New Dimensions in the Study of Angels and Demons

Robert V. Rakestraw, Ph.D., Professor of Theology

Bethel 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.