Territorial Spirits?

 In recent decades, especially in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles, there has been a rise in interest in what are known as "territorial spirits."  The concept takes its premise from the Bible, especially passages such as Ephesians 6 as well as Daniel 10, the latter being a reference to a spiritual power over Persia that St. Michael did battle with.  The concept received wider attention in the late 1980s with the publication of Frank Peretti's two books, This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness.  Since then, there have been many published books - primarily by Pentecostal or Charismatic writers - which have emphasized this phenomenon.  So, how relevant is this idea, and is there any merit to it?  That is what I want to explore today here. 

Having come from a Pentecostal/Charismatic background myself, I am quite familiar with this idea of "territorial spirits," and in all honesty, I personally find validity to it to a degree.  There is Scriptural support for the existence of such entities, and common sense tells us that certain areas of geography have things that characterize them specifically, for better or worse.  For instance, let's take San Francisco - the LGBT presence there is perhaps more pronounced than it is elsewhere in the country, and there are some writers I have read that suggest a territorial spirit over that area which is defined by the prominence of that sin.  Likewise, Chicago has a reputation for being a city marked by political corruption, so it is easy to conclude that a spiritual force could be enabling that.  Then there is Baltimore where I currently live - in all honesty, there is something about this city that just makes me feel out of place, and when you then see the attitudes of some people here, as well as the urban blight, it makes me theorize that maybe there are oppressive forces at work here too.  That being said, I then would say that I believe in the existence of entities which may exert some influence over certain geographical areas, and whether one calls them territorial spirits or what, something is there.  However, I also see the potential for abuse of this teaching, and want to talk about that a bit too.

The common phrase "the devil made me do it" is a way to justify a form of antinomian behavior one sees too often in Christian circles.  It incorrectly absolves our own concupiscent nature, and it also can have the unwarranted effect of making Satan and his minions have more power than they actually do.  Not every adverse behavior or sin is the result of a "spirit" - some of it is just our own stupidity in many cases, and to illustrate that, let me revisit the Star Wars saga.

A couple of weeks ago, I talked about how the actual villain of the Star Wars universe was not necessarily Darth Sidious, Darth Vader, or the "dark side of the Force."  Looking at Sidious in particular, what you notice is that he doesn't directly do anything to coerce the dark side, but rather seeks out the vulnerabilities of others - that is what he did with Anakin Skywalker you recall.  To simplify the process, let me break down the evolution of a sin:

1. An action - this can be perpetrated on someone else in a way that seems good to the perpetrator.

2. A reaction - the person who is the target of the said action responds to it

So far, we have Newtonian theory at work - an action creates an equal and/or opposite reaction.  But, there is a third component to this too, a catalyst if you will.  Looking at Genesis 3 for instance, take a look at the exchange that led to the Fall in the Garden.  The serpent (a universal symbol for Satan) didn't twist Eve's arm to partake of the forbidden fruit, now did he?  Of course not.  Instead, he saw her vulnerabilities and preyed upon those, and after so much of that conditioning, Eve herself sinned.  So, then the third element:

3. A catalyst - something prompts (indirectly in many cases) the victim to act upon his or her reaction. 

Now, back to how this worked in Star Wars, Anakin was the victim of actions performed by others which adversely affected him, and the reaction in this case was an inner struggle - the actions of others began to sow in Anakin doubt about the Jedi order and also fueled a resentment.  The action's perpetrator was not Palpatine (Sidious), but was a supposed "good guy," a fellow Jedi, and the person was Mace Wendu.  Mace Wendu, as I noted earlier, is someone you just begin to hate as you watch the movies in particular because he is arrogant, self-righteous, and just a royal pain in the jaxie.  From the outset, Mace was adversarial towards Anakin, despite the fact that Qui Gon Jinn, Anakin's original mentor, saw the potential in Anakin and wanted to help him develop it.  You see this attitude fester as Anakin becomes older and Wendu still treats him like he's below contempt.  Wendu therefore initiates the action, Anakin reacts with growing resentment, and then comes the catalyst, Palpatine (or Lord Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith).  Palpatine sees what is going on, and uses it to his advantage and begins to feed Anakin things to solidify the feelings he has.  Satan does that with us too - he exploits a weakness in our armor, often inflicted by those calling themselves our "brothers," and uses it to coerce us into sin.  You see this even in history too - think of an individual like Timothy McVay, who sees so-called "American" politicians abuse their power, and it drives him to action.  In his case, the evil catalyst consisted of the influence of individuals such as William Pierce (notorious neo-Nazi author of The Turner Diaries under the pseudonym "Andrew McDonald") who fueled a growing dissatisfaction within McVay, and in time this pushed McVay into action.  I still maintain to this day that the source of the action for all this was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, and the same thing happened in Kosovo in 1999 on an international scale.   Kosovo was a mess as well, as Clinton provoked terrorists (the KLA) who were also trafficking opiates, to attack innocent Serbian, Macedonian, and Roma Christian populations, and the money that those terrorists generated thanks to Clinton's enabling led to the 9/11 attacks here two years later.  So, Clinton was the action that led to terrorists reacting, and thousands of lives were lost as a result.  A lot of nasty things that happen - both on a personal and sociological scale - could be alleviated if perhaps the root, or the initiator of the action which creates violent people, were dealt with properly.  There would be fewer school shootings if perhaps the ones who commit those violent acts were not harassed by the bullies that pushed them over the edge in the first place.  Bullies get a free pass way too much, and another example of this is David Hogg.  David Hogg was the bully, and I would like to put forward a very controversial theory about the Parkland shooting that makes him the true problem.  Nikolas Cruz, by all accounts, was not a popular kid - he had a rough childhood, and while Wikipedia said he suffered from behavioral issues since preschool, I also know middle-school and high-school culture well.  If a student is struggling, the "popular kids" will often use him as a butt of jokes and abuse, and they will bully kids who have issues like this.  David Hogg was one of those popular kids, and his attitude alone suggests that he was condescending and nasty to others, and one day I believe the story will come out that Hogg bullied Cruz in school, or that his friends did, and this is going to change the narrative.  What Cruz did was still evil and tragic, and he is rightly facing the consequences of his actions, but he may not be the true villain of the story - a character like David Hogg is.   The way Hogg ran his mouth about guns and such afterwards, and exploited tragedy to enrich himself, would indicate that Hogg had other motives that were less than charitable.  That story needs to be exposed.  Of course, in recent years thankfully Hogg's star has dimmed, and I often joke that he will end up shacking up with Greta Thunberg in a roach-infested flat in New Jersey somewhere one day, as they would make the perfect pair - two rabble-rousing idiots with big mouths.  Hogg's disastrous leadership of the Democratic Party, for instance, has not won him many friends - the Democrat Establishment (no angels themselves) despise him.  David Hogg is not a Luke Skywalker, but rather is a Mace Wendu, a bad guy who wants to look good.  Any rate, we lost focus from the original discussion so let's tie it together.

The perpetrators of bad behavior, in short, have something that pushed them into it, and how is this tied to the idea of a territorial spirit?  Basically, a bad behavior is the result of either a product of the established order or a reaction against it - the result is still evil, but where it generates from forces us to look more closely at the components of it.  If a city is noted for a certain crime, and let's say a vigilante rises up and reacts against the crime in the wrong way, then the territorial spirit of that city has succeeded in its mission, as the possibility of a demonic principality means that the prince controls the whole game board.  We see that in Star Wars too, where one power is manipulating both sides, and driving bullies to create terrorists, and the result is the Emperor wins and destroys both to reshape things into his image, in this case an evil Galactic Empire.  The catalyst cares little about the outcome as long has they maintain control, and they will masterfully play both sides until all is destroyed and then the catalytic element can step in and claim to save the day.  I see this playing out in the future with the biblical Antichrist, and we see it at work now.  There are two evils that society faces - one is a growing progressive secularism, and the other is Islamic extremism.  Oddly, in the US these two forces often join together, and a moderate Muslim cleric who turned his back on terrorism and now advocates for peace explained why - the Islamic extremist views the typical American and European leftists as stupid, because the political Left has no morals or scruples and can be easily manipulated.  This is why I believe Islamic extremists used corrupt American Presidents like Clinton, Obama, and Biden to advance their agendas, and it worked particularly in Minnesota and to a lesser degree in Michigan too.  If by some chance (God forbid!) the radical Islamists gained control of the US or Europe, the first people they would execute would not be MAGA Trump supporters, but rather the evil leftists who promote the LGBT agenda and other stuff that radical Islam considers to be evil.  They would be chucking gay activists and radical feminists off the roofs of the highest buildings in every city, and there would not be a second thought to doing so either.  Of course, Christians and MAGA supporters would not be spared either, because these radicals hate us with a passion as well, but they would encounter more resistance with us than they would with the so-called "inclusive" Left.  That is why a territorial spirit is evident, because many people seem to be blind to the reality of this whole thing, and it may be a costly mistake later. 

I rambled through all that to conclude with this - I believe territorial spirits exist, and there is no conflict with my Catholic faith to believe these things exist.  However, unlike some Pentecostal/Charismatic preachers who give more attention to them than they warrant, I think the key to defeating a territorial spirit is to be the "beacon of truth" in areas where such principalities prevail, and I was admonished to do this myself by a very godly and wise priest who is my former pastor.  For evil to prevail, it must have attention to feed it - starve the attention, and it starts to weaken.  Don't give place to it then in other words, and it will eventually implode on itself.  That is what I wanted to share again today, and thank you for listening.