Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

brill.com/pent

‘Spiritual Warfare’: A Dead Metaphor? E. Janet Warren*

University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT [email protected]

Abstract The term ‘spiritual warfare’, referring to the Christian’s battle with evil spirits, was popularized by the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement and is the predominant language used in contemporary Christianity to describe encounters with evil spirits. This paper reviews the prevalence of military metaphors in popular and scholarly writings, and examines the problems associated with warfare language from linguistic, biblical, theological and psycho-social perspectives. I suggest that ‘spiritual warfare’ has become a dead metaphor: its metaphorical insights have been lost and other metaphors are neglected. Therefore renewed attention to metaphor theory is needed along with alternative language with which to discuss demonology and deliverance. I conclude with suggestions for supplementary metaphors/models, including cleansing, setting boundaries on evil, appropriating divine authority, and using light/dark imagery. Keywords spiritual warfare, violence, metaphor, demonology

Pentecostals have traditionally asserted the reality of demons and demonic influence and have openly practiced deliverance. The topic has generally been subsumed under the title ‘spiritual warfare’ and interest has spread to most branches of evangelicalism. Numerous popular books include the term in their title. Discussion about evil spirits in contemporary Christianity is almost exclusively phrased in terms of ‘spiritual warfare’. There have been several critiques of the ‘spiritual warfare’ movement, but seldom is the term itself questioned. The topic is important, particularly given the growth of Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity in the global South (in Traditional African Religion evil spirits are thought to be highly involved in

* Janet Warren (PhD, University of Birmingham, UK) is a Family Physician in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, with an interest in counseling and deliverance. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012

DOI 10.1163/17455251-02102007



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

279

everyday life).1 However, there are multiple concerns with the exclusive use of warfare language and imagery. The aim of this paper is to review and critique the use of military metaphors in contemporary Western Christianity as well as to offer some alternative metaphors. First, I discuss the prevalence of ‘spiritual warfare’ imagery in popular and academic literature. Second, I point out the numerous problems with warfare imagery under the categories of linguistic (contemporary metaphor theory), biblical, theological, and psycho-social. Finally, I suggest some alternative metaphors that do not employ warfare language. This discussion is limited to contemporary Western Christian­ ity  and does not include the use of military metaphors in socio-political contexts. 1. Prevalence of Warfare Imagery

Although warfare imagery has been used throughout history with respect to demonology, the term ‘spiritual warfare’ became established in the context of charismatic renewal. Interest in evil spirits and deliverance has coincided and perhaps increased with the three waves of charismatic revival.2 Pentecostalism incorporated a renewed interest in demonology that gained momentum in the 1950’s and the latter rain movement. The term ‘spiritual warfare’ was popularized in 1970 as the title of a book by Michael Harper, a leader in the British charismatic movement.3 In the 1980’s the interest spread to non-Pentecostal evangelicals. There is now a blurring of charismatic/Pentecostal/evangelical boundaries with respect to ‘spiritual warfare’.4 The term has been used by charismatics,5 1 Keith Ferdinando, ‘The Spiritual Realm in Traditional African Religion’, in Peter G. Riddell and Beverly Smith Riddell (eds.), Angels and Demons: Perspectives and Practice in Diverse Religious Traditions (Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), pp. 21-41. 2 For a recent review and critique of the ‘spiritual warfare’ movement, see James M. Collins, Exorcism and Deliverance Ministry in the Twentieth Century: An Analysis of the Practice and Theology of Exorcism in Modern Western Christianity (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009). Collins does not question warfare language. 3 Michael Harper, Spiritual Warfare (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1970). 4 Charles H. Kraft, ‘Contemporary Trends in the Treatment of Spiritual Conflict’, in A. Scott Moreau (ed.), Deliver us from Evil: An Uneasy Frontier in Christian Mission (Monravia, CA: World Vision International, 2002), pp. 177-202 (187). 5 E.g. C. Peter Wagner, Warfare Prayer: Strategies for Combatting the Rulers of Darkness (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1992); Cindy Jacobs, Possessing the Gates of the Enemy (Tarrytown, NY: Chosen Books, 1991).

280

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

evangelicals,6 and Calvinists,7 and applied to missiology,8 counseling,9 and women.10 The idiom has endured for four decades. 1.1. Popular Literature Warfare imagery is so pervasive in popular literature that a few examples will suffice. Frank and Ida Mae Hammond proclaim that ‘spiritual warfare’ involves weapons of the blood of Jesus and the word of God.11 Mark Bubeck believes Ephesians is ‘the Christian’s handbook on spiritual warfare against the devil and his kingdom’.12 This battle involves ‘hand-to-hand combat’ and forces of evil operate like a military organization. George Mallone advises Christians to choose weapons wisely, prepare for battle, wear appropriate armor, and have a battle plan.13 Timothy Warner refers to the ‘Christian offensive’, ‘Christian defensive’, and ‘ultimate weapon’.14 C. Peter Wagner uses the term ‘strategic-level spiritual warfare’ to discuss battles with territorial spirits (as opposed to ‘ground-level’ warfare, which involves deliverance of individuals).15 The majority of these authors take the term, ‘spiritual warfare’, for granted and do not generally discuss the uses of metaphor or alternate metaphors. Kraft, in addition to warfare language, compares demons to

 6 E.g. Charles H. Kraft, Defeating Dark Angels (Ann Arbor: Servant, 1992); Neil T. Anderson and Timothy M. Warner, A Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Warfare (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2008).   7 John Bolt, ‘Satan is Alive and Well in Contemporary Imagination: A Bibliographic Essay with Notes on “Hell” and “Spiritual Warfare”’, Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994), pp. 497-506.   8 E.g. Nabeel T. Jabbour, The Unseen Reality: A Panoramic View of Spiritual Warfare (Singapore: Navigators Singapore, 1995).   9 E.g. Jay E. Adams, The War Within: A Biblical Strategy for Spiritual Warfare (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1989). 10 Quin Sherrer and Ruthanne Galrock, A Woman’s Guide to Spiritual Warfare (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant, 1991).  11 Frank and Ida Mae Hammond, Pigs in the Parlour (Kirkwood, MN: Impact Books, 1973), p. 33. 12 Mark I. Bubeck, The Adversary (Chicago: Moody, 1975), p. 70. 13 George Mallone, Arming for Spiritual Warfare (Downers Grove: IVP, 1991), pp. 21-38. 14 Timothy Warner, Spiritual Warfare (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991). 15 E.g. C. Peter Wagner, Confronting the Powers: How the New Testament Church Experienced the Power of Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1996), pp. 2122. For a critique of this concept, see René Holvast, Spiritual Mapping in the United States and Argentina, 1989-2005: A Geography of Fear (Leiden: Brill, 2008).



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

281

rats that are attached to ‘garbage’ (sin, occult practices, or wounding).16 Interestingly, Wagner states he would prefer not to use warfare language, but he is ‘not free to do this’ as the Bible describes our spiritual fight as warfare, a struggle between life and death.17 Some authors use minimal warfare language. Neil Anderson emphasizes a truth-oriented approach to deliverance based on faith and obedience, assuming that demons will leave when the truth of Christ is acknowledged.18 Catholic Francis MacNutt focuses on healing rather than warfare.19 Mennonite Lawrence Burkholder also uses minimal warfare language.20 However, none of these authors develops alternate metaphors to the extent that the warfare metaphor has been expounded. 1.2. Scholarly Perspectives In Old Testament theology, warfare language has been used with respect to the ‘divine warrior’ motif. Longman and Reid assert that this is ‘one of the most pervasive of all biblical themes’.21 They discuss passages that name God a warrior,22 and infer this from verses describing God’s presence during Israel’s battles.23 This theme continues in the New Testament: Jesus ‘battles’ demonic forces and sends out an ‘army’.24 Christians are ‘holy warriors of Christ’ who participate in the spiritual battle. Among New Testament scholars there is a long tradition of using warfare language to describe Jesus’ encounters with evil spirits.25 Susan Garrett views much of Luke as spiritual warfare.26 Graham Twelftree also sees Jesus’ exorcisms as 16 Kraft, Defeating Dark Angels, pp. 43, 125. 17 C. Peter Wagner (ed.), Engaging the Enemy: How to Fight and Defeat Territorial Spirits (Ventura: Regal, 1991), p. 4. 18 Neil T. Anderson, The Bondage Breaker (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1990). 19 Francis MacNutt, Deliverance from Evil Spirits (Grand Rapids: Chosen, 1995). 20 Lawrence Burkholder, ‘The Theological Foundations of Deliverance Healing’, Conrad Grebel Review 19/1 (2001), pp. 38-68. 21 Tremper Longman III and Daniel Reid, God is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 13. 22 E.g. Exod. 15.3; Zeph. 3.17. 23 E.g. Deut. 7.1, 2; Judg. 6.12; 1 Sam. 17.45-47. 24 E.g. Mk. 1.23-28, 6.6, 7. Longman and Reid, God is a Warrior, pp. 97, 103. 25 Joachim Jeremias wrote that Jesus’ exorcisms are depicted as battles in the Gospels, especially Mark (New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971, pp. 85-96). See also Eric Sorensen, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) p. 129. 26 Susan Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s writings (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), p. 54.

282

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

an eschatological battle and argues that the battles in Mark are cosmic and spiritual, and that John views Jesus’ entire ministry as a ‘battle with Satan or the demonic’.27 Pauline scholar, Clinton Arnold, discusses ‘spiritual warfare’ using the following subheadings: ‘kingdoms in conflict’, ‘arming for spiritual warfare’, and ‘demonic strongholds’.28 More concerning is God at War, a biblical theology of ‘spiritual warfare’, by theologian Gregory Boyd.29 Although his thorough examination of the entire biblical drama is commendable, Boyd’s work contains frequent and sometimes excessive warfare language. Boyd presupposes that anything in opposition to God means battle.30 He claims the Kingdom of God, and therefore the kingdom of Satan, is a military concept.31 ‘Jesus’ miracles over nature, as well as his healings, exorcisms, and especially his resurrection, were definite acts of war that accomplished and demonstrated his victory over Satan’.32 In discussing Jesus’ teaching for the church, Boyd believes we are to throw ‘all we have into guerrilla warfare against the occupying army’.33 For Paul, ‘the whole of the Christian life is an act of warring against the enemy’.34 Interestingly, on one occasion Boyd suggests a nonwarfare metaphor without elaboration: he compares demons with ‘viruses that cannot survive long on their own; they need to infect someone or something’.35 Even many of those who critique ‘spiritual warfare’ literature continue to use warfare language. D.A. Carson, who criticizes Boyd’s work, does not 27 Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), p. 67; idem, In the Name of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 96, 115, 127, 195-96. 28 Clinton E. Arnold, 3 Crucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), pp. 19, 44, 54-65. 29 Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997). This book is the first of two, the second being philosophical (Satan and the Problem of Evil, Downers Grove: IVP, 2001). Boyd’s aim is to argue against a classical Augustinian view of evil as always divinely ordained. He has mostly been critiqued for his philosophical stance on open theism. Interestingly, in later works on other topics in which he mentions evil spirits Boyd uses minimal warfare language (e.g. The Myth of a Christian Nation [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005], pp. 20-48). 30 ‘God’s good creation has in fact been seized by hostile, evil, cosmic forces … God wages war against these forces … Christ has now secured the overthrow of the evil cosmic army’ (Boyd, God at War, p. 19). 31 Boyd, God at War, p. 185. 32 Boyd, God at War, p. 213. 33 Matthew 16.18-19; Boyd, God at War, p. 217. 34 Based on Eph. 6.10-17; Boyd, God at War, p. 281. 35 Boyd, God at War, p. 195. This appears contradictory to his insistence that demons are autonomous beings.



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

283

object to the use of such terminology.36 Missiologist Paul Hiebert expresses concern regarding the overuse of power in ‘spiritual warfare’ but nonetheless uses military metaphors himself.37 Nigel Wright, otherwise conservative, also uses warfare language.38 Mennonite Randy Friesen is critical of the movement but not of the term ‘spiritual warfare’.39 Pentecostal Jacques Theron does not oppose warfare language but places the term in quotation marks.40 There are some examples of works on evil spirits in which warfare language is missing or minimal, such as Anthony Lane’s compilation of essays,41 and Stephen Noll’s biblical theology of angels.42 Interestingly the Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity lacks an entry on ‘spiritual warfare’, although the term is used in other articles.43 However, for the most part, the term ‘spiritual warfare’ with its concomitant images has been uncritically adopted in both popular and academic circles. 2. Problems with Warfare Imagery

The preceding discussion has highlighted the prominence and uncritical use of the term ‘spiritual warfare’ and its accompanying military imagery. As Robert Guelich notes, what was originally a biblical metaphor has now become an extensive movement.44 There are numerous concerns with the ‘spiritual warfare’ literature, but the focus here is on warfare imagery. 36 D.A. Carson, ‘God, the Bible and Spiritual Warfare: A Review Article’, JETS 42.2 (June, 1999), pp. 251-69. He agrees that we ‘are indeed in a warfare situation’ (p. 266). 37 Paul G. Hiebert, ‘Spiritual Warfare and Worldviews’, Direction 29.2 (2000), pp. 114-24. See also idem, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), pp. 203-15. 38 Especially in his concluding chapter, ‘God’s Holy War’. Nigel G. Wright, A Theology of the Dark Side: Putting the Power of Evil in Its Place (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), pp. 80-91; also pp. 173-77. 39 Randy Friesen, ‘Equipping Principles for Spiritual Warfare’, Direction 29.2, (2000), pp. 142-52. 40 Jacques Theron, ‘A Critical Overview of the Church’s Ministry of Deliverance from Evil Spirits’, Pneuma 18 (Spring, 1996), pp. 79-92. 41 Anthony N.S. Lane, The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons, and the Heavenly Realm (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996). 42 Stephen F. Noll, Angels of Light, Powers of Darkness (Downers Grove: IVP, 1998). 43 Stanley M. Burgess (ed.), Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity (New York: Routledge, 2006). The section on ‘Deliverance’ uses the term (pp. 123-26). 44 Robert Guelich, ‘Spiritual Warfare: Jesus, Paul and Peretti’, Pneuma 13.1 (1991), pp. 33-64 (34).

284

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

Problems can be categorized as linguistic, biblical, theological, and psychosocial. 2.1. Linguistic This concern relates to the use and misuse of metaphor. To my knowledge, none of the ‘spiritual warfare’ literature includes any discussion about metaphor theory. Some scholars express concern about the use of warfare metaphors but do not engage metaphor theory.45 Metaphor can be defined simply as a ‘figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another’.46 Unlike similes, the reference is often subtle. There is a tension between the ‘is’ and the ‘is not’ of a metaphor.47 For example, Jesus is the ‘bread of life’ in that he nourishes, but not in that he exists in loaf form. The metaphor highlights salient aspects of the comparison, while hiding irrelevant ones. Contemporary metaphor theory recognizes that metaphors are much more than ornamentation or simple substitution, but have semantic power.48 They are cognitive and conceptual; can provide new meaning and aid in our organization of concepts.49 Metaphors are universal and frequently unconscious, guiding our thoughts, not just our language. Closely related to metaphors are models, which can be viewed as ‘sustained and systematic’ metaphors,50 45 Guelich, as mentioned above, and Andrew Walker who states, ‘the literalizing of parable and metaphor becomes an occupational hazard in the paranoid universe’ (Walker, ‘The Devil You Think You Know: Demonology and the Charismatic Movement’, in Tom Smail, Andrew Walker, and Nigel Wright, Charismatic Renewal: The search for a Theology [London: C.S. Lewis Centre/ SPCK, 1993], pp. 86-105, [100]). 46 Janet Martin Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 15. 47 Sallie McFague believes this tension is critical to theology (Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982], p. 65). 48 The view of metaphor as cognitive was originated by I.A. Richards (The Philosophy of Rhetoric [Oxford University Press, 1936]), expanded upon by Max Black (Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy [Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962], esp. pp. 25-47), and applied to theology by Paul Ricoeur (The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language [Trans. Robert Czerny, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977]), Soskice (Metaphor and Religious Language) and others. 49 The idea of conceptual metaphors was developed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (Metaphors we Live by [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980]) and has been very influential. They argue that metaphors are based on conceptual correspondence between ideas, not simply similarities. Metaphors are largely irreducible and non-translatable; they permeate thoughts and actions, and reflect our worldviews. 50 Black, Models and Metaphors, p. 236.



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

285

or ‘comprehensive metaphors with organizing, structural potential’.51 ‘Spir­ itual warfare’, because it employs multiple metaphors (battle, fight, armor), is clearly conceptual and best viewed as a model, not a metaphor. Metaphors/models are particularly applicable to discussions about unseen reality, which is difficult to describe using literal, concrete language.52 The unknown can be illuminated through the known. Confusion occurs when scholars fail to recognize that metaphors can and do depict reality. For example, Boyd repeatedly asserts that demons and cosmic forces are ‘real’ spiritual beings and not ‘mere metaphors’.53 This implies an outdated understanding of metaphor.54 It is perhaps not surprising that the ‘warfare’ metaphor has been adopted so readily as a way to understand and overcome evil spirits, since warfare is known to most people. However, many believe that having more than one metaphor/model to describe a concept is important.55 Metaphors give a partial description of reality; multiple metaphors can provide multiple snapshots of reality (especially applicable to supersensible realities). Because metaphors are conceptual, changing a metaphor can lead to new insights. The danger of having only one metaphor is that it can be overused; the original referent is forgotten, the metaphorical tension is lost, and the terms become part of ordinary language. This is known as a dead or conventional metaphor, common examples being the ‘legs’ of a table, a ‘field’ of research, or a ‘blind’ review. Religious language is prone to this occurrence because of its repetition of terms biblically and historically.56 With common metaphors, like table ‘legs’, there is little concern if they become conventional. With biblical metaphors, however, there are potential problems: original insight is lost, the term overreaches its intent, and alterna­ tive metaphors are neglected.57 I believe this is what has happened with 51 McFague, Metaphorical Theology, pp. 25, 67, 103, 193. 52 This has frequently been applied to divine reality. Soskice notes that metaphor is the primary way in which we speak about God (Metaphor and Religious Language, p. x). 53 Boyd, God at War, pp. 89, 91. 54 Ricoeur believes metaphors deliver a ‘semantic shock’ and have ‘ontological vehemence’ in describing reality (Rule of Metaphor, pp. 22, 95, 215-56, 299). 55 E.g. McFague, Metaphorical Theology, p. 74. This idea has also been discussed with respect to hermeneutics in general. John Goldingay, for example, suggests that a multiplicity of models is required in theology (Models for Scripture [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994], p. 16). 56 McFague, Metaphorical Theology, pp. 38-41. She describes three stages of metaphor use: novel and surprising; living and insightful; commonplace and dead. 57 For example, God is depicted in the Old Testament as divine warrior, but also as shepherd, husband, and mother.

286

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

‘spiritual warfare’. The model has been so assumed in contemporary Christianity that its original use as a metaphor has been forgotten. Paul most likely used military metaphors to provide insight, not a neologism. ‘Spiritual warfare’ is a dead metaphor because it is usually not even considered a metaphor (perhaps explaining the lack of discussions regarding metaphor in ‘spiritual warfare’ literature). ‘Spiritual warfare’ has become the primary, if not the only, way in which encounters with demons are described and experienced, as opposed to being only one snapshot of a complex reality. The dangers are the same as with any ‘dead’ metaphor with the additional concern that warfare language has socio-political implications. Metaphors are helpful, but potentially dangerous if they are used without awareness. I believe it is essential that ‘spiritual warfare’ be used with full consciousness of the limits of metaphors. The use of more than one metaphor/model can guard against the overuse of warfare language, and can also enrich our understanding of evil spirits. 2.2. Biblical One of the concerns with ‘spiritual warfare’ literature is a lack of balance. Most popular literature builds a whole theology based on one passage (Eph. 6.10-20). This results in an imbalance; an elevation of warfare imagery and a concomitant neglect of other metaphors. In fact warfare language is almost exclusively Pauline. On the scholarly level, much of the work on evil spirits has been done by New Testament scholars, or more specifically, Pauline scholars (Boyd’s work is a notable exception.) Although there is a role for exegetical work on specific verses, it is also helpful to consider demonology from a broader perspective, incorporating a framework that encompasses Old and New Testament passages. Another concern relates to the necessity of ‘spiritual warfare’ interpre­ tations of relevant biblical passages. Although warfare language is sometimes appropriate, it is not the only exegetical tool available. With respect to the Old Testament, the combat myth, which describes creation through conflict (God’s conquest of primordial chaos) as in Ancient Near East­ ern  cosmogonies, is often used in support of ‘spiritual warfare’.58 Boyd especially argues that this primordial conflict persists today in ‘spiritual

58 E.g. Job 26.7-14; 38.4-11, Pss. 74.12-17; 89.5-14; 104.5-9; Isa. 51.9, 10; Nah. 1.4. Chaos is personified in monsters such as Leviathan (E.g. Ps. 74.14; Isa. 27.1). Boyd devotes two chapters to this theme: ‘Locking up the Raging Sea’ and ‘Slaying Leviathan’.



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

287

warfare’.59 However, although creation may involve imposing order on chaos and placing limits on evil, this does not necessarily involve warfare. Many ‘chaos-conflict’ texts refer only to God restricting chaos, such as assigning the sea a limit, or establishing boundaries in creation.60 Jon Levenson, in his discussion of the combat myth motif, notes that the main difference between Genesis 1 and the Babylonian myths is that God creates without opposition.61 Chaos is not eliminated but transformed; water and darkness are confined. Thus what emerges is ‘an environment ordered for peaceful human habitation and secure against the onslaughts of chaos and anarchy’.62 Biblical scholar Richard Middleton expresses concern about what it means for humans to image a warrior God and that human violence may be justified by primordial violence.63 He reevaluates the ‘chaos-conflict’ passages and emphasizes their polemical intent—to demythologize pagan creation accounts. Middleton summarizes: ‘if the portrayal of God’s exercise of non-violent creative power in Gen 1 is taken in conjunction with its claim that humanity is made in the image of this God, this has significant implications for contemporary ethics’.64 With respect to demonology in the New Testament, warfare interpretations are not essential. Jesus’ exorcisms, which Boyd discusses under the title ‘war of the worlds’,65 were performed quietly, with authority. Guelich has similar concerns, pointing out that the ‘Kingdom of God’ is a dynamic concept with eschatological implications and is better interpreted as the sovereign rule of God.66 Specifically, ‘the Kingdom of God is

59 Boyd, God at War, pp. 75-96. 60 E.g. Prov. 8.19, 29; Pss. 74.17; 104.9; 148.6; Job. 38.8. 61 Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: the Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper, 1988), pp. 121-3. 62 Levenson, Persistence of Evil, p. 47. Others who use non-warfare interpretations of the combat myth include John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), and Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987). 63 J. Richard Middleton, ‘Created in the Image of a Violent God?’, Interpretation (Oct, 2004), pp. 341-55. 64 Middleton, ‘Violent God’, p. 355. Middleton also points out the socio-political implications of these passages. This is especially evident in the conflation of the combat myth and the exodus (Exod. 15.1-18; Ps. 106.9-11, Isa. 51.9,10); see Day, God’s Conflict, pp. 7, 23, 50; Forsyth, The Old Enemy, p. 104. 65 Boyd, God at War, p. 192. 66 Guelich, ‘Jesus, Paul & Peretti’, p. 35.

288

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

never juxtaposed to a “kingdom of Satan”’.67 Only once in the Synoptics is Satan referred to as ‘enemy’ and then it is in a personal, not military, context.68 Guelich notes that, in exorcisms, Jesus was always completely in control. There is ‘no evidence of even an implicit struggle in either Jesus’ encounters with or his teaching about Satan and the demonic … the phrase ‘spiritual warfare’ finds no basis in the Gospel’s portrait of Jesus’ ministry.69 In examining Pauline theology, he believes the Ephesians 6 passage portrays defense more than offence; ‘prayer’ and ‘alertness’ are hardly armor. Guelich concludes there is no ‘basis for positing in Paul the thought of a cosmic struggle between God and Satan that works itself out in human history as a great “spiritual war” waged between God’s and Satan’s forces’.70 I would add that although Christian life is sometimes depicted as a struggle,71 this is not synonymous with warfare. Similarly, Christians are given authority over evil spirits, but this is not necessarily a ‘military’ commission.72 Hiebert also points out that the ‘cosmic battle between God and Satan’ is ‘not one of power’.73 He suggests the parables of the wayward son (emphasizing human responsibility) and the rebellious stewards (emphasizing legitimacy and authority) provide a better perspective on the biblical view of ‘spiritual warfare’.74 ‘Might does not make right, nor does the battle make the victor legitimate’.75 Hiebert acknowledges the reality of demons but insists the establishment of the Kingdom of God is more important to Christianity than spiritual battles. I believe that discussions regarding biblical demonology and deliverance should be conducted with full awareness of metaphor theory. It is valuable to remove our warfare spectacles and incorporate images from a variety of passages in both Old and New Testaments. Warfare imagery is not the only language available. Indeed, multiple metaphors can provide multiple snapshots of unseen realities. 67 Guelich, ‘Jesus, Paul & Peretti’, p. 41. This juxtaposition is common in popular ‘spiritual warfare’ literature. 68 Matthew 13.39; Guelich, ‘Jesus, Paul & Peretti’, p. 37. 69 Guelich, ‘Jesus, Paul & Peretti’, p. 42. 70 Guelich, ‘Jesus, Paul & Peretti’, p. 45. 71 E.g. Col. 1.29; Heb. 12.4. 72 Matthew 10.1, Mk. 3.15; 6.7, Lk. 9.1; 10.19. 73 Hiebert, ‘Spiritual Warfare and Worldviews’, p. 119. 74 Luke 15.21-24 and Mt. 21.33-44. He does not elaborate on these metaphors. 75 Hiebert, Anthropological Perspectives, p. 211.



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

289

2.3. Theological There has been very little academic work done on demonology and deliverance by systematic theologians. Most discussions about evil occur through the lens of philosophy and seldom mention evil spirits. Elsewhere, demons are demythologized or viewed as psychological projections, not metaphors that depict reality.76 Boyd’s work is an exception, and he is helpful in his suggestion that to understand evil we need to focus on the complexities of creation not the mysteries of God (which philosophical approaches tend to do).77 Because of the lack of academic treatment of the subject, ‘spiritual warfare’ is often associated with radical groups, and is consequently dismissed. This does a disservice to those on the front-lines of ministry who need to know how to deal with demonized people. The plethora of popular books on ‘spiritual warfare’ indicates a hunger for information on the subject; the lack of healthy food available from the academy has led consumers to gorge on fast food.78 Another concern with ‘spiritual warfare’ from a theological perspective is that the concept is largely theocentric; there is a focus on God as the ‘divine warrior’, and by extension, Christ, the conqueror who engages in ‘power struggles’ against the demonic. However, warrior imagery is never applied to Christ or the Holy Spirit. Jesus arrives as a helpless babe and is described as gentle.79 He teaches love for enemies, prayer for persecutors,80 and willingly submits to death. And he drives out demons by the ‘finger’ or ‘Spirit’ of God, not by warfare.81 Even in apocalyptic passages, it is the angels who battle, not Christ.82 The Holy Spirit is never described with warfare metaphors; instead images of wind,83 breath,84 dove,85 and even 76 Walter Wink is the best known contemporary scholar who takes this approach (Naming the Powers, Unmasking the Powers, Engaging the Powers [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984]). 77 Boyd, Satan, pp. 215-16. 78 Christian Breuninger makes a similar point: ‘evangelicalism, having been shaped by the secularizing effects of Western rationalism, has ironically, helped create a craving for an experiential spirituality that an evangelical hermeneutic is often unable to satisfy’ (‘Where Angels Fear to Tread: Appraising the Current Fascination with Spiritual Warfare’, Covenant Quarterly 53 [1995], pp. 37-43). 79 Matthew 11.29. 80 Matthew 5.44. 81 Matthew 12.28; Lk. 11.20. 82 E.g. Rev. 12.7-9. 83 E.g. Gen. 1.2; Exod. 14.21; Jn 3.8; Acts 2.2. 84 E.g. Job 27.3; 32.8; 34.14; Pss. 18.15; 33.6; Jn 20.22. 85 Matthew 3.16; Mk. 1.10; Lk. 3.22; Jn 1.32.

290

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

‘silence’86 are used. Theologian Michael Welker specifically notes that the Spirit is ‘anything but a Spirit of war’ or ‘military enthusiasm’; he is ‘not a spirit of war, but delivers out of distress and helplessness as a Spirit of righteousness and mercy’.87 Warfare imagery may result in an overly dualistic worldview. Although most popular writers emphasize the supremacy of Christ over demons, and scholars are careful to state that they do not endorse metaphysical dualism,88 warfare imagery lends itself to a view of a battle between two equal and opposite forces. The Bible does depict some degree of limited cosmic dualism, but this does not necessitate an interpretation of ‘spiritual warfare’. This ‘dualism’ incorporates shades of gray, which most writers neglect. The biblical portrayal of evil is a complex interplay between human sin and diabolic evil, trials as a result of divine will and suffering due to demonic infliction, human responsibility and human innocence. The dualism of warfare imagery also has implications regarding the sovereignty of God and the ontology of evil spirits. If God is pitted against a ‘formidable foe’,89 he has to expend much effort in the battle. If Christians are called to wage war, the enemy must be considerable. Yet God expels evil from his good creation with merely a word, or a finger.90 Demons are typically portrayed as insignificant next to God and sometimes not quite real.91 Many scholars who affirm the reality of evil spirits nevertheless seek to minimize their ontology. Karl Barth employs this approach with his famous and confusing term ‘nothingness’,92 which exists in ‘opposition and resistance to God’s world-dominion’ and is a malignant, perverse entity, equated with darkness, evil, chaos, demons, and Hades.93 Although nothingness lacks 86 1 Kings 19.12, 13. This story particularly emphasizes the non-violence of the Spirit; he is found not in the wind or the earthquake but in silence. 87 Michael Welker, God the Spirit (Trans. John F. Hoffmeyer; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 54-57. Admittedly, there are some examples of the wind/Spirit of God inciting war (Judg. 3.10; 6.34; 14.6, 19). However, as Welker notes, the Spirit is only ever indirectly involved in violence, the result of which liberates God’s people (God the Spirit, pp. 52–60). 88 Boyd notes that biblical dualism is provisional and transitory (God at War, pp. 228, 230). 89 Boyd, God at War, p. 94. 90 E.g. Pss. 18.15; 104.7; 106.9; Mt. 17.18; Mk. 1.25; 9:24; Lk. 11.20. 91 E.g. 1 Cor. 8.4-6; Rev. 9.20. 92 The German, das Nichtige, implies nihil, null, or non-existence. The editors chose ‘nothingness’ with the proviso that its meaning is as explained by Barth (Church Dogmatics III.3. [Trans. G. W. Bromiley, R. J. Ehrlich. T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1960], p. 289, hereafter abbreviated CD). 93 Barth, CD III.3, pp. 289, 352, 523.



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

291

ontological status, Barth claims that nothingness, sin, evil, death, the devil, and hell are very real.94 Many contemporary theologians have adopted variations on this theme in their demonology. For example, Nigel Wright compares evil with a black hole or a vacuum, having only parasitic existence.95 Warfare imagery, with its implicit dualism, runs the risk of giving demons a status and power that they do not have. Evil is perhaps best viewed as parasitic on God’s good creation. This approach diminishes the ontology of evil spirits without dismissing or demythologizing them. There is room for further research regarding evil spirits from a theological perspective. Incorporating multiple biblical passages and considering the role of the Holy Spirit may provide further insight into the demonic world and its effects on our world. Furthermore, incorporating nonwarfare images may provide a more balanced theology with respect to the ontology of evil and the sovereignty of God. 2.4. Psycho-social An obvious concern with warfare imagery is its association with violence. Even though the warfare is ‘spiritual’, it may still evoke the fear, anger, and hatred associated with war. In fact there have been reports of violent exorcisms that have resulted in death.96 Kraft notes that deliverance-based approaches to evil spirits (compared to healing approaches) focus on simply blasting out the demons, which often results in violence.97 Others are concerned that teachings on the prevalence of demons may result in a paranoid worldview.98 Fear can lead to violence. Furthermore, warfare language can lead to an ‘us versus them’ mentality; ‘we’ are the ‘good guys’ fighting the ‘evil monsters’. Problems are externalized, the enemy is absolutized, and responsibility for our own weaknesses and sin is minimized. Black and white thinking ignores the shades of gray in humans who are psychologically and spiritually complex99 and who live in a socially and spiritually complex world.

94 Barth, CD III.3, pp. 300, 307-10, 523. 95 Wright, Theology, pp. 51-2, 79. See also Robert Jenson, ‘Introduction: Much Ado about Nothingness’, in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), Sin, Death and the Devil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 6. 96 See Wright, Theology, pp. 26-7. 97 Kraft, ‘Contemporary trends’, p. 191. 98 Wright, Theology, p. 117. See also Theron, ‘Critical overview’. 99 Wright states something similar (Theology, pp. 119-125).

292

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism (LCWE) includes a section on ‘spiritual warfare’ in their covenant,100 and an intercession group on the topic developed a statement.101 In this they expressed concerns that a preoccupation with the demonic ‘can lead to avoiding personal responsibility for our actions’, and ‘warfare language can lead to adversarial attitudes’. This is particularly a concern when dialoging with people of other faiths who can interpret such language as violent and political. The LCWE gathering in 2000 focused on evil and deliverance. In one critique, Scott Moreau points out some societal myths and images that have been appropriated by the ‘spiritual warfare’ movement.102 One is the idea that ‘the joy is in the fight’, as evidenced in action movies. More attention is given to the deliverance process than the spiritual life of the person. Similarly there is a tendency towards a quick fix approach. Moreau comments that for some authors it seems that ‘it is easier (and more fun) to expel a demon than to walk through the realities of broken, shattered lives built on the foundations of relational dysfunctionality’.103 The myth of the ‘North American hero’, who always defeats the enemy using violence, also influences ‘spiritual warfare’ practices. Moreau worries that this approach externalizes the enemy allowing for an avoidance of responsibility for sin. There is also an assumption that ‘good violence may be used to overcome evil violence’; ‘the trap we may fall into is loving power rather than using the power of love’.104 Moreau suggests ‘the core metaphor for spiritual conflict should not be that of conflict but that of God’s rule and our resulting ethos of shalom built on the foundation of kingdom ethics’.105 A final social concern of military imagery is its limited applicability to counseling and pastoral situations. Warfare is primarily a masculine metaphor, which many women and children may have difficulty relating to, especially if they have experienced violence. Without appropriate language, counselors may not consider the demonic as a potential factor in personal difficulties. Warfare imagery would also be counterproductive in someone who has anger issues. In many situations alternate metaphors would be helpful. No doubt practitioners of ‘spiritual warfare’ do not

100 Originally developed in 1974. http://www.lausanne.org 101 http://www.lausanne.org.issue-intercession/spiritual-warfare-1993.html 102 A. Scott Moreau, ‘A Survey of North American Spiritual Warfare Thinking’, in Moreau, Deliver us from Evil, pp. 117-126. 103 Moreau, ‘Survey’, p. 121. 104 Moreau, ‘Survey’, p. 123. 105 Moreau, ‘Survey’, p. 123.



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

293

endorse violence, but I believe there at least needs to be increased awareness of the potential associations between warfare language and violence. 3. Proposed Alternatives to Warfare Imagery

It is possible to discuss evil spirits and demonization seriously without recourse to warfare imagery. However, there have been no well-developed alternative metaphors/models. Some have been hinted at in the preced­ ing discussion and are worth further development. I suggest four clusters of images that may provide alternative frameworks though which to understand evil and deliverance. Many of these metaphors overlap and interrelate. First, the cultic conception of purity/impurity is a source for a model. Instead of battling evil, we could wash it away, cleansing and healing those afflicted by demons. In Leviticus, holiness is described in binary opposition to impurity, disobedience, and the demonic; there is an association between impurity and the demonic,106 as well as between sin and the demonic, especially with respect to idolatry.107 In the Yom Kippur ritual, Israel is cleansed of her sins by loading them onto a goat to be sent to Azazel, a desert demon.108 In Zechariah’s vision, Joshua is cleansed after Satan is rebuked.109 Purity and freedom from evil is maintained not through warfare, but through obedience to law and rituals involving cleansing. In the gospels, demons are frequently described as ‘unclean spirits’.110 Jesus removes them from afflicted people, thus purifying these people. The blood of Jesus can be viewed as an agent of cleansing, rather than a weapon of war. Cleansing is also closely related to healing; in the ministry of Jesus, healing and exorcisms are not always clearly distinguished.111 The story of

106 E.g. Ps. 106. 35-9; Isa. 34.14; Jer. 2.23; 19.13; Ezek. 23.30. 107 Deut. 32.17; Lev. 18.21; 20.2-5; Ps. 106.36-8. See Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and some Cultic Themes in Ancient Israel (SJLA, 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 63, 75, 77; Philip P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup, 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), pp. 202-203. 108 Leviticus 16.6-10. Most scholars concur that Azazel is a demon, based on linguistic and extra-biblical evidence. See Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics (Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), pp. 166-71. 109 Zechariah 3.1-5. 110 E.g. Mt. 12.43; Mk. 1.23-26; 5.2, 8; 9.25; Lk. 9.42. 111 E.g. Mt. 10.8; 15.22, 28; Mk. 1.34; 9.25-7; Lk. 6.18; 9.42, Acts 5.16. John Christopher Thomas points out that healing and exorcism are often blurred (The Devil, Disease and

294

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

the unclean spirit who is evicted but returns with seven others when the house is cleaned is also informative.112 We can conceptualize deliverance in terms of holy housekeeping rather than warfare.113 Demons have been compared with infectious agents such as viruses and parasites. Rather than waging war on evil spirits, our ministry can focus on cleansing, disinfecting, and healing people afflicted with demonic beings. Cleansing metaphors are less dualistic, minimize demonic ontology and perhaps better incorporate the roles of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Second, we could consider metaphors of space, boundaries, and order. Instead of waging war on demons, we could focus on putting them in their proper place and setting limits on evil. As discussed above, creation can be viewed as the imposition of order on chaos. It involves separating and limiting evil: the sea (symbolic of evil in the ancient world)114 is rebuked and assigned a limit, a boundary that it may not pass;115 darkness is not created but separated from light.116 Barth, among others, emphasizes the delimitation of evil in creation; he states that God pushes back chaos ‘outside the limits of the world willed and determined by Him’.117 Similarly Jesus’ ministry involves placing boundaries on evil. By returning demons to where they belong (the sea or the abyss),118 Jesus reestablishes order. At the eschaton, Satan and his followers are sent into the pit or the lake of fire,119 and sinners are sent to the outer darkness.120 There is spatial separation between good and evil in the past, present, and future. Boundary and purity metaphors also interrelate. The Azazel ritual involves both cleansing and ordering (sin is sent to the wilderness, the realm of demons). Housecleaning can also involve tidying, putting things in place. Our ministry to the demonized can be viewed as setting boundaries on evil. This applies well to counseling, Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought [JPTSup, 13; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], pp. 157, 174, 199, 204, 249). 112 Matthew 12.43-45; Lk. 11.24-26. 113 I have used this metaphor with a demonized patient, encouraging her not to ‘make a nice home’ for the demons. 114 Yam, Hebrew for ‘sea’, is almost identical to Yamm, a Canaanite sea monster. See Levenson, Persistence of Evil, pp. 17, 47, 121-3. 115 Job 38.10,11; Pss. 104.7-9; 106.9; Prov. 8.27-9; Isa. 50.2; Jer. 5.22; Nah. 1.4. 116 Genesis 1.2, 4. 117 Barth, CD III.1, p. 102, also pp. 108, 122, 133, 142, and CD III.3, p. 352. See also Ronald Simkins (Creator and Creation [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994]) and Michael Welker (Creation and Reality, [Trans. John F. Hoffmeyer; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999]). 118 Luke 8.31-33. 119 Revelation 20.3, 10. 120 Matthew 8.12; 22.13; 25.30.



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

295

which often employs boundary metaphors with respect to interpersonal relationships. A third cluster of metaphors uses images of authority.121 Evil spirits can be dealt with through divine authority, not divine battle. Jesus, operating with divine authority, exorcizes demons with merely a word; they readily obey because they recognize his authority, not because they are afraid of his power. And Jesus’ disciples are given authority over demons, to trample on scorpions.122 The image suggests getting rid of irritating pests, not waging war. Christians can use authority in Christ to resist the devil and ‘stand firm’ against evil spirits.123 The Word of God may be the source, not the weapon, of our authority. The God-human relationship is often compared with a parent-child relationship. Good parents exercise authority, not military might, over their child. When their two-year old has a temper tantrum, they stand firm, not giving in to the child’s demands. Similarly the shepherd metaphor portrays a God who has authority over his sheep, but cares for them, protecting them from wild animals (often symbolic of demons in the ancient world), and keeping them safely within their enclosures.124 A shepherd is quite different from a warrior. Both parent and shepherd metaphors de-emphasize dualistic thinking as well as warfare language. A fourth cluster incorporates light/dark imagery, which is universal and prevalent in the Bible. Darkness is antithetical to light and Christ,125 and is equated with death,126 sin,127 evil spirits,128 and Satan.129 Christians are called out of darkness and encouraged to lay aside works of darkness.130 Light/dark imagery also relates to boundary metaphors: in creation light is separated from darkness.131 Jesus is described as the light of the world, who overcomes the darkness.132 This metaphor can be easily applied to counseling; darkness cannot last long when the light of Christ is shone.133 It may 121 As suggested by Hiebert and Moreau in the preceding discussion. 122 Luke 10.19. 123 1 Peter 5.9; Eph. 6.13. 124 Ezekiel 34.1-16; Mt. 18.12; Jn 10.1-16. This model also relates to spatial metaphors. 125 John 1.5; 3.19; 8.12; 12.46; Rom. 13.12; Eph. 5.8; 1 Pet. 2.9; 1 Jn 1.5; 2.8. 126 Matthew 4.16; Lk. 1.79; Jn 8.12. 127 John 3.19; 2 Cor. 6.14; 1 Jn 2.9, 11. 128 2 Corinthians 6.14, 15; Eph. 6.12. 129 Acts 26.18. 130 Colossians 1.13; 1 Pet. 2.9; Rom. 13.12. 131 Genesis 1.3. 132 John 1.5, 9; 3.19, 20; 9.5; 11.9; 12.46. 133 A patient of mine refers to the demons that afflict her as ‘dark things’ and readily understands the encouragement to ‘stay in the light’.

296

E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

also encourage personal responsibility if an afflicted person is encouraged to turn from darkness to light, and believe the truth of Christ not the lies of the enemy. Dark/light imagery, like warfare imagery, has the potential to be dualistic but can be modified through incorporating shades of gray. Other possible metaphors that can be applied to demonology and deliverance include clothing (as the Gerasene demoniac was clothed after being rendered naked by demons, in our ministry we could disrobe evil spirits and clothe the naked with love, compassion, kindness, humility, and patience),134 body imagery (like white blood cells that continually eliminate viruses from our bodies and antibiotic medication that heals infections, we can deal with demons by maintaining spiritual health and being alert for the need for ‘medication’ such as prayer and counseling), and astrophysics (evil spirits can be described as force fields and compared with dark matter and black holes).135 Indeed, many metaphors can be combined as there is often overlap among them. Depending on a particular ministry situation, one metaphor may be more appropriate at any one time. The above metaphors all have potential to be further developed as alternatives to ‘spiritual warfare’. 4. Conclusions

Despite widespread interest in ‘spiritual warfare’ and critiques of its practice, Pentecostal theology has been somewhat uncritical of the term itself. Warfare language has been so overused that it likely has become a dead metaphor, or a part of conventional language. The consequences of this may be summarized as follows: By viewing the Bible through a ‘warfare’ lens, certain passages may be elevated at the expense of others, with alternative interpretations and metaphors being missed; there is an emphasis on the divine warrior image with a consequent neglect of the role of Christ and the Spirit; there is a potential for excessive dualism with concomitant increased demonological ontology and diminished divine sovereignty; the emphasis on military images has potential to endorse violence and fear; and there is a lack of alternative metaphors for use in counseling contexts. Despite the difficulties with warfare imagery, this model may

134 Luke 8.27, 35; Col. 2.15; 3:12, 13. 135 Amos Yong describes the demonic as ‘force fields that neutralize the presence of the Holy Spirit’ (Discerning the Spirit(s) [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000], p. 240); cf. n. 95.



E.J. Warren / Journal of Pentecostal Theology 21 (2012) 278–297

297

still be appropriate in certain cultural contexts. However, it is important to recognize that ‘spiritual warfare’ is one metaphor/model among others. Critiquing the ‘spiritual warfare’ literature through the lens of metaphor theory not only elucidates some of the problems associated with warfare imagery, but also offers fresh approaches to the difficult topic of evil and deliverance. It is time that we appropriated some other biblical metaphors that can help with the conceptualization of evil spirits. Non-warfare language may provide insight into the nature of evil (perhaps being less real, chaotic, disorderly, and parasitic on human sin) as well as emphasizing the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of Christians. We need to recognize that ‘spiritual warfare’ is but one model; the development of new models that incorporate non-warfare imagery is essential. Alternative models may be less dualistic, more Trinitarian, minimize the ontology of evil spirits, better incorporate human responsibility and authority over evil, and be more applicable to pastoral care. The Bible is so rich in imagery, symbol, and metaphor that it is wasteful and perhaps irresponsible not to employ as many metaphors as possible for use in ministry as well as to broaden and enrich our understanding of the difficult subjects of demonology and deliverance (in contrast to Wagner who claims that we are obliged to use warfare metaphors). Demonology and deliverance remain important topics for Pentecostal theology, and further study is needed not only to develop alternate models, but to evaluate their cross-cultural applicability and value. A new framework can also aid our ministries to those afflicted by evil spirits. We do not require weapons but faith and confidence in the authority we have been given. We do not need to engage in ‘hand-to-hand’ combat with demons, but need to place clear boundaries on their activity. We do not need to conceive of evil spirits as operating like a military organization with a battle plan but can conceive of them as chaotic, disorderly, and parasitic on humans. We do not need to consider ourselves holy warriors, but obedient servants who continue Jesus’ ministry of cleansing and healing. Our ministry to people afflicted by evil spirits should be not by might, nor power, but by the Spirit of the Lord.

Copyright of Journal of Pentecostal Theology is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.