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.

Brian M. Abshire

Table of Contents

1. Iron Sharpening Iron:
2. Introduction:
3. Doctrine and Salvation.
4. Doctrinal Divisions and Secularization.
5. Worship in Spirit and Truth
6. Just what is Doctrine?
7. The Psychology of Learning and Non-Ratio-centric Thinking.
8. Various Ways of “Knowing” – Human Brain Research.
9. Implications for Doing Theology.
10. Implications for Fellowship with Non-Reformed Christians.
11. Implications for Personal Devotion.
12. Implications for Preaching.
13. Implications for Evangelism.
14. Implications for Worship.
15. Conclusion.

Iron Sharpening Iron:

Over the past thirty years in various churches, ministries and fellowships, I have had the sheer joy of knowing and interacting with some very bright, well-read, and articulate Christians from across the theological and denominational spectrum. And in that fellowship, we would often spend entire evenings or whole Lord’s Days after formal worship, discussing theology, the Scriptures, ethics, philosophy, etc. It came as a shock to me that many Christians never had the privilege of this kind of aggressive intellectual encouragement in their churches; nobody it seemed had ever loved them enough to trash their faulty logic, point out holes in their theological constructs or make them squarely face the implications of their worldview.

Solomon said that “iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another” (Pvbs 27:17) which the author of Hebrews echoed a thousand years later when he said “let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds.” So in this series of essays, I wanted to see if can “stimulate” the brethren by trying to capture the “feel” of some of those old “iron sharpening iron” times.

Thus, rather than my normal, concise, critical essay showing impeccable logic and irrefutable conclusions (yeah, right), instead we offer a series of informal “discussions” where an idea is thrown out, examined from various perspectives and the logic followed to wherever it leads.

Now, like the informal discussions mentioned above, we do start with some important presuppositions; i.e., we affirm a priori the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, the integrity and accuracy of the Reformed faith, especially the Westminster Standards as a reliable and excellent summary of true “doctrine.” However, sometimes, in these “discussions” we will address whether the common understanding of the Scriptures or the Reformed faith is necessarily accurate. Our overall goal is to understand God’s word better and apply it more consistently to His glory.

So sit back and relax with your favorite potable, keep your Bible along side and think with us as we explore and discuss various issues. We’ll try to keep the style light and “non-academic” and when we use some obscure theological term we’ll define it so you don’t get lost in all the verbiage. But be prepared to think through some ideas. And oh yes, please be gracious-before saying “Oh I know where this is going;” give us a break and stay with us to the end; you may be pleasantly surprised!

And if you would like to interact with the material, just go to our forums and post your thoughts, disagreements, etc. so that as iron sharpens iron, we all become better, sharper, more effective servants of the Living and True God.

Introduction:

As teaching elders in a confessional church (RPC), my brother elders and I firmly believe that right doctrine is important. We affirm in our ordination vows that the doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms are what the Bible teaches; and therefore, logically, what all Christians should believe. And if one has a little bit of historical perspective, the knowledgeable person will admit that at one time, pretty nearly all Protestants (apart from Lutherans) believed something like what the Westminster Standards teach; e.g., Anglicans (39 articles) continental Reformed (Three Forms of Unity) and of course Congregationalists (Puritans) and Presbyterians. While there are some major differences between Reformed theology and Lutheranism, still the two are closer in theory than Reformed theology is to modern, broad evangelicalism. Even most Baptists originally assumed the overall accuracy of the Confession; merely changing the part about baptism. At the time that America was constituted as a nation, probably 90% of Christians held to some form of Reformed theology.

However, that has all changed; modern broad evangelical Christianity which makes up probably 90%+ of those who affirm the historic Christian gospel of salvation by faith, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, etc., largely reject Reformed (or for that matter any other) doctrinal formulations. Now, there are several ways of demonstrating that statistic; I arrived at the figure by looking at denominational affiliations in standard reference works and comparing the number of people who attend Reformed churches with those who attend non-reformed churches (and that of course assumes the people who attend Reformed churches are actually Reformed; a dubious assumption).

But you can test the theory for yourself: just ask some Christian friends or co-workers about predestination. My experience is that 9 out of 10 evangelical Christians reject the doctrine the doctrines of grace. Granted, being Reformed means far more than affirming TULIP;[1] but if they reject THIS, then therefore, they will inevitably reject everything else in the system that underlies it (i.e., the utter sovereignty of God, the role of the Moral Law, regulative principle, etc.).

Now the first question that comes to mind is just what is the spiritual status of these 40 million or so, “born again” evangelical Christians who not only lack a consistent and comprehensive Christian worldview (which we believe that only Reformed theology provides), but actually reject the basic doctrinal formulations that provide the foundation for that worldview? And since we are entering a theological minefield, let us do a bit of stomping about and see what blows up in our faces by also asking, “What about all those devout, sincere Christians who believe in the ‘charismata,’ such as contemporary prophecies, speaking in tongues, etc., which are actually counter to Reformed dogmatic theology?” What is their status before God? For not only do they most commonly deny what we Reformed folks believe to be essential doctrine, but actually affirm things we believe to be untrue! This is no small question and probably deserves a Masters’ thesis to properly answer, but it does need to be considered.

When discussing this issue or reading critical essays and books that deal with theology (and we Reformed types tend to write the vast bulk of serious type theological works), several responses seem most common. For example, there are some on the extreme end of the Reformed pendulum who come right out and say that all these non-Reformed broad evangelicals are quite frankly, damned. Now, some may be more subtle than others, but the underlying assumption is that unless a Christian self-consciously acknowledges the Reformed faith as the true faith, then they have no saving faith at all. I have had more than a few serious conversations or correspondences over the years with those who say flat out that Arminianism is a false gospel and anyone who believes it is unregenerate and lost in their sins; and by “Arminian” they specifically mean anyone who does not self-consciously affirm Reformed soteriology.[2]

A more “middle of the road” response (in my experience, probably held by the majority of Reformed elders, writers, theologians, and Christians in general) is that primarily, the problem is one of “education;” i.e., for the most part, broad evangelicals suffer from bad teaching and preaching and not reading enough of the good books we Reformed types write every year. And if such Christians did so, they would both better understand the Christian faith and eventually come around to our way of thinking. Now, the fact that thus far we have been largely unsuccessful in “converting” many of these folks is a bit of a problem; but since most of the people in our churches came out of broad evangelicalism, there must be something to it.

This view would also allow for human sin as an explanation for why so many Christians reject the Reformed faith-after all there are sins of the intellect as well as sins of the flesh. The doctrine of Total Depravity means that the totality of man’s nature is affected by sin, including the mind. So some people do not adopt Reformed doctrine because they have a sinful inclination in this area, just as some Reformed Christians might struggle with a sinful temper, or a wandering eye, pride or some other unsanctified character trait. So we can comfort ourselves in our small, struggling churches because at heart, we know we have the truth, and either others have not yet discovered it, or they sinfully refuse it.

And then thirdly, there are those who at least verbally say that they are Reformed and belong to Confessional churches but at heart, really think that Reformed theology is nice and all, but not really essential. For them, what is really important is getting people “saved” and not incidentally, growing one’s church. So Reformed theology is basically available for the “super-spiritual” types; but good old broad evangelicalism is good enough for the common folk in the pew. And besides, most Christians find all that doctrine and theology boring, sometimes controversial and too much of an emphasis on it will only drive people away.

This characterization may sound a bit nasty but I really do know a number of teaching and ruling elders in Confessional churches, that in private conversation will wax eloquently about the Reformed faith, demonstrate a good grasp of its intricacies, and seem not only to accept it, but to actually love it; just so long as it is kept safely at presbytery meetings, personal reading or private conversations. Yet when they preach or teach, one would be hard-pressed to discern any real difference in their message from the broad-evangelical charismatic mega-church down the street. One great quote that deserves inclusion here comes from a professional colleague who said “Doctrine is as important as the color of the sanctuary carpets.”

Now pondering all the above, I am forced to ask some questions that have been niggling at the edges of my thinking for years; just how important is proper, doctrinal understanding? Amongst the three positions noted above (and there may be others as well, some more consistently worked out than others), there is “some” merit to each. Undoubtedly there are those within the visible evangelical church who are “wolves” who hate God, hate Christ and hate true doctrine because their hearts are unregenerate. They therefore work unceasingly to attack the Reformed faith at every opportunity just because it is the best, clearest statement of God’s truth. They then substitute a man-made gospel for that truth; after all, heresy is nothing new.

It is also likely that in the broad evangelical community there are probably thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions?) of confessed Christians who do want a better understanding of the Christian faith but have been handicapped by poorly educated teachers and preachers. Such people are trying to live a consistent Christian life in submission to King Jesus, in so far as they understand it. And, if they did get a better doctrinal foundation, they would be better able to understand and live out that life to the glory of God.

And, strange though it may see, there may also be some measure of truth in the “Barely Reformed” camp that recognizes that some people are just not intellectually ready (or perhaps even equipped) to deal with the utter world and life-view transformation necessary to go from modern, antinomian broad evangelicalism to a consistent understanding of the Christian faith. Is it really so strange that the average, working class broad evangelical is not prepared to meaningfully interact with the infralapsarian versus supralapsarian controversy?[3]

However, it may also be that we are in fact asking the wrong questions and therefore getting inadequate answers. Since the time of the Reformation, we, at least in the Reformed world, have implicitly assumed the centrality of rational formulations of doctrine –what I call “ratio-centric” to be the “essence” of Christian faith and that assumption governs all of our thinking, and all the actions based on that thinking. Perhaps it is time to reexamine that assumption to see whether it is necessarily valid.

Doctrine and Salvation

Let’s see if we can phrase this question a bit differently by starting further back in the discussion; just how much truth is necessary for a man to believe and affirm to be considered a Christian? In other words, how much right doctrine is enough doctrine to give a “credible confession of faith” in Christ?

Have you ever thought about this issue before? Our Reformed ancestors did and Foxes Book of Martyrs records our spiritual ancestors willing to be burned at the stake over the precise formulation of certain doctrines! For example, these great warriors for Christ thought the issue of transubstantiation was so important, it was worth dying a most horrible death rather than accept something they thought theologically deficient.

Now just think about this for a moment; in the first three centuries of the church, our ancestors also died at the hands of the Romans because they refused to offer a pinch of incense on an alter dedicated to the Emperor and say “Caesar is Lord.” Now we today understand why they were willing to suffer and die rather than say “Caesar is Lord;” it was idolatry. Christians could not say “Caesar is Lord” because it implicitly denied the most basic creedal confession of the faith, “Jesus is Lord.” So the early Christian martyrs were willing to die before doing something that would in effect deny Jesus. They understood that there could only be one “Lord.”

And their experience, in the light of Scripture, provides the fundamental baseline of how much doctrine is enough for salvation; to be “saved” a person has to confess “Jesus is Lord” and believe, in their hearts, that God raised Him from the dead (Rms 10:9-10). Read the entire passage in context and note what the Apostle Paul states from the Old Testament scriptures; “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed” (Isa 9:33) and he then quotes Joel 2:32-“for whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” Now of course, we Reformed folks understand that it takes a supernatural act on God’s part to regenerate the wicked human heart and give saving faith to believe in Christ and confess Him as Lord; but it is this combination of inner faith and outward confession that God uses to save a man.

Clearly, the early Martyrs understood that the confession of “lordship” was exclusive; they could not say “Caesar is Lord” because it would deny the Lordship of Jesus. The word “Lord” does not just mean “someone with authority” but clearly must mean “someone with ultimate authority” - more about this in a moment. However at this point, we can acknowledge that one of the foundational doctrines (not the only one, just the most basic one) of the early church was acknowledging the exclusivity of Jesus claim to Lordship.

The Romans 10:9-10 passage also has a fundamental requirement that a person must believe “God raised Him from the dead.” Clearly, there are implications here regarding the Lord Jesus’ death as a propitiation for our sins (1 Jn 2:2), and that the resurrection (at least in one aspect), was God’s confirmation that Jesus’ death was satisfactory and perfectly fulfilled His righteous wrath. Yet, at the same time, belief in the resurrection may have been important just because it was an affirmation of God’s revelation which contradicted and overturned the most basic premises of Greek, philosophy. Neo-Platonism, which was pretty much universally assumed in the first two centuries of church history, saw “God” as pure spirit or “idea” and the material world as inherently sinful. There could be no real connection between Heaven and Earth; “salvation” was therefore through “knowledge” (Gnosticism), asceticism (Stoicism) or by destroying the appetite through overloading the senses (Epicureanism).

Thus, the resurrection was an offense to the fundamental Greek presuppositions that almost all first century people would have assumed as a basic “truth.” By “believing” in the resurrection of Christ, it automatically put one at odds with the “best” theological, philosophical and scientific theories of the day; i.e., if the material world is inherently evil, why then would God resurrect someone? The whole point of “salvation” from the Greek perspective was to ascend to higher, “spiritual” levels once one escaped from the material world. In fact, these Greek presuppositions were so pervasive, that in the second century and beyond, the church repeatedly had to rebuke and refute various implications of Greek philosophy that appeared as “heresies” taught by those within the church who denied the incarnation, the crucifixion or the resurrection!

So hence, even the most basic doctrinal formulation we have to distinguish between a Christian and a non-Christian explicitly requires not only a positive confession of the exclusive claims of Jesus as Lord, but also, implicitly a denial of anti-Christian philosophy. First century believers had to reject everything they had ever believed about God, creation, man, and salvation in order to meet the requirements of Romans 10:9-10.

In light of this, we might add as a supporting pillar, the claim that Jesus was the “Christ.” We say this so commonly, so unthinkingly today that we forget the significance of the Lord’s most basic title. The Greek word we transliterate as “Christ” is a translation of the Hebrew term “Messiah” which means “Anointed One.” Therefore to acknowledge that Jesus was the “Christ” was to say that one confesses Him as the Messiah of God. But this Hebrew term would not have meant much to Gentiles lacking a proper Hebrew understanding, would it? After all, Christianity was ridiculed not only for its “primitive” belief in a physical resurrection, but also because the nearest Greek word for “Anointed One” literally meant “One Smeared with Oil;” sometimes words in one language do not always translate the same thoughts in another.[4]

So one can easily imagine Paul and the other evangelists proclaiming in a market place “Jesus is the One Smeared with Oil by God!” and the crowd starting to titter! Surely, Paul must have immediately had to explain just what he meant by “Smeared with Oil.” The Hebrew term “Anointed One” is a reference to the Old Testament practice of anointing a person chosen to be King by God. By the time of the New Testament, the term was used primarily to refer to the Coming King, who would restore David’s throne. It carried both the idea of a conquering King and a Redeemer, both physical and spiritual. After all, Jesus was dragged before Pilate just because the Pharisees and Sanhedrin accused him of instigating civil rebellion by proclaiming Himself to be the “Christ” and had to explain to Pilate that this meant “king” (Luke 23:2!

Now, is the picture getting any clearer? Even the simplest, least controversial statements in the Scriptures, have behind them, considerable theological, philosophical and intellectual content. It appears that God might require us to have a more sophisticated understanding of His nature, being, purposes and plans than some might expect!

Getting back to our ancestors in the Reformation, the issue for the Martyrs of Bloody Mary Tudor, was not whether one denied Jesus as Lord, but rather whether the elements of communion somehow, mystically became the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). Today, we might well ask, “Why?” Why die for one particular intellectual or theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper; after all, both Roman Catholics and Reformers believe that Jesus was Lord. Both would agree that He said, “This is My body.” One side took the statement literally, another “spiritually” (and some, like the Zwinglians took it as purely metaphorical or symbolic[5]). So why die over some esoteric, academic, obscure, literary, grammatical, philosophical or theological explanation? In the “immortal” words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Well of course, you already understand that the issue was not just over a “doctrine” but rather the necessary implications of that doctrine. If the communion elements were literally transformed into the body and blood of Jesus (as the Roman view taught), then these elements could and should be worshipped (hence the Roman practice of elevating of the “Host” which the Confession explicitly forbids us to do). Therefore, the Reformers saw transubstantiation as idolatry and could not in good conscience affirm something forbidden by the Second Commandment. To have affirmed transubstantiation then would have necessarily required the Martyrs to commit an act of apostasy; so they chose to die horrible deaths (often being burnt at the stake) rather than risk their eternal souls by breaking the Second Commandment.

So it certainly seems that there are some doctrines worth dying for; at least when the issues are clear cut. In the above example, everyone knew what was at stake; the Reformers were reacting against what they sincerely believed to be an example of idolatry- to affirm transubstantiation would in effect, in their eyes, to worship an idol and deny Christ. They simply had no other choice, did they?

Doctrinal Divisions and Secularization

Yet, taking a slightly different tack for a moment, sociologically and historically speaking, there is little doubt that the religious persecutions, murders and warfare of the 16^th and 17^th century directly led to the secularization of the 18^th and 19^th centuries. While this topic is too complex for us to prove, most scholars will agree that killing or dying for doctrine was at least partially responsible for the popular reaction against “scholastic” Christianity, and the subsequent rise of Pietism, Deism, attacks on the integrity of the Bible and the eventual secularization of all Western nations.[6] To those of us who have read the literature of the times and sampled the zeitgeist of the 18^th century in particular, we KNOW that the stated reason for rejecting dogmatic theology began with this abhorrence over Christians killing Christians over doctrinal differences. This directly led to many attempting to find some “secular” (meaning non-religious) way of living as an alternative to religious warfare and strife.

Of course “secularization” led to the Reign of Terror in France, the Napoleonic Wars, De Sade, Nilhism, the end of American constitutional government after the War between the States, Anarchism, Marxism, the Russian Revolution, National Socialism, the Holocausts (both Jewish and unborn babies) and probably, at conservative estimates the murder of hundreds of millions of people in the 20^th century alone by humanist national governments acting consistently on their secularized presuppositions. So by noting this fact we are not trying in anyway to justify secularization; just noting how we got from where we were, to where we are today.

I cannot say this without risk of contradiction because the Internet allows for anyone with a word processor and a dialup connection to have a web-site, but I am not aware of any “Reformed” Christian today, no matter how anti-Catholic his doctrine, calling for the arrest, imprisonment or execution of Roman Catholic priests just for being Roman Catholic.[7] But many old English homes still have “priest-holes” where Roman clergy could hide when the Puritans were in power. Most serious Christian scholars today reject the idea that the power of the State should be used to punish “unacceptable” doctrines.[8]

But that brings us back to the initial question; just how much doctrine is “enough” doctrine? And what precisely is the status of Christians who have “less than perfect” intellectual understanding of what some of us at least, firmly believe to be essential?

Worship in Spirit and Truth-

Let us take another step back for a moment, and consider this issue from a slightly different perspective. One text that has profoundly influenced my own thinking over the past two decades is John 4:24, which concerns Jesus’ comments to the Samaritan woman at the well. During the course of the conversation[9] she asks Jesus who was right, the Jews who worshipped at the temple, or the Samaritans who worshipped on the mountain like Jacob (Jn 4:12, 20, Genesis 33:20). In essence, she was claiming legitimacy for Samaritan worship practices based on precedence and antiquity; Jacob precedes Moses by hundreds of years; therefore, she is actually asking, “Is not OUR worship at least if not more authentic and valid as that which was based upon the tabernacle and temple?”

Jesus first flatly corrects her,” you worship that which you do not know” and then affirms that temple worship was the proper form because “salvation is from the Jews.” He then goes on to say, “an hour is coming and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshippers. God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Now let’s “unpack” the Lord’s words here and see whether it helps clarify our question. The Samaritans were a mongrel race of Gentiles who had intermarried with the surviving Hebrew remnants of Northern Israel after the Assyrian conquest and depopulation of most of the Ten Northern Tribes. The Assyrians had moved in people from across their empire, presumably to destroy linguistic, ethnic and religious identities and therefore forestall revolutions and uprisings. After having some hard times with the local wildlife, the few remaining Hebrews taught the newcomers something about Yahweh. Later on, the entire area was re-conquered by the Maccabees (Jewish patriots in the Greek wars) and partially re-settled by Jews from the South. However, the Samaritans and Jews were known for their animosity towards one another and lived in separate communities.

By the time of the New Testament, the Samaritans had some knowledge of the One True God, tracing at least part of their religion and ritual back to Jacob, and in so far as we can tell, tried to offer Him sincere worship. When the Samaritan woman talks with Jesus, she is arguing that her people’s worship was a legitimate alternative to temple worship and cites a Biblical example based on one of the Patriarchs, the man from whom Israel received her very name.

Jesus does not deny the sincerity of Samaritan worship; in fact one can read the text in such as way that He assumed they were “sincere.” However He does state that the worship, no matter how sincerely it might have been offered[10] and regardless of its historical precedence, was still not acceptable to God. He then, implicitly goes on to criticize Jewish Temple worship, predicting a day when worship would no longer be offered at the Temple, because (my interpretation here) the Temple would be destroyed. And the Temple was destroyed by God, because, the Jewish people, though “true” in being technically correct in their liturgy and sacrifices, did not worship in “spirit.” If they had been worshipping in “spirit” they would have recognized Jesus as the promised Messiah. Instead, they used the forms of “true” worship (The “Sh’ma Ysrael” or “there is only one God,” the Laws about blasphemy, the Mosaic judicial process used by the Sanhedrin, etc.) as a means of executing the very Person about whom the Temple worship was supposed to reveal!

So then, we have, from the Lord’s own words, two basic principles of approaching God that are indispensable and interconnected; worship must be in “spirit” and in “truth.” Several necessary deductions therefore flow; untruth, no matter how piously or sincerely held does not honor God nor worship Him as He wants to be worshipped. And conversely, true worship, if not from “the heart” (or however one defines “spirit”) does not honor Him, nor worship Him as He wants to be worshipped.

Thus, clearly, wrong understandings of God are forbidden. If God has revealed Himself in one way in Scripture, and people understand Him in some different way, then their worship is not in “truth” and therefore unacceptable. This principle is nothing new; it is simply a restatement of the preface, First and Second Commandments. You cannot worship God if you do not understand, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before Me.” God is the “I Am,” the Self-Existent One who is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the One Who declares the “end from the beginning” the only “True” God. He is the One who redeemed His people from slavery in history and performed wondrous works to reveal His will, nature and being. There are no other gods but Him; all other claims are false. And therefore, the only proper, moral response is to love this God, and this God alone with all our heart, strength, mind, body and soul (Deut 6:5, Mark 12:30).

So God wants to be worshipped in truth, and He wants be loved with our minds; therefore there is a moral requirement to bring our thoughts into captivity to Christ (2 Cor 10:4-5). Ok, at this point anyway, we can establish that right doctrine, right understanding of God of His nature, being, promises and will is required. Every Christian therefore ought to be seeking to learn more about God; or as we sometimes say “improve our baptisms.” And of course, I can almost hear the cheering from the Reformed section; for if Christians actually improve their understanding of God, by necessity they must come closer and closer to the Reformed faith, because (and no egotism here) the Reformed faith IS Biblical faith.

But you may want to hold your applause for a moment; every Christian agrees there ought to be growth in the Christian life; growth in knowledge, wisdom, hatred for our sins, hunger and thirst for righteousness and godliness, etc. The issue we have been trying to address is all those people who confess Jesus as Lord and yet are not only deficient in their understanding of His nature, being, and purpose but sometimes downright wrong in their doctrine! While there is evidence in many churches of a rediscovery of some aspects of Reformed theology (we may have been knocked down the last 150 years, but not out), does anyone realistically see a great revival of Calvinism any time soon (apart that is, from a disjunctive sovereign act of God in history)?

Let me suggest that perhaps most broad evangelicals are focusing on worshipping God in spirit, while Reformed Christians may be emphasizing worshipping Him in truth. And if accurate, that statement means that at least some Reformed Christians could be just as erroneous in their emphasis on worshipping Him in “truth” as other Christians are in emphasizing worshipping Him in “spirit.” Now if that didn’t set off a landmine I am just not stomping hard enough!

But please, think with me; who is doing all the evangelism today; your local, “Truly Reformed” church or that bunch of wild-eyed fanatical, broad evangelical, almost Arminian baptistic type church down the street? Who is walking the picket lines against abortion, or getting involved with trying to stop the cultural sewage from pornography, prostitution, or the latest assault from the Sodomite community? Can you really characterize the average Reformed church as full of love for the brethren, deeply involved in people’s lives, compassionate and gracious in relationships all while holding firmly to the rigorous standards of the Confession?

Oh sure, your church does all these things; I didn’t mean to imply that it didn’t-but of course you admit that your church is “unusual” or special, and far above the “average” Reformed church, right? In your Reformed church people are not superficial, critical, legalistic or caustic. And of course, your church is growing phenomenally even though it will not compromise on Reformed theology. But I am talking about those “other guys…” you know the ones…

My point here is of course that simply understanding and professing right doctrine does not necessarily seem to translate into practical application of the truth. And to be perfectly honest, after coming out of broad evangelical churches with all their theological errors and into Reformed churches with all their intellectual accuracy; I cannot really say that Reformed Christians are any holier, devout, humbler before God, more fervent in service, more passionate in love, or any other desirable character trait than their “misguided” brothers.

Kind of depressing, ain’t it? But I do think there are explanations for this; part of the problem of course is the issue of Pietism[11] that infects every evangelical church today, another part has to do with the church’s adoption of post-Kantian epistemology[12]. And of course, part of the answer is that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. But when Reformed Christians see their percentage of the total Christian population dwindle year after year, decade after decade, century after century, maybe, just maybe it is time to ask if our assumptions are as “correct” as we think they are. Perhaps some of us have been seduced by a more subtle form of pietism wherein we focus on the academic, the intellectual, the theoretical and so confuse ideas with “spirit?”

For example, we started this meandering essay by noting the emphasis that Reformed Christians place on the importance of right “doctrine.” And I bet (that is, if you bet) you probably read that word and automatically assumed that the word “doctrine” meant something like, “theological propositions” or such; right? And of course, if the Bible says it is important to have right “doctrine” and “doctrine” means “good theology” then clearly, Christians without good theology are in trouble; agreed?

Just what is Doctrine?

But what if our understanding of what the word “doctrine” means is wrong? What if “doctrine” actually means something OTHER than “theological statements or propositions?” Would not our logical conclusions ALSO be wrong? For a conclusion may be logical but still erroneous, IF the premises themselves are flawed.

So what am I getting at here? Well, let’s take a quick look at every instance of the word “doctrine” in the New Testament and see what how the word is actually used and defined in Scripture. The word “doctrine” or “doctrines” is used by the New American Standard Bible in the following passages; Eph 4:14, 1 Tim 4:6, 6:1, 6:3, 2 Tim 4:3, Titus 1:9, 2:1, 2:7, 2:10, Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:7, 1 Tim 1:3 and 1 Tim 4:1. It translates the Greek words “didache” didaskalos and heterodidaskaleo (strange or “contrary” doctrine) and comes from the word “to teach” or “teacher.”[13]

In essence the word simply means “teaching” or “instruction,” “the act of teaching” and “what is taught.” Now it ought to be apparent that anything that is “taught” can be doctrine, not just theological propositions or philosophical concepts. Thus, we could use the word “doctrine” to refer to what is “taught” in history, biology, chemistry, psychology or any other subject matter. The word has nothing to say about the content of the “instruction.” In Scripture then, “good doctrine” refers to teaching that is in accordance with the accepted content and “bad doctrine” teaching that is not consistent with the accepted content; but the word itself does not tell us what that content was. Now just what was the content of the “teaching” that the Apostle Paul was so concerned about Timothy and Titus and the Ephesians getting right?

Looking over the individual passes, in Ephesians 4:14, Paul addresses the role of apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors and teachers. Such were given for the equipping of the saints for their work of service, and that as a result, Christians are not to be children, carried about by every wind of “doctrine.” The “doctrine” is defined here as “the trickery of men,” and “craftiness in deceitful scheming.” Well, that does not seem to help very much since the verse does not so much deal with the content of the “doctrine” but rather the motivations of those who teach false doctrines. The context however appears to concern “the equipping of the saints.” Note this because we will come back to it later.

In 1 Timothy 4:6 He says that “in pointing out these things to the brethren you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound [good] doctrine which you have been following.” The key here is interpreting the phrase “these things;” which in context, refer back to verses 1-5 wherein Paul warns Timothy about a day coming when some people would fall away from the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and the “doctrines” of demons. So the question that should spring to mind is “What did he mean by the doctrines of demons?” Was it Romanism or maybe Arminianism? Or could it have been a warning of Theological Liberalism? How about we consider that it might have been Antinomianism, Dispensationalism, or something?

However, Paul defined the “doctrine of demons” in verse three as (1) men who forbid marriage and (2) advocated abstaining from certain foods! Wow, really esoteric theological concepts there, eh? In other words, both of the specific examples that Paul gives of the “doctrine of demons” do not appear to deal with theology so much as with Christian ethics; i.e., men saying that certain things were evil, that God had said were good. Now, clearly this is a “doctrine of demons” because it is a manifestation of Original Sin all over again; man determining good and evil apart from God. But the salient point here is that when we see the content of “doctrine” defined, it is not “right vs. wrong ideas about God” but rather “calling something good, evil.”

Let us move on; in 1 Timothy 6:1 Paul basically tells slaves to give honor to their masters so that the name of God and “our doctrine” may not be spoken against. Here, Paul does not define what he means by “our teaching” just that he does not want its reputation ruined by slaves being disrespectful. However, we should note that the word “doctrine” is again used within the context of ethical behavior, not intellectual propositions.

However, further on in this same passage (1 Timothy 6:3ff), the situation is a little clearer; here Paul continues with the same thought and warns that if “anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words… he is conceited and understands nothing.” Now the context is clearly concerned with the way that believing slaves are to treat their masters, especially those masters who too are believers. But the “doctrine” here is defined, not as “right theological propositions” but rather as an ethical requirement of what Jesus demands from His people; specifically that slaves must respect their masters. “Right” doctrine is “right actions” and in this passage, appears to have nothing to do with “theology.”

In 2 Timothy 4:3 again, Paul warns about the time coming when people will not “endure sound doctrine” but does not define what the content of that “sound teaching is.” However, in Titus 1:9 when he uses the word “sound doctrine” the context is clearly the character qualification for an elder. An elder must hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the “teaching” so he can exhort in “sound doctrine.” Again, when we actually encounter the word with some surrounding, amplifying material, it appears to be associated with character or ethics, or righteous living more than theological propositions.

Now comes the clincher; in Titus 2:1 Paul then requires Titus to “speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.” Do we then have a description of the differences between the ontological and economical Trinities, the hypostatic union of Christ, a discourse on eschatology or a defense of salvation by faith alone? No, in all the following verses that explain what Paul meant by “doctrine” he deals with ethical and character issues; e.g., he tells Titus what older men and women are to do, what younger women and men are to do, what slaves are to do, etc. He then goes on in verse 11 to state that salvation “instructs” us to “deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age.” In other words, the “sound doctrine” defined here has nothing to do with abstract theoretical understandings of “theology” (or affirming the “right” ideas), but rather in how to live in the right way!

Now I can hear the tar bubbling and the chickens squawking as their feathers are being plucked and prepared; but if we interpret unclear passages by clear ones, are we not forced to conclude that when the New Testament uses the word “doctrine” it refers to the “teaching” about “how to live in conformity with the Law of God” and not about “believing the right things about God.” In fact, as I examined every instance of the word “doctrine” (whether translated that way or not) in the New Testament, I could not find one place where it was unambiguously used as “a body of theological propositions or understanding.” Now, there were many times when you could read this meaning into the passage, if you began with the presupposition that “doctrine” means “theology.” But you could just as easily read “the body of teaching of how to live in conformity with the Law of God” just as easily. And of course, when one does find actual definitions of “doctrines,” they support my view, rather than the more common understanding.

Hence allow me to suggest that all the exhortations we find in God’s word about the importance of having “sound doctrine” have little to do with having the right set of theological propositions but rather, whether or not we understand how to live righteously, humbly and submissively before God. I am certainly open to be corrected on this issue but in so far as I can see, many Christians begin with an untested assumption, read that assumption into the text and then conclude that “right ideas” are what is in view.

Now, this brings us to another issue; if in fact God thought having correct theological understanding to be crucial or central to the faith, why did He not write His Bible as a theology textbook? Of course, some are going to argue with me here, calling me dangerously arrogant because who I am to tell God how He should have written His Book! But I am not being arrogant; I humbly accept God’s revelation, as He authored it-and what I find is that He did not write His Bible as a series of theological propositions which everyone from the Church Fathers on down have insisted on rewriting it!

From the time of refuting the early heretics by writing the Apostles’ Creed which summarized the church’s earliest confession, through the Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian Creeds, the church has had to labor, struggle, debate and discuss various “doctrines” in order to refute those who taught theological propositions that were considered heresy. Eventually, the Reformation produced the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards for the same reasons; to systematize what the Bible itself only says in parts and portions and to refute the teaching of Rome, the Arminians and the Ana-Baptists.

Now not for a moment do I denigrate or under-value the diligent work of all these godly men, nor (as in the case of the Westminster Standards) do I even disagree with their conclusions. But I am asking, if “correct” theology is as central as we have assumed, then why did so many men, at so many councils over so many centuries have to work so hard at drawing these things out from Scripture? Why did not God make a few, clearer statements such as “You lack the capacity of understanding the totality of my revelation; but to help you along, I the Father am the only true God, Jesus My Son is also fully God and My Holy Spirit is also fully God. Each of us is a distinct person with all the power, glory and majesty of God and deserves your worship and obedience. However, there are not three Gods, but One. You will not understand this; you just have to believe it.”

Clearly, God who knows all things, decided for His own reasons not to give us clear, unambiguous conclusions like this. Instead, He chose to reveal Himself a little bit here, a little bit there, sometimes in historical narrative, sometimes in poetry and sometimes in straight-forward doctrinal propositions. And then we come to His revelation and try to put those “bits” together into a logical, consistent framework. And the best that we have ever done is the Reformed Faith.

But what if our best efforts are mistaken (the chickens have stopped clucking now and I hear a stake being driven into the ground; and is that the sound of someone chopping firewood…). As we noted previously, basic logic is that the conclusion is only as good as the premises; one’s reasoning, no matter how logical it may be, can lead to erroneous conclusions if the premises are wrong or if some of the premises are absent. For example, if the world is flat and if one sails due west, then eventually, one will fall off the ends of the earth. The reasoning is logical and valid; the conclusion we know is in error. We know that because the premises themselves are flawed.

Now in Scripture, the premises are valid; they are God’s own revelation so therefore they must be true, because He is true (Jn 17:3). But the assumption we make in doing theology is that we have all the relevant premises to reach the “right” conclusion. This is not the same thing as the doctrine of the “sufficiency” of Scripture which essentially states that God’s Word is sufficient for salvation, for worship and serving Him as He wants to be worshipped and served. No, the assumption we often make when we do theology is that the Bible is sufficient for our understanding of the nature of God; and it is that assumption that is being queried.

Take for example Messianic revelation in the Old Testament. Clearly, this is a “doctrine” taught throughout the New Testament; i.e., that everything in the Old Testament was divinely inspired to reveal the Messiah. But it took supernatural revelation on the part of the Lord Jesus and later His apostles to make that revelation clear. Just look at some of the 200+ prophecies that the New Testament quotes as demonstrating that Jesus was the Messiah; if you read them in context without knowing how the New Testament interpreted them, would you see Jesus in them? For example, the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin is, in context, about Isaiah and given to Hezekiah and fulfilled (Isa 7:14ff)! But the New Testament authors take this text up and apply it to Jesus! How could anyone reason from this Old Testament event to the New Testament fulfillment without being given supernatural insight?

God says, “…for My ways are not your ways, and My thoughts are not your thoughts…” (Isa 55:9) In other words, as important as rational thinking may be, it is not sufficient in and of itself to arrive at truth because God’s thoughts are “higher” than ours. In order to understand God, you would have to be God; and it was that desire that got us into this mess in the first place (Gen 3:5-6). Hence, when we come to the actual data of Scripture and attempt to relate one true proposition with another proposition and then state conclusively “thus says the Lord” our conclusion may, or may not be valid. There may well be other things about God that He chose not to reveal that could change the conclusion entirely.

The “doctrine” of the sufficiency of Scripture says that God revealed all we need to know about Him but often, the unstated question is “Why would God not reveal everything we want to know about Him?” Think about this for a moment; what is “heaven” like? Most Christians if they have an answer to this are shocked to discover that their “picture” of “heaven” is essentially a variation of Greek pagan concepts of the “Elysium Fields” and has no Biblical warrant whatsoever. The Bible does tell us a little about the eternal state in very figurative language; i.e., as a place of joy, without pain or death, but not really much more. Christians who long for heaven seldom realize that they do not have a clue as to what eternity will consist of (and in reality our hope is the resurrection on a recreated earth, not a “spiritual” paradise in the clouds).

Yet, we all grow weary of this life and look forward to the resurrection even without adequate knowledge of what it is like because we trust God. Perhaps God gave us so little information about the eternal state because there are some things we just cannot understand with our finite human minds - or might well misconstrue. There are some things you just cannot explain to children, even genius children, because they lack the experiential framework to properly interpret what you are saying. And it could be the same with the “doctrine” of heaven, the Trinity, predestination or other controversial issues that while we can affirm what God says, we still might not understand it very well.

This should not really cause us any problems; after all, every day we encounter things that we do not understand, and know that we never could understand but we take them by “faith.” Can you explain the way the wings work on an airplane? Even if you do not understand differential air pressure, you probably still fly as necessary. Can you explain how to do nuclear physics, microbiology or statistical analysis? If you are like me, no matter how hard you study, you know in your heart that you will never get anything better than a “C” - yet you still “believe” what the professor tells you. The measure of trust you give an authority is in direct proportion to his trustworthiness; and the essence of “faith” is trusting in the promises, provisions and plans of God.

Is it not just basic Christian humility to say that God is too wonderful for us and some things might just beyond our ability to fully understand and appreciate, without sacrificing our intellects to emotionalism or Pietism? And though we do our best to put together His revelation, is it not again a requirement of humility to say, “This is the best we can do-but there may be more than we presently realize?”

And if we admit the above, does that not mean that within the visible covenant community there may be many of the brethren who confess Jesus as Lord, and believe that God raised Him from the dead, yet still have misconceptions of what we have put together since the Reformation. I have ministered to broad evangelicals, Charismatics, Bible church goers and the like for years in my Biblical counseling ministry. I do not recall ever having successfully managed to make good little Calvinists out of many of them; but almost always, by God’s grace they have been helped to understand true “doctrine” by learning how to love their wives, respect their husbands, resolve their conflicts, deal with their sin, avoid vexing their children while teaching them how to bring them up in discipline of the Lord. In other words, as important and as true as I believe Reformed theology to be, it is Reformed ethics that changes people’s lives; and the essence of Reformed Ethics is the explication and application of the Moral Law.[14]

The Psychology of Learning and Non-Ratio-centric Thinking

Have you had one of “those” discussions with someone? You know the kind I mean where for once you are at the top of your form with your brain pumping out ideas like a fire-hose and your arguments shooting down the oppositions like clay pidgins? And as a result, you nicely, kindly but devastatingly, utterly destroy the other side in a discussion? And when the smoke clears, and debris settles, you look to your “opponent” expecting him to admit “defeat” and acknowledge that your position was the “better” position; only to have him stomp off in a “huff?” You know you won, everyone around you knows you won, and if this had been a formal academic debate you are convinced the judges would have said you won. But the person you were most concerned about convincing refuses to concede the point.

Or maybe take this situation from the other side; have you ever been in a discussion where the other guy clearly was winning the argument? Let’s face it, he was smarter, better read, more articulate in his presentation and if this was a formal debate you knew you would lose; but inside, you also knew that you were right! No matter how fast he talked, or big words he used, or experts he quoted, you just knew that what he was saying was dead wrong but, at the time, you just could not prove it!

Granted, the explanation for the above may be no more complex than obstinate, human pride; i.e., the Proverbs have a lot to say about people who refuse to be corrected, will not take counsel, and must always be “right” even when they are wrong. But most of us will admit that at times, if we ever engage in the kinds of discussions mentioned above, that we have been on both sides of the issues; and sometimes (not always) we were right and the other guy was wrong. In the first scenario we could prove we were right because our arguments were better. In the second situation, the problem was that we could not prove our position was the right one, but it was still “right.” In short, something other than reason was convincing us of whatever it was we believed.

Let me see if I can give a couple of personal anecdotes to illustrate the above. When I first confessed Jesus as Lord (as a young man in the Air Force), it was an entire life and worldview transformation. At first I understood very little about the Christian faith, but I knew that the Bible was God’s Word and once I was given a New American Standard Version and could get past Elizabethan English of my Authorized Version, and actually understand the text, a whole new world opened to me. The Christians around me had told me that I should do was read the Bible and pray daily; and I did so. I read through the New Testament within a week, and then re-read it again and again.

And every day at meals a group of Christians would meet together for an hour or so and talk about what the Bible taught. Now as a new Christian, I was concerned that this wondrous new faith I had “found” might one day dissipate; I knew my own heart, that I did not have a good track record of completing things and when I came across such verses as “and he who endures to the end shall be saved” it scared me. If my new-found salvation depended on my perseverance, then I was in real trouble.

So when I broached this subject with the “older” brothers, I was immediately assured that I could not lose my salvation because I had “eternal security.” Now, see what they were doing? My brothers, Lord bless them, were trying to resolve my personal concerns by giving me theological comfort. They were telling me, only what had been told to them.

But the problem was that they really did not understand the issues any better than I did. As we talked (and it was not a “debate”) I would bring up various verses and ask them how their doctrine of “eternal security” dealt with all those passages that seemed to teach something completely different. And though I was a “baby” Christian who knew nothing of theology, I did believe the Bible; and what I was reading there did not seem to “jive” with what my brothers were teaching.

Now, let us remember that these men were all fairly young believers themselves; all they really knew about the Christian life was what they had been taught in the “Design for Discipleship” fill-in-the-blank Bible study booklets passed out by the national organization. I am sure that if I had been in a good, Reformed church, then my questions would have been quickly and easily answered. But that of course was part of the problem. The only “Calvinists” I met in those days were nasty, critical people who were more concerned about telling me why the Majority text was the only “true” text and that I was bound to hell if I continued using the NASB rather than the KJV.[15]

The point was that when we discussed these things I could easily refute my brothers’ position, tie them up in contradictions and get them so stuttering, spitting mad that going back to work seemed like a blessing. Now, in this case I was not trying to convince anyone of anything; but rather trying to rationally evaluate what I was being taught by the agreed upon standard (the Bible); and at least then, my argument was “better” than theirs. Yet, I never convinced anyone to abandon the doctrine of “eternal security” by my “rigorous” application of logic (not that this had ever been my attention). And interestingly enough, eventually the entire line of discussion was ended (as it often was in those days) by my brothers insisting, “Well you’ve just got to accept that by faith!”

Now for what it is worth, that answer infuriates me as much today as it did then because it implicitly removes any point from rational analysis. It is a cheap shot designed to stifle intelligent discussion. If a position is “true” then it ought to be able to be verified; right? After all, if we say the Bible is true and that the Bible teaches “X” then therefore, we ought to be able to examine the Bible to see whether it really does teach “X.” And self-evidently, if the Bible cannot be demonstrated to teach “X” then therefore, “X” is not true. However, to claim that the Bible teaches “X” and then fail to support that position from the Bible and yet insist that you just have to accept the claim, is in fact to replace the Bible with some other source of truth. Is that clear?

But what if the Bible really DOES teach “X” but the proponents do not understand the Bible well enough to be able to prove that it really does teach what they say it teaches? If someone like myself comes along and tries to refute “X” he may well win the argument, but he is still wrong! In this case my brothers were right, and I was wrong,[16] even though reason, logic and the “evidence” were all on my side. The problem was that there was “evidence” that neither of us understood or considered; evidence that would have changed the entire argument. But reason led me to a wrong conclusion, and the lack of reason actually protected my brothers from changing a position that was true, to one that was contrary to the Scriptures.

Now, let’s use another personal anecdote from the “other side.” During the same time that all these discussions were going on amidst the brethren, I also met a number of people from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, including non-Trinitarians such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. At first, I did not see the difference between their brand of “Christianity” and the “orthodox” type I was learning in Bible study. After all, to be a Christian in the military means living a life that is considerably different than one’s non-believing peers. People interested in “spiritual” things and attempting to lead a “moral” lifestyle, initially appear to have more in common with each other, despite their different theological constructs, then their pagan, fouled mouth, booze-guzzling, skirt-chasing barracks’ mates.

And of course, once you start talking “theology” with Mormons and the like, they very quickly attempt to subvert your understanding of God. And unlike the average broad evangelical whose entire religious education is based around warm fuzzy feelings that God loves you and accepts you just as you are… these groups aggressively train their young people in an attempt to recruit new members. And intellectually, their first assault is always on the deity of Christ; for if they can undermine belief in His unique nature, then logically, there is no reason to be an evangelical Christian as opposed to a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness; besides the Mormons seem to have an unending supply of really cute younger sisters that are just dying to meet a nice young man like you-“if only you believed what we believe…”[17]

Since the non-Trinitarians were trained to undermine orthodox Christian “doctrine,” and I wasn’t trained to defend it; almost always when discussions occurred, I was on the losing side. They would do to me, what I was doing to my brothers; point out holes in the Biblical basis of my thinking by showing me texts that seemed to destroy the concept of Christ as God; i.e., the Emphatic Digalot’s interlinear translation of John 1:1 showing that in the original Greek it says “and the word was “A” god” rather than the standard translation “and the word was “THE” God” or that Jesus was the “beginning of the creation of God.”

And I did try to argue just as effectively as I could; but quite frankly, any impartial observer would have to agree that I didn’t do very well. The opposition won those arguments hands down, on points if not substance. However as I was arguing against them, even though I could not rationally refute their case, I knew that they were wrong, that their conception of God, especially in their definition of the nature of Christ was a whole different worldview than the one that had saved me. I knew it, I just could not prove it; and it would take years before I could rationally present a solid, unimpeachable Biblical case for the deity of Christ.

So now we have both sides of the same issue; people can believe wrong things for all the right reasons and people can believe right things without rational support. Clearly then, no matter how important reason[18] may be there is some other dynamic at work in our faith. The “reason” of course has to do with the nature of logic and “reason;” reason, as we mentioned earlier, is simply a process of determining whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises- i.e., if this premise is true and this premise is true then that conclusion must be true. And again, as we have stated, the process is only as good as the validity of the premises; if something is wrong with the premises then no matter how logical or rational we may be in our reasoning, the conclusion will be wrong.

Now here is the dilemma; when we reason theologically, we start with individual premises from Scripture, adding this concept to that concept and then logically arrive at this theological conclusion. However the conclusion itself is dependant upon whether the original premise is a proper interpretation or understanding of the original premise. If we have misunderstood a premise for any reason, then logically, the conclusion will be in error. The misunderstanding could result from something as simple as a word in Hebrew or Greek that was obscure at the time it was originally translated, or the basic premise could be flawed because it deals with some aspect of the nature of God that is just beyond finite human understanding.

As an admittedly silly example, occasionally over the years I have run into a controversy with certain brothers who still use the Authorized Version.[19] In their Bibles, 1 Thessalonians 5:22 reads “abstain from all appearance of evil.” They read the word “appearance” and naturally interpret it to mean “that which looks like something else.” Therefore they logically conclude that if something looks as if it is evil, then we are morally bound to refrain from it, even if in fact it is not evil. I have heard brothers wax eloquently on this principle suggesting for example, that Christians are forbidden to go to movies; because some movies are evil, and if you go to see Bambi then it might appear as if you also approve of and go to pornographic movies.[20] Or as another hilarious example of Christian legalism; one must never shop in a store that sells alcohol because it might appear that you were buying booze as well as groceries. And of course, there are all sorts of other applications-these are just the most outrageous ones-all predicated on the assumption of the definition of the word “appearance.”

However, in reality, most AV users do not read Elizabethan English as well as they think; words change in meaning over time, and the word “appearance” does not mean today, what it meant then. Modern versions commonly use the word “form” here rather than “appearance,” which better translates the actual Greek word. The word “appear” originally meant something like “come into being” as in “suddenly the ghost appeared before me.” In other words, that which was once invisible has now become visible; hence it took on “form.” Thus, what Paul probably meant in the Thessalonians passage was that Christians should abstain from allowing any evil to “appear” or come into being. The literal translation of the word is “that which is seen, form” and Vines’ defines it as “that which strikes the eye, that which is exposed to view.”[21] Vine goes on to say, that 1 Thessalonians 5:22 ought to be translated “abstain from every form of evil i.e., every sort or kind of evil (not ‘appearance’ AV). This meaning was common in the papyri, the Greek writings of the closing centuries, BC and in the New Testament era.”

The example above is not definitive, but rather illustrative of a genuine concern in doing any kind of interpretation. The Bible is true; but our understanding of what the Bible teaches may or may not be true depending upon whether or not it accurately reflects the revelation of God. In this case, a simple examination of the standard Greek grammars helps to clarify an interpretation; but those grammars themselves are based on the presuppositions and scholarship of the academics who wrote them. How do we know they always got it right?

Now, getting back on track, our main point has been that we sometimes know true things despite reason and that reason itself can lead to believing false things, if our premises, based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture are wrong. We can perhaps gain a better understanding of this if we understand that God is the only objective basis of all knowledge; “in Him we live and move and have our being” as Paul says, quoting a pagan poet.[22]

God as the great I Am stands outside of time and space; He is “transcendent” meaning “above” or “beyond” creation. This God speaks through His Word to us, revealing His nature, being, plans and purposes (called “special revelation”). Granted, the Bible says that God also speaks to all men through His creation (Rms 1:18-20) revealing some things about Himself; a revelation that sinful men suppress in unrighteousness. But our main point here is that God is distinct from His creation and even His own revelation. While His Word is true (Jn 17:17), it is true because it reflects or reveals His true nature (Jn 17:3). Thus, it is possible, nay even likely that we might come to His revelation and misunderstand it, misinterpret it or even misapply it; but God is still true; and that truth is the very ground of all creation.[23]

God “breaks into” this creation both through natural and special revelation. In fact, the occasional correct conclusions that some pagans come to about God stems from the fact that all creation was made by God to reveal His glory (Psa 19:1) and therefore, by necessity, occasionally they have to get some things right. Thus, even when they strive hardest to suppress God, the truth still occasionally breaks free and bubbles up. Now, when this happens, we sometimes hail the pagan as a “genius” and his thoughts as “brilliant” even when rationally, he is being inconsistent with his most basic presuppositions. But there would be no progress in secular philosophy, science, art, literature, etc., without these non-rational “breakthroughs” that stem from the objective nature of the true God breaking into human consciousness.

Thus allow me to suggest that reason is not the only way that men (both Christian and non-Christian) apprehend truth. Truth, because it is an attribute of God stands independent of our intellects, our minds or even our reasoning. And occasionally, men come to KNOW the truth apart from reason; sometimes even despite reason.[24]

Various Ways of “Knowing” –Human Brain Research

For example, let’s take another of those side trails in our discussion and look at the function of the human brain as an illustration of how some people “know” true things apart from “reason.” First, there is a phenomenon called “savants” who are people that possess incredibly mental abilities but are often sub-normal in intelligence.[25] Most people saw the Dustin Hoffman movie “Rain Man” which was about an autistic man who had the incredible abilities to count things. He could look at say a pile of toothpicks on the floor and instantly apprehend the correct number. In the movie, “Rain Man” is taken to Los Vegas where he makes some serious money for his brother by “counting cards.”

Now whether or not one ever saw the movie, the phenomenon is real; there are people who can do incredible computations faster than the average person can punch numbers into a computer; literally, such people are human “calculators.” And the phenomenon is not just restricted to numbers; there is on file, scientifically verified studies of all sorts of incredible acts of humans “knowing” things apart from reason. Now, not for a moment are we suggesting that these people have some sort of ESP or in theological terms, that God (or some demonic spirit) is “revealing” things to them in some “spiritual” way. No, all we are saying is that there is an entire class of people who know “true things” but do not use reason to arrive at that truth.

The scientists do not know how this phenomenon works; they just know that most of us when faced with a column of figures have to use the rules of arithmetic we learned in grade-school to painstakingly add them up to arrive at the right answer. Savants can not only add them up, but also divide them, multiply them, find the logarithm or square root or any other mathematical permutation you can think of; and do so virtually instantaneously.

In earlier days, such people might well have been thought to have been possessed by devils or something. And no one knows just how wide-spread this ability may actually be; “smart” savants might well have learned at an early age to hide their abilities to fit in with what is acceptable. The movie “Amadeus” (about the life of Mozart), even though not terribly good history, shows what at least some people can accomplish with natural, inborn abilities; and the price society sometimes inflicts on them for their “gifts.”

Neurologists and the like are just beginning to get a picture of how the brain operates and what they don’t know could fill volumes. But a lot of research has been done over the past century on brain function, especially as it affects human learning, and how we process information. This subject matter deserves a book from a Christian perspective in and of itself, and here we can only summarize some of the latest theories.[26]

First, our cerebrum, which makes up about 85% of our brains, is the area connected with speech, emotion, personality, logic and thinking. The cerebrum is divided into two “hemispheres,” right and left, which are connected by a neural bundle. For our purposes, what is interesting is that each hemisphere appears to control different kinds of perception and thinking. While the quote below is quite long, it is not difficult to understand and is worth your careful reading.[27]

“The left hemisphere governs our ability to express ourselves in language. In over 95% of right-handed people the left hemisphere is dominant for speech. The figure is somewhat lower for left handers, approximately 70%, but still highly significant. The left hemisphere is better then the right at recognizing sequences of words and letters. It controls our logic, our reasoning, and our analytical thought processes. It can focus on details; however it has difficulty comprehending the whole picture.

“The perceptual functions of the right hemisphere are more specialized for the analysis of space and geometrical shapes and forms, elements that are all present at the same time (not so sequential like language). The right hemisphere is the creative half; it can “see” the whole out of parts, thus allowing us to connect puzzle parts together. The right hemisphere also plays an important role in the comprehension of emotion. In an experiment where subjects were shown pictures of a faces with strong facial expression, the right hemisphere was able to discern the expression more accurately then the left hemisphere. In addition, an experiment was done where subjects listened to verbal messages said with different emotions. The messages were presented to each ear separately. When presented to the left hemisphere, the subject was more accurate with regards to the verbal content of the message. However the right hemisphere was more accurate at identifying the emotional tone of the voice.

Ehrenwald (1984: 16) has classified important differences between the hemispheres as follows:

Table 1: General Left-right brain attributes

In certain kinds of epilepsy, physicians have found that if they “spit” the two hemispheres of the brain by cutting through the connecting neural material, they can stop the seizures. However in doing so, they also found that the patient no longer perceives the world quite the same way. For example, “in one experiment,[28] a word (for example “fork”) was flashed so only the right hemisphere of a patient could receive the information. The patient would not be able to say what the word was. However, if the subject is asked to write what he saw, his left hand would begin to write the word “fork”. If asked what he had written, the patient would have no idea. He would know that he had written something, he could feel his hand going through the motion, yet he could not tell observers what the word was. Because there is no longer a connection between the two hemispheres, information presented to the right half of the brain cannot convey this information to the left. Interestingly enough, the centers for speech interpretation and production are located in the left hemisphere. Similarly, if the patient is blindfolded and a familiar object, such as a toothbrush, is placed in his left hand, he appears to know what it is; for example by making the gesture of brushing his teeth. But he cannot name the object to the experimenter. If asked what he is doing with the object, gesturing a brushing motion, he has no idea. But if the left hand gives the toothbrush to the right hand, the patient will immediately say “tooth brush”. [end quote]

I recall reading about another experiment, wherein a patient with a “spit-brain” was flashed a picture which said “stand up.” The patient immediately stood up and started walking out the door. When the experimenter asked the patient “why” he had stood up he answered something to the effect, “I wanted to get a coke.” Now watch what happened here; one side of his brain (the right hemisphere) correctly received an instruction which it was able to understand and act on. But when asked to explain his actions, the left-hemisphere provided a rational, logical and plausible explanation; an explanation however that was contrary to fact. He got up because he was following the instruction of the researcher. But since the two hemispheres of the brain were not able to communicate, the left hemisphere created an explanation, a justification for his actions. His left-hemisphere did not really did not know why he was doing what he was doing, but provided him one with a rational, justification anyway.

Now, what does all this mean for our purposes? Well, the more we learn about how the brain operates, the more we realize that “knowing” is far more complex than we ever thought. Normally, we think of us and the outside world as two entities and that we apprehend the “outside,” through our senses, evaluate the data with our brains (hopefully rationally, but sometimes not) and act appropriately. The “ratio-centric” approach to life would assume that if we could only improve our “thinking” or the way that we process the incoming data according to the rules of logic and reason, the better decisions we would make, the more moral people we would become and paradise would return.

What the scientists are discovering though is that data received from the senses goes through an incredible interpretive process before our minds can deal with it. Our brains are not like a computer where one simply inputs the data and the correct conclusion is spewed out. Instead, the way we see things, and the way we evaluate what we see is terribly complex and is not straight-forward at all. “Reason” is only a part of how the brain processes information and in the split-brain study noted above can actually create rationales for behavior rather than actually explain the behavior.

In effect, the neurologists and brain specialist are demonstrating through split-brain experiments what empirical psychologists have been studying slightly differently but to the same ends in researches on learning and cognition. In my “Critical Thinking Skills” college course I list a number of research findings demonstrating how people commonly misperceive or misinterpret data. For example, studies show that we do not treat all data equally; data that confirms our pre-existing beliefs tends to be given much more weight than data that would over-turn them. Or as Van Til the theologian-philosopher might have put it, our presuppositions determine our conclusions.

Thus all three areas of research, brain function, psychology of learning and philosophy concur that something other than “pure reason” is operating within us as we think about the world. This should not surprise Christians since God said basically the same thing, through Solomon 3000 years ago, for as a man “thinks within himself, so he is” (Pvbs 23:7). But our point here is that something within a man, affects how he thinks about himself, the world around him and the God who governs all.

Even more germane to our purposes though is that if the scientists are right in that different hemispheres of the brain “think” differently, it might also have a direct application to our original questions (you do remember those, don’t you?). Since reason, which appears most commonly to be associated with left-hemisphere thinking, is not the only way that men apprehend truth, what if some people tend to “think” more with their right hemisphere?

For example in gender studies, some research suggests that women tend to be more “right-brain” oriented than men, who tend to be “left-brain” dominant.[29] Now set aside for a moment whether this can be proved or will be sustained by further study, let us just assume it for a moment. If women tend to be more “right-brain” dominant which is the hemisphere associated with “gestalt” or “holistic” thinking, might that not help explain why women think differently from men? Every husband has personal experience of his wife often knowing things by “intuition” that he has to painfully reason to understand. And every woman has known the frustration of trying to get her husband to understand something that is so obvious to her!

Our point here is not to find scientific justification for calling a woman “illogical” or “emotional” but that often, she knows things to be true, but no more arrived at that conclusion rationally than the savant did when he instantly found the square root of the circumference of the Great Pyramid divided by the logarithm of one solar distance. All he “knows” is that he was given a bunch of numbers and the correct answer “appeared.” He does not know why the answer is true or even how he arrived at that truth; he just knows it is true. And in the same way, often women know things to be true, even if they cannot explain why it is true. A savvy husband learns to trust his wife’s judgment, especially regarding people because, intuitively, she tends to “read” them better than he does.

And if all the above is true, then it may help to understand how so many Christians can have incomplete, inconsistent and even erroneous rational understandings of the faith and yet are still Christians in every sense of the word. For example, one of my favorite authors is C. S. Lewis; and not just for his fiction (which is superior). Lewis’s serious, non-fictional works were profoundly important to me as a baby Christian; finally, a Christian who could think! But anyone familiar with Lewis’s theological writings knows that he often starts with some very flawed premises. His view of Scripture is especially weak, seeing the first ten chapters of Genesis as “myth” in his view, not much better than the pagan originals they were probably derived from. He willing accepts that the history of the Old Testament may be compromised and flawed, even contrary to fact. He feels free to sit in judgment on the Psalmists, saying that their psalms are not only “sub-Christian” but in some cases the thoughts expressed were “sinful” and arrogant. He does accept the historicity of the New Testament (mostly) especially the incarnation and resurrection. But in his view of the Bible, Lewis is no evangelical;[30] and if more evangelicals read his serious works, he might not be nearly as popular as he is today.

Yet, despite the fact that he begins with the wrong presuppositions, Lewis often comes out with the right answer. In other words, his faith is better than his theology. Now, we are not here trying to do an exhaustive expose of Lewis’s views and it would take an essay longer than this one to prove all the above; but my point here is that most of us who have read Lewis understand that often he is profoundly in contact with some truth and expresses it so powerfully that despite the flaws in his theology, there is much value in his writings. But the “truth” he arrives at is despite his erroneous presuppositions-in fact the way he reasons to the truth despite the wrong premises is often fascinating to observe.

And while Lewis might well have been an exception, like the savants we discussed earlier who haven’t a clue why their conclusion is the right one, perhaps the same phenomenon occurs every day to a lesser degree with all those non-Reformed folks out there. For if we assume that the process of theology is the center, then clearly, wrong ideas and bad reasoning means that their conclusions, and their faith, are immediately suspect. However, what if intuitively, “right-hemispherically” these Christians actually believe the truth; and the problem is that they cannot express rationally (with the left-hemisphere) the truths that they unconsciously apprehend?

Many of us are aware of historical studies showing the “feminization” of American Christianity since the advent of revivalism. Revivalism as it replaced Calvinism did so in large measure because it appealed to the “emotive” aspects of the American Romantic era. Thus, broad evangelicalism has been in the grip of a religious movement that may have emphasized “right-hemisphere” thinking for the past two centuries. As a result, Christians may have been indoctrinated into “thinking” about their faith in non-rational terms. If true, this does not mean that their religion is necessarily flawed, but it might explain how they can be so comfortable with non-rational formulations; they inherently and implicitly “grasp” the truth-but have never bothered to work that truth out in the left-hemisphere.

Now going back to our illustration of the godly man trusting in the “intuition” of his godly wife; this same man also knows that though his wife often gets it “right” sometimes, she can also get it “wrong.” Just as a man can rationally add up a column of figures and make a mistake in his calculation, women can make a mistake in their intuitive thinking as well. In fact, I have argued in the past that if this understanding is correct, it is consistent with the creation ordinances wherein God created Man male and female as complements; they both need each other. The man’s focus on left-hemisphere thinking is a check on the woman’s intuitive grasp. In the same way, since rational thinking can sometimes become rationalizing thinking (creating a line of reasoning to justify something, rather than subjecting the conclusion to critical analysis), a woman can “know” what is right even when her husband is trying to justify some ungodly course of action. Think about it; Eve sinned because she was deceived (1 Tim 2:11ff); Adam created a line of reasoning to justify his sin (Gen 3:12).

And in doing theology and doctrine, the same principles would apply. If something is true, it is true because in some way it reflects the character and nature of God. And all that we know about the character of God is what He revealed in His scriptures. Therefore, the rational discipline of theology is a means of verifying the claims of intuitive “heart” religion. However, the conclusion would also follow that some people might intuitively “grasp” or “know” God in a right hemisphere kind of way; and then do an inadequate job when trying to explain or defend this belief with the left-hemisphere.

As a supporting line of evidence for the above, let us consider the heretic. A heretic is not just someone with bad doctrine; even really, really bad doctrine. Anyone who has spent time doing evangelism and seen God bring people to saving faith knows that “baby Christians” often come up with the most amazingly heterodox doctrines because they do not understand what they are reading in Scripture. They lack both knowledge and experience, and sometimes even the rational tools needed, to do good theology for themselves. However, such people can also testify that once you correct these young believers, they immediately reject their weird doctrines and hunger for more of the truth.

The defining mark of a heretic is not bad “theology,” but an obstinate, arrogant and prideful refusal to accept good “theology.” Like the fool in Proverbs, heresy is the unwillingness to be corrected; e.g., “Do not rebuke a fool lest he hate you, correct a wise man and he will love you.” The essential difference between a heretic and somebody with “bad” doctrine is that the heretic will not repent and is willing to split the church to maintain his error (the word “heretic” actually means “schismatic” in the Greek).

So then, would that mean that if we correct someone’s theology and they refuse to repent and acknowledge true doctrine, that they are “heretics?” Not necessarily; after all, if people believe wrong things because of non-rational thinking, then they are unlikely to be corrected by reason. A Christian, could apprehend the truth with his right hemisphere, be unable to express that truth in his left hemisphere and yet still refuse to accept our rational correction simply because we are not communicating in a way he understands.

Remember, something other than just reason makes us believe what we believe. We pick up ideas, assumptions and beliefs from a variety of sources and all of us are susceptible to weighing the evidence in light of those assumptions. All of us know certain sweet people who will take whatever we say as “gospel” and believe it accordingly because they trust us. We did not convince them with our brilliant reasoning; we convinced them because of our personal charisma. And let us face it, we all have favorite pastors, writers, theologians or what-not that we like and believe not just because of what they say, and how they say it, but because of who they are.

Cults and such take advantage of this human dynamic by preying on just those sorts of people who are most susceptible to personal charisma or the force of personality. But allow me to suggest that all of us respond to this dynamic in some measure or another; have you ever heard a sermon preached with impeccable theology and brilliant reasoning that nevertheless still left you “cold?” You could not argue with the “truth” that was being preached but still, it never “traveled the eighteen inches from your head to your heart.” Psychologists of learning have suggested that every abstract idea must be developed with at least one concrete example or most students will not understand the concept.[31] The examples provide a right-brain holistic medium around which the abstract, theoretical concepts can be understood. And perhaps this is the reason why so few of us can work in fields requiring abstract thinking (such as physics or higher math); there are some concepts that just cannot be explained in concrete examples and only a few people can therefore understand them.

Thus, maybe, when a Christian refuses to change his beliefs when we talk with him, he is not rejecting the message, but rather the messenger? In other words, just because we are convinced through reason and sound argumentation does not necessarily mean that he will be convinced in the same way. And so he is not necessarily rejecting the truth so much as rejecting the way we communicate that truth? Now granted, there is a difference between two brothers in the same church under the same covenant and doctrinal standards and the kinds of discussions you get into with a Christian brother at work. In the first case, you have something other than pure reason to appeal to his right-hemisphere; you have the communion of the saints, the already accepted standards, the verification of other brothers, etc., that all go to “convincing” him. In the second case however, none of these “non-ratio-centric” mechanisms are available; all you have is reason. And if his “left-brain” is not as well developed, then no matter how logical, rational or even Biblical your arguments, he will remain unconvinced. How could he not be otherwise since he is thinking about these things in non-rational ways!

And perhaps this is one of the reasons why Reformed theology is so unpopular today; Reformed theology is inherently ratio-centric and therefore appeals to those who are also ratio-centric. In a competitive church market, people come and go as they please trying to find a church that “fits.” If the preaching is theological and academic, appealing to the “left-hemisphere” and Christians have never been conditioned to think with this hemisphere about their religion, then the message, no matter how technically accurate just does not effectively communicate. Occasionally of course we have that rare individual who has impeccable theology and personal charisma and we end up with a “successful” Reformed church. But the more “main-streamed” Reformed pastor who loves the Reformed faith and tries to communicate it the best he can, ends up only communicating with all the other left-hemisphere types out there (i.e., doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and other professionals).

It is no good saying people ought to like doctrinally precise preaching; in a competitive market, whoever delivers the desired goods at the best price is going to “win.” And we Reformed types are in the most part, losing the audience perhaps due to an unconscious assumption of understanding the truth and the best way to convey that truth.

Recently I was watching PAX TV which features one of the most “popular” preachers in America today. His church is growing so fast they are buying an old sports stadium to hold the 50,000 people that attend weekly services. So occasionally, I listen in to his sermons to see what he is doing that is so attractive to so many people. Now, when I say this, please don’t accuse me of arrogance or anything, but honestly, I could out-preach this guy on the worst day of my life. He has basically one major point (and not necessarily a bad one) and then spends the rest of the sermon giving anecdotes, illustrations, personal stories and the like that make that abstract concept come alive. Now I am not being condescending when I say that what he spends an entire sermon discussing, I might include as a footnote. And I am just as convinced that any of my brother elders could “whup” this boy with one lexicon tied behind their backs in terms of explaining the Word of God.

And yet, for some reason, for all the brilliance, theological acumen, philosophical sophistication, not to mention accurate Biblical exegesis of we Reformed preachers, his church is a dynamo of activity while ours are more often like worn out AAA batteries. Basically as I attempted to analyze what he was doing, I think that unconsciously he is appealing to people who approach Christianity from the right-side of the brain. His stories, anecdotes and pleasing manner presents a “picture” of Christianity, of God, of Jesus that is greater than the sum of the individual statements. And as the camera pans on the congregation, you can see how they are moved by the message; something is coming through to them powerfully and it isn’t an intellectual construct based on theological propositions. Yet, they do want to love and serve God, and bring their lives into conformity with His will.

For the past thirty years I have struggled to understand the revelation of God and tie it together into a complete, comprehensive and consistent worldview. And in the Reformed faith, especially when married to Van Tilian presuppositional philosophy and postmillennial eschatology, all the pieces fit beautifully together. However, much to my surprise, it appears that the vast majority of Christians are just not interested in that worldview, are happy with a fragmented, inconsistent and even sometimes compromised worldview and are not about to change any time soon. Even conservative, home-schooling Christians who share the identical values often prefer a broad evangelical fellowship which they openly acknowledge to be theologically deficient because they “like the worship.”

Clearly, we are not reaching our brethren. And without sacrificing one iota of Biblical truth, maybe it is time to reexamine how we present that truth in ways that actually communicate to “right-hemisphere” oriented Christians.

Interestingly enough, the Bible itself would seem in some ways to confirm a “non-ratio-centric” approach. We have already discussed how the Bible is not written as a theology textbook. Instead, God conveys His self-revelation through stories, poetry, songs and pragmatic wisdom literature. And when theology is introduced (say in the letters of Paul) the theology is almost always offered in the context of a problem, trial, question or difficulty facing real churches. The Bible is not an abstract book because God is not the abstract, pure “ideal” deity of Ultimate Reason the Greeks posited. He is the “living” God who loves and interacts with His creation. He became flesh and dwelt among us. He speaks the truth about Himself not just in abstract theoretical, philosophical or even theological concepts, but in acts of loving-kindness. Even the most basic aspect of His nature revealed in the Divine Name in context was in answer to Moses pragmatic question “Who shall I say sent me?”

The unstated assumption of ratio-centric Reformed theology is “if we only get the ideas right, then everything else will follow.” But what if the situation is the reverse; what if we get a person’s life “right” and then the “ideas will follow?”

Thus allow me to suggest that reason is a great servant, but a harsh task-master and that true, Biblical religion revolves not around our theological understanding, but rather about God Himself who is beyond our understanding. True Christianity requires both spirit and truth.

Implications for Doing Theology

If our analysis above holds up, then certain necessary implications spring to mind. The first is the way we do theology. Not for a moment should we ever back down from applying reason to our study of the Scriptures, but we might want to be a little humbler in stating some of our conclusions. God’s Word is true; but clearly, sometimes our understanding of that Word may be more or less true. The more inferences we have to make from a statement of Scripture, the less confident we should be in asserting our conclusion.

Let me use an admittedly silly example that nevertheless illustrates the problem; I believe the Bible teaches literal Six-Day creation. I believe the Bible teaches a literal Adam and literal Eve in a literal Garden. I believe that God judged the world in the Great Flood saving only Noah and his family and the animals. And I am quite willing to support Creation-Scientists in their work of trying to reconstruct the physical sciences in terms of paleontology, age of the earth, anthropology, etc. And because I believe that death was impossible before the Fall, I cannot see where the theory of evolution has any credibility whatsoever.[32] And therefore as a necessary inference, I am forced by logic to acknowledge that things like dinosaurs were contemporaries of man.

And because I believe these things to be “true,” I expect to find evidence of this in Scripture. Some of the brethren think they have found evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible in its references to Leviathan and Behemoth. And while I find these ideas most interesting (and a lot more credible than modern translators who insist that these were crocodiles and hippopotami), nevertheless I want to be a bit reserved when discussing this because most such passages occur in poetic or apocalyptic literary styles which by nature are often highly symbolic. I do not need to find evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible even if the idea itself is intriguing. And I do need to let my presuppositions about the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs to lead me to insisting that just because something looks like a fossilized human footprint in the same geological layer as a dinosaur footprint is a human foot (especially when a Christian anthropologist points out the five anatomical reasons why it cannot be a human footprint).[33] The inference may be valid, but I need to temper it accordingly.

If we admit that sometimes our reasoning may be inadequate to comprehend the truth that God has revealed, maybe it ought to be enough to simply affirm what Scripture affirms; deny what Scripture denies; and in some cases simply say “Thus sayeth the Lord.” It seems to me that often people react not so much to Reformed theology as to some of its implications; and the implications may or may not always be true. The further we follow an implication, the less authority it ought to have. It ought to be OK to say at certain points, “I do not understand all the implications of this; but I can at least demonstrate that this is what God actually said.”

For what it is worth, this was how I came to the Reformed faith. For years I struggled against the the doctrine of predestination. The view of God that was presented to me by “Calvinists” seemed cold, stern and contrary to the God who had saved me. Usually, I could hold my own in an argument with Calvinists but what really discolored their “doctrine” was the degree of intellectual arrogance that seemed part and parcel of their system. Eventually, I came to teach a course on Romans; by the time we finished chapter nine, everyone in the class, even the instructor, became a Calvinist. How did we all come to adopt a system that initially was contrary to our predispositions? During that course I had also taught hermeneutics, repeatedly told my students that no theological paradigm should replace the text itself. If we come to Scripture and it seems to conflict with what we know to be true, we do not abandon the text, we certainly do not distort the text to try and make it fit; instead we receive the text because what God said is all that is important. If a text of Scripture causes problems for our theology, well, so much the worse for our theology; let God be true and every man a liar!

Hence, when actually teaching Romans chapter nine I was forced to deal with some information that in the past could be conveniently glossed over, ignored or twisted. But now, faced with what God said here, I had to admit defeat, humble myself and say, “Oh Lord you are too great for me, I do not understand, but even though I don’t like it, this is what you said. Please change me so that can rejoice over your truth.” And as a result the Scriptures were opened to me in a way that I had never before seen.

And I could multiply these examples of doctrine after doctrine being ripped apart and cast aside as God taught me to submit to Scripture and leave my presuppositions outside. Over those long painful years when I traveled in broad evangelical circles it struck me that most Christians use the Bible as a theological text book and did not actually read it as Scripture. They go to a proof-text here, a passage there, stitch them together and create their “doctrine” accordingly. I have known imminently successful pastors who have never actually studied the Bible in their entire lives; all their great teaching and such comes from books about the Bible-but never the Bible itself.

When I actually made it over the last hurdle in becoming Reformed, a younger brother who had come to faith in our ministry in England, came to visit one weekend. He was ecstatic because he had found a church where “they preach just like you do” and he asked me if I had ever seen the church’s doctrinal standards; the Westminster Confession of Faith. Well, I had read the confession as a requirement in a theology class 15 years before but since we were not tested on it had simply skimmed it and set it aside.

This time, because my brother was attending this church I felt a sense of moral responsibility to read through this little book again just to make sure what he would be hearing from the pulpit was “true” to Scripture. And as I read the Confession I was shocked; here in clear, simple propositions was the truth of Scripture that I had been working on trying to understand in personal Bible study over the past decade. Chapter after chapter of the Confession clearly stated what I believed the Scriptures to teach-but more concisely, wisely and articulately than I could ever express it. The reason why I love the Confession is because I love Scripture.

But in relating this story, sadly, many of those in the Reformed camp have never done what I did; study the Bible for themselves. And sometimes, it even appears their allegiance is to the Confession or the Reformed Faith, not to the Scriptures. Now admittedly this may be a bit of an over-statement, but if so, it is not too far off the mark.

If in fact we “know” both by reason (left-hemisphere) and by “intuition” (right-hemisphere) in my mind this is very close to what Jesus said about “spirit” and “truth.” But even if you do not buy that definition, I think you will accept that the best way to approach God’s revelation is by a “whole-brain” methodology; in other words Christians simply need to read their Bibles over and over again, letting their minds be saturated with Scripture. I suspect that much of the truth of Scripture is apprehended not by making logical constructs but simply in the “feel” or the “gestalt” of what was written.

Most of us recognize that poetry is not “literal” propositional truth, yet sometimes, actually communicates truth more powerfully than the most precise logical presentations. In the same way, good art (not the modern kind) grabs us in ways that prose, no matter how well-written, can never hope to do. And the Bible is art as well as prose. Just think of the way that God gave His law to Israel; there is a summary (the Moral Law) and then all those pesky obscure “case-laws” which we are commanded to meditate on (Josh 1:8). Apparently God expects us to think about these laws, meditate on them, and discuss them constantly (Deut 6:4ff). And as we do so, we gain wisdom-but these laws themselves cannot fully be apprehended simply by logic; i.e., “in this situation do this but in THAT situation do that…” Instead, wisdom in the Law is to be understood as a process of mulling over certain principles and relating them one to another. God deliberately did not categorize the laws the way we do today (civil, moral, ceremonial etc.) but mixes them together. Now, I cannot prove that this is the reason why He did so, but the way the Law is written seems to require both right and left-hemisphere thinking. Yes, there are logical, theological propositions, but there is also the “gestalt” or the “whole” that is greater than the sum of its parts.

And the only way to “see” this is not by using the laws against false weights and measures as a condemnation of the fractional reserve banking system; or even trying, as the New England Puritans did, to create a systematic legal code. Instead, it requires a whole different way of looking at the world by saturating our minds with the totality of Scripture. I am not a literary critic and managed to test out of all my English classes in college so probably I cannot communicate this as well as others might do. But when one reads good Christian literature there is a “truth” one apprehends that makes one want to be holier, humbler, more gracious and kind to others, more fervent in love and service to God that the best theology books ever written cannot hope to emulate.

Have you ever read a good biography of some great man? It might well have covered all the facts and figures, names, places and dates but still, at the end, you never really “got inside his head.” And then have you ever actually read a collection of that same man’s personal letters? There can be a profound difference in the picture of the person you obtain depending on how you approach him. By reading his personal correspondence, or some essay he wrote on some subject that was especially important to him, suddenly you “feel” as if you know this person. Granted, the best biographies do both, they give us facts and figures but also something of the personality. And is this not exactly how God revealed Himself to us? We get a “feel” from Scripture when we go over it again and again that gives us a “truer” picture of God, a “right-hemisphere” holistic grasp that theology, even great theology does not provide.

Of course, good theology based on rationality checks these “impressions” or “pictures” and prevents a “feeling” from leading us to actions and ideas contrary to God’s Word. But that is my point; true Biblical religion ought to have both components.

Perhaps by failing to provide this component and focusing instead on a ratio-centric approach, we unintentionally created a “spiritual” vacuum, making people susceptible to Pietism, Revivalism and eventually even Pentecostalism. Christians are looking for more than just right knowledge, but also an “experience of the transcendent.” What I have been trying to demonstrate in this essay is that this desire is not illegitimate but rather a fundamental function of how God made us. And if we do not provide a genuine experience of God supported by reason, some people, many people, will seek for it someplace else.

Thus, when we do theology, it is not enough to have mastered the original languages, read through the weighty works of the past, parsed all our verbs properly and created impeccable theological constructs. Instead, the totality of the Scriptures ought to be our focus and sometimes, maybe the only way to truly understand its message is by experience itself; i.e., by simply submersing ourselves in Scripture every day, thinking about Scripture and talking about Scripture.

But let me take this one step further; since it appears as if God defines “doctrine” as essentially “righteous living” then perhaps we ought to approach theology not so much from the perspective of speculating about the nature of God, but rather in understanding His Law, and how it is to be lived? This of course is the context of the Deuteronomy 6 passage, the Joshua 1:8 passage, John 14:21, Matthew 28:19-20 (“teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…”) and on and on and on. Clearly God considers right living as important as right theoretical constructs.

Therefore, the theologian and the pastor both may want to shift the focus of their work from the abstract to the concrete; Francis Schaeffer asked “How Should We Then Live;” but never answered his own question. And in the moral quagmire that is the entire modern world, maybe its time for some of us to put aside trying to use the Law of God to form political, economic or scientific policies and instead focused on how he expects us to live, day by day? Amazingly, even in Reformed churches with impeccable theology, I have found a depressing tendency to gossip, slander, whisper and backbite. I see people unconsciously adopting upper-class American social values rather than attempting to acquire Biblical ones. Reformed Christians often hold bitterness, anger and contempt for others. Pride and arrogance are widespread with some men willing to destroy whole churches, ruin reputations and split households rather than admit they were wrong.

And perhaps the problem is that we who love the Law are so busy trying to reconstruct the world, that we fail to see that we first need to reconstruct our own lives. An emphasis on ratio-centric theology allows us to divide life into an intellectual sphere where we can pat ourselves on the back for our superior understanding, using our superior reasoning skills to criticize others while rationalizing that we are OK.

Thus, perhaps it is time for the theologian to go to the Scriptures and look at the Law, rather than “theology.” Let him use his great knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, of ancient cultures and civilizations to hone our understanding of how God revealed He expects us to live. Let him use the principles of rational analysis to explain and amplify the Law, as the Westminster divines attempted in the Larger Catechism. And then maybe we will see another great revival.

Implications for Fellowship with Non-Reformed Christians

And here perhaps is a way that we can reach those who profess Christ but who do not accept Reformed doctrine. Our “common-ground” is Scripture which records the mighty acts of God in history and His self-revelation, His redemption and His coming judgment. For what it is worth I believe we who have been granted a better understanding of the faith have a moral responsibility to help our brothers to discover that same understanding. But (and I say this as one of the offenders) I do wonder if constantly criticizing and nit-picking at their errors is the best way to do this? For if they do belong to Christ (and their confession ought to be enough to consider them so) then God is working in them to change them, sanctify them and grow them, just as He is working is us. Our responsibility is to help them, not condemn them, be patient and kind to them, for in the end, only God can grant “repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 2:23ff).

And one of the most effective ways to help them is to build on the foundation that we both accept; the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures as the revealed word of God. And if they accept that, then we can teach them the practical applications of the moral law (provided of course that we understand that law and how it really works out). You see, my assumption is that those who truly belong to Christ, want to obey Him (Jn 14:21). Their theology might be getting in the way of that obedience, or they might not be able to articulate “why” they should obey. However, if we “left-hemisphere” types provide for them a logical, rational justification without the personal condemnation it usually entails, we might be able to win them.

Perhaps a great place to start might be opening a counseling ministry and Reformed churches encouraging their elders to become qualified in Biblical counseling as a means of ministering to the broader Christian community. In my experience, most evangelical churches do not want to deal with people having problems and are eager to refer them to someone, anyone for counsel. Why not let them send such people to us? For although we might not be successful in getting them convinced of Reformed theology, we will help them learn how to live by Reformed ethics-which is the Moral Law of God. And as they live out the life, God may grant them further grace.

Furthermore, we Reformed Christians can stop writing just to ourselves. We need to take seriously that those are our brothers out there and discover creative ways to communicate the truth to them, in ways they can understand. We need to write for them, not just ourselves and we need to tailor that material in such a way that they can understand it. I am increasingly of the mind that churches need to see that part of their ministry, just as important as sending out missionaries, is finding ways to communicate with the broad evangelical community. And therefore churches need to set aside portions of their budgets to finance their elders writing and speaking ministry or even creating videos that communicate Reformed theology in a way that reaches the “right-hemisphere.”

Also, since the right-hemisphere is more “artistic” oriented, then we need to place a higher priority in creating good Christian art. This is again, too long to go into, but true art is beautiful because it reflects the person and nature of God. By creating good art, we can reach people in ways that theological propositions cannot; but that will require investing in Reformed artists, encouraging them and seeing that their work has a vital role to play in the total ministry of Christ’s church. In the movie “Field of Dreams” there is a “truth” that exists independent of the theological inaccuracies. And perhaps, “if we build it, they will come” is something we ought to consider.

Implications for Personal Devotion

Every Christian wants to “know” God, to be “closer” to God; to have “intimacy” with God. The Lord Jesus Himself said “and this is eternal life; that men might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent” (Jn 17:3). But the question must arise, “what does it MEAN to know God? Often, in the ratio-centric Reformed world, we tacitly assume that “knowing” God means “knowing things about God” and therefore the more we learn about Him, the closer we become to Him.

Charismatics and many broad evangelicals however usually assume that “knowing” God is an intimate, personal experience of God-usually apprehended through some inner “impression” or “still small voice” we hear inside our heads. Again, this is no small issue and really goes to the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

However, let me suggest that our discussion of “doctrine” and differences between the ways the two brain-hemispheres “know” things might have some direct implications for what it means to have a personal relationship with God, especially as manifested in our personal devotions. Hence, in one respect I suspect that our brothers may be reporting something “true” they are personally experiencing with their right-hemispheres, even though we may not agree with our left-hemispheres with their explanation.

First, to better understand the phrase Jesus used in John 17:3 we need to see how it is echoed and amplified by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 4:9; “But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by Him…” Paul defines “knowing” God here not in some rational or mystical sense, but in the sense of being “known by” Him. In other words, to “know” God means that God “knows” you. The use of the word “know” in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures has a slightly different range of connotations than our English word. Most commonly when we use the word “know” we mean something like having “understanding” or “information” about someone or something. However, to “know” (Greek ginosko) at least the way the Scriptures uses the word, “indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known and hence the establishment of a relationship… the knowing suggests approval and bears the meaning ‘to be approved’… the verb is also used to convey the thought of connection or union between man and woman.”[34]

Most of us are familiar with the Authorized Version’s using the verb “to know” as a “euphemism” for “sexual relations.” However this was just technical accuracy on the translators’ part and not some quaint, old-fashioned way of talking around a “delicate” subject; this is the actual word God inspired to be used and it really does communicate something about “sex” and “knowledge” that is lacking in our English definition. Sexual relations are the most intimate way that two human beings can “connect” on both a spiritual as well as physical level; in fact the physical “connection” is actually in some ways more “spiritual” than our modern sex-crazed culture appreciates and one of the reasons why God considers sexual sins to be so serious (1 Cor 6:16ff).

Thus, “knowing” God, at least in the way this word is used in Scripture, refers more to the relationship we have with God than it does the kind of information we have about God. And try as hard as I can, I simply cannot substantiate from the Scriptures the almost universal assumption that Christians make that this relationship somehow involves some inner, subjective communication with God. Many Reformed, Evangelicals and Charismatics assume that this personal relationship means that in some way, God “speaks” to them personally, privately and subjectively. And thus “growing” in one’s “relationship” with God means becoming more “friendly” or “intimate” with God wherein we learn to “hear His voice” ever more clearly.

But where is this understanding of being known by God ever actually taught in Scripture? Sure, there were exceptional individuals like Moses with whom God spoke “face to face;” but the Bible itself declares that no other person[35] ever had this kind of “personal” relationship with God other than Moses! Of course Jesus had this kind of relationship and God did speak supernaturally to His prophets and apostles; but the almost unconscious assumption is that God will speak to us just like He spoke to them! But where is this taught in the Bible itself?

A better “model” for what the Christian can expect in His personal devotions is David, the man after God’s own heart who was the special recipient of His love and grace. And David talks eloquently about his “personal relationship” with God in the many Psalms he was inspired to write. But when one examines the actual historical narrative sections of Samuel and Kings, where do we find evidence of God speaking directly to David in some “still small voice?” Sure, David receives special revelation from Samuel and other prophets. In many cases it appears He received guidance through the umin and thummin.[36] But when David waxes most eloquent about his special relationship with God and actually defines that relationship, he does so in places like Psalm 119 wherein he praises the Law of God as his strength, comfort and hope. In other words, David, in his “daily walk” was not the recipient of special revelation from a “still small voice” subjectively whispering into his “heart;” but instead, approached knowing God the same way we do; through meditation on God’s Word. And because he trusted God’s revelation, and believed in His providence, he could “see” God working in the world and in his own life. Thus, his personal, intimate love-relationship with God was not composed of some subjective, special revelation, but rather in understanding the Law, meditating on it and trusting that God would act as He had promised; “we walk by faith, not by sight.”

And yet, Christians throughout the ages testify that they do “meet” with God in some special, subjective way that is more than just an academic study of the Scriptures. Were they deceived or perhaps does right-hemisphere thinking offer an explanation of this common Christian experience? Reformed theology is sometimes caustic in its condemnation of those Christians who say “and God spoke into my heart.” But really, may such statements not have a legitimate place in our faith if we understand that the right-hemisphere may be apprehending something by gestalt that is more than the sum of what our left-hemispheres have deduced?

For though we reject the idea of special revelation in this age, at the same time, perhaps what our brother is really trying to say is that as he reads the Scriptures and meditates on them, as he thinks about God and prays to Him, he is apprehending something that pure reason and logic alone might not reveal. He becomes convinced that He “knows” something from God that he did not arrive at by logic or reason and it may well be that in His providence, God is “speaking” to him by granting him some measure of understanding and application that goes beyond left-hemisphere, ratio-centric reasoning.

Granted, reason based on the teachings of Scripture must still be the check by which such claims are verified; I am not suggesting an irrational, subjective experience become the norm. In fact, at heart, is this not our greatest concern for our Charismatic brothers that they unintentionally can become the victims of a subjective, non-verifiable experience that can lead them anywhere? At our best, do we not want to help our brother take his passion for God and strengthen it by helping him to better understand the God who is “speaking” to Him? And do we not also admit that in our own devotions, we want that same kind of intimacy and passion?

Thus instead of just condemning some brothers for emotionalism or subjectivism, perhaps we need to allow that God may “speak” through the gestalt of our right-hemispheres; as we read and meditate on His revelation, He puts things together in ways that we using only logic and reason just cannot do. We do not want to live our lives on feelings or impressions but there may be a way of living life in the milieu of Scripture, so controlled by its total message that we then almost intuitively “know” what is right because we are so steeped in its message? And is this not exactly how the great “holy” men of the past became holy; by prayer, meditation and application of God’s holy word?

Earlier we made the point that “doctrine” is defined in Scripture not so much having right thoughts about God but more in context of righteous living before God. Let me suggest that one implication of this would be that every time we read the Scriptures, our PRIMARY concern ought to be “Lord, what would you have me do?” In other words, we need to learn how to see the Bible as more than theological statements about God and rediscover it as what God demands of His people. After all, that is basically the way He wrote His revelation. The Scriptures were given by inspiration “that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:17): not just to “puff us up” with knowledge (1 Cor 8:1ff). If we come to the Scriptures and do not find at least one application to our daily lives, our thoughts, our words, our deeds, then in essence we have wasted our time, and God’s.

Thus, the man who wants to be “known by God” and be “intimate” with God does so by meditating on the Word of God, especially on how God expects us to live before Him. Unlike our father Adam who refused to obey God, we are to become like the Second Adam, Jesus (Rms 8:29) who obeyed God in everything. And as we meditate on His commands, we are confronted with our sins, and driven to our knees in humility to confess those sins and trust in Him for our forgiveness. And then, as we trust in His promise that we are forgiven for Christ’s sake, we grow closer to Him, more dependant upon Him because we are known and loved by Him. This is not just an intellectual, ratio-centric comprehension but rather an intimate, personal, right-hemisphere kind of knowing. And throughout this process, God in His providence, working through the means of His creation, puts things together for us that our limited human reason could never hope to discover on its own. No, it is not “special” revelation in the sense of direct communication with God; but it is personal, intimate and loving communication as God speaks through His inspired Word.

Implications for Preaching

And perhaps in the same way we ought to think about how we preach; it is too late for me, I am so ratio-centric that I think it will be nigh impossible for me to change. I like logical propositions that explore an idea, defend it, or refute it as necessary. But at the same time I can appreciate that sometimes, other men, have a way of reaching me viscerally that mere logical propositions never can. At this point, let me just suggest that we go one step further in our sermon preparation; let us use our reason to ensure that our sermons are true and accurate to Scripture and then, let us explore how best to communicate what we have found in ways that appeal not just to the left-hemisphere oriented, but grabs the “hearts” of men as well.

Most “good” Reformed preaching reminds me of great academic lectures; the material is well organized in a logical format, the pastor makes a interesting point about the significance of the Greek or Hebrew, references the Confession or some great theologian of the past and then, maybe tosses in an anecdote or two as an illustration. But as accurate as these kinds of messages are, perhaps there is more to great preaching than simply speaking the truth; great preaching really does change lives. Granted, only the grace of God can take a sermon and use it to penetrate to the center of a man’s heart. However, maybe He does not do so as often as would like because we need to rethink how we preach from the bottom up. I do not pretend to have any answers here, just the observation that there may be more to this work than many of us has assumed. Perhaps God chooses not to use this kind of accurate, ratio-centric preaching to move the average person today just because it appeals only to one side of the brain-when His own revelation included both?

And the same principle we noted in our section on personal devotions would apply to the messages we preach; what is it that God would have His people do as a result of our preaching? It seems to me that this is the problem with much of the preaching I have heard over the years; sure it sounds good and all, but how does this apply to my life? What sins does God want me to forsake, what actions does He want me to adopt? As a result of what has been said this day, how am I supposed to bring my life better into conformity with His will? Yet the unstated assumption of many otherwise fine sermons I have heard is that if you only hear the truth then the application is self-evident. This is the fallacy of Greek idealism; that right ideas constitutes moral action. Well, it didn’t work for the Greeks (their most brilliant philosophers were often the most immoral, depraved men of their times) and it does not seem to work for the Reformed world either.

Implications for Evangelism

It is almost a cliché that Reformed people do not do evangelism. One of my favorite anecdotes comes from some Reformed Baptist brothers in England who decided to do some street “evangelism” in the town square by handing out tracts. One brother was seen to be standing there just holding the tracts but not actually passing them out. When queried he replied, “God’s Elect will take a tract whether I hand them out or not.”

And I admit personally that ever since fully embracing the Reformed faith MY evangelism has suffered. You see I want to give people the truth and that means going into a lot of theological and theoretical detail. Literally, the last time someone made a profession of faith in my presence it took six months of Bible study, discussion, reading etc. Now is it really reasonable to expect that one basically has to take the equivalent of a college semester’s worth of theology before one can make a profession of faith?

Paul and the other apostles went into a pagan city square, proclaimed a gospel that overturned every philosophical worldview, commanded men to acknowledge Christ and saw results! Today, it seems like we would probably set up a Bible institute where interested students could take a degree program in theology before we would challenge them to confess Jesus as Lord! Surely, there must be a better way.

Perhaps now is the time to answer the question we asked earlier about “how much doctrine does a person have to understand before they can make a credible confession of faith.” Despite the comments we made earlier about the “doctrinal” content of the phrase “Jesus is Lord” let me suggest that a ratio-centric understanding may not be required. All men according to Scripture intuitively and innately know that God exists but they “suppress” the truth in unrighteousness (Rms 1:18-20). All non-Christian thinking therefore has as its most basic purpose an attempt to deny this knowledge; much like a rebellious child screws his eyes shut and places his hands over his ears when his parents are trying to tell him something he does not want to hear. According to Paul in this same passage, the entire intellectual, philosophical and theological history of the human race is a self-conscious attempt to deny the existence and authority of the one true God.

Therefore in evangelism, we do not have to necessarily tear down the entire pagan world and life view before they can “understand” the gospel because innately they already do understand and are just suppressing the truth. Now, some men are more consistent in their rebellion than others and create intricate intellectual smoke-screens by which they attempt to hide from the truth; and those smoke screens may need to be destroyed by apologetics; but here we are talking about evangelism.

Let me suggest that evangelism does not require “sophisticated” theoretical or intellectual knowledge because the person being evangelized already intuitively knows by general revelation the first requirement for saving faith; the existence of God (Hebrews 11:6). Then, the evangelist proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and men must trust in Him alone for redemption and submit to Him as Lord. Do we really want to argue that before a man can trust in Christ he needs to understand the doctrine of the Trinity? Or can we not say that when the gospel is preached to the Elect that God quickens the heart, grants them faith to trust, even while at the time the individual y may not understand all the implications? And during the process of sanctification does He not grant further grace in opening our minds even as His Spirit works to change our character?

Thus, evangelism need not be a complex, left-brain dominant ratio-centric intellectual process; merely faithfully proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ and calling men to repent and trust in Him. Granted, we do not need a “reformed” version of those semi-Arminian outlines so popular in broad evangelicalism; the ones that ask people to “accept” Jesus or “invite” Him into their hearts. But we do need to rethink how we do evangelism and find ways to share that message without compromising the truth. It has always fascinated me that the one time that the Apostle Paul gives the most powerful, ratio-centric presentation of the gospel, replete with presuppositional apologetics, is also the same instance when he was least successful (Acts 17:22ff). Now I am not trying to tie the results of evangelism to the method of evangelism; God is the only one who can change the heart. But at least we can acknowledge that He does not always require ratio-centric approaches.

Implications for Worship

I have written about worship in other places[37] and do not want to go over that same ground here. Instead, let us just appreciate that there are aesthetic aspects of worship that we Reformed people may want to reexamine. Since our ancestors came out of the excesses of Romanism and man-made worship, some of us may be a little gun shy here. But if truth is apprehended through both reason and “intuition” then good art may have a place in worship, even under the regulative principle.

First, without falling into Roman fallacies, architecture has an effect on us for either good or ill. Without advocating stain-glassed windows or statues, we can start thinking about how the sanctuary is set up and the kind of mood it creates. Most of us consider the place we meet for worship to be of no consequence-but maybe we are missing out on something God built into us and therefore cloud the message? Reformed churches usually self-consciously build plain and simple sanctuaries as a legitimate reaction to what our ancestors saw as dangerous, ungodly and unwarranted human innovations in the old church. But if there is no neutrality, if all creation reflects something about God, then surely it is time to start thinking whether we might want to reconsider some of our assumptions. We do not have to duplicate Rome’s errors in creating edifices that replace the gospel, but perhaps we might want to think and pray about how architecture is to glorify God. While most Reformed churches are struggling just to stay alive, when God does grant His blessing, we should be ready to consider church architecture as a part of how we communicate His truths.[38]

In the same way, just because we love the Psalter does not mean that only 16^th century music should be sung. Music has great emotive power; just think about how movies influence emotions by the music that is chosen; good movies always have great music. And bad music can ruin even the best script, acting or cinematography. So therefore, as we encourage more of our Reformed people to reconstruct the arts, let’s start praying and working to refine our music so that it leads us to better worship God with both hemispheres; great doctrinally sound lyrics that reach the left-hemisphere with appropriate reverent music that reaches the right-hemisphere. Am I the only one who regularly trips over some of the archaic tunes in the Psalter and Trinity Hymnal? Most broad evangelicals find contemporary music styles “worshipful” because that music reaches them in ways that traditional hymns do not. I am not here trying to justify the often deplorable lyrics, or the saccharine sentimentality or self-oriented religion such choruses often display. All I am suggesting is that we appreciate the fact that our music is important and if we want to reach our broad evangelical brothers, we may want to rethink how we approach it.

Let us also move more towards participation rather than observation in worship. Instead of choirs (which most of us are too small to have anyway) why not train the entire congregation to sing in parts (reflecting the different functions of the economic Trinity) in harmony? And without adding one single, non-Biblical element, do we not have the liberty under God’s regulative principle to arrange the elements of worship in such a way that it communicates truth via the right-hemisphere as well as the left? I remember talking to a worthy Christian brother who attended the same dismal worship service I did while we were out of town at a conference. The worship, the hymns and psalms selected, the prayers given, even the sermon preached were dull, drab, lifeless and boring. When I commented to my brother that I did not “feel” as if I had worshipped that day he said, “We sung, we prayed, we read the Word and heard the Word preached; we worshipped.”

Now even I know when to occasionally shut my mouth and this time I did; but what he said sounded to me a whole lot like what the Jews were doing in Jesus day; and which Jesus criticized to the woman at the well. These people did all the right things; but at least from my perspective there was something “spiritual” missing.

As with some of the other implications I am not sure if I have any answers here; just questions. Is there not some way that we can make our worship more powerful by appealing to the right-hemisphere without sacrificing Reformed truth? Even though I do not yet know how to do so, I am suggesting that someone, somewhere, had better figure this one out. Broad evangelicals are rejecting our message because we are not communicating in ways they understand. Surely, there must be a way to combine the two?

Conclusion

In this essay, we have attempted to explore some areas of Christian thought and life that have been neglected by most of the faithful. I am not trying to offer answers so much as ask some questions. Like “iron sharpening iron,” my real hope is to stimulate other brothers to think through these issues and perhaps, see some things in Scripture from a different perspective.

In the end, we think, because God thinks. Logic is a part of the natural world because it reflects something that is intrinsic to God’s unchanging nature. Christians must never exchange a desire for truth for a fluffy religion of subjective personal experience and reason is the means to protect the truth of God.

However, God is greater than our reason alone can grasp. It may be that truth though tested by reason, may well be apprehended by something else. And if so, then we rob the Christian faith of something vital that God has built into us by His creation ordinances. We are required by God to love Him with our minds; but He also requires us to love Him with our hearts as well. Perhaps we have lost the past two centuries of cultural battles because somehow we lost this balance first. Rediscovering the balance may well lead to the next stage of the Greater Reformation.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Studies on the Nature of Biblical Authority
2. Conservative Theology and Conservative Politics
3. Is He Really a Heretic?

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 acce