Robert Linthicum writes:
What do we feel in Calcutta or Moscow or Bangkok or Mexico City or Washington or Nairobi? I suggest that what we sense is the soul of that city, its inner spiritual essence. Every city has an angel who broods over it. These angels infuse and dominate the principalities and powers, systems and structures, people groups and individuals of that city. There is that spiritual presence- either angelic or demonic (or displaying elements of both).
~ City of God, City of Satan pg. 75
He seeks to prove this view of the city from the Old Testament. He notes that certain Hebrew readings of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 state, “The Most High assigned nations their lands; he determined where people should live. He assigned to each nation a god.” The Septuagint has “a son of God” or an angel.
Linthicum also appeals to Daniel 10, wherein Daniel sees a “man” who is undoubtedly an angel. This “man” speaks of being opposed by the “prince of Persia” until Michael, a chief prince, came to his aid. In the book of Daniel, it is not entirely clear who or what Michael is, however, we learn more in the New Testament. Jude 1:9 and Revelation 12:7 state that Michael is a chief angel. Thus the “chief prince” in the book of Daniel is actually a chief angel. It is also likely that the Persian “prince” was an angel or a spirit.
So, Linthicum is arguing that each city has a sort of Spirit over it. These angels or spirits of the Old Testament are all included in Paul’s use of “principalities” and “powers.” This means that there is a legitimate corporate entity called “the City.” It is more than simply the collection of individuals. The City, then, must be saved. Thus, one part of the gospel message is to go to the city and preach that Jesus has put down the various spiritual powers and that he rules the City.
Linthicum also points out that Jesus doesn’t simply destroy the Spirits, but rather he subdues them and reconciles them (Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:20). Thus we are not to simply kill the city, but rather we are reconciling that city unto God through Jesus Christ.
I have seen this book in a colleague’s office and been curious about it.
Interestingly, I’ve heard anecdotal accounts here in Berlin from both Christians and non-Christians of a sense of such a presence as Linthicum describes – and it’s not a friendly one.
So it’s been an interesting process, getting to love a city that’s definitely ruled by an enemy, trying to embody the Kingdom on such a small scale, and praying and worshiping toward transformation. It’s encouraging, that thought that God doesn’t have it in mind to kill the things that make the city what it is in the process of bringing it under His rule.
Why would Jesus waste his time with the secular domain? 2kingdomz4life
The question is, does HeavenCorp conslidate and restructure from time to time? When we start thinking about a “city church” concept today, one thing that seems pretty obvious to me is that “locality” is a bit bigger than it used to be (in the post-industrial world, at least). In Jonathan Edwards’s day, I wonder how long it took the people with farms and estates outside of town to ride into church which was only a few miles away? Today, we can hop on the interstate and travel four towns away in thirty minutes, and I’m not sure that that means we’ve given up on being “local” given how interconnected the regional economies and such are these days (I realize I might be disagreeing with your “locality” thesis from that earlier post here). So, I’m wondering how the “spirit of the city” concept works out in smaller towns and municipalities? Is there one angel assigned, for instance, to Richmond, KY, Berea, KY, Mt. Vernon, KY, etc.? Or is there one angel for the whole area “south of Lexington,” which in many ways all has the same feel and lots of people live in one but work in the other, etc.? I don’t expect that’s a question that can be answered clearly, but ’tis intersting no?
I think we just have to remember that “City” and “City-State” were basically the same thing in the OT, and that a City-State often dominated its surrounding area.
You just have to take note of the people and the culture to see where the influence changes. For instance, New Orleans is run by demons. No one disputes this, not even non-Christians.
But, a lot of people live in the suburbs of New Orleans and drive in to work. Their communities are not exactly the same. They aren’t totally free from the New Orleans feel, but they are capable of having their own feel and their own needs.
But of course the idea of subduing the city is all about taking dominion; the dominion of the new creation as the sons and daughters of the regeneration bring the rule of Christ into a region or polis. It’s important to realize too that this subduing is by the proper preaching of the Gospel with accompanying sacramental signs (the “visible” Gospel). What you have written works well with a postmillennial vision of the redemption of creation. Good stuff.
I’m not so sure about this angelic spirit interpretation, Steven. In the new world that Jesus has brought us (angelic-overlordship is over) I think “the spirit” one “feels” in various cities has to do with the “quality” of the local humanity. This is especially true in cultures that have driven out the demons with the coming of the church. Linthicum is, however, surely right about there being an anti-materialist dimension to cities. But I think he’s wrong to attribute it to angels. It would be better to describe it as some sort of antro-morphic presence. Sumpin like dat.