Part Two: Knowing Who Your Enemy Is

Part Two: Knowing Who Your Enemy Is

Posted on 03. Feb, 2010 by Tim Stoner in Christian Life, Essays

As Peter Kreeft told the audience at Calvin College 10 years ago, if a soldier expects to win, he or she must know there is a war and who the enemy is. I was raised to believe that my enemy was Hollywood movies, alcohol, cards, cigarettes and dancing. I grew up convinced that if I took a drink I would be on the slippery slope to Hell. But, there were religious enemies as well. I was sure that Catholics were our mortal foes as most likely were the Presbyterians, Methodists and of course Lutherans with their strange views of the Lord’s Supper and infant baptism, and their peculiar penchant for beer drinking.

While most of us may have realized our mistake on those points, there are still many who would claim that culture is the enemy. Some inveigh against rock music or rap. Some argue strenuously that it is socialism, the abortionists, homosexuals, or left-wing liberals we are called to eradicate. Others, on the other end of the continuum, maintain just as passionately that our enemy is capitalism, the military industrial complex, or the vast right-wing conspiracy of greed and corruption. 

Most Bible teachers still agree that Israel typifies the church—the new nation birthed through the victory of Jesus, the new Moses. When you read the description of how the Jews camped and trekked through the desert you are confronted with an undeniable reality: this is not a snapshot of a mass movement of shepherds and harmless nomads. What is being described is the strategic deployment of an invasion force of 600,000 warriors–shock troops organized into 12 divisions (tribes), and hundreds of regiments (families), each with their own distinctive militant banners (Num. 1:52).

Historic Israel was comprised of an army of fighting men who brought their families along to watch the battles. When a census was taken of those over-20 (those old enough to be conscripted) each tribe is referred to as a “division,” that word is most commonly translated “army.” We might properly translate them as regiments. And when they broke camp Moses blew a trumpet blast and, standing at the head of the troops, with their families in tow, he would shout out, “Rise up O Lord! May your enemies be scattered; may your foes flee before you!” (Num. 10:35) Israel’s national paradigm was that of warfare: adversaries, battles and conquest.

The people of God had concrete, geographical, political foes. God’s command was stark and specific: invade the land of Canaan and defeat seven nations that were in possession of the territory.  These nation states had territory, boundaries and kings, and had armies that were “larger and stronger” than theirs (Dt. 7:1). Nonetheless, their marching orders were as follows: “When the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally” (Dt. 7:2).

The rules of engagement were brutal. The Jewish troops were not to “leave anything alive that breathes” (Dt. 20:16). This was understood to include men, women, children and animals (Jos. 6:21). The eradication of life was to be total. There is no way to sanitize this picture. Our forefathers were a terrifying amalgamation of extreme violence and passionate devotion. Shockingly, they resemble Jihadists much more than the average western Christian.   

And they also wrote songs about their love for Jehovah and their hatred for their (and God’s enemies). We know this collection of poems as the book of Psalms—the prayer/song book of the church. If you listen to them carefully, you can’t help but notice that they read like more like entries from the journal of a commando unit than a collection of spiritual sonnets. Because they are written from the perspective of embattled soldiers, the characters that dominate the writers’ attention are “enemy, adversary, or foe.” These are referred to over 130 times, almost once in every poem.

The psalmists were clear, they were at war and were consistently harassed by enemies within and without; those far off an others right around the corner. Our Jewish forefathers had no difficulty identifying the opposition. They were the Gentile nations, cruel oppressors, unjust leaders, or lying and deceptive acquaintances bent on tearing them down to nothing. Every day they woke up in a battle field. One of their most frequent complaints is that they are surrounded by those who despise them. Over 50 times they cry out that they are encircled by the hateful and cruel intent on doing them serious harm.   

It is no stretch to argue that the new people of God, birthed out of this militant stock contains the same genetic code and exists for similar purposes as its ancestors. The Old Testament nation foreshadows its New Testament fulfillment. It would be exceedingly odd if the type were the polar opposite of its antitype. As C.S. Lewis notes in Mere Christianity, “Christianity is a fighting religion” not a war between independent powers, but a civil war, a rebellion.“Enemy-occupied territory—that is what this world is.”

So who is our enemy? Kreeft’s answer is surprising and perhaps shocking for us in the grip of a materialistic postmodernity. It is the same one that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the others give—Satan and his demons. To paraphrase St. Paul, our war is not against people or their works it is against Satan and all his hosts. He uses people but that does not make them enemy—it makes them victims. So we do not wrestle against the ACLU, homosexuals, or atheistic physicists, we fight against Satan who has taken people captive through powerful lies. The enemy is personal and spiritual: “rulers, authorities, personal powers of this dark world, and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12).  

Jesus knew this as did His followers–for most of their history. Except for the past 100 years when we seem to be bent on forgetting it.

Before Jesus begins His public ministry He has a 40-day confrontation with Satan at the end of which He cries out: “Away from me Satan!” (Mt. 4:10). In the parable of the four soils Satan is the enemy who steals the word (Mk. 4:15). Jesus rebukes Peter for siding with Satan in his attempt to convince Jesus to evade the Cross (Mk. 8:13). And Satan is the one who inspires Judas to treason (Lk. 13:27). Before leaving His friends, some ancient manuscripts have Him granting them authority to “overcome all the power of the enemy” (Lk. 10:19). He wants them to understand an important distinction, the enemy is not the weeds in the field (human opposition) but Satan—“the evil one.” The troublesome plants that spring up are merely “sons of the evil one (Mt. 13:38-39).  

Though Jesus was opposed by religious and cultural leaders, He never classified them as enemy. He saw through their sneers and snarls to the puppet master, Satan (who was in control of the world system) who was using them for his own ends (I Jn. 5:19). It was clear to Him that behind their jealousy was the serpent at war with the Seed of the woman, manipulating them like pawns in his murderous end game (Gen. 3:15). This is why He instructed His followers to flip the old adage upside down, and rather than loving neighbor and hating enemy, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt. 5:43-44). A few decades later Paul would elaborate on this by warning Timothy not to argue down his opponents, but “gently instruct” them in the hopes that they would “escape from the trap of the devil” (II Tim. 2:23-26).    

Whereas the Jews battled foreign armies and conquered nations, the church’s battles are essentially played out in the spiritual realm. Our enemy Satan, like a ravenous lion, seeks every opportunity to devour us (I Pet. 5:8). Our war, therefore, is not so much outside but inside, not so much in front but around. There is an oppositional defiance disorder in the cosmos and its epicenter runs right through our own hearts. It is a rebellion headed by an invisible and very powerful, evil personality. Peter, the lead disciple, unashamedly identifies him as the devil whom we are commanded to forcefully resist (I Pet. 5:9).

Peter clarifies that while the head of the opposition is outside of us, the crucial battleground is within. Hence, he admonishes believers to “abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul” (I Pet. 2:11). Paul corroborates this by stating that the desires of our sinful nature are contrary to the desires of the Spirit. “These are entrenched in an attitude of mutual opposition to one another” (Gal. 5:17, Wuest translation).

We are at war with much more insidious (and powerful) foes than Hollywood producers, alternative lifestyle propagandists, and proponents of abortion on demand. Our enemy would love to continue to hide behind their thick, distracting smoke screen. He wants us to expend our energies lobbying, marching, politicking and inveighing against his victims, for what he really fears is God’s people aiming weapons in his direction with real power to do serious damage to his power base (II Cor. 10:3-4).

Satan is very sly, which is why he wants us to feel so awkward admitting to a belief in the existence of malevolent, spiritual entities. He would rather have us hold conferences in which the enemy is boldly identified as poverty, lack of education, unfair trade, lack of water, or injustice. These are not unimportant, but they can be strategic distractions. He is not overly concerned if we focus primarily on ideologies, structures or activities, be it beer-drinking, gambling, or the Iraq War, for that matter. As long as he remains incognito and we fight with the weapons of this world, he has no substantive worries.

His efforts on this front have been terribly successful, especially of late. In fact he may have finally accomplished his greatest feat. In the post-Christian, neo-pagan West has risen that creature C.S. Lewis dreaded and Wormwood’s uncle yearned for in Screwtape Letters—“Materialist Magicians.” These are those who believe in the life force, universal energy, even spirit guides, yet adamantly reject the existence of Satan and personal, evil beings. They place confidence in the power of concentrated thoughts, even in the impact of occult spells, but these all have been so mythologized–“spiritualized” that they have lost all conscious connection to Satan and his forces.

Due to Satan’s alarming victory it is imperative that we not only unmask our enemy but identify the weapons at our disposal. But, more importantly, take them up and use them

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Part Two: Knowing Who Your Enemy Is”

  1. Chris Thompson

    09. Feb, 2010

    I wish i had read this before I wrote that long letter I sent you…it has touched upon some related thoughts I need to consider. I agree with your emphasis on the primacy of the internal war, of course, but I think your distinction goes one short step beyond mine.
    For, if the “sons of the evil one” cannot become the enemy to some degree, why did God instruct the Israelites to obliterate their adversaries? Perhaps it was merely a need for purifying what was hopelessly corrupt, perhaps it was simply a display of God’s justice…still, does it not seem as if these human Philistines, for example, were in fact the people of God’s enemies? It would seem like David certainly saw Goliath as such…
    Yes, that was all Old Testament, and you make a sharp division between then and now. But was not the true war the same even then? If our war today is against powers and principalities–as it has always been–are there not many cases when those led by the age-old Enemy are in fact the enemies of Good, and must be fought against? Many Christian thinkers, from the Patristics down, have sanctioned such warfare.
    Even if our true war takes place in the spiritual realm, it seems it often washes over into the physical realm, much as modern warfare often affects civilian areas. When demons use human shields, what then?
    Also (and this will be my last point, don’t worry) what of those who, though decieved, have nevertheless willfully joined the Enemy’s camp? Not just the killers such as Hitler and Charles Manson, but men such as Nietzche who try to “kill” God? can a mortal go from being merely a decieved puppet to a willful ally?

  2. Tim Stoner

    09. Feb, 2010

    I think it would stand us in good stead in discussions about warfare, if we agree to make a sharp distinction between two things: 1. the battles conducted in obedience to divine command by a theocratic nation and those of our own day, and 2. between the terms “spiritual enemy” and “perceived political enemy.”

    When you import Just War theory into the Bible, particularly the OT, which is so much more overt about bloody battles, one begins teetering on the razor’s edge of idolatrous nationalism. That is the teaching (I am not averse to labeling it a doctrine of demons) that excites the Catholic warrior monks during the Crusades to slaughter Mohammedans by the thousands; that justifies the Serbian Christians’ slaughter of Muslim Croats or Albanians; that allows good German Lutherans to join the Nazi forces as they invade Poland, and the rest of Europe to reclaim the Aryan hegemony; and also convinces fundamentalist sons to enlist in their country’s battles against atheistic communists (and causes them to burst with righteous indignation as they lustily shout the slogan: “Better dead than Red!”

    Though I love the Church Fathers, and intend to spend the next phase of my life delving more and more deeply into their writings, I don’t think Paul’s warfare rhetoric should be bent into a biblical prop for armed confrontations between political entities justified in the name of National Interest. One must remember that the post-Constantinian church, did an about-face with regards to violence. Instead of submitting humbly to the spear and sword and suffering martyrdom gladly, it now embraced its coercive power as an instrument of God’s vengeance. This will mess big time with your hermeneutic. That way leads a triumphalistic, dominion theology. While I do not disagree that on occasion there are nationally-recognized justifiable wars, like WWII, they are to be sanctioned on grounds other than the battles conducted by a theocratic nation or the apostolic injunctions about spiritual warfare.

    The question whether people can be so taken over by demons that they are relegated into the category of non-persons (image and likeness of God utterly erased) and can thus be demonized as enemy, is a good one. The only example we have is Jesus and the Gadarene demoniac. While he (they?) had not killed anyone they were maniacally violent and were apparently also thoroughly demonized. Jesus rebuked the demons, not the demoniac, he expelled the demons, and then converted the human when he was restored to his right mind. The ex-demonized man then became a disciple. Someone who is a murderer (even though as demonically empowered as Hitler) is not to be killed because he has become enemy but because he has violated God’s law regarding the preciousness and unique value of human life. While humans can do the enemy’s work (become allies of Satan) and may oppose us (God) violently, God alone retains the jurisdictional authority to label them “enemy” and exercise vengeance on them. The direction we are expressly given is to love them and thereby heap coals of fire on their head, with a prayer that they be brought out of darkness into the light.

    Cheerio,

    Tim

  3. Chris Thompson

    10. Feb, 2010

    First of all, thanks for the email yesterday; I’m still mulling it over, will respond when I feel the time is right.

    Second, I did not mean to sanction armed (i.e. with man-made weapons) opposition to perceived national enemies, and I agree that just wars “are to be sanctioned on grounds other than the battles conducted by a theocratic nation or the apostolic injunctions about spiritual warfare.” I think Augustine gives a good introduction (really, the first rigorous study) of Christian just war theory, but that as he presents it it’s not as polished/removed from the nationalistic as it needs to be. Nationalism is, it seems to me, almost always an unmitigated wrong–whether in the context of modern nation-states, the militarized Christendom of the Crusades (little more than a political ploy by the Pope, in my opinion), or the “Christian” empire of Rome. As an aside, there seems to be a slight complication when Israel is tossed into the mix–being a nation (albeit not necessarily as modern international relations defines it) maintained by God. But that’s a tangent…

    What I mean more than suggesting armed involvement in a “just war,” which is precious rare, is that it seems to me that although our Enemy’s headquarters are in the spiritual realm, he operates in the physical as well…there are human movements, ideals, even (perhaps) individuals who are categorically “on the Enemy’s side.” To see all those who stand in opposition to God’s Way as merely symptomatic, rather than actively involved, seems to be missing how clearly the lines are drawn. after all, James says “Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”

    This is not to obscure the fact that we were all enemies of God at one point–we were rescued nonetheless (almost against our will, suggests my somewhat-Reformed theology), and we ARE to join in the rescue of others. But, in the meantime, human movements of ideology opposed to God’s ideals–whether they have become politicized yet or not–are, I think, to be resisted as the weapons of the Enemy they can be. Such a view does, of course, demand a lot of discernment/wisdom, which has often been lacking historically and is lacking now…but the difficulty of such a view does not preclude its truth. “it is the Lord’s to avenge” but He also “hands them over to us”…it’s a confusing distinction to me, but it suggests that we sometimes play a role in actively resisting people seconded by evil. And by the way, I’m not talking about outright demonic possession, necessarily, though for me I don’t know where to draw the line between “possession” and “influence;” it just seems too simplistic a view to call only the officers of a war one’s enemy–you may pity the front-line man and harbor no bitterness towards him, he may have little choice in the matter…but he is still shooting.

    Sorry, this has become long, as usual. I don’t know if we disagree in much other than semantics…and really, I don’t know what exactly I even think about this. Just sounding out ideas or concerns. And trying, perhaps, to find the right understanding of war in a culture that is either too militaristic or utterly pacifistic…Best wishes,
    Chris

  4. Tim Stoner

    10. Feb, 2010

    I am curious about where the “handing over” language you use comes from. It reminds me of Paul handing the incestuous man over to Satan that he might be brought to repentance, but I can’t imagine that being any help to us in this context. I flirted with pacifism in the 80’s for many of the reasons we are now discussing. I couldn’t be consistently anti-war so had to back off. But this discussion brings those old dilemmas back into the forefront.

    I think that on the pacifist side is the historial evidence of the primitive church’s absolute rejection of the sword. I recall stories of Roman soldiers converting and being martyred for their refusal to fight. I recognize that part of their justification was an anti-idolatrous motivation: “I will not swear allegiance to Caesar” but there also seemed to be a full-orbed repugnance to life-taking, per se. The 6th commandment’s prohibition against murder was understood to be applicable in the context of war.

    So, ancient Judaism supports every war that the nation decides to fight, (even civil war between North-Israel against South-Judah); while Jesus seems to view the use of swords, even in self-defense, as invalid. Paul regards the state’s use of the sword as licit, but does not directly address the propriety of Christians wielding it in the name of the state (except for oblique references to vengeance is to be left in God’s hands and our obligation to treat enemy with the grace God has treated us who were His enemies). Early Christianity took this to be a support for pacifism–no involvement in any war, while post-Constantinian Christianity supports war when external principles of “justice” are met.

    I think this is a fair characterization which does not answer the question but does make one ponder. I wonder about the practical impact of labeling an ideology as “enemy” as we are wont to do, rather than “a doctrine of demons” as Paul does. Is there a qualitative difference in your approach to error/sin/injustice be it structural, ideological, or personal, if you change its label? Paul tells us that while the church is to excommunicate a persistently rebellious brother yet, in doing so, they are not to treat him “as an enemy” (II Th. 3:15). Does this open the door to treating some people as “enemy” (intractable, perverse pagans)? or is he just underlying the fact that the enemy-paradigm is never justified, not even when they are required to expel an immoral person from the embrace of the church (much less when they are being confronted by unbelievers who hate God and His people)?

    The reason these issues matter, I must remind myself, and is not mere sophistry, I think, is because it helps us know how to answer the charges made by vitriolic anti-theists who love to lump Christians in with those other blood-thirsty (and mentally deranged) warriors for God–the radical Islamic fundamentalists.

    Peace,

    Tim

  5. Chris Thompson

    10. Feb, 2010

    I confess, my image of “handing them over comes from the OT: the phrase from such verses as Ex 23:31 and Numbers 21:34 (which I understand are in the context of taking over the Holy Land), but the idea really came from 1 Sam 17:47 “All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.” Mainly, because it seems to embrace the tension between God’s initiative and human involvement. But granted, such cases may be dated, although perhaps you draw a slightly darker line between the Old and New Testaments than I do.

    However, you make a compelling case. I’m not sure how much weight I put into the practices of the early Church…some, definitely, but I find it less of an invocation than some. In small part, b/c it is clear from the NT letters that it was far from perfect, but much more so b/c doctrine, in its creedal form at least, was not developed until after the days of the early Church (one thinks most pointedly about the development of the doctrine of the Trinity–and this is NOT to suggest lack of orthodoxy pre-various Councils, just to suggest a possible lack of expressed maturity in earlier stages of the Church.) Hence the need, in my opinion, for Patristics of some sort, although I admit my knowledge of such things–shaky as it is–pretty much picks up with Jerome and Augustine. And of course much (maybe most?) of what the Church Fathers wrote was wrong…yet (and here’s a poorly-developed point) by the time we get to C. S. Lewis, I feel one theologian (even a layman such as he!) could write with much fuller understanding than, for example, Origen. Which is a hazy reason why I don’t fully but the appeal to the early Church–the Church is the Church, with weaknesses and strengths throughout the ages that are hard to quantify–us being naturally biased by our own age.

    That’s not to disagree with your main point. You use the Word, as well, which is of course unchanging. And, it does make me ponder. but the distinction between “enemy ideology” and “doctrine of demons”…is there possibly a further distinction between the language we use amongst each other and the language we offer the world? I would suggest that the “enemy-paradigm” is in fact justified, narrowly by the James 4:4 verse (which needs a much longer discussion about context), but more generally speaking by the broad characterization of enemy territory found throughout the Bible (and the sense that there are no innocent bystanders…only those submitted to God’s will and those opposing it).
    I’m tempted to air out some ideas about your Islamic fundamentalist comment, but I’ll resist for once.
    But my only point (I think) is that labeling some things/ideas/movement/people as enemies is simple accuracy–where Christianity comes in is how we TREAT those enemies…like Socrates, we try to go back into the Cave and show them a glimpse of what we’ve seen, recognizing all the time it might cost us our lives. Jesus tells us to Love our enemies…not to call them friend, but (it seems to me) to acknowledge with eyes wide open that they are our enemy and love them nonetheless–which may mean opposing them, if they are about to walk off a cliff.

    But that’s why I mentioned semantics in my last response–I’m sure what each of us recommends putting into practice is quite similar. Anyway, that’s it for now (still intending to respond to your email once I get some serious thinking-time in).

    Blessings,
    Chris

  6. Chris Thompson

    10. Feb, 2010

    PS. when i said “much (maybe most?) of what the Church Fathers wrote was wrong,” I meant that most of their writings did not carry–or come to carry–the authority of the Church and/or Word behind them…they may have been accurate to varying degrees, but not authoritative or seminal or fully articulated. My choice of phrasings was poor–I do not know nearly enough of what the Church Fathers wrote to suggest what was wrong or right about their writings (although I’m aware that they did, at times, write conflicting claims).

Leave a Reply