US Scholar Robert Gagnon has engaged with John Stevens (FIEC) in a facebook post on this issue. He writes:
“Yes, John Stevens and Fellow British Evangelicals: There Is Only One Political Party in America That Deserves the Label Satanic (and It’s Not the Republican Party)
Robert Gagnon
Only just now seeing that John Stevens, National Director of Britain’s Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), really took some swipes at my political position; namely, that today’s Republican and Democratic Parties are both non-Christian but only one is satanic. Here is my response to him:
John, I just now read your whole post promoting Preston Sprinkle’s book *Exiles*. You made a fairly obvious jab at me and my alleged “foolishness” and “superficial” and “sub-biblical analysis.”
This is in response to a review of Presten Sprinkle’s new book Exiles. Gagnon quotes John’s review as follows:
His [Preston’s] central thesis is that all Empire is ultimately a manifestation of Babylon, and reflects the world under the rule of Satan. This does not mean that every aspect of the Empire is as evil as it might be. In God’s providence, he sovereignly rules over Empires and uses them for his purposes in history. However, it does expose the foolishness of some evangelicals, who label the Democrats as demonic and Trump/Republicans as only non-Christian. Such a superficial analysis is sub-biblical
Gagnon’s own position is that yes, there is something demonic about the current Democratic Party’s position. He also argues that we can recognise all political parties as imperfect without arguing that they are Satantic
“By the same token, we don’t say that because all human beings remain imperfect this side of the eschaton that all human beings are satanic because there are “satanic/demonic elements in” every human being’s sins. There is a difference between being controlled by Satan and being an imperfect human being.”
The illustration he offers is fascinating because actually we do tend to talk in those terms, First, remember that Reformed Theology talks in terms of Total Depravitry to emphasise the extensive impact of sin on human life outside of Schrist. Second, consider how Jesus identifies his opponents as children of Satan because he is the Father of Lies. Third, consider how we understand those outside of Christ to belong to another kingdom, not the kingdom of God but the kingdom of Sin, Satan and death. As Paul writes in Ephesians 2:1-3:
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
Scripture does not suggest that we are just imperfect human beings. Scripture disagrees with Gagnon here.
Secondly, Gagnon argues that
Not Every Empire Is Viewed in the Bible as Satanic
You [Stevens]and Preston seem not to realize that Babylon and the reuse of that image in Dan 7-12 and the Book of Revelation all apply not to any empire but an empire that attacks the people of God in a particularly virulent way. Only the Democratic Party qualifies for that position in the US.
Caligula’s, Nero’s (after he went nutty with persecuting Christians), and Domitian’s governments were demonic in ways that the rest of Roman rule, while pagan, was not. The same applies to Antiochus Epiphanes IV rule just preceding the Maccabean Revolt. (The position taken toward pagan governments is very different in Daniel 1-6 from Daniel 7-12. In the latter only does it become satanic.) Only these truly wicked governments were associated with demonic forces. Otherwise, the approach taken toward secular governments is like that in Romans 13:1-7: the authority “is a servant of God to you for the good.”
The Persian Empire under Cyrus is not viewed by “Second Isaiah” at all as demonic, but rather refers to Cyrus as Yahweh’s “anointed one” because he was God’s instrument in defeating Babylon and returning Israel back to Canaan. This is a very different kind of figure than those I mention in the paragraph above. Far from perfect but also not treated as the direct tool of the dragon Satan. You are running roughshod over these distinctions.
Gagnon is presuming a specific interpretation of apocalyptic literature including the book of Revelation here. However, that interpretation is open to challenge. Sprinkle and Stevens’ interpretation is not unique to them and is legitimate. In fact, I would argue that it provides the best fit with the whole of Revelation, the book of Daniel and wider scripture. What we see in those Bible books are examples of focused critiques of specific empires which serve to point to the typicality of powers and authorities throughout history. The way in which Cyrus is presented as God’s man is a good example of how these empires can be both beastly, marked out by their pursuit of Satan’s agenda and instruments used by God. Romans 13 and Revelation give us two perspectives on the same thing. Romans 13 is in fact not removed or exempted during the worst times of the Roman Empire).
As for how Scripture regards Persia under Cyrus, observe these words from Daniel 10:13. The context is that Cyrus was emperor at that time.
“12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.””
An angelic being is resisted to the point where additional angelic aid is provided. He is resisted by one known as “the prince of Persia.” This is usually considered to be a demonic power. Even if it were a reference to the king himself, this would present Cyrus as in direct resistance to God’s purposes. Again, Scripture disagrees with Gagnon.
Gagnon goes on to insist that it is possible not to regard the Republican Party as demonic without being idolatrous. This is of course true and no one is challenging that position. What has concerned many people has been the way in which some seem to have thrown their hope in with Trump and been willing not only to overlook the concerns that others had but even to advocate for him. It is that which risks idolatry and that idolatry can be invested in any political party. Indee, those of us who have said that we cannot vote for any party in our context may also risk making an idolatry out of our neutrality.
As I’ve noted above, Scripture disagrees with Gagnon’s position. I hope that he will take the opportunity to reflect and revisit his arguments.
Faithroots 