New Dimensions in the Study of Angels and DemonsRobert V. Rakestraw, Ph.D., Professor of TheologyBethel Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota

Anyone unaware of the attention given to angels and demons in recent years would have to be either a hermit or a new arrival from another planet. What is especially notable about this surge of interest is that not only Christians but also those outside the church have been swept up into the phenomenon. While there is a cyclical pattern of interest in certain theological topics within the Christian world, there is not usually, due to the peculiar subject matter, a corresponding interest in current Christian issues from the general public. What interest there is focuses mostly upon the significance of the topic as a news item, as in the cases of the charismatic movement, the inerrancy debate, or the Jesus Seminar. The recent explosion of interest in angels and demons, however, has a broad existential quality to it that attracts people of widely diverse religious interests.{1} This is particularly true of the attention given to good angels, but is also relevant to the concern many have with the demonic side of reality, whether in the discussion of multiple personalities, the nature of human evil (as, for example, in M. Scott Peck s �People of the Lie{2}), or the grip evil forces have on our deteriorating inner cities and even on some of our formerly respected institutions and professions (such as government, education, and the legal profession).

Because of the attention angels and the demonic are receiving in both Christian circles and in the wider society, pastors, educators, and other Christian leaders need to devote substantial time and energy to this customarily peripheral category of systematic theology. We need both a refresher course in biblical angelology and demonology and an update on some of the most helpful and/or provocative thinking in these areas from those who work within the framework of Scripture and Christian tradition. If we are to benefit those who desire some sanity in the midst of a bewildering sea of voices, we cannot consign this area of study to writers and popularizers not grounded on solid biblical and theological foundations. God s people deserve to have the best minds working with this� topic (which Karl Barth called "the most remarkable and difficult of all" spheres of dogmatics{3}) as well as with other current theological concerns.

My approach in this essay will be first to indicate briefly some recent thinking on the subject of angelology and demonology in general, then present one contemporary author who discusses holy angels, highlight some contributions in the area of Satan and evil spirits, and then conclude with some suggestions for further study and evangelical engagement. While this is primarily a descriptive rather than a constructive essay, I will include some critique and some directions for further study. In each of the three categories I have been, of course, representative of the literature, and have worked with materials published in the 1980 s and 1990 s. � �

Good and Evil Spirits

In his Christian Theology, at the end of his section on the doctrine of God, Millard Erickson devotes a chapter to good and evil angels. In that part of his work published in

1983, he notes that, even with the great amount of attention given to demonology and demon possession, and the growing interest in good angels, "there has not been a balanced inquiry into the nature and activity of angels, both the good and the evil."{4} He is obviously thinking of something more in-depth than the volume by C. Fred Dickason, Angels, Elect and Evil, which has served as a generally helpful, popular introduction to the subject.{5} After a brief history of the doctrine, Erickson presents the biblical teaching on good angels. "They evidently grow in knowledge by observing human actions and hearing of human repentance (Luke 12:8; 15:10; I Cor. 4:9; Eph. 3:10)."{6} Angels are immaterial beings. "Physical manifestations recorded in Scripture must be regarded as appearances assumed for the occasion (angelophanies)."{7} Concerning guardian angels, Erickson concludes that there is insufficient evidence for the idea that each person (or at least each believer) has a specific angel assigned to care for him or her in this life.{8}

In his discussion of evil angels he considers briefly and then discards three modern approaches: the demythologizing attempt of Bultmann, the depersonalizing approach of Tillich, and the dynamic nothingness view of Barth.{9} In accord with much recent scholarship, he refrains from using Isaiah 14:12-17 and Ezekiel 28:1-19 as references to the original state and fall of Satan. Surprisingly, he makes no mention of these texts.{10} He sees demons as fallen angels, and considers 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 as speaking of their fall.{11} On the question of demonization, Erickson notes wisely that the biblical writers did not attribute all illness to demon possession. "Nor was epilepsy mistaken for demon possession. We read in Matthew 17:15-18 that Jesus cast out a demon from an epileptic, but in Matthew 4:24 epileptics (as well as paralytics) are distinguished from demoniacs." When Jesus did cast out demons, he did it without pronouncing an elaborate formula. He simply commanded them to come out. While he advises us to be alert to the possibility of demon possession occurring, he cautions us against thinking that this is the primary manifestation of the forces of evil today. "In actuality, Satan, the great deceiver, may be encouraging interest in demon possession in hopes that Christians will become careless about other more subtle forms of influence by the powers of evil."{12} Overall, Erickson s discussion of angels, while brief, is a balanced and biblically-based �overview of the main issues.

A topic sometimes discussed under the category of angels and demons is the New Testament teaching on "the powers."{13}

The scholarship of Walter Wink has been particularly influential in recent discussions of this theme. His three-part work, Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, and Engaging the Powers, combines scriptural exegesis, social and psychological analysis, historical research, and personal insights in a valuable assessment of the benevolent and malevolent forces at work in society.{14} Wink s thesis undergirding all three volumes is that "the New Testament s � �

principalities and powers is a generic category referring to the determining forces of � �physical, psychic, and social existence. These powers usually consist of an outer manifestation and an inner spirituality or interiority. Power must become incarnate, institutionalized or systemic in order to be effective. It has a dual aspect possessing both an outer, visible form (constitutions, judges, police, leaders, office complexes), and an inner, invisible spirit that provides it legitimacy, compliance, credibility, and clout."{15}

While Wink does not believe in the real, independent existence of personal angels, demons, and Satan, his extensive study of the scriptures dealing with these topics and the principalities and powers is valuable in provoking us to think more deeply and through some different lenses than we have customarily done as evangelicals. Gabriel Fackre notes that "Wink s insights have enabled clergy better to understand peculiar forces �alive in the church as institution, the angels of the congregations in which we live � �and work."{16} Fackre s comment refers to Wink s view of the "angels" of the � �churches in Revelation 2 and 3, which he sees as something other than human messengers, bishops, or pastors. "Everywhere else that the term angel appears in the � �Apocalypse, it unambiguously refers to heavenly messengers." The angels of the seven churches are some sort of spiritual guardians. Yet "the angel is not something separate from the congregation, but must somehow represent it as a totality." According to Wink, "the fact that the angel is actually addressed suggests that it is more than a mere personification of the church, but the actual spirituality of the congregation as a single entity. The angel would then exist in, with, and under the material expressions of the church s life as its interiority. As the corporate personality or felt sense of the whole, �the angel of the church would have no separate existence apart from the people." Wink notes, however, that the converse is equally true, for "the people would have no unity apart from the angel. Angel and people are the inner and outer aspects of one and the same reality. The people incarnate or embody the angelic spirit; the angel distills the invisible essence of their totality as a group. The angel and the congregation come into being together and, if such is their destiny, pass out of existence together. The one cannot exist without the other."{17}

Wink goes on to say that "the angel of a church becomes demonic when the congregation turns its back on the specific tasks set before it by God and makes some other goal its idol."{18} Such an insight has proved helpful to some working in local churches. One of Wink s colleagues commented about service in an earlier ministry: "I didn t � �understand about the angel, so in trying to foster institutional change I attacked individuals. I thought they were evil people because they were doing evil things. That merely created such an unpleasant situation that I had to resign to get out of it. I didn t �realize that I was up against the angel of the institution."{19} Wink s discussion of the �angels of the nations and the angels of nature are similarly provocative. His insights justify the time invested in studying his trilogy, even for evangelicals who do not accept his definitions of angels and demons. Discovering and understanding the "spirit" of a corporate entity -- whether it be a local church, a mission society, or a neighborhood composed mostly of one ethnic group -- is essential for all who live or work with that group.{20}

Holy Angels

Lawrence Osborn offers us a stimulating discussion of good angels, exploring the potential role of angelology in contemporary orthodox theology.{21} His article, a revision of the 1993 Tyndale Christian Doctrine Lecture, presents angels in terms of both their function and being, and suggests several practical benefits of a sound angelology. Noting that angels have never been a major element in evangelical theology, but have rather

received little more than the bare affirmation of their existence, Osborn states that changing times warrant a change in this attitude. Christians living under Modernism were to some extent wise to avoid stressing angelology, lest the gospel be considered pre-�modern, pre-critical, or superstitious. However, he writes, times are �� � � �changing. Because of the weakening and possibly imminent demise of Modernity, there has emerged a dramatic resurgence of interest in spirituality, and with it, a renewed popular interest in angels. "Angels figure far more extensively in New Age thought then they have done in Christianity over the last two or three centuries."{22} Even in Christian circles, due in part to the supernatural thrillers of Frank Peretti,{23} angelology has become a prominent feature of popular Christianity. Christian theologians must no longer avoid the topic.

In his article, Osborn presents a very useful ten-page overview and critique of Barth s �contribution to angelology. He rightly points out that Barth s extensive account of �angels is virtually unique in contemporary Protestant theology.{24} Among other points, Osborn first highlights, then critiques, Barth s position on the question of angelic being �versus function. He observes that, according to Barth, there is no scriptural basis for any definition or exposition of angels in terms of their being, and therefore we should focus on the adjective ministering not the noun spirits in Hebrews 1:14. However, � � � �Osborn disagrees with Barth that the biblical view of angels is an entirely functional one. According to Osborn, in addition to the obvious fact that Hebrews 1:14 must mean something when it designates angels as "spirits," we should follow the lead offered by Barth himself in seeking to understand angels by trying to understand heaven. Asking how we are to express the 'otherness' of heaven, and, hence, of angels, Osborn states that the invisible (to us) dimension of heaven is equally as real as the visible dimensions of God s created order. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper, for example, often �speaks of a third world, "an objective but non-physical dimension of reality in which resides all actual and possible objective knowledge."{25} If heaven can be said to be the inwardness of creation, as Walter Wink has suggested, it may be more immanent than transcendent. Osborn disagrees with Clinton Arnold, who has criticized this view of heaven as tantamount to a psychologization of angels and demons.{26} Defending Wink, and to some extent Carl Jung (on whom Wink admittedly leans), Osborn notes that Jung s archetypes --those common features of humanity s collective � � � �unconscious--are not mere projections or personifications. They have actual existence, and "are the real inhabitants of this domain which he calls the collective unconscious."{27}

Osborn does not accept the view of Arnold and others that the interpretation of angelic entities as the inwardness of created structures is a denial of their actual existence. In fact, according to Osborn, "the criticism of inwardness as a metaphor for heaven may, in fact, amount to an assimilation of Christianity to the world-view of Modernity. Arnold takes for granted that the domain of the psyche (and, by extension, the inwardness of creation) is private and subjective, less real than the domain of physical phenomena. . . . However, this denial of the reality of the subjective is an integral part of the dichotomy between public and private, which is a hallmark of Modernity.{28}

Continuing his critique of Barth, Osborn takes issue with Barth s identification of the �ministry of angels with praise and witness. There is, says Osborn, "too much emphasis on

the divine-human axis within Barth s theology," and "even within this narrow focus, �there is too much emphasis on the divine pole. Barth s insistence on divine sovereignty �reduces human and angel alike to a state of overawed impotence." Barth s exclusive �emphasis on praise and witness thus "seriously underplays the powers which biblical accounts appear to rest in such beings."{29} Osborn recognizes Barth s admission that �angels are also the agents of providence and the bearers of the mystery of creation, yet feels that the overall thrust of Barth s angelology is to reduce the angels to an entirely �peripheral role. Osborn s point seems to be valid, both in his critique of Barth and in his� understanding of the biblical view of angelic service to humanity.

In his concluding section, "The Relevance of Angels," Osborn makes several helpful observations. I will mention only one, introduced above: the apologetic significance of angels. Osborn refers to the earlier dismissal by theologians of angelology as futile speculation, with no practical significance for the Christian life or mission. He accepts that there may have been, on the part of some, a commendable apologetic desire behind this: "to avoid putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of predominantly secular materialist audiences." However, the cost of such a move is high. "If the world does not possess a depth dimension, an openness to God, deism is a more satisfactory way of understanding the God-world relation than traditional theism."{30} The European Values Study has revealed a marked swing away from materialism during the 1980 s, and New �Agers, for example, do not regard angels as the stuff of speculation. "On the contrary, their fascination with angels is driven by a very practical desire for a wholeness which integrates physical, psychological and spiritual realities....That fascination and that desire are potentially important bridge points between Christians and New Agers."{31} Such a suggestion merits not only further discussion but also specific application in our service for Christ.

Satan and the Demonic

Nearly a half-century ago, James Stewart wrote about the banishment of the demonic from serious study of the natural world, the world of the mind and soul, and the world of Christian theology. In his view this had a deleterious effect on several areas of theological thought. Christian anthropology suffered, for example, because the sense of a cosmic battle played out on the stage of world events, and in the inner life, had disappeared. "We have lost Paul fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus, and Luther flinging his ink-pot at the devil."{32} The doctrine of the atonement suffered the most, however. With the theologians of Stewart s day stressing mainly or solely the revelatory aspect of� Christ s death, the New Testament theme of triumph over the demonic and redemption �from moral evil was not taken seriously. Stewart insists that, "however we may interpret it, we must recognise that here we are dealing, not with some unessential apocalyptic scaffolding, but with the very substance of faith."{33} Fortunately, theologians since Stewart s day have developed a more multi-faceted theology of the atonement, and �now, over the past fifteen or twenty years, serious interest is being devoted to the demonic and cosmic warfare as integral components of the Christian gospel.

In the 1970 s, few serious studies of demonology and spiritual warfare were available.�{34} Today, however, the situation is quite different. A number of biblical scholars, theologians, missiologists, and pastors have begun to address, more intentionally and thoroughly than their predecessors, the issues Stewart raised. While these writings vary in depth of scholarship, intended readership, and theological presuppositions, they demonstrate the seriousness with which the demonic world is being studied in evangelical circles. Not all of the popular handbooks are geared to the sensational.{35} Some are worthy of careful study, because they have been hammered out on the double-pronged anvil of Scripture-study and experience by wise and seasoned Christians.{36} Even if we cannot accept every aspect of their theology and methodology, we can learn much from them. It is easy to discard lightly the ideas and approaches of those who work frequently with demonized persons, or in geographical regions highly resistant to the gospel, when we merely read about them from the comfort of our desk or easy chair. It is another matter to be at the altar or in the counseling room when the demonic presence makes itself known. In this section on Satan and the demonic, I will limit myself to consideration of the controversial spiritual warfare movement.{37}

In December, 1988, a meeting of evangelicals, Pentecostals, and charismatics was convened by the Fuller Seminary School of World Mission. Under the title "Academic Symposium on Power Evangelism," the conference brought together 40 scholars from Christian institutions in the United States and Canada. The term "power evangelism" was chosen as the theme partly because it was the title of a book by John Wimber, an adjunct faculty member at Fuller Seminary, and teacher there (along with C. Peter Wagner) of the highly controversial MC510 course on signs and wonders, taught from 1982 to 1985. The Academic Symposium was convened because of a growing awareness among academicians that curricula in some Bible colleges and seminaries were not adequately dealing with the issues raised by the new emphasis on power ministries. Those who participated in the symposium were chiefly faculty members from the schools which had begun to experiment with power-oriented teaching. Of the 40 participants, 7 represented classical Pentecostal/charismatic institutions, 4 represented Wimber s Vineyard �movement, and 29 came from traditional evangelical institutions. Participants in the symposium included Neil Anderson of Biola University/Talbot School of Theology, Walter Bodine and Jack Deere, two professors who had recently left the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, Peter Davids of Regent College, Wayne Grudem and Timothy Warner of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, F. Douglas Pennoyer of Seattle Pacific University, British psychologist Elizabeth Moberly, Vineyard founder John Wimber, and 12 persons from the Fuller Seminary School of World Mission, including Charles Kraft and C. Peter Wagner. Wagner and Pennoyer edited a collection of the papers and responses delivered at the symposium, giving it the title, Wrestling With Dark Angels: Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Supernatural Forces in Spiritual Warfare.{38} The volume includes articles on "Power Evangelism" by Wimber, "Territorial Spirits" by Wagner, "Finding Freedom in Christ" by Anderson, "Sickness and Suffering in the New Testament" by Davids, and Kraft s response to Pennoyer s essay on "Collective � �Captivity" (the idea that "demons working through individuals can control the society to some extent and actively use the system to prevent the gospel light from penetrating into

members lives").� {39} Overall, the volume serves well as an introduction to some of the key thinkers and concepts in the current spiritual warfare movement.

In his chapter, Wagner proposes this hypothesis concerning territorial spirits (admittedly tentative, due to the newness of this area of research): "Satan delegates high ranking members of the hierarchy of evil spirits to control nations, regions, cities, tribes, people groups, neighborhoods, and other significant social networks of human beings throughout the world. Their major assignment is to prevent God from being glorified in their territory, which they do through directing the activity of lower ranking demons."{40} He agrees with Warner that "Satan does indeed assign a demon or corp of demons to every geopolitical unit in the world."{41} He supports this view with scriptures such as 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Ephesians 6:12, Matthew 12:28-29, Deuteronomy 32:8; Daniel 10:10-21, 2 Kings 17:30-31, and Acts 13:6-12.{42} Wagner s remarks on these scriptures are so� brief, however, that we must look elsewhere for a developed defense of the territorial spirits view. Two books with more of a case for the concept are Wagner s edited �collection, Engaging the Enemy: How to Fight and Defeat Territorial Spirits{43} and the volume edited by Charles Kraft, Behind Enemy Lines: An Advanced Guide to Spiritual Warfare.{44} While neither book, unfortunately, contains a detailed study of the relevant scriptures, each offers some help in understanding the strategic warfare/territorial spirits view.{45} Wagner describes three levels of spiritual warfare: (1) ground-level, which is commonly known as deliverance or casting demons out of individuals; (2) occult-� �level, which confronts witchcraft, Satanism, and the like; and (3) strategic-level, or cosmic-level spiritual warfare, which deals with territorial spirits.{46} In a chapter of Behind Enemy Lines, Wagner answers the "Twenty-One Questions" he is most frequently asked about strategic-level spiritual warfare.{47} Here Wagner gives a biblically-attuned and generally balanced apology for the position. He firmly but graciously defends the practice of proactively coming against the principalities that hold a specific region or people group in spiritual captivity. Once the "strong man" (Matt. 12:29) is bound, the captives are set free. He argues that some notoriously resistant regions yield to gospel truth in a measure not previously seen from conventional evangelistic strategies.

Some evangelicals object to the spiritual warfare emphasis of Wagner and Kraft, and their criticisms should be taken seriously.{48} Both sides argue, at times, from silence. Objectors frequently state that there is no biblical exhortation or example directing us toward strategic level spiritual warfare. Conflict with demons in Scripture is at the personal level only. Defenders of strategic warfare reply that there is no biblical teaching opposing cosmic-warfare strategies. In fact, they find support for the concept in such Scriptures as Luke 10:19 ("I have given you authority . . . to overcome all the power of the enemy") and Matthew 16:18-19 (where "the keys of the kingdom" for binding and loosing are given to Peter for the tearing down of the gates of Hades as Christ builds his Church).{49} Perhaps the best approach is one that is both/and rather than either/or. In some cases the confrontation approach may be necessary and wise, while in other situations (probably most situations) the best course is to proclaim boldly the good news, and to deal with evil spirits as these emerge in the heat of the battle.

The final author I will consider is Gregory Boyd, who is preparing a two-volume study on Satan and spiritual warfare from a rather unusual standpoint -- that of theodicy.{50} He argues that the intellectual problem of evil arises from a worldview in which evil is not expected. Suffering is not expected in paradise, but is expected in a state of war. The logical "problem of evil" disappears for us when we accept the warfare worldview of the Bible. The gospels, for example, portray the fundamental mission of Jesus as the advancing of the kingdom of God by vanquishing the kingdom of Satan. Jesus saw suffering people primarily as victims of Satan. Sickness and demonization are not necessarily peoples fault, but casualties of war. All evil, directly or indirectly, goes �back to "the god of this age." In addition, Paul and other New Testament authors understood the main significance of Jesus death to be victory over Satan and the defeat� of the demonic powers that serve Satan. While the early church proclaimed and developed this worldview, some of the church fathers, especially Augustine, began to appropriate significant elements from Hellenistic philosophy which were alien to the biblical tradition. God now comes to be seen as timeless, non-contingent, changeless, and unrelated to the world. This view of God, when combined with an understanding of his sovereignty as "control," swallows up the warfare worldview. Everything that happens follows a divine blueprint, drawn up by the one who sovereignly orchestrates both good and evil for his purposes.

The intellectual problem of evil now emerges in full force, and appears to be unsolvable. Even if we accept the idea of spiritual forces fighting in the heavenlies, we still cannot see why an all-good and all-powerful God wills such a cosmic war in the first place. In addition, we begin to address the personal problem of evil by speaking of the "good" that comes to us through suffering. Or we think of it as punishment. We thus lose the sense of urgency that accompanies those who engage in warfare, and instead of seeing our prayers and actions as having major significance for the cause of the war, we tend to retreat from the battle and pray "thy will be done" without a full recognition of our part in the advancement of God s kingdom on earth. �

Boyd s work argues that Satan and demons are real, personal beings engaged in a �cosmic war against humanity. While the outcome of the war is certain (the victory was assured at Calvary), there is an openness to the future, genuine freedom to accept our responsibilities in this world, and very real power at our disposal to bless and curse others. We have power over the evil one and his forces, but we need to learn how to wield that power, and we will suffer some losses and lose some battles in the process of learning. In his second volume, Boyd will explain how such a warfare theodicy is theologically and philosophically superior to all other options. He will then show how this warfare worldview can be plausibly articulated in our postmodern culture.

In his lay-oriented apologetic work, Letters From a Skeptic, Boyd presents in brief, popular form what he develops more thoroughly in his two-volume work. Speaking of God s omniscience and creaturely freedom, Boyd contends that, while God knows with �certainty many things which will happen in the future (such as events determined either by present circumstances or by God s own will), he "can t foreknow the good or bad � �decisions of the people He creates until He creates those people and they, in turn, create

their decisions." If God loves the creatures he brings into existence, he must give them genuine freedom. Love requires freedom. Because God created out of love, and created free beings, "there are risks in creation, even for God."{51} Thus we may speak of the "openness" of God and of the future. When God s good creatures choose not to love, �there arises not only human sin and the evils that attend it, but also "natural evil": famines, earthquakes, tornadoes, AIDS, and the like. While some natural evils are due either to the limitations of the natural order (e.g., drowning), or the result of evil persons deeds (e.g., many famines), some are attributable to the cosmic forces of evil: �Satan and the demons. These evil forces are waging war on a cosmic scale against God and everything that is good. "In the Christian view, then, the earth has been literally sieged by a power outside itself. There is a power of pure evil which now affects everything and everybody on the earth. . . . And thus the entire cosmos . . . is in a state of chaos (Rom. 8)."{52} Boyd acknowledges that the Bible is silent on exactly how demonic forces tamper with the natural order, but he holds that the concept is biblical.{53} The earth is a battlefield. "And on battlefields . . . all sorts of terrible things happen. . . . In the end, we are all more or less casualties of war." Boyd claims that this view of rational creatures (human, angelic, and demonic) as genuinely free, God as a loving risk-taker, the future as open and unknown in some respects, and the earth as a battlefield is the only position that makes sense of evil -- whether "moral" or "natural" -- if we hold to the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God.{54} God is sovereign, but he exercises his sovereignty and providence not so much by control or meticulous intervention in persons lives as by granting, to those who seek him, spiritual power to wage war and �overcome the evil one. The outcome is sure because of Calvary.

While Boyd s warfare theme will find enthusiastic acceptance by many evangelicals, �especially those with a more Arminian approach to their theology, the view of God and the future as open will not be welcomed as readily. Some are even speaking of an "evangelical megashift" in describing the openness of God position espoused by Boyd and others.{55} Boyd will argue, however, that his warfare theodicy is much more biblical than the meticulous providence view, and makes sense only with a view of the future as genuinely open. Some (I include myself here), however, will want to hold to the themes of conflict and victory, yet without sacrificing the foreknowledge of God in the more traditional understandings (whether Calvinist or Arminian). It will be interesting to follow the debate. Whatever the outcome, Boyd s project will surely draw attention to �the warfare nature of our existence, whether personally, in our families, in the church of Christ, in our communities, and in the world at large. Because there is much in the Scriptures to support a cosmic warfare theme, and because, as Stewart noted, this is "the very substance of faith," it will be unfortunate if the debate over some theological issues (particularly the open view of God), while inevitable and even necessary, becomes so heated that it obscures and draws attention away from the task of the Church Militant. Such an outcome would grant another victory to the enemy, and might even be part of his plan!

Where to Go from Here

While the topic of angels and demons has never attracted a great amount of attention from past or present evangelical scholars, it is a significant category of biblical truth. The biblical texts on the spirit world are part of the "all Scripture" that is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). Fortunately, there are some worthwhile resources for additional study of the topics in this essay.{56}

Yet more work needs to be done. As evangelicals move toward and into the twenty-first century, we need to recognize and accept several challenges. Perhaps the greatest (and most exciting) opportunity is that raised by Osborn when he speaks of the apologetic significance of angels. There is a need for high-quality articles and books for the popular, non-Christian market that will attract attention to the gospel of Christ. However, the need is not only for books on benevolent angels, but also on Satan and demons. In this postmodern, New Age era, those who attract and draw people to their body of beliefs and believers are those who show how their religious concepts answer to the personal quests and thought-forms of spirituality-seekers. Angels, Satan and demons are not excess baggage in Christian belief; they are necessary components of a wholistic world view. Evangelical Christianity is in a unique position with its teachings on these topics to evangelize those seeking spiritual reality.

Another challenge facing us -- more of an in-house matter -- is to produce works on the warfare themes of Scripture that are both scholarly and useful in ministry. Whichever way we lean in the debate, we all, as evangelicals, acknowledge the major biblical emphasis on the conflict between God and Satan. All three levels of spiritual warfare mentioned by Wagner need careful study and analysis, especially by scholars sensitive both to exegetical/theological concerns as well as empirical data from respected pastors, missionaries and others on the front lines of evangelistic, counseling, and discipleship ministries. Scholars who can be open-minded and objective while investigating all aspects of the question will contribute immensely to the clarification and application of biblical warfare teachings. Other challenges before us include further consideration of the nature of structural/institutional evil and more complete and more accurate documentation of purported encounters with angelic and demonic forces.{57}

Is there an evangelical consensus on the theme of angels and demons? Concerning good angels, we can say "yes." It is true that Osborn disagrees with Arnold concerning the inwardness of heaven and the angelic realm, and notes that this approach to heaven (coupled with a defense of Wink on this point) "has been subjected to severe criticism from certain evangelical quarters."{58} But this is not a serious topic of debate among evangelicals. Similarly, the controversy over whether or not the principalities and powers are personal angelic and demonic beings, while beneficial for clarifying and understanding these key Pauline concepts, is not on the front burner of evangelical scholarship. More serious disagreement exists in the category of spiritual warfare, and the issue of strategic-level warfare is just one area of controversy. Space did not allow me to cover the major debate over deliverance theories and methods, but there are helpful materials that get to the heart of the issues.{59}

Even though there are differences among evangelicals, we agree on several matters vital to ministry today. (1) God s people are involved in a cosmic war, and the hosts of �

heaven and hell are serving their respective lords, either helping or hindering us. We should not be surprised by either intense opposition or gracious assistance in the battle. However, we ought not to become preoccupied with either aspect of the spirit world, and we may not always be able to identify precisely when and how these forces are active among us. (2) God s people should be able to minister effectively to those oppressed by� the devil, when such persons are evident in our midst. Jesus Christ came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8). (3) In all of our ministries, whether consciously engaged with the spirit world or not, we must seek our strength and wisdom from God through prayer and the Scriptures, in partnership with wise and godly believers. (4) Ultimately, our attention must be directed to the King of kings and Lord of lords, rather than to angels, demons, past successes and failures, or theories and techniques of deliverance. Whatever we do in service for Christ s kingdom, we do for the glory of God, with our �eyes on him.