Everything I wrote yesterday about the demonic and Satan sounds all well and good -- odd, for sure, in that I take spiritual warfare seriously, but do so only as a way of re-enchanting and reconnecting the physical with the spiritual. And, let's admit it: That's different in lots of Christian circles these days.
But, even if it all sounds oddly reasonable, there's still a looming question: It's all well and good to align "the principalities and powers" with human (generally political) power structures, but how does this account fit with the gospel narratives where Jesus appears to encounter evil spirits inside of people?
In keeping my sketchy-note theme, let me lay out some ideas here. This isn't meant to be a full-blown book-length theology of the demonic or spiritual warfare. (I'm tempted to pull together lots of different, scattered posts here into just such a work. If you think it'll sell, let me know. I still may do it.) But it will lay out enough so you can start connecting the dots and think seriously about all this in fresh and faithful ways.
Let's bring the topic into view with two of the paradigmatic accounts about Jesus and demons: Mark 9.15-19 and Mark 5.1-15. If you're not familiar with those narratives, go read them and come back; I'll wait.
Here's what strikes me about these stories.
1. It's true that the analysis of the demons I've offered struggles to make sense of these stories. But I also want to quickly point out that those who claim to be reading these stories literally are also engaged in a misreading.
And here's how that misreading plays out: Most Christians who believe in literal demons and demonic possession tend to frame the issue in moral terms. Demons tempt us or cause us to do immoral things. Demonic possession is seen as being filled with evil intent. The whole demon frame is a moral one.
But that's not how the stories read. Demons aren't a moral problem. Demons in the gospels are usually medical problems.
That's how most ancient cultures viewed epilepsy or schizophrenia. Consider a few things in the text that are absent from most church talk about demons:
There is nothing particularly immoral, evil or "satantic" about any of this. In short, the gospel demon accounts aren't about good versus evil. The demons are "afflictions" that can have an onset in childhood and last into adulthood. And these afflictions seem very similar, from a purely symptomatic stance, to many modern medical or mental conditions.
- The demon afflicts people "from childhood".
- The demon makes people mute.
- The demon causes seizures.
- The demon causes a person to run around naked.
- The demon causes a person to scream and cut oneself.
So should we read these stories as pure psychological perspectives from the ancient world? That's certainly one respectable way to go.
But, going back to how I depicted the demonic yesterday -- as powers that blend the physical and spiritual in finishing human life -- there's a way of reading these narratives that don't fully demythologize them (in the Bultmannian sense).
I read these stories as Jesus' eschatological power breaking-in against forces that diminish and dehumanize real human lives. These stories show Jesus' power over the ailments found in the Fall. Jesus calms storms, raises the dead, gives sight to the blind and restores sanity to the insane. Jesus heals creation, the body and the mind.
2. But, some might legitimately counter, Jesus actually has conversations with these demons. And these demons seem to go into a herd of pigs. Surely that can't be explained by an appeal to schizophrenia?
Sure enough. But I want to make a point about the "Frank Peretti Problem". When I hear folks in churches going on about being attacked by "demons", they aren't talking about something that looks like the Gerasene demoniac or the mute boy. We don't see naked, insane people running around or people mute from childhood who have seizures. What we tend to hear about is the Frank Peretti model where demons are a shorthand for sin and evil impulses. Which is fine, you just aren't describing the gospel accounts, either.
In short, I admit I don't have all the answers. I still have to struggle with these texts. But so-called Literalists don't get off this ride so easy, either. Literalists usually aren't really fully literal. Both of us have difficultly accommodating the gospel accounts. I imagine this is because the world of the gospels is so very different from our own.
3. That puts us in an odd place. In the end, I think that's because the issue will always come down to a hermeneutical one. We inhabit the world as we narrate it. In the end, I expect people will drift toward formulations that fit how they see things -- biblically, metaphysically and experientially.
Which is why, ultimately, my primary claim is about living in an enchanted world where God is closer to us than our very breath. Where God is active in a world that is driven by disobedient powers, toward death and chaos. Where such powers often conspire together to dehumanize and destroy. Powers that are still being overcome by God's activity in Jesus through the power of the Spirit.
Is that a vision that will always struggle with the Bible? You bet! But it is compelling to me for lots of reasons. So I'm confident, even while I'm open to the Spirit's leading.