly was no celebration on the same level as “Christmas.” So one was created and we are supposed to respect it as a legitimate expression of African-American culture. To call Kwanza what it is (a made up holiday that would have been nothing more than an irrelevant reference in African American Studies classes until the media started pushing it) risks being labeled as a racist.

While not a conspiracy type, I suspect that both Chanukah and Kwanza are being deliberately promoted not on their own merits (i.e., as legitimate, important religious celebrations on the level of Christmas), but rather as just another subtle attack on the overt, public display of Christianity that comes with Christmas every year. In effect, we are being told that since there are other, “religious” winter festivals that people celebrate, therefore, Christmas must not be given any precedence in the public square. The fact that in one case, Kwanza, there is no religious significance, or that with Chanukah, the number of Jews who actually celebrate it as a religious (rather than as simply a cultural expression of being Jewish) “holiday” (and a relatively insignificant one at that), is irrelevant. No weapon is to be left unused in the war against Christianity and its most popular public expression.

As a result, many Christian leaders are outraged and outspoken on the need to “save” Christmas. In the past, these same leaders often argued against the commercialization of Christmas; now however the demon to be fought is a self-conscious attempt to completely “secularize” the celebration by removing ALL Christian references. Consequently, many leaders are locked and loaded, “drawing a line in the sand,” exhorting the Christian community to actively battle to “save” Christmas. President Bush once came under enormous fire for his comments when lighting the national “holiday tree” for saying something to the effect “we remember how one humble person can change the world-Thank you Santa!” For what it is worth, I think the President’s comment was brilliant, intentional satire, recognizing the forces that would attempt to deny Jesus as Lord by showing their absurdity. I think he was misunderstood here and some people need to develop a sense of humor. Clearly, Christmas is the most important holiday in American culture; watered down, secularized, debased and distorted as it may be. But in some dim way, it always points back to Jesus and that the secularists cannot stand.

President Bush was not the only one to receive flak on the way he acknowledged the importance of Christmas in American culture. In one incident several years ago, a staffer for the governor of Georgia mistakenly sent out an “official” “Happy Holidays” email only to have the email subsequently repudiated by the Governor. The Governor wanted his constituency to know that HE wished them a “Merry Christmas” and suggested that all complaints be sent directly to the now disgraced staffer who was sent to “Alaska” as punishment! Now, there is a man with a sense of humor!

The vehement response to these political figures demonstrates that Christians see the attacks on Christmas as inherently an attack on Christianity. Believers are finally catching on that the most recent attempt to remove “Christ” from “Christmas” is more than just political correctness gone to a ridiculous extreme - but the end result of a systematic assault against the visible symbols of Christian faith in American society. The Humanists have already taken over the public schools and universities we built, absorbed the hospitals, orphanages and welfare services we began, and they have successfully cowered judges and law-makers from acknowledging Christ as the source of American morality. The ONLY visible expressions of Christianity left in American culture is the motto “In God We Trust” on our money and the national celebration of “Christmas;” and now they will not be satisfied until these are gone too.

Thus by “secularizing” Christmas, the Humanist agenda is shoving Christianity into a purely subjective, inner sphere of life that no matter how personally meaningful or significant, is simply irrelevant and inappropriate in the public sphere of life. Confusion in the popular mind already exists between “Christmas” as a religious celebration and “Christmas” as a mid-winter, non-religious festival. We saw just one small example of this when we tried to buy a “Christmas” CD. Literally, there were stacks and stacks of “Christmas” music from almost every artist imaginable (and if you haven’t heard the “Rap” version of favorite Christmas tunes you haven’t lived!). However, on the same album right along with “Joy to the World” and “Silent Night” were “Frosty the Snowman,” “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and “Santa Claus is Coming to Town.” In other words, both religious AND secular music were intermixed and treated as equally about “Christmas.” The inevitable end result was that the “religious” aspects become simply nostalgic; of no more real significance than Californians, who have never shivered through a Northern winter, appreciating “White Christmas.”

As those who are dedicated to proclaiming and living the crown rights of King Jesus, the question becomes “what SHOULD be our response to both the subtle as well as the overt attacks against Christmas?” What should we think about what is happening in the broader culture; more importantly, what should we be doing about it?

Christmas is NOT a Biblical “Holy-Day” Colossians 2:26-29

As we all know, Christmas, while a “Christian” holiday (”holy day”) is not a Biblical one. The Lord God never commanded, endorsed, suggested or specifically approved of recognizing a “special” day to celebrate the birth of His Son, Jesus. The only day that we are required to keep “holy” is the Lord’s Day, Sunday. For some Reformed Christians, this one simple, often neglected fact is all that is necessary to renounce the entire idea of Christmas and move on to more important issues.

And of course, they have a point. While the origins of “Christmas” as a religious festival are murky, we do know that the “Feast of the Nativity” was apparently celebrated secretly before it became “official” in the fifth century (see “Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas”). After the nominal Christianization of the Empire, it became a required feast day in the Roman church; however, the Roman “holy day” has almost nothing in common with our modern celebration.

In so far as I have been able to determine from research (and the sources themselves are often confused), a strong case can be made that every single distinctive practice associated with our modern celebration of Christmas was a self-conscious creation of the Victorians. Trees, ornaments, lights, holly, mistletoe, cards, even presents were all essentially unknown until the middle of the 19th century when the Romantic Victorians began associating them with what had previously been a simple part of the Roman, Anglican and Lutheran liturgical year; and they did so specifically to “create” a festive season for their children.

The only actual parts of a “traditional Christmas” that have any historical connection are (1) certain “carols” concerning the incarnation that came to be reserved for “Christmas” and (2) an annual tradition of drunkenness and gluttony associated with the religious “feast” day. However, please do not confuse the first Christmas “carolers” with our modern sanitized church people; originally, “Carolers” were actually gangs of drunken louts who went from house to house demanding free drinks (which gives the old song “Here we go a wassailing” a whole different context).

The English and Scottish traditions of drunkenness and rioting were so disreputable that the Puritans and Presbyterians banned the celebration of Christmas. Granted, the early British Reformers were also against anything in the old Roman liturgical calendar because there was no Biblical basis for binding men’s consciences that certain days were somehow more “holy” or “special” than others. From historical records we can fairly confidently state that Christmas was not celebrated in the colonies or the early Republic by other than a few Roman Catholics and Episcopalians as a part of the liturgical calendar. If you look for anything like a “traditional” Christmas celebration in the 17th and 18th century American experience, you simply will not find it.

Thus the question that needs to be asked is; “Why are Christians so offended by the secularists and the humanists attacking a ‘holiday’ that in effect has no more religious, historical or spiritual significance than Kwanza?” Look, I made some fairly critical comments about “Kwanza” earlier but in reality, is the modern celebration of Christmas all that different? Christmas went from a fairly obscure feast day in Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopal churches (all three of which were tiny, almost insignificant influences in American culture until the latter part of the 19th century). Then, literally, within a decade or so, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Baptist churches picked up the celebration and then created all the customs and traditions we associate with Christmas today. Yet, within just a few years of inventing the modern celebration of Christmas, the Victorians were already complaining of its “commercialization” and that it was losing its “meaning.”

This has been a recurring theme ever since. Miracle on 34th Street (the original version with Natalie Wood) is a beloved “classic” holiday film made back in the 1940’s about losing the Christmas “Spirit.” And every year, TV constantly bombards us with variations of “holiday specials” wherein someone has to “save” Christmas. Since Christ is never mentioned in these films, what “spirit” is it exactly that all these people want to save?

Is Christmas Even Worthy of Being Saved?

Perhaps it is time for Christians to ask (since we invented this holiday) whether it even worth saving? Think I am being too cynical; well just consider that when Christmas falls on a Sunday, many mega-churches actually cancel their services since it would conflict with people’s celebration of Christmas! The hypocrisy here is astounding! Christians invent a “holiday” to celebrate the incarnation, create a whole series of customs and traditions to supposedly remember the Savior’s birth, but when it conflicts with actually worshipping God on His day as He commands, why we stay home so we can unwrap our presents! The Mega-churches are not being anti-Christian, just recognizing that if they held services with the type of people that they attract, nobody would come! And since so many Christian pastors and elders want THEIR churches to be mega-churches, one really does have to wonder whether the problem is Christmas, or the kind of Christians the modern church is producing?

Thus, let me suggest that perhaps the real issue has nothing to do with the secularist trying to ban Christmas but rather that Christians refuse to actually stand for anything! If Christians are so lazy and self-indulgent that they will not even go to church on Christmas, then why expect them to act as salt and light in the world? We are losing the symbols of Christ in the culture, because we have already lost the reality of Christ in our churches.

Hence, removing Christmas from the public square is not the problem; it is the modern day sub-Biblical understanding and application of the Christian faith. First, we allowed our consciences to be bound to a religious celebration that has no Biblical warrant. Then we allowed the retailers to crassly commercialize that “holy day” by willingly giving ourselves over to indulgence. Now, we are at the point where some Christians are upset about the secular world attempting to remove Christian Christmas symbols!

Christmas since its inception, has always been about self indulgence, thinly covered with a “spiritual” veneer of Christianity. In earlier times, it was gluttony and drunkenness. The romantic and highly sentimental Victorians cleaned this up a bit and repackaged it so they could dote on their children (which social mores at the time would otherwise prohibit). The birth of Christ provided a religiously acceptable means of giving into this “indulgence.” However, the law of unintended consequences came into play as the children grew up and started their own families. They wanted to recapture something of the “magic” and “lost” innocence of childhood and ended up over-compensating with conspicuous consumption. Hence (though I can already hear the screams of “Scrooge”) I am suggesting that at heart, the modern celebration of Christmas has never really been about Christ but always about, well, an excuse to celebrate!

Thus, the Victorians created religious rituals to disguise and justify a form of self-indulgence; rituals which we have inherited. It is these rituals that are now under attack from the secularists and God-haters who nevertheless have already accepted the substance of “Christmas” by having parties and presents and trees and decorations. For example, the Japanese have enthusiastically adopted all the secular symbols and practices of Christmas without any relationship to the birth of Christ what-so-ever!

So really, the battle is not about saving “Christmas” but rather rescuing the last remnants of a Victorian religious veneer consisting of certain customs and rituals they used to justify creating a sentimental celebration for their children. Now, religious ritual, even good rituals are at best a type, a shadow or a picture of the ultimate reality of God in Christ. Paganism creates idols, false religions and even practice the occult as a way of suppressing the truth about God that is clearly evident to all men in all ages (Rms 1:18-20).

Christians are susceptible to this same temptation by creating new religious rituals that make us feel a certain way and then offer those “feelings” to God, expecting Him to like it or lump it (like Cain offering fruits and vegetables when a blood sacrifice was required). Sometimes, we even borrow rituals from pagan religions, thinking that somehow God will be satisfied (as in syncretism, idolatry, etc.). However, Biblically, Christ forbids all man-made religion as a way to approach Him. He Himself provided all the “rituals” He desires (and we need) in the Lord’s Supper and Baptism; and He consecrated the only day He wants specially kept.

However, we sinners do not want to worship God in Spirit and Truth; no we want something more; something mystical, something magical, something “meaningful.” Years ago, when I was so much younger and far more naïve, I was ministering in a broad evangelical church that had a strong tradition of sentimental Christmas Eve services. It was a moderately successful church as such things go with choirs, talented musicians and the like. Since I was the new pastor, I thought I had to WOW them for my first “Christmas” special. So, using my theatre background, I designed a candle-lit, choral service with choirs, soloists, instrumentalists and “dramatic” readings all designed for maximum psychological effect (i.e., this music will generate that response, which when added to this dramatic reading will build to that intended emotional response). We ended with the lights slowly being turned down while the congregation sang “Silent Night.” Then, starting in the front, I lit a candle and used that to light a candle being held by someone in the front row - who then lit the candle of another, who lit another, etc. As the “house” lights dimmed to total darkness, the lights from the candles spread from the front of the sanctuary to the back. By the end of the hymn, people were openly weeping and no one said a word as they exited the building.

Yup, I sure wowed them; apparently people talked about that service for years. However, it pains me to say, that most of that congregation loved religion, but hated Christ. You see the real problem is that many “Christians” confuse their feelings about Jesus, with actually loving and obeying Him. If a worship service, a religious ritual and yes, even a Christmas celebration makes them feel a certain way, then by their definition, it is good, proper and holy. Of course the Biblical test is whether or not a person is changed from a self-oriented, Christ-denying rebel into a humble, Christ obeying saint. And friends, Christmas, no matter how wonderful it may make you feel, simply cannot do what so many of us want and expect from it. Only Christ, through His Spirit can bring a spiritually dead heart to life and fill that person with peace and wisdom and goodness.

Thus, Christians do not need to battle to “save Christmas” but rather simply proclaim the crown rights of King Jesus over every area of life. When we learn to tremble at His word, repent from our self-absorption, cry out for mercy and then, by His Spirit, bring every thought and action captive to Him (2 Cor 10:4-5), THEN the lights, the decorations and the presents can become another way of enjoying His gracious blessings. We do not have to “save Christmas” but restore the historic Christian message that Jesus is Lord.

Conclusion

Thus far this essay has been fairly critical of Christmas and many Reformed brothers have and will continue to argue that as a “holiday,” it is innately and irreparably flawed and must be abandoned. However, as I have written elsewhere, as long as we do not bind another’s conscience, celebrating the birth of Christ cannot be inherently unlawful even if He did not command us to do so; we celebrate the births of our children, our spouses and our friends with joy, thanksgiving and appreciation-surely we may lawfully do the same with the Son of God. Recognizing formally that God became flesh and dwelt among us is basic, orthodox Christianity. Singing “Joy to the World” is inherently a postmillennial hymn looking in faith to the inevitable spread of His kingdom. Having a Christmas tree in one’s home is NOT idolatry (unless of course one is tempted to bow down before it; but in so far as I know that has not been a problem even in Mega-churches). Buying presents for loved ones, giving special gifts to the needy and enjoying a season of celebration is not a sin and recognized as such even by such anti-Christmas documents as the Westminster Confession! (Remember the Puritans who hated Christmas and banned it whenever possible did NOT write those bans into their most comprehensive creed!). Remember, God required Israel to TITHE every year to finance their religious celebrations before the Lord; and the most extravagant Christian probably does not come near spending 10% of his income on Christmas!

However, if we think that by doing ANY of these things, somehow we bring Christ closer, or are more acceptable to Him or in some way make our worship of Him more effectual, then we are self-deceived. Yes, Christmas services (and hopefully even sometimes, Christmas essays) can be rich, meaningful and significant; but Jesus is the Christ every day of the year. No, there is nothing religiously special about Christmas or Christmas services; yet even so, we ought to be able to celebrate our Lord’s blessings, give gifts to our family and friends, and enjoy the blessings that come so freely from the hand of a kind, providential God without having to create some sort of “religious” ritual to justify it. And once we start LIVING like Christians, we will not have to fight to preserve the empty symbols of it.

Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas

Reformed believers have never liked Christmas. The Regulative Principle states that what God has not commanded in worship, is forbidden; since there is no command to celebrate Christmas, many Reformed folks think Christians shouldn’t either. The more historically minded will cite the Puritans and Presbyterians who denounced Christmas and banned it when they could. Some will even seriously insist that Christmas is really a Popish plot to seduce Protestants back into Romanism. Furthermore, they often point out that most of our Christmas traditions derive from pagan sources and surely, no right-thinking Christian would want to participate in an essentially, idolatrous celebration, would they?

Yet many other Christians, without a particular theological axe to grind, are also very uncomfortable with celebrating Christmas. Every year I get at least one email or letter from some concerned reader quoting those verses in Jeremiah about the foolish idolater who cuts down a tree and worships it. And I am not above criticism here; a number of years ago I wrote an article for a national magazine explaining how most of our Christmas traditions actually arose out of Roman and Celtic nature worship.

I first began my campaign to “expose” the “pagan origins” of Christmas back in the early seventies. Fairly quickly after becoming a believer I discovered that many Christians actually knew very little about their faith. They took certain things for granted (things that I had struggled to understand) and seemed unwilling to think through their faith. I rather enjoyed debunking this most sentimental of holidays to smug, self-satisfied Christians who never thought about why they were doing, what they were doing. The Apostle Paul warned about those who thought they knew something (1 Cor 8:1) because even a little knowledge can make a man arrogant. And, to be honest, there was more than a little arrogance on my part over the years when I would sit down with someone and take an unholy delight in telling them that all their holiday traditions were little more than demonic inspired pagan rituals baptized with the thinnest veneer of “Popish” Christianity.

However, as I have had a chance to read more, think more and reconsider whether the dubious pleasures of being cynical, condescending and self-righteous is worth the cost of God’s eternal judgment (it isn’t): eventually I concluded that I needed to re-think these issues from the bottom up. First, there is a legitimate theological question on whether or not it is ethically appropriate for Christians to celebrate Christmas, since we have no explicit command to do so. But as I am going to try and demonstrate in this essay, in reality, MOST of the reasons given against Christmas are misinformed at best; and sometimes are mere rationalizations to justify something a bit unsavory in our characters. So if you think you already KNOW all about “Christmas” and its “pagan past” maybe I can help you to rethink some things.

Historical Origins

When people debunk Christmas, usually they begin with calling the date into question. It is often said that while no one is sure exactly when the Lord Jesus was born, it probably wasn’t in December since shepherds did not keep flocks outside during the winter therefore, being no need to watch them. So how did we arrive at December 25 as Christmas? The traditional debunker’s answer is that the early church chose December twenty-fifth because it was part of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a celebration of the birth of the unconquerable Sun god.

At this point, the reasonably astute scholar will cite sociological or psychological factors demonstrating the widespread celebrations of the winter solstice in European pagan cultures. For example, in primitive times, winter was always the low point of the year; the harvests were all in, and no further sources of food would be available until the next harvest. If the harvest was not sufficient, starvation was inevitable Furthermore, modern research only now is beginning to understand the serious physiological and psychological effects of the lack of sunlight.

The pagan presupposition of the prime nature of reality meant that the gradual darkening of the days until the winter solstice was an implicit threat that spring might never come. Supposedly, somewhere in the dim, dark past when our ancestors squatted in caves and the height of erudite conversation consisted of “Ug,” they feared that the spring would never return. Often, human sacrifices were made to ensure that the days would again lengthen and spring with its new life would return. And sure enough, once the sacrifices were made, the days starting getting longer again! Thus it is said that many pagan cultures over time, developed the custom to celebrate some sort of midwinter festival; a festival that came down to us as (dire music here) Christmas!

However, let’s think about this for a moment shall we? This approach is based essentially on an evolutionary presupposition about the origins and development of human culture. Winter solstice festivals, especially in Northern Europe are assumed to evolve out of the recurring fear that the world was headed into eternal winter and therefore, when the days began to lengthen, and enough food was on hand to provide assurance of surviving until spring, it became a time of celebration. Rome is assumed to have had this same tradition and being a civilized and depraved society, turned it into a rowdy orgy. Gifts were freely exchanged, slaves often exchanged places with their masters for the day, and drunkenness and debauchery were common.

Most Christmas detractors cite the above as reason enough to regard celebrating the nativity as just another example of the Church compromising with paganism. There is some merit here; there is ample evidence that the Roman church “baptized” some aspects of pagan religion and made them a part of the faith. The question for us though is whether they did this to create Christmas?

New research is coming out that is overturning this “traditional” view of the holiday’s origins. First, some writers seem to jump between what may have been certain Celtic or Norse traditions and Roman ones without really thinking about the differences. The Mediterranean winter is considerably different than the ones experienced in Northern Europe and it is unlikely that different environmental factors would have resulted in similar social customs; i.e., there is a big difference in surviving a frozen winter in Northern Germany and a wet, but reasonably warm winter in Rome! Yet, debunkers switch between the two traditions without really seeming to appreciate the differences between the cultures.

Secondly, the assumption that Christians “baptized” a pagan holiday appears to be the work of two scholars each with an axe to grind. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wanted to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” transforming “pure” apostolic Christianity into Roman Catholicism. Since he was already predisposed to hate Christmas (and Catholicism), he sought arguments why Christians should not celebrate it; attributing its origins to paganism is an effective way to poison the well. The second scholar was a Roman Catholic, Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, who tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.

However, there is now available good evidence that rather than Christians copying a pagan festival, that the Romans actually copied the celebration of Christmas from Christians! The below quote is quite long but well worth the read.

“But in fact, the date [December 25th] had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him. There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.

As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.

In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.”

Thus rather than Christians adopting some pagan festival, it looks as if the pagans stole one from us! The old evolutionary assumption of primitive, superstitious pagans creating a festival back in the dim dawn of human history in response to misunderstood environmental forces must give way to an advanced culture intentionally creating a religious celebration for purely civil purposes. Therefore the widespread assumption is that Christmas is just a baptized version of “Saturnalia” is not historically maintainable.

It has been argued that the “Feast of the Nativity” seems to have sprung full blown in the fourth century (AD 336); yet a moment’s reflection shows that this assumption is unwarranted. It implies a degree of centrality of power that the Church would not have until many centuries later. The fourth century church was not the monolithic institution it became in the late Middle Ages; the “pope” at this point was simply the bishop of Rome. Therefore to assume that a brand new feast could be created out of whole cloth and imposed on the entire church is stretching things a bit.

Furthermore, in days before newspapers, magazines and other forms of mass communication, if a festival appears suddenly with liturgies and traditions already in place, then it is highly unlikely that it is something new. It is more probably that the festival had been celebrated quietly for a long time before it became publicly acceptable. Remember, the real reason why Christianity was suppressed under the Roman Empire, was for civil, not theological reasons. Rome required an annual sacrifice to the Emperor recognizing him as “Lord;” the ultimate connection between heaven and earth. Christians could not in conscience offer a pinch of incense to a statue of the Emperor and call him “Lord” because Jesus, and Jesus alone was Lord. Thus, Christianity was seen as a revolutionary movement and its members as traitors to the Empire.

In antiquity, celebrating the birthday of the King or Emperor was more than just a social custom, but an important political reality; it demonstrated one’s allegiance and submission to the civil order. Thus for Christians to openly celebrate the birth of Christ would have been to invite intense persecution because the culture of the day would have seen it as a treasonable act. Hence, the nativity was not openly celebrated for several hundred years.

Yet, when Christianity became legal in the fourth century, the church fathers openly admitted that Christmas had been recognized and celebrated for a very long time-and that December 25 was widely held to be the Lord’s birthday (and thanks to Valerie Jacobson for doing the research on these).

Augustine (354-430) of Hippo, On the Psalms, Psalm 133 “For from Christ comes the dew. No light is set on a high place, save Christ. How is He set on high? First on the cross, afterwards in heaven. Set on high on the cross when He was humbled; humbled, but His humiliation could not but be high. The ministry of man grew less and less, as was signified in John; the ministry of God in our Lord Jesus Christ increased, as was shown at their birth. The former was born, as the tradition of the Church shows, on the 24th of June, when the days begin to shorten. The Lord was born on the 25th of December, when the days begin to lengthen”

Augustine also specifically titled one of his points of Sermon 22, “The Festival Has Nothing to Do with Sun-worship, as Some Maintain.” Thus, in the late fourth century, Augustine both refuted that Christmas had its origins in Saturnalia while also clearly attributing the Lord’s birth to December 25th as the “tradition of the church.” Why December 25? Well, the argument is too long and complex to go into here except to say that it had to do with trying to reconcile Roman and Jewish calendars; a headache for everyone involved. Furthermore, Christians at the time had certain theological presuppositions that governed how they actually dated certain events; they assumed a relationship between the death of the Lord Jesus and when He would have been born; and by carefully calculating the dates of certain “known” events, they arrived at December 25th as the day of His birth. Whether their calculations were based on a sound basis is really immaterial; the point is that the Lord’s birth was not celebrated just because it coincided with a Roman pagan festival. Their calculations might have been wrong, but they were not blindly being subverted by pagan influences or accommodation to cultural norms.

Despite this, many debunkers insist that when the gospel penetrated Northern Europe, many of those winter solstice customs found their way into Christmas celebrations, thus unwittingly introducing paganism into the church. Again, this is not quite so easy to determine as some have assumed. Granted, there was a tradition of a religious and cultural customs of feasting and merry making that had long been a part of European culture, but how much of the actual customs and traditions actually derived from pagan sources just cannot be determined. Did the pagans influence Christians or did Christians influence the pagans? Which came first?

For example, St. Boniface is usually credited with the idea of “Christmas trees” as he cut down Druid groves and secured the decorated trees in Christian homes to prevent pagans from worshipping them. So, does the “custom” of having Christmas trees come from pagan, Druid tree worship, or is it a Christian custom? Or is there even another explanation altogether?

Christmas as the Creation of the Victorians

Most people assume that our current Christmas customs come down from pagan history, passed down from generation to generation with their origins being lost in the mist of times (until the debunkers write articles exposing the pagan origins of Christmas). However, what few Christians seem to appreciate is that almost ALL of our modern day Christmas traditions only came into existence in the 19th century when Queen Victoria brought her new German husband, Albert, to England. Albert introduced Christmas trees to English and American homes. Germans had a long history of Christmas trees that was unknown in Britain; in fact Martin Luther is usually credited with putting the first lights on trees to show his children the glory of God he witnessed one night by glimpsing stars through the trees one dark night. Albert brought this custom to England, and suddenly, everyone else wanted Christmas trees to!

If you remember your Dickens, try to reconcile the “traditional” Christmas celebration of today, with what happened in Ebenezer Scrooge’s experience. Despite the cultural differences between middle 19th century England and modern America, is there anything in Dickens that looks like our Christmas? Scrooge is vilified because he is a miser who takes no joy in life, lives in a cold, unheated home, eats gruel and only grudgingly gives his workers the day off. After his “conversion” he buys Bob Cratchet a goose and eats dinner with his nephew (at least I think that is what happened; I’ve seen too many movies to distinguish between the book and film versions). But notice; in Dickens, there is no tree, no presents, no mistletoe, holly, ivy, etc. There is no Santa Claus and the holiday has nothing to do with children. When a film version is made of the “Christmas Carol” the director has to inserts all these elements because that is what we expect “Christmas” to be like; but in original tale, they are conspicuously absent. The story is in reality about a grumpy, nasty old man learning how to lighten up, become a bit more cheerful and nice to others while enjoying a feast with his family.

Victoria and Albert’s Christmas celebration changed all that when it was popularized in a British magazine. Literally, within a decade, a whole new tradition was created, almost out of whole cloth. Christmas became popular and new customs were invented to make it a “richer” and more “traditional” celebration. There is even evidence that some people self-consciously tried to create the appearance that certain symbols were ancient ways to celebrate Christmas, just to give the new holiday some sort of authenticity and credibility. Thus mistletoe, holly, ivy, wreathes, etc., all within just a decade or two, were deliberately chosen as Christmas “symbols” and accepted by the public just because they gave the feeling of antiquity (and authenticity). In fact, an argument can be made that it was only later on that some scholars made a connection between these symbols and how some ancient pagans might have used them. But the connection is tenuous at best; it is simply inaccurate to say that somehow these customs originated in ancient pagan religion and survived down into the present time. In reality, they were not a common part of Christmas celebrations until the late 19th century! Thus our modern celebration of Christmas has NO direct connection with ancient pagan religion or their symbols because most of what defines a “traditional” Christmas was in fact deliberately and self-consciously created by the Victorians!

Santa Claus or Satan Claws?

Even the history of the much maligned Santa Claus who began life as a Celtic version of Bacchus, the god of wine and drunkenness is not quite what you think. In England, going back to the Dark Ages, traveling groups of actors made a living by putting on various religious plays. One of the favorite recurring characters that showed up around Christmas time was “Father Christmas” who was portrayed as a crude, drunken, lecherous individual. He was a comic relief kind of character, and probably was in fact intended to be a Christian ridicule of ancient pagan religion and excesses. He was never taken seriously, never honored and he certainly was not the sort of person you would want to dangle your children on his lap.

However, though there is some connection between “Father Christmas” (as he is still called in England) and Santa Claus, the two are still distinct individuals. Santa is a creation of good old American ingenuity and is an amalgamation of a number of different European traditions, “Father Christmas” being only one dim source for the legend. The Dutch who settled New York had their traditions of “Saint Nicolas,” a fourth century bishop who had a special affection for little children. “Nicholas” was far more influential in creating the myth of “Santa Claus” than “Father Christmas.” In fact, it is likely that the British inflated their traditional “Father Christmas” as their own version of the American “Santa Claus” (the Brits are very sensitive about American cultural subversion).

But most of what constitutes the “Santa Claus tradition” was actually the result of an invented, fictional character no more intended to be considered “authentic” or as a tie to Christmas past than Superman! The point being is that there was no history of some jolly old elf who gave toys to good little boys and girls until what’s his name wrote “The Night before Christmas.” Identifying Santa Claus with “Father Christmas” or “St. Nicholas” is revisionist history pure and simple; an attempt to give some credibility and historicity to a created character intended to be no more real than Winnie the Pooh!

And so for all the rest of the “traditional” customs that are so often associated with paganism. So what if a Christmas wreaths looks like the sign of Oromous: the snake that swallows its own tail (hence a pagan symbol of eternity, i.e., a circle has no beginning or end) or that Christmas colors are red and green, both of which had profound magical meaning in ancient cultures. So what if the first “Christmas” trees were originally literally living idols, or that holly and ivy had some association with Druid worship, or that mistletoe, according to ancient Nordic myths, was placed over marriage beds so that the couple might be fruitful and bear many children. None of these “symbols” were in fact commonly observed until the Victorians decided to invent a whole new holiday and needed things that would make Christmas look “traditional.”

Why Have Some Christians Hated Christmas?

So if Christmas is so innocent, why were the Puritans and Presbyterians in the 17th century so opposed to its celebration? We must never forget that we are all subject to historical conditioning; that the events we see around us can and do have a profound effect on our perceptions and ideas. Please let us all keep in mind that “Christmas” has always consisted of two distinct aspects; a religious observance combined with a completely secular winter festival. The Puritans and Presbyterians had serious problems with both.

The English Reformers insisted that Christmas was not to be celebrated because they were trying to purify the worship of God from all the man-made rules and regulations that had grown up under the Roman church. Remember, the primary cause of division between Protestants and Catholics was the issue of authority. Rome insisted that authority was vested in the church and therefore could change doctrine and bind men’s consciences at will. The Reformers insisted that final authority rested in the Word of God.

Therefore in the 16th and 17th century, men literally fought and died over this issue of authority. The Roman church had created all sorts of feasts and festivals demanding that Christians celebrate them or suffer temporal and eternal sanctions. The Reformers insisted that only God, through His Word had proper authority to bind men’s consciences. Since God did not command Christmas, Easter and other feasts, fasts and festivals of the church calendar, these were infringements of the doctrine of the liberty of conscience. Therefore, the Reformers insisted that Christians should not celebrate Christmas because there was no specific Biblical warrant for doing so.

However, there was also another reason for the Puritan hatred of Christmas; the secular customs that had grown up around it. Christmas as a feast day, was notorious for being a time of drunkenness and debauchery, with the church often turning a blind eye. Even in the early 19th century, “Christmas Carolers” were composed of gangs of rowdy young men going house to house demanding free drinks; and they were perfectly willing to rough up those who refused to “celebrate” the custom. Thus, the Puritans and Presbyterians wanted to stamp out an ungodly practice that was associated with the worst sorts of behavior. It is just folly to look at our modern celebration of Christmas and assume that this was what the English Reformers were so concerned about. I doubt if there is an American evangelical alive today whose conscience is bound that if he does not celebrate Christmas, God will be displeased with him and he might lose his salvation. And the last time Christmas carolers came to my door, hardly any of them threatened to burn my house down if I refused to give them free liquor!

Thanks to the sentimentality of the Victorians, Christmas was trasnformed into a family-oriented holiday, focusing on children. They were a religious people (and revivalism had deeply stamped all evangelical Christianity with a strong emotive cast by the end of the 19^th century) so the Victorians made a clear connection between the birth of Christ and the emotional bonds towards their own families. Christmas thus was no longer an adult festival, but a family one.

Frankly, if I had lived in the 17th century I too would have preached against Christmas because at that time, it was a hindrance to sanctification; both religiously and practically. But that is not the case today; history has moved on and so should we. Granted, there is much today to criticize in the way that even Christians celebrate Christmas; for example, going into credit card debt to buy unneeded presents is irresponsible. Materialism is a common sin today and many Christians equate happiness with possessions. Christmas celebrations could become sinful if people spent money they did not have, or used the office party as an excuse for drunkenness or lechery, kissing other men’s wives under mistletoe; but then the problem, quite frankly is NOT Christmas, but of a lack of basic Christian character.

But What about the Regulative Principle?

But what about the worship issue; where do we get the right to celebrate Christmas since we have no Biblical command to celebrate the birth of Christ as a religious ordinance? Seriously though, who in this day, outside of the Roman church is celebrating Christmas as a divine command? Are there any Protestants in your experience who think that they might lose their salvation if they did not attend Christmas services? Granted, in many churches and communities, there are a lot of people who only come to church at Christmas and Easter. Often, they attend church services out of a sense of obligation to other family members, or perhaps, out of nostalgia. Obviously, these people have something lacking in their “faith.” Most of us would agree that these people need evangelizing; but the problem is not the celebration of Christmas but whether or not the gospel is being proclaimed. The “culture” of Christmas, regardless of its origins, has actually created a time, during the year, when we Christians are actually expected to talk about Jesus and demonstrate His love and grace to others!

In a related vein, how can it be sin, to celebrate an historical event? Can Christians lawfully celebrate Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, Reformation Day, or Mothers’ Day? Why or why not? A few years ago, after publishing a piece on Christmas, I received a letter from a “truly reformed” sort who was anti-Christmas and took exception to my writing that it was OK to recognize the Savior’s birth. He even included with his letter a copy of his church’s bulletin to show me what a “really” Reformed worship service looked like. In the announcement section was a blurb for their annual upcoming “Reformation Day” celebration with a special speaker in the morning, and a costume party for the kids after the evening service. Now just hold on a moment; where in Scripture did this truly Reformed brother receive a command to celebrate the Reformation? What divine mandate makes it acceptable to dress kids up in costumes and have special games? Did you see what he has done? Celebrating the birth of Christ is somehow bad and evil; but it is OK to celebrate the Reformation! “Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle on line two” If we can lawfully celebrate ANY event in history, such as the Reformation, or the American War of Independence, then we can also lawfully celebrate the birth of Christ.

No, December 25th is NOT a “religious” holiday in that God has commanded us to do certain things on that day and if we do not do those things, we incur His wrath. A “Christmas” worship service is bound just like any other worship service to be conducted in certain ways; i.e., we sing, pray, read the Word, preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Sure, Christians ought to be careful not to introduce elements into the worship service such as advent candles and plays that replace the preaching of the Word-all things that would be unlawful in ANY worship service. Christmas trees and Santa Claus are just as inappropriate in worship services as idol worship or temple prostitution (and yes, I am referring to YOU; roller-blading down the sanctuary dressed as Santa Claus-what were you thinking!).

We are NOT free to create new elements of worship just because we think they might be nice or aesthetically pleasing. Worship is our religious duty to give to God that which He has demanded of us; and if He hasn’t commanded it, we have no right to offer it; sorry, the theology of the Little Drummer boy is saccharine sweet but heretical. There is a recurring problem of sinful men wanting to create worship services that please us rather than God-but really, that’s a whole different issue. But come on people, why is it that I can preach messages about mothers on Mother’s Day, sermons on patriotism on Veteran’s Day, sermons emphasizing the Reformation on Reformation day, but I cannot preach on the incarnation in December! Give me a break!

Furthermore, there are many things we may lawfully do outside of worship that are forbidden IN worship. For example, do you celebrate birthdays? Can you give your wife or children birthday presents, sing a special song to them, have a special cake with candles that can be blown out after they make a wish? If so, what is your Biblical mandate for doing so? What, God has not bound your conscience regarding celebrating birthdays and leaves it up to your personal choice? I agree; God is neither pleased nor displeased with you celebrating someone’s birthday other than whether the general provisions of His law are obeyed. However, if we can lawfully celebrate our birthdays, why can we not celebrate the birthday of the Lord Jesus just as long as we do not bind men’s consciences or break God’s law in worship?

But what about all the parties and gifts and special meals; surely all this consumption is unholy and displeasing to God. However, is it? God gave the ancient Israelites many different feasts and festivals; in fact they had to even set aside a third of a tithe so that every third year they could hold a big party! God certainly does NOT object to feasts and festivals, to enjoying the good things he provides, to remembering the weak and downtrodden, to giving gifts in memorial to His gracious gift to us.

And that is really the unspoken problem that a lot of Christians have with Christmas despite their theological or historical rationalizations. They don’t like feasts and festivals; somehow being happy and joyous seems “unspiritual” to them. They may well have unconsciously adopted a Greek mindset that sees the body as inherently inferior, therefore making physical pleasures innately sinful. They conclude that there must be something wrong with people laughing and feasting, giving and receiving presents and having a good time! I am dead serious here; over the years when I talk to many, many Christians, it appears that the real reason why they hate Christmas is because they think that it is wrong to have fun. There really are a lot more people like Scrooge, and the Grinch than we think.

The twenty-fifth of December as just another day, and has no religious significance. There is nothing “holy” about it, and despite the efforts of the Church Fathers to calculate the right date, probably was not the day Jesus was actually born. However If the angels of heaven could publicly proclaim His birth, what possible problem can there be for us to likewise commemorate that wondrous event? How can it be wrong to sing those wonderful, postmillennial hymns which celebrate the birth of Christ during the month of December? And since the incarnation is so central to human history, then where is the problem with preaching a special series of sermons exploring the implications of the advent of the Lord Jesus?

And though most of what we think of as “traditional” Christmas customs are less than 150 years old, how is anyone violating God’s law by putting up a Christmas tree or giving kids some special presents on December 25th?” Where does Scripture say that God is offended if wives make some special foods for dinner that day? Where does He forbid us to invite friends, neighbors or members of the church over to laugh and joke and play silly games and rejoice in all the blessings that He gave this past year?

So maybe we all need to just lighten up a bit, rejoice in our liberty of conscience in Christ and not judge others. If you choose not to celebrate Christmas, then Lord bless you-take advantage of having the day off and read a good book or something. But grant your brother the same liberty of conscience-and literally, for God’s sake, do not create a law where He Himself has not done so. But as for me and my house, we intend to feast and celebrate and rejoice that the Lord has come into the world with a cheerful heart and a good conscience.

Christmas Symbols

Introduction and Review

In a previous essay (”The Battle to Save Christmas”), we examined the fact that Christmas, while a Christian holiday, is not a Biblical one; essentially being a creation of the 19th century overly sentimental Victorians. We also saw that often, people want something from Christmas that it cannot provide; almost from its inception, Christians have looked nostalgically at Christmas feeling that “something” special, precious, yes, even “magical” was being lost. Within a decade of creating this “holiday” Victorian Christians were already complaining that the real “meaning” was being replaced by consumerism; a theme repeatedly witnessed right down to the modern day. However, recently the fear of “losing” Christmas took an ominous turn when the forces of secularization openly attempted to remove all Christian elements of the Christmas celebration. The last essay ended with attempting to place the celebration of Christmas within the context of a consistent Biblical worldview. Now, let us build on that basis and explore some of the implications.

The Nature of Symbols

The presuppositions with which we begin, will invariably determine the conclusions we eventually reach. Hence many sincere Christians, who really do want to please God, end up with ungodly beliefs and practices because unconsciously, they start from the wrong basis. First among these is the ongoing tendency (inherited from our father Adam’s sin) to think about God, the world and our relationship to both from the wrong perspective; i.e., that life revolves around us. However Christians must begin with the right presuppositions and foremost among those is that we live in a “theocentric” universe created by the Living and True God Who made all things to reveal His nature and glory (Psa 19:1ff, Acts Col.1:13-19). The Bible begins with the solemn pronouncement that God created the heavens and the earth. The “glory” of God is the visible manifestation of His invisible nature seen as light (1 Jn 1:5). It is interesting to note that we do not see “things” -we see light reflected off things. In the same way God’s glory is “reflected” in creation. Thus everything beautiful, awesome, marvelous and wonderful that we experience in life is in some way a reflection of His glory.

Now, God’s glory is both a beautiful “thing” and a consuming fire- sinful men cannot “see” God with their naked eyes, lest it destroy them. However, the “beatific” vision is a theological term referring to the ultimate bliss of redeemed Man being able to bask in the full, unadulterated glory of God in eternity.

While human sin twists, distorts and mars the image of God, both in our own nature as well as the natural world, the image is still there. We can recognize and approve of honor, courage, dedication and self-sacrifice because all these moral traits are a reflection of the unchanging nature of God. At the same time, we can look at the wonders of creation, stars, mountains, oceans and autumn trees rich with foliage and know that these are all beautiful and yes, even “glorious.” Since we were designed for God, to love Him and enjoy Him forever, innately within every human soul is a hunger for that beauty and glory of God which creation was intended to reflect.

Sinful men seek to suppress the truth so clearly revealed by God in creation (Rms 1:28-20) but they cannot deny its power and draw. Instead of submitting to the one, true God, they attempt to feed their thirst for wonder, beauty and God’s glory through various wicked and perverse means; i.e., the occult, idolatry, false religion, art, fiction, etc., But even sinful men in SOME way are seeking SOMETHING of God no matter how wicked and perverse because “in Him we live and move and have our being” As Christians we can approve of the work of even unrepentant sinners who “create” beauty in painting, architecture, sculpture, poetry and fiction; for the glory of God is an objective “thing” that exists whether or not men acknowledge the God it reflects. Granted, we argue that when ungodly men “create” beautiful things it is only by being inconsistent with their own presuppositions; but our point here is that all men, can appreciate beauty because every moment of every day they LIVE in that glory!

The Symbol and the Word

Though the image of God is clearly seen in His creation (Romans 1:18-20), God speaks definitively and clearly through His Word. Psalm 19 begins with the glory of God seen in the Heavens but ends with the glory of God in the perfection of His Law. Men knew of God before the Law, but God was pleased to speak even more clearly through His written revelation. David’s Psalm is a wonderful poem about the glory of God revealed in the stars, sun and moon; yet it is only in the Law of God that we find it completion.

One of the supreme aspects of His nature that God displays in His written revelation that could not be fully appreciated just through creation is His trinity; that He is One God in three distinct persons. The Apostle Paul can rightly state that all things were created BY Christ, FOR Christ to the glory of God (Col 1:16). It was God’s desire to unfold this revelation of His Son over time, and He did so through stories, poems, prophecies and religious rituals from Genesis through Malachi. Some may wonder “why” God just did not come right out and say it; however, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). Hence it is futile to speculate about why God chose to reveal His Son the way He did; the fact is, He is God and we are not- and whatever He does must be the proper right and good thing judged only by His standards.

In Genesis 1:26 God reveals Himself as both Unity and Plurality when He said, “Let Us make Man in Our image” Then, when Man rebelled, God revealed that His Son would become flesh as the Seed of the Woman (Gen 3: 15). As I argue in my “Hebrew Bible” college course, the entire revelation of the “Old” Testament at least in one sense, is the ongoing battle as the Seed of the Serpent attempts to subvert, destroy or compromise the Seed of the Woman. Hence, Christ can be seen in every “chapter” of the “Old” Testament; but He is pictured there in shadows, types, and images -symbols, if you will. The writers of the “New” Testament often pick up these “symbols” or “pictures” of Jesus in the “Old” Testament and apply them to Him in ways that often, we find difficult to understand. For example, the New Testament clearly identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy of a “virgin-birth” but the actual “Old” Testament fulfillment was a married woman! This was NOT a case of the “New” Testament writers making a mistake or twisting the text but rather that the entire “Old” Testament is a picture, shadow or type revealing Jesus!

While the “Old” Testament ends with a defeated, depleted people of God looking forward to the promised Seed of the Woman, the “New” Testament opens with God’s promise in Genesis 3:15 being fulfilled. Hence what was once an “image” has now become “reality;” Jesus has become flesh and dwelt among us. Yet even here we often think of Jesus in anthropocentric terms; we focus on what He did to save us, rather than on what He did to reveal Himself and the glory of God. Yes, we needed Him to come and do what He did; but His coming is primarily about revealing the love, mercy and justice of the one true God -not that we have been saved.

Thus, God chose to reveal His Son Jesus as one of His primary purposes in creation. Through Jesus He created the heavens and the earth. Through Jesus, He redeems His creation, cursed because of our sin. Hence, all of human history is about Him; and the highest and holiest calling of all men, in all ages is to know that which Almighty God has chosen to reveal; “and this is eternal life, that men might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent” (Jn 17:3).

The Analogical Knowledge of God

Yet, our knowledge about God must by necessity be “analogical;” i.e., (a simple picture explaining a more complex reality). His essence, His true nature is impossible for even perfected men to fully comprehend or appreciate because we must think within the categories of creation and creation is only a reflection, an image of God. Now there are several ways of looking at this (and we do not want to wander too far afield examining issues of epistemology). However consider this; is God’s revelation of Himself as a Father and Jesus as His Son an analogy of human father and son relationships? In other words, did God choose to reveal this aspect of His own inner nature in the closest possible analogy that humans could understand? Or, is it the other way around? Is there something about the nature of God that is imprinted into creation and manifests itself most powerfully through the “father-son” experience? I would argue the latter; that since all creation was made by Him and for Him to reveal Him, then everything in some way is an aspect of His glory and nature.

Thus, the godly man will see “Jesus” in every thing he does and every event that happens; not in some “mystical” sense as in a transcendent “spiritual” experience- and not as a voice whispering things into his ear- but in that all there is was made by Jesus, for Jesus to the glory of God the Father. Furthermore, as the Lord of Heaven and Earth, sitting at the right hand of God, King Jesus is right now ruling all creation according to His will, subduing His enemies, protecting His people and spreading His Kingdom. It does not matter one whit whether or not we understand why He is doing whatever He is doing, or even whether we can make sense out of His reign; after all, to understand why God does whatever He does, you would have to be God-and it was that little presumption that created this mess in the first place!

Every moment of every day, we live “in” Jesus who is working His will in the world. Now, in the process of self-revelation, as mentioned previously, God gave us “symbols” in the form of the temple, circumcision, Passover and the like. In the “New” Testament, Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us. After ascending into heaven, He left us with two “symbols” (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) which are the ongoing, visible reminders of His nature and acts which are also, in some sense, “seals” of His grace, love and fulfillment of His covenant promises to His people.

Yet the richness of God’s revelation of Jesus is so powerful that it permeates every aspect of our lives and thus, over time men cannot help but find other pictures of Him. Symbols are not “secret codes” with a one-for-one correspondence between the symbol and the entity being pictured. For example, in the rural Northwest one can quite often see bald eagles flying or perched in trees. They are huge birds and have a solemn dignity about them that makes one think of honor, courage and stern attention to duty. Yet, the American bald eagle is a carrion eater that will never attack anything anywhere near its own size. Supposedly when the bald eagle was being considered as our national emblem, Ben Franklin objected and suggested the turkey as an alternative. In one sense, Old Ben was right; in reality the turkey is a nobler bird than an eagle; however, it does not stimulate within us the same kind of response that the bald eagle does!

The symbols do not work on a straight-forward intellectual level, but at a “deeper” more “intuitive” level. Hence the world in which we live is a vast sea of unimaginable depths all designed by a sovereign, wondrous God to display His marvelous nature and being. For what it is worth, I think the most pathetic kind of person is the one who is utterly pragmatic, whose life is so infused with the “natural” that he can no longer “see” the mystery and yes, even “magic” that surrounds even the most prosaic of life-events. We live in a picture and we cannot help but create pictures to make sense out of that which God has revealed about Himself.

Christmas “Symbols”

Sometimes these “pictures” are idolatrous and forbidden because Man attempts to worship God according to his own desires. Never underestimate the subtly of human sin; from the beginning we have been slyly finding ways to do our will, rather than God’s. However, there are special times of thanksgiving, praise and worship that may be lawful and approved by God, even though not instituted by Him; i.e., the use of wine at the Passover. If you know the original story of Passover, there is no mention of wine. Yet by the time of the Lord Jesus, wine had become a feature of the Passover Meal. Jesus did not rebuke the Israelites for “adding” to His original requirements, but instead took the cup of wine and transformed it into an essential part of the Lord’s Supper.

In the same way, while there is no Biblical warrant for any of our Christmas celebrations, yet, even so in some sense, Christians are practically compelled to celebrate that God sent His Son into history to live for us and die for us. However, as in all things, sinful men can pervert that which is meant to be good; e.g., in the old Roman church, it literally did become a “compulsion” as the church attempted to bind men’s consciences. Hence the English and Scottish Reformers banned Christmas just so that they could liberate the Christian’s conscience from unwarranted ecclesiastical legalism. Yet, within a hundred and fifty years, Christians went right back to celebrating “Christmas;” was this a defection from the Reformed faith or simply the inevitable result of Christians finding Christ all around them?

Many Christians attempt to rehabilitate “Christmas” by “finding” symbols in Christmas trees and decorations, feasting, presents, etc. I have done so myself in the past; e.g., the evergreen tree is a “picture” of eternal life, the “spikes” a reminder of the crown of thorns, the lights and decorations a “symbol” of the glory of God. Yet, let me suggest that this is too superficial, too much like that “code” we dismissed earlier. Instead, perhaps the truth is that since we live and move and breathe in Him in every moment in every day, everything is an expression of Him. Thus, we do not have to “find” Jesus in the tree (which always struck me as a bit too close to idolatry anyway) but we can still enjoy what has become an annual custom. Decorated Christmas trees can be simply fun and beautiful (though some may be tacky and garish). Yet is not beauty, and the desire for it, and the quest to “create it” in and of itself, a reflection of His beauty?

Granted, Christmas can just as easily hide Christ by focusing on our desires, our indulgence or even our feelings about God! This seems to be the real danger; we “sanitize” the annual celebration with a veneer of “spirituality” so that then we can focus on what we want. Some people want expensive presents; some people want an excuse to indulge in gluttony, drunkenness or even debauchery (the mistletoe custom has always struck me as godless to the extreme). Some people want an experience that takes them back to a more innocent time.

Or, perhaps we can take a step back during this time of the year and reflect on God’s great love, of His gracious gift to us in Christ, of the sacrifice that He made on our behalf and of our need to be humble before God because He is Lord. Christmas presents can be indulgence and examples of crass materialism, or a healthy, hearty rejoicing in the gifts that God gives us; not only His Son, but eternal life, blessedness, and joy (remember God required Israel to TITHE every year for a great festival of rejoicing before the Lord).

Let me suggest that the real issue is one of the heart; we can use Christmas as an excuse to “party” and then try to “spiritualize” it by giving Jesus a passing nod; or we can use this as a special time of the year to reflect on Who He is and Why He came. We can look at our own hearts; do we think we are approved by God for who and what we are, or for Who Christ is and what He did for us?

Thus, Christmas can be a time of joyful proclamation of the coming of the King of Glory- that Jesus Christ is the King of King and Lord of Lords. However, if we celebrate in “word” but not in truth, we simply call down His judgment on our own heads- for after the packages have all been unwrapped, the decorations put away, do we also put Jesus away as well? Celebrating His Lordship means nothing unless we live that Lordship every day of our lives.

We cannot escape Christ; He is all around us, His Spirit gives us life and every moment of every day we exist because of His grace and mercy. Every nanosecond all of creation is screaming out that Jesus is Lord; the question is, are you listening?

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas
2. The Atonement
3. Worship in Spirit and Truth - Part Two: The Primacy of the Word

“Even a man who is pure of heart,
And says his prayers at night;
Can become a wolf,
When the wolf-bane blooms,
And the full moon shines out its light”
(The Wolf-Man-Universal Studios)

Far too many moderns lack a sense of history; and not knowing where they came from, inevitably are confused about where they are going,- both individually, and culturally. For example, it was little more than two decades ago that the wolf in American culture underwent a massive PR campaign, giving him a new image. You can revel in his adventures in films and documentaries, use his image to advertise various products and even purchase his face for t-shirts. And all the time you can bewail this noble beast’s persecution at the hand of evil men. Pardon me, if I have another opinion.

Canus Lupus is a pack animal that in earlier days, especially in Europe, was a real life monster, reliably reputed to have decimated whole villages (and for the record, I am using the word “decimate” correctly here as “killing one in ten” and not in its more popular and erroneous usage meaning “totally devastate”). As late as the last few decades of the twentieth century, packs of wolves were documented attacking armed guards at border crossings in Eastern Europe, being driven off only by hand-grenades and automatic weapons fire.

In the Middle Ages, when much of Europe was still forested, large roaming packs of wolves seemed to be more than just an unstoppable force of nature, devastating whole herds of domestic animals and eating more than their fair share of the local peasantry. There is a reason why those of us from European stock have vivid cultural memories of wolves as evil, cunning predators battling for first place on the food chain. Little Red Riding Hood may be a fairy tale to us; but to our ancestors, grannies and little girls being eaten by wolves was an all too common occurrence.

Granted, American wolves, though genetically identical to their European cousins, seemed to have avoided the “old country” customs, but still suffer from their bad reputation. Supposedly, there are NO verified reports of attacks on people from wolves; but one never knows how to evaluate these kinds of statistics since Native Americans were not known for keeping detailed diaries of which animal posed the greatest threat to their safety. And it is always good to remember that the ancestors of Native Americans, armed with primitive bows and spears, pretty much introduced the word “extinction” to dire wolves, wooly mammoths, cave bears, saber-toothed “tigers” and other much larger and more fearsome predators (though of course our evolutionary friends might dispute this). It could be that wolves in America were just a little bit smarter than their European kin and learned to avoid man, while he was busy exterminating the more dangerous types of animals

By the time Europeans arrived in North American in force, they brought with them gunpowder technology- and everyone can agree that wolves are smart enough to realize when they are out-gunned. Unlike Europeans, Americans have always been a well-armed people and wolves would have been seen as a threat to be dealt with immediately. It is possible that Americans never suffered the depredations the Europeans did because we could shoot further and faster; so the lessons that wolves began to learn from the Indians, was given its final, graduate degree by European settlers. American wolves might have discovered fairly quickly that we took a dim view of them eating our grandmothers, or little girls, no matter how bad the eye-sight or how gullible the females of our species might have been.

Of course that didn’t keep wolves from preying on our life-stock as often as they could. But traps, poison and a bounty on their pelts kept their numbers down so that they never had the opportunity to develop a taste for human flesh. However, now that we have foundations, federal grants, and tree-huggers reintroducing them into the wild, we just might find that the latest generation has forgotten the lessons of their great-great-grand-parents. Coyotes and cougars are already well known for eating family pets and even attacking little children and the occasional country jogger. Who knows, maybe the combination of the modern wolf and unarmed citizens might teach a whole new kind of lesson?

Regardless of the status of North American wolves in modern culture, in Europe he WAS the most feared predator for well over a thousand years. Thanks to the climate and Roman circuses, all the other large predators had been become virtually extinct by the fourth century, leaving an ecological niche for wolves to fill as chief predator. Because they are intelligent creatures; just below apes but apparently above dolphins, and because they hunted in packs; they proved to be deadly opponents before the age of gun powder (and to be honest, European urbanization helped since it destroyed their habitat).

Somewhere during the time period after the fall of the Empire and the rise of the modern state, the were-wolf legend became a staple of European mythology. There have always been stories of humans being raised by wolves; the best known probably is the myth of Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, who were raised by a she-wolf. Of course most of us know the legend of Mowgli from India that eventually became the basis for Kipling’s “Jungle Book” stories. In this period, the close relationship with wolves did not make them the fearsome creatures that they would later assume in Western mythology.

However, lycanthropy, the idea that certain men can turn into animals that prey on humans, is another one of those universal myths (like ghosts, vampires, etc.). The only difference is the form of animal that the humans transform into; it appears to depend upon whatever is the dominant predator in the area. In South America, it was the were-jaguar; in Africa it was the were-lion, India had its were-tigers and Europe had its were-wolves. (By the way, the term “were,” is a corruption of the Latin word “vir” or “man.” For example, we use the same root for our English word “virile” which means “manly.” In classic Latin pronunciation, the “v” sound is a “w” thus “vir” becomes “wir” or “were.” Thus a “were-wolf” is literally a “man-wolf” which doesn’t sound half as neat as “Wolf-man”).

Those “legends” are still widely believed and taught by shamans in Africa, South America and India who insist that some people have the ability to transform themselves into animals. In fact, there are reliable accounts from some big game hunters that maybe not all the man-eaters they killed over the years were strictly “natural” creatures. Some have even suggested that the “Lions of Tsavo” MIGHT have been were-lions. You might have seen one of the recent film versions called, “Ghost in the Darkness” wherein two lions did their best to help China, India and Africa deal with their over-population problems by dining on rail-road workers. The reason is that these “lions” did not act like normal lions, even man-eaters.

While I am not about to start worrying about full-moons or stocking up on silver bullets any time soon, the rationale BEHIND the “were-wolf” legends is worthy of study and consideration. All of the local legends share the common theme of the descent of man into the bestial; and of the horrible consequences of human-like intelligence being mated with animal ferocity.

I would argue that the theological basis for lycanthropy can be found in the story in Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar who in his pride exalted himself as a god (Dan 4:28ff). The Lord God then struck him down, making him a senseless brute for seven years. The modern psychologist of course will see here some sort of mental disease; a psychotic break that resulted in a man losing his sanity. And though Nebuchadnezzar is never said to actually have BECOME an animal-just lost his reason, therefore denying the glory that he had aspired to, it does provide an understanding of the central fears that the myth itself addresses.

The were-wolf as a figure of horror was well-known throughout Europe. Supposedly, a man consorted with the Devil and as a consequence, he would be given a belt that would transform him into the most fearsome predator then known. Transformation into a wolf was not necessarily associated with full moons, but was a conscious choice that a person could make at ANY time of the month; and any time of the day. There are actual wood-cuts and illustrations from medieval books supposedly showing men turning themselves into wolves.

And yes, again, Hollywood gets it wrong here almost universally. The “wolf-man” is NOT part man and part wolf, as the classic make up would suggest; but that the man literally BECAME a wolf. However, American sensitivities being what they are, it’s kind of hard to be frightened by what looks like on screen, just a big German shepherd. We love dogs too much, and have too closely associated them with pets to really FEAR them as monsters. Unlike our European ancestors who actually had to fight off large packs of wolves ravaging whole towns and cities, we have never seen the wolf that way; and so Hollywood had to change the make-up and the myth in order to convey the terror.

The real horror of the were-wolf is that something once human has now become a ravenous beast. It is the loss of humanity and the adoption of bestial characteristics that makes the were-wolf such a figure of horror. In American films, ever since the first “wolf-man” movie with Lon Chaney Junior, the were-wolf was initially portrayed as both the monster, AND the victim. Chaney’s character is bitten by a were-wolf and then to HIS horror, each full moon, turns into a beastly creature, striking out first at innocent strangers but eventually becoming a danger to his own family and friends. The movie has a powerful climatic scene as his own father beats him to death with a silver-headed cane (from my research, silver being the only effective weapon against were-wolves is another Hollywood invention. Earlier tales have the were-wolves being killed by quite ordinary means; guns, knives, and even, in one instance, by a heavy ring of keys thrown into its face).

There is remarkable Biblical imagery in the original 1930’s film with the father having to kill his own son, to save others. Biblical law required parents to bear witness against their own children who were covenant breakers; as important as the family is, ultimate loyalty belongs only to God. Thus, the father here, by killing his own son, protects the broader community from the evil that is inside him. Furthermore, the evil is something the son cannot control, it is something outside of him that over-powers his will and makes him into a monster. By killing the son, the father is in effect, SAVING the son from the monster inside.

Now, let us compare the medieval version of lycanthropy with its modern incarnation. Originally, a man was thought to deliberately make a covenant with the Devil in order to gain the power to become a ravenous monster. To become a lycanthrope was thus a demonstration of primordial power-a descent into the chaos-a self-conscious attempt to lose one’s humanity for the joys associated with utter savagery and the lack of a moral conscious.

The modern incarnation however saw lycanthropy as a disease; the beast taking over the man from the inside, causing him to lose his rationality and his humanity. He is as much victim, as predator, and sees his condition as a curse to be endured or ended as quickly as possible. What accounts for the different interpretations of lycanthropy?

I would argue that at least one possible answer is the theological revolution that has occurred from the Middle Ages to the present. By definition, in the older view, one’s humanity was a gift from God because we are made in the image of God. To lose that humanity, as happened to Nebuchadnezzar, was a curse of God. Thus in an age when demons, witches, vampires and were-wolves were believed prevalent, evil was assumed to be a self-conscious choice; bad things happened because people did bad things. Granted, a simplistic approach, but it provided an answer for the depravity and wickedness that so often haunted medieval society. Remember, this culture was much harsher and more brutal than anything we can realistically imagine today. Executions were public, torture routine and battles often left no survivors as local residents slit the throats of the wounded to pillage their belongings. It was a brutal world, and the assumption was that brutality was a result of an inner moral decision.

Fast forward now to the 20^th century where Sigmund Freud has had decades to make his theories popular. Evil, as a concept is not a result of individual decisions, but rather a product of the environment. The germ theory of disease had finally been understood and therefore evil was something apart from man that infected him. The were-wolf was evil, because he had been infected with something that made him evil. The source of his evil was therefore outside of himself. He was in fact a “good” man until this evil, were-wolf virus entered this body and turned him into a monster!

Furthermore, the were-wolf legend became a reverse apologetic for evolutionary theory; man supposedly had evolved from beasts and achieved consciousness, morality and humanity. The were-wolf as victim saw an unintended descent BACK into the bestial losing man the very things that evolution had given him.

The difference between the medieval and modern myth of lycanthropy lies in the difference between what we think causes human depravity. The modern version wants to make evil, something outside of the human condition. And it is merely a new version of the age old goal of Man since the Garden of Eden; wicked men seek to flee from the responsibility of his own sin. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, and all sinful men have attempted throughout history to either deny their sin or blame it on someone, or something else. Modern psychology and psychiatry look for environmental or medical problems to explain the causes of human evil. The modern were-wolf mythology is just the same old story, gussied up by Hollywood, of the ageless attempt of man to blame his bestial nature on something outside of himself rather than acknowledge the true depravity of his own wicked heart.

In the last twenty years or so, the were-wolf has reappeared in modern fiction, especially in several films. And Hollywood, true to form, is reinterpreting the were-wolf mythology again its own image. In “the Howling,” the were-wolf was no longer the innocent victim but an epistemologically self-conscious predator seeing humans as his legitimate prey. The story begins with a journalist receiving an invitation for an exclusive interview with a serial killer/rapist hotly pursued by the police. She meets him in a pornographic book-store, inside one of those little cubicles that show dirty movies. To the accompaniment of a violent rape scene being played out on the screen behind them, the journalist comes face to face with the killer, who transforms into a wolf-like creature. Just as he is about to attack her, he is shot dead by the police. And that is just the beginning of the movie; it gets worse.

However, the film does capture something of the real horror of the modern were-wolf legend in that the monster has now returned to his medieval origins. He is wicked and evil, not because of some gypsy curse, or having survived an attack by another monster, but he is evil because he ENJOYS being the predator. Rape is just an added delicacy to an over-powering hunger to kill. There is even a scene with John Carradine, (he of the awesome voice), who gives a reasonable apologetic for WHY it is perfectly normal and NATURAL for were-wolves to prey on humans.

Perhaps the explanation for the return of the older view is that after two hot wars that killed tens of millions of people, a cold war that threatened to eliminate the entire race and Vietnam that destroyed America’s sense of its own goodness, we in the West are finally dealing with the reality of evil in our midst. Our social planners have promised for over a hundred years that if we can only fund the right program, with the right people, we can end war, famine, starvation, and brutality. But our popular mythology often exposes our secret fears that we will not admit to in our public debates; the evil is within us-and there is nothing we can do about it. Our prisons are full of creatures just as vile, just as monstrous as anything Hollywood has ever created for “entertainment” and we rightly fear these creatures that prey on other humans without a twig of conscience. The real issue of lycanthropy is not men who transform themselves into animals-but rather men who look like men, but have lost the essence of their humanity; the image of God inside.

The ONLY solution for human evil is a radical transformation of the heart. We live in a moral universe, governed by a personal God in whose image we are made. The essence of our life, our humanity is something given to us at creation when God breathed a living soul into the creature he had made from the dust of the earth. When men abandon faith and trust in this sovereign, personal God, they lose contact with the only true source of genuine humanity. And what is left then, is our depraved nature-unrestrained by any of the God-given attributes that makes us human. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the only solution for man’s inner, innate evil.

Thus the theology of the were-wolf is man without God; self-consciously in rebellion to his ethical standards and living life on his own terms according to his own moral standards. And for a hundred and fifty years our philosophers, educators and social commentators have told us that to be free from God, His Law and His morality is to become truly human. What we find instead is that to be “free” from God is to become a monster; the were-wolf is not a myth, but the beast that lives within all of us.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. The Christian and Vampires
2. Christian Rant: It’s None of Your Business