The animistic/shamanistic vantage point, which is engrained into the fabric of the Hmong worldview, is the basis for much of what is hermeneutically construed by the first generation congregants, while simultaneously being familiarized amidst their second generation progeny. On the bright side, the spiritual realm is an entry point, evangelistically, in establishing a Christian framework. The downfall, then, is linked to the erroneous ideology of a dualistic construct. Dualism, simply put, can be rendered as the eternal battle between good and evil; God representing all things good while Satan embodying the essence of evil. Both entities encompassing equal and competing existence.
The sin nature and mortification (putting sin to death) is no longer central through the Gospel, but rather demonic forces that must be chased off by shamanistic tactics.
This type of emphasis within the arena of Hmong Christianity builds a false narrative which minimizes the severity of sin while elevating—to the point of rivaling God Himself—the dominion of darkness. The sin nature and mortification (putting sin to death) is no longer central through the Gospel, but rather demonic forces that must be chased off by shamanistic tactics. D. A. Carson rightfully presents a balanced notion in saying, "It is impossible to gain a deep grasp of what the cross achieves without plunging into a deep grasp of what sin is; conversely, to augment one's understanding of the cross is to augment one's understanding of sin."1 Amidst this demonic ridden narrative, responsibility becomes marginalized while false victimization fuels the pursuit for a fathom figure. The human dilemma is not seen as the depravity of the inner nature, but rather an evasive external force which moves beyond the materialistic fabric.
Domain:
I am well aware that the dominion of sin and demonic activity are not mutually exclusive. Yet it is imperative to see that there is a sequential flow to the natural progression of spiritual activity. "It must also be said at the outset," according to Thomas R. Schreiner, "that the dominion of evil powers is precisely a result of sin."2 For the unregenerate (non-believer), they are imprisoned under the kingdom of darkness through the chains guilt and sin. Through their depraved state, which expresses itself in unbelief, Satan has "blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4:4). George Eldon Ladd contends, then, that[Satanic influence] is not found in the fact that the "god of this age" has dragged good men down into the gutter of sin, or that strong young men and beautiful women have been thrown down into a sink of immorality and corruption. . . . Here is the root of evil: blindness, darkness, unbelief. The Biblical philosophy of sin makes ethical and moral evil secondary to religious evil. . . . All forms of wickedness ultimately grow out of the root of ungodliness. Sin is primarily religious and secondarily ethical. Man is God's creature and his primary responsibility is towards God. The root of sin is found in his refusal to acknowledge in grateful dependence the gifts and the goodness of God (Rom. 1:21), which are now imparted in Christ. Darkness is the assertion of independence rather than God dependence.3For the regenerate (believer), however, spiritual oppression is palpable through habitual unrepentant sin. Paul warns the believers by saying, "[for] those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:5).
Moral neutrality is a misconceived notion within the biblical framework in the fallenness of the world.
Therefore, in order to faithfully minister in a setting where sinful behavior is equated with demonic possession, one must synthesize the biblical data and build a theological framework which will allow for a proper rendering of the current climate. In light of the present developments, two points must be taken into consideration in order to understand the schematic formation between the sinful nature and demonic influences: (1) the kingdom of darkness and (2) the distinction between personification and personalization.4
Kingdom of Darkness:
The fundamental basis for the susceptibility to demonic possession— distinct from demonic influence—is rooted in our understanding of kingdom. Moral neutrality is a misconceived notion within the biblical framework. Jesus Himself presumed human depravity and, henceforth, inherent guilt. Jesus clearly states, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (Jn. 3:36). Therefore, the undergirding reality within the scope of demonic activity is grounded in the notion that those who are under the headship of Adam, and henceforth under sin, are under the dominion of darkness.The Apostle Paul affirms this notion when he says, "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph. 2:1-3, italics mine). For Paul, the posture of disobedience is grafted within the reality of sinfulness which becomes the footstool for demonic activity.
For Paul, the posture of disobedience is grafted in the reality of sinfulness which is the footstool for demonic activity.
The remedy, then, is salvation "from the domain of darkness and [transmission] . . . to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Col. 1:13, italics mine). This is accomplished through the proclamation of the Gospel and the regenerative work of the Spirit in the hearts' of believers. Ladd confers that "the very heart of our Lord's mission is the need of rescuing people from bondage to the satanic kingdom and of bringing them into the sphere of God's Kingdom."5 The body of saints, therefore, "are no longer a slave [to sin], but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God" (Gal. 4:7). As sons, the community of believers are no longer under the dominion of Satan, but are adopted into the Kingdom of God. The church, according to Paul, has been "crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin" (Rom. 6:6, italics mine). Simon Gathercole reiterates this notion by saying,
Christ's dying a death to sin refers to the climatic end to the power of sin that the cross brought about; we are then baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3); therefore, we participate in that decisive end to the power of sin, and so have no possibility of being under its control any longer.6The responsibility for sin, then, is not meant to be outsourced to the activity of demonic influence, but understood within the framework of innate sinful passions imprisoned through the domain of darkness.
Demonic Influence:
Though there is no theological warrant to assume that a genuine authentic believer could be demonically possessed (Mk. 3:27), a saint could potentially be influenced if she harbors any type of engagement with habitual unrepentant sin. This particular posture within the life of a believer may grant "the devil a foot hold" (Eph. 4:27 NIV). Direct disobedience to the commands of God has the potential to grieve or even quench the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19). This type of attitude can leave the saint vulnerable to the influence or attack of demonic forces. Though the evil spirits do not have any jurisdiction in possessing the individual due to the transfer of kingdomly domains, they are still at work in hampering the spiritual progress of the saint (1 Pet. 5:8-9).It would be appropriate, then, to assert that a proper way of understanding demonic engagement within the life of a regenerate believer would be to distinguish between the ideologies of personalization and personification. Those who would outsource their sinful inquiries to demonic domination would assume a type of personification. This means that the evil spirit would manifest itself and engaged in the sinful activity outside the volition of the individual. A rebuttal against this idea would assert that demonic force(s) would be able to overthrow the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit as well as undo the motif of "kingdom transfer" in the proclamation of the Gospel (Col. 1:13).
Direct disobedience to the commands of God has the potential to grieve or even quench the Holy Spirit.
What would seem more plausible theologically would be the concept of personalization. Moo presents forth a convincing construct by saying, "Paul attributes personal qualities to sin in order vividly to picture the power and devastating effects of human sin in the lives of human beings. He shows that individual acts of sin constitute a principle, or network, of sin that is so pervasive and dominant that the person's destiny is determined by those actions."7 Along the lines of Moo, what can be seen in the personalization of demonic influence is that the satanic minions are not manifesting themselves in a way as to force an individual to do what she does not want to do. Rather the demonic influence are tempting the saint in accordance to her sinful pleasures and, thus, the believer has the volition and, therefore, is culpable to the sinful act itself. James, the half brother of our Lord, affirms this notion by saying, "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death" (Jas. 1:14-15).
This would assume, then, that though demonic forces are tempting saints to engage in godless acts, the responsibility and reality of sin is still upon the individual who engages in the abominable deeds. The notion that sinful doings are outside the bounds and culpability of the individual, and that the responsibility can be outsourced to demonic domination would be to create a narrative that presumes moral neutrality and, henceforth, a sheer absolute innocence before God.
Freedom in Christ:
Anything outside the life, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord is powerless to authorize, sustain, and/or fulfill.
To this end, it is imperative that the church grant the body of saints proper oversight. Much of the bewilderment that has arisen from these types of circumstances is grounded in the affirmation of false conversions which causes a ripple effort toward further confusion, false assumptions, and faulty consultation. No one is neglecting the reality of the spiritual realm. What must be taken seriously, though, is the victory that the church has in Christ Jesus. Anything outside the life, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord is powerless to authorize, sustain, and/or fulfill. Demonic possession and Satanic attacks are personal confrontation against the believer and their Savior. Ladd rightly concludes that "[evil] has its root in personality. . . Yet evil is not a disorganized, chaotic conflict of powers, as in animism, but is under the direction of a single will whose purpose it is to frustrate the will of God. . . Our purpose is primarily to show that the theology of the Kingdom of God is essentially one of conflict and conquest over the kingdom of Satan."8
____________________________________________
*footnotes
1. D. A. Carson, "Sin's Contemporary Significance," Fallen: A Theology of Sin, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 22.
2. Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 233.
3. George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959), 30-31.
4. Douglas J. Moo, "Sin in Paul," Fallen: A Theology of Sin, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 111.
5. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 50.
6. Simon Gathercole, "The Gospel of Paul and the Kingdom," God's Power to Save: One Gospel for a Complex World?, ed. Chris Green (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006), 149.
7. Moo, "Sin in Paul," Fallen: A Theology of Sin, 111.
8. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 48.
____________________________________________
McYoung Yang (M. Div., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). He is the husband of Debbie Yang and the father to McCayden (9), McCoy (8), McColsen (6), and DeYoung (2). He is an Assistant Professor of Theology at Crown College in Saint Bonifacius, MN and is currently serving as a Counsel member of the Youth Ministry of the Hmong District of the C&MA. McYoung is continuing his post-graduate studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO where he hopes to obtain his PhD in Theology. He hopes to use his training and platform as a means to serve the local church in living life through the Gospel lens. McYoung enjoys reading/writing, sports, and playing with his children.
No comments:
Post a Comment