Robert Gagnon has responded to my article on empires and demons where I engaged with his position on the current US political scene. His thesis in his title is:
“The Fact That Satan Rules This World Does Not Make All Political Parties Demonic in a Specialized Sense”
He opens, responding to my article and a Facebook post by John Stevens by saying:
“The argument made in the online critique can be boiled down to this: One can’t say that, while both parties are non-Christian, only one is demonic because all unbelievers and all empires belong to the kingdom of Satan.”
It is worth noting two things. First, I’m encouraged that Gagnon has begun to refine his position and that should hopefully be the benefit of any critique or debate. His refined position that we might want to talk about some parties and some people as demonic in a more specialised sense is worthy of attention in its own right. However, secondly, Gagnon has presumed my position on the thesis because the argument I made in my critique was not the one he suggests. In fact, my view is that we can see degrees of enemy influence of lives and institutions. For example, I am on the record as arguing that there may be times when we might concludes that we could not vote in good conscience for one party. In 2017 I could not in good conscience vote for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour. In 2019 I concluded that I could not vote for any of the options placed in front of me. In 2024 I concluded that it would be possible to vote for either of the main options but concluded that on balance one was better (or less worse?) than the other. So, I fully understand that people in the United States may have been through the same kind of dilemma.
It is important therefore to note what I was arguing in my article as well as what I wasn’t. In that article, I limited myself to questions about the argument underpinning Gagnon’s conclusion. Specifically, Gagnon had argued:
- We do not consider al individuals demonic or Satanic, rather we consider them to be imperfect human beings. Similarly we can think the same way about states and parties.
- Scripture does not consider all Empires to be Satanic/demonic.
It’s worth also remembering that “Satanic”/”Demonic” is Gagnon’s choice of language. My response to Gagnon was to show first of all that we, and more importantly Scripture does talk in terms of unbelievers being under the rule of Satan. Secondly that Scripture doesn’t make the distinction he suggests between Satanic kingdoms and those that are just imperfect.
Does Scripture allow for different degrees of wickedness? Yes it does. Does it give stronger condemnation of some than others, yes. Is it possible that either the Democrats or the Republicans posed a greater danger in 2024? Of course so. I may disagree and conclude that they posed an equal danger but I accept that people may differ with me on that just as many of my brothers and sisters here disagreed with me from both sides in 2019.
Having read through Gagnon’s response, I’m not convinced that he does answer my challenges and so nor am I convinced that he has sufficiently refined his argument. Let’s just run through the arguments he makes from Scripture.
Individuals
Gagnon says:
“The writers of the Bible can speak both in this general sense and a more specific sense in which some are thoroughly given over to Satan. Thus, in a general sense, Paul can speak of handing over the incestuous man to Satan when he is removed from any association with the assembly (church) of believers (1 Cor 5:5; similarly, 1 Tim 1:20), outside the sphere of safety of the church on whose “doorposts” are the blood of the Lamb.”
In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul deals with the issue of public, serious sin in the local church. The person prior to church discipline is assumed to belong to God’s kingdom, however, his sin raises questions about the truth of this. So, he is to be “handed over to Satan”, in effect returned back to the kingdom that the fruit of his life indicates he belongs to. This fits with my previous arguments. **
Gagnon then goes on to give a number of examples of individuals including:
Paul calls the magician Elymas who tried to turn the proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, from the faith, a “son of the devil,” an “enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy,” that is, as a particularly evil unbeliever (Acts 13:8-10). Paul calls the “false apostles” invading the Corinthian church ministers or servants (diakonoi) of Satan (2 Cor 11:13-15). Jews in Smyrna and Philadelphia in western Turkey who denounce Christians before pagan authorities are called “synagogues of Satan” (Rev 2:9; 3:9). Pergamum is called the place “where Satan’s throne is” because it is a center of the imperial cult in the Roman province of Asia (Rev 2:13)
The question is whether these are self-evidently examples of being “Satanic” in a more specialised sense. I don’t believe that the evidence is there in the text, rather, Gagnon has overlayed his distinction onto the text. That Paul identifies the man caught in sin as one to be handed over to Satan and that Ephesians 2:1-3 uses the language of being dead, following Satan (the ruler of the kingdom of the air,” (note that he is “the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient”, gratifying the flesh and worthy of wrath, I struggle to see a distinction between how those outside of Christ are described generally and these supposed examples of a more specific sense.
There are examples that we would recognise as a specific sense of demonisation, and in that sense Satanic in personal contexts. Those are the ones that we use the language of “demon possessed to describe. As Gagnon says:
While the NT places all non-Christians under the rule of Satan, it still maintains distinctions. The demon-possessed or demoniacs can be distinguished from the rest of the unbelieving population. Satan enters into the heart of Judas, who is viewed as particularly evil (John 13:27), as also Ananias for lying to the Holy Spirit about money from sold land (Acts 5:3).
This is crucial because it is in those cases that we can observe the distinctions between such “demoniacs” and both those who Gagnon identifies as examples of being demonic in a generalised way and those identified as demonic in a specialised way. In the latter examples, the response to such people is to rebuke and oppose them. In the former examples, the response is to cast the demon out.
We would need to pay attention to those examples to see if they are fitting analogies for how Gagnon perceives certain institutions.
Empires
Gagnon then picks up on the example I referred to in my previous article where Daniel refers to “the prince of Persia”. It is interesting to note that Gagnon refers to 2nd Isaiah and then insists that “Most scholars rightly date Daniel 7-12 to about 166-165 B.C. in connection with the persecution of the Greek Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV who attempted to outlaw Judaism.” I’m not sure whether there is a current survey of what “most scholars” think or how 2most scholars” are identified and quantified. However, it is worth remembering that this dating of Daniel and assumption of three Isaiahs has not always been held throughout history and is significantly contested today. There are very good reasons for insisting that those dating the book of Daniel late and so separating the author of the prophecy from the historical figure taken into exile are not doing so “rightly.”[1] We might also note that there has been sig nificant discussion about the exact dating of Revelation too and therefore with it debate about which specific emperors are identified. One of my questions for Gagnon is, given he makes reference to dating, to what extent his argument depends on that dating?
Turning to the meat of Gagnon’s point, he goes on:
“In “Second Isaiah” (chs. 40-55) written just before Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon, the (Lord) speaks of Cyrus as Yahweh’s “shepherd” and “anointed one (māshîaḥ).” He is Yahweh’s instrument in accomplishing his purposes on behalf of Israel (returning the exiles to rebuild Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple). Yes, he is a pagan ruler, but at least an enlightened one, comparatively speaking. The prophet hopes that his prophecy will help Cyrus to realize that it is Yahweh who goes before him to direct his movements and give him victory; and that Yahweh alone is God.”
His suggestion that “the prophet” is hoping to enlighten and influence Cyrus is speculative and does not fit with how Biblical prophecy tends to function. We need to think about who the intended audience of the prophecy is. The answer is that whether, like Gagnon you assume multiple authors contemporary with the events they talk about or as significant OT scholarship continues to accept that there was one Isaiah prophesying circa 700, that the intended audience is not Cyrus but God’s people, whether those living before, during or after the exile and including God’s people today.
To suggest that Cyrus is particularly enlightened is to read more into the text than is there. Indeed, historical studies suggest that Cyrus’’ treatment of the Jews reflected a wider policy. It is Scripture that interprets that as God working through Cyrus. The point being that Cyrus needed to be no more conscious of God’s purpose and Law than did Balaam’s donkey.
Gagnon continues:
In a general sense, so long as Cyrus worships other gods, we can view his kingdom as being under the rule of Satan (though the prophet would not have used that terminology). The prophet did not confuse the Persian kingdom with the future Kingdom of God. But he did recognize that, relative to Assyria and Babylon, it was a benign and generous pagan authority, and thus not a particularly “demonic” or “satanic” kingdom.
Again, there is nothing to suggest in Scripture or in historical studies that Cyrus was particularly benign or enlightened. Remember that various figures in the Old Testament were capable of treating God’s people well whilst under the protection including the Pharoah of Jospeh’s day, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius and Ahasuerus. For Cyrus to be recongised as chosen by God to fulfil a purpose does not distinguish him from the Assyrians or Babylonians who also are very clearly raised up by God according to Scripture to fulfil his purposes concerning his people. What distinguishes them is that God uses others to judge, discipline, punish his people whereas Cyrus is used as an instrument of blessing.
In a frankly disturbing section, Gagnon says:
Pagan governments that are not especially and thoroughly controlled by Satan are addressed in Romans 13:1-7 as “a servant of God to you for the good.” I doubt Paul would have worded matters quite that way after Nero had Christians burned alive. His approach would have been more like that of the author of Daniel 7-12 or John of Patmos in the Book of Revelation. Such regimes have abandoned any semblance of justice. Governments or political parties can be both used by God to promote the good and “beastly,” given to the “pursuit of Satan’s agenda.” But some governments or political parties are so evil in their main idols that they deserve the epithet “demonic” or “satanic” in a special sense.
Paul does not make the distinctions that Gagnon does when writing Romans 13. It is worth remembering that 1 Peter 2 offers similar instructions without exceptions again. Indeed, when moving to the more localised relationships of slaves and masters, Peter says to submit even to harsh masters. Gagnon therefore speculates as to whether Paul would have spoken differently later. Yet surely, Paul, the apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit was able to write and foresee future eventualities not least given that Jesus himself had already predicted the future.
Gagnon’s position here raises practical ethical questions for today. I noted during COVID that there was a move to restrict the application of Romans 13 to the point where it in effect became “obey the authorities providing you consider them to be legitimate authorities aligning with your ideology.” How would Gagnon respond to such an approach? Would he support it? If not how would he guard against such an application?
In short, I find that Gagnon’s attempts to argue a Scriptural basis for his position remain at best deeply unconvincing. Again, it is important to clarify what I am and am not saying here. Specifically, I don’t agree with his reasoning, it is weak and without Scriptural warrant. I do agree that there can be degrees to which people and institutions align more to the kingsom of the World than to Christ. I don’t agree with Gagnon’s specific conclusions. My reasons for the latter are probably best outlined separately.
However, before I close, I think there is one specific concern that many of us have with how Gagnon has framed the decision. There are a whole host of things that we see happening now that go against God’s Word and God’s way. Gagnon however singles out two specific issues and suggests that these make the Democratic Party demonic or Satanic. Why those particular issues? And further, given he wants us to align how we speak of states and institutions with how we speak of individuals, what then are the implications for individuals. Are specific people demonised (literally) because they are prone to one of those two areas of temptation? This does not seem to be how Scripture speaks of people and has significant pastoral and evangelistic implications.
[1] See Can I trust the Bible – a case study (Daniel) – Faithroots for a brief explanation of the issues.
Gagnon’s article is here <a href=”http://<iframe src=”https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Frobert.a.gagnon.56%2Fposts%2Fpfbid02D7ySUVWBdir4WZsHQPvZBhRmJLRi4A2QLX7JwXzWCLWcuJqi7BGzoU6MEvf7TWkAl&show_text=true&width=500″ width=”500″ height=”310″ style=”border:none;overflow:hidden” scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”true” allow=”autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share”>
** In my original comment here I missed the words “general sense” in Gagnon’s paragraph as I was admittedly expecting him to offer an example of the general sense at this point.
Faithroots 