Cultural Views of Spiritual Warfare

WCIU Journal: Worldview Topic

Dr. Ounho, Cho who has been a cross-cultural worker in Delhi,India for 24 years. He planted four churches and still works with his Indian partners in these churches. He earned a PhD in International Development from WCIU in July, 2018.

January 28, 2020

by Ounho, Cho, PhD

Indo–European Myth

The Indo-European myth, as in Hinduism (Hiebert 2000, 117) describes a cosmic spiritual battle between good and evil as fundamental and independent entities. In the worldview of this myth, the battle is for control of the universe. If the wicked king wins, he creates an evil empire in which evil reigns. If the good king conquers evil, he establishes a kingdom of righteousness, justice, peace, love, and harmony. To win, therefore, is everything, but ultimate victory, particularly in the face of apparent defeat, is evidence of who is good and who is evil. The defeated must admit the superiority, and therefore worthiness, of their conqueror (Hiebert, et al. 1999, 272).

Humans are innocent victims caught in the cosmic struggle. The outcome is uncertain for both sides are equally strong. Good and evil here, however, are not defined in absolute moral terms. Good is associated with our people and evil with others. “Our” gods and people occasionally sin and do evil, but they are “good” because they are on our side. Other gods and people do “good,” but they are “evil” because they are against us. Central to this worldview is the myth of redemptive violence. Order can be established only when one side defeats the other in spiritual warfare. Violence is necessary to bring about a better society. To win, therefore, is everything. The focus is on the battle. Conflicts and competition are intrinsic to the world and lead to evolution (biology), progress (civilization), development (economics), and prowess (sports) (Hiebert 2000, 117). It is what people want to see, that many fables end with the words, “and they lived happily ever after.”

Tribal Religions

For most tribal peoples, ancestors, earthly spirits, witchcraft and magic are very real. The people see the earth and sky as full of beings (gods, earthly divinities, ancestors, ghosts, evil shades, humans, animals, and nature spirits) that relate, deceive, terrorize, and battle one another for power and personal gain. These beings are neither totally good nor totally evil. They help those who serve or placate them. They harm those who oppose their wishes or who neglect them or refuse to honor them. Humans must soothe them to avoid terrible disasters.

Spiritual warfare in animistic societies is seen as an ongoing battle between different alliances of beings. For the most part these alliances are based on ethnicity and territory. The battle is not primarily between “good” and “evil,” but between “us” and “them.” The gods, spirits, ancestors, and people of one village or tribe are in constant battle with those of surrounding villages and tribes. When the men of one group defeat those of another, they attribute their success to the power of their gods and spirits. When they are defeated, they blame this on the weakness of their gods and spirits. Conversions to new gods often follow dramatic “power encounters.”

Cosmic Dualism

A third worldview of spiritual warfare is based on a cosmic dualism. This is found in Zoroastrianism, Manicheism, and Hinduism, and in cultures shaped by the Indo- European worldview. In it, mighty gods battle for control of the universe: one side seeking to establish a kingdom of righteousness and order, and the other an evil empire. The outcome is uncertain, for both sides are equally strong, and the battle is unending for when good or evil are defeated they rise to fight again. All reality is divided into two camps: good gods and bad gods, angels and demons, good nations and evil ones, good humans and wicked ones. The line between the two camps is sharp.

Many current Christian interpretations of spiritual warfare are based on a cosmic dualism worldview which sees it a cosmic battle between God and his angels, and Satan and his demons for the control of people and lands. The battle is fought in the heavens, but it ranges over sky and earth. The central question is, can God defeat Satan? Because the outcome is in doubt, intense prayer is necessary to enable God and his angels to gain victory over the demonic powers. In a cosmic dualism worldview, humans are victims of this struggle and even those who turn to Christ are subject to bodily attacks by Satan (Hiebert 2000, 114–24).

Biblical Views of Spiritual Warfare

Warfare is an important metaphor in Scripture and we must take it seriously. Eugene Peterson writes,

There is a spiritual war in progress, an all-out moral battle. There is evil and cruelty, unhappiness and illness. There is superstition and ignorance, brutality and pain. God is in continuous and energetic battle against all of it. God is for life and against death. God is for love and against hate. God is for hope and against despair. God is for heaven and against hell. There is no neutral ground in the universe. Every square foot of space is contested (Peterson 1997, 122–23).

The question is, what is the nature of this battle in biblical terms? One thing is clear, the biblical images of spiritual warfare are radically different from those in the materialistic, dualistic, animistic, and Indo-European myths. For example, in the Old Testament the surrounding nations saw Israel’s defeats as evidence that their gods were more powerful, but the Old Testament writers are clear—Israel’s defeats are not at the hand of pagan gods, but the judgment of Yahweh for their sins (Judg. 4:1-2; 6:1; 10:7; 1 Sam. 28:17–19; 1 Kings 16:2–3; 2 Kings 17:7–23).

Similarly, the battle between God and Satan is not one of power (Job 1:1-12; Judg. 9:23–24). The whole world belongs to God. The gods of the pagans are, in fact, no gods. They are merely human-made images fashioned from wood and stone (Isa. 44:46). Satan is a fallen angel created by God.

In the New Testament the focus shifts to a more spiritual view of battle. The Gospels clearly demonstrate the existence of demons or unclean spirits who oppress people. The exorcists of Jesus’ day used techniques to drive spirits away. Jesus, in contrast, simply drove the demons out on the basis of his own authority (Mark 1:21-27; 9:14-32).

Hiebert attempted to spell out in positive terms essential elements in a biblical understanding of spiritual warfare. The focus should be on God the Creator who is sovereign over his creation, sustaining it according to his good will. Satan and his demons, although active in the world, are understood not as equal foes but merely rebellious creatures that influence "human structures and systems," "human individuals," and the "human spirit", but only under the sovereign control of God. Human beings are understood as free agents, responsible for their collective and individual actions, while also under God's sovereign control.

The events and elements of the seen and unseen dimensions of the cosmos are not subject to fate, chance, or “good” or “evil” detached from the will of God. Instead, God is working out the central features of his divine will and plan in and through the beings and elements of the cosmos: working to win the love and loyalty of each human heart, while advancing Christ's kingdom.

Critical Contextualization

Hiebert wrote his first article on “critical contextualization” in 1984 where he provided an alternative approach to the relationship between the authority of Scripture and cultural practices. It was selected by Christianity Today for republication in their “Best in Theology” series in 1987 and arguably became the most widely respected and influential approach to contextualization among evangelicals (Chang, et al. 2009, 201). The following provides a brief summary of his argument, couched in terms of the history of missions in India. He framed the question as one of “how the missionaries responded to the traditional beliefs and practices of new converts—in other words, to the ‘Old’ culture”(Hiebert 2994, 75).

According to Hiebert, some early missionaries tried to reverentially employ Indian cultures, but from roughly 1850 to 1950 most Protestant missionaries simply rejected all old beliefs and practices as pagan. This rejection of traditional cultures was motivated by several factors. It was the era of colonialism, and colonialism itself helped promote the idea that the culture of people in the West was superior. Paganism needed to be replaced with the three Cs—Western civilization, commerce, and Christianity (Hiebert 1994, 20).

Western civilization was spreading around the world, and it was assumed that people would become both Christian and “modern.” There was no need, therefore, to study old cultures or to take them seriously. They were on the way out. In a real way, Cultures did not need to be studied, since they were not to be accustomed to, but only replaced. A second factor contributing to this disregard for traditional culture was the theory of cultural evolution. In that theory, all cultures have different stages of development of the same thing; some were more advanced and others more primitive.

Westerners, including Christians, could ignore other cultures by labeling them “primitive,” “animistic,” and “uncivilized.” Given this historical paradigm, non- contextualization made sense. Why contextualize the gospel in other cultures when they are in the process of dying out? It is only a matter of time before all people are civilized. What was thought to be important, therefore, was to bring the gospel along with civilization. The third factor leading to the rejection of other cultures was the triumph of science. The scientific knowledge of the West was seen as objective, cumulative, and true in an ultimate sense. In contrast to this, “the knowledge of other cultures was thought to be subjective, piecemeal, and false.”

The same epistemological foundations were widespread among many conservative Christians, including most missionaries. Only here, theology replaced science, and revelation replaced experience. Cautiously crafted, theology could be totally objective and completely true. In the light of this, other religions were seen as exceedingly subjective and absolutely false. As a result, Christians did not require to take other religions gravely, just as scientists refused to take other belief systems about nature seriously.

The task of the missionary was to pass on his or her theology into new cultures unaffected. Under this “rejection of culture” approach, ethnocentric missionaries often ended up playing the part of “policemen, enforcing on the people what they believed to be Christian practices,” while actually articulating a gospel perceived by others as strange and Western. The foreignness of the gospel was a barrier to evangelism, and syncretism was not banned (Hiebert 1997, 104–06).

According to Hiebert, a strong reaction to the non-contextualization approach emerged in the mid-twentieth century, an approach stressing that other cultures needed to be understood and appreciated. He labels this approach as “uncritical contextualization.” Again, there were factors supportive of this move.

First, postcolonial political shifts and criticisms of colonialism weakened the older forms of disregard for traditional cultures. Second, developments within anthropology itself fostered a growing interest in the internal coherence and functionality of traditional cultures, and a growing body of Christian anthropologists and other missiologists pushed the case for cultural approval and adjustment. Avoiding the older ethnocentrism, this new approach took cultural differences seriously, acknowledged “the good in all cultures,” and “affirmed the right of Christians in every country to be institutionally and cognitively free from Western dominance.”

But this approach, according to Hiebert, tended to deny biblical absolutes and failed to offer “checks against biblical and theological distortion.” It fostered syncretism in the church and isolated the local church from the historical church and the churches of other cultures (Hiebert 1987).

Critical Contextualization avoids both uncritical rejection and uncritical acceptance. It insists that old beliefs and customs first be examined to resolve their meanings and functions in the society and then their acceptability in the light of biblical norms (Hesselgrave 1994, 74).

Hiebert’s model of contextualization is tightly embedded in theological considerations with Scripture serving as the authoritative ground. Bible is taken as the final and definitive authority for Christian beliefs and practices. Hiebert’s model also stresses the theological principle of the priesthood of all believers. In fact, the priesthood of believers assumes that all the faithful have the Holy Spirit to guide them in the understanding and application of the scriptures to their own lives. In view of critical contextualization the church in each culture and historical background can play a significant role as the hermeneutical community to interpret and apply Scripture to its own context (Chang, et al. 2009, 203).

References

Chang, Eunhye, Rupert J. Morgan, Timothy Nyasulu, and Robert Priest. 2009. “Paul G. Hiebert and Critical Contextualization.” Trinity Journal 30 no. 2.

Hesselgrave, David J. 1994. Scripture and Strategy: The Use of the Bible in Postmodern Church and Mission. EMS Series. Pasadena: William Carey Library.

Hiebert, Paul G. 1987. “Critical Contextualization.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=051ffd0b-615c-4b33-b642- 56f8d9124976%40sessionmgr110&vid=5&hid=104.

———. 1994. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker.

———. 2000. “Spiritual Warfare and Worldview.” Evangelical Review of Theology 29 no. 2:  240–56.

Hiebert, Paul G., Daniel R. Shaw, and Tite Tiénou. 1999. Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Peterson, Eugene H. 1997. Leap over a Wall: Earthy Spirituality for Everyday Christians. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.