Pharmakeia, Social Influence, and Christian Separation
Pharmakeia, Social Influence, and Christian Separation
Written on 15 August 2026.
Introduction
The Bible connects pharmakeia with witchcraft, sorcery and deception. This raises a question that deserves consideration in a modern society in which psychoactive pharmaceutical drugs are widely administered:
Can pharmakeia operate not only by affecting the person taking a drug, but also through the social influence that the altered person has upon others?
This article presents a personal theological interpretation based partly upon observations accumulated over many years.
It is not an argument that everyone taking psychiatric medication is unsaved. It is not an argument that psychiatric patients are personally practicing conscious witchcraft. Neither is it an argument that every form of deception in the last days comes from pharmaceutical drugs.
The subject is narrower: the possible relationship between pharmakeia, psychoactive drugs, social influence and deception.
Pharmakeia in Scripture
The word translated witchcraft in Galatians 5:20 is the Greek word pharmakeia.
(Galatians 5:19-21 [KJV])
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
The same Greek word occurs in Revelation 18:23, where the King James Bible translates it sorceries.
(Revelation 18:23 [KJV])
And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
The connection with deception is particularly important:
“for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”
The biblical concept therefore deserves consideration not merely in relation to stereotypical occult practices, but also in relation to drugs, their administration and their possible role in deception.
Pharmakeia does not mean that the patient is the enemy
A distinction must immediately be made between a system and the individuals within it.
A person taking an antipsychotic drug may genuinely believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
(John 6:47 [KJV])
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Salvation is received by believing on Christ. Taking a psychiatric drug does not constitute proof that somebody has never believed on Christ.
Furthermore, not every psychiatric patient necessarily chooses to take the drugs administered to him. Some people receive injections under circumstances in which their freedom of choice is limited.
Calling a larger phenomenon pharmakeia therefore does not justify treating psychiatric patients as enemies, denying their rights or assuming that they consciously intend to deceive anybody.
The same distinction applies to doctors and nurses. An individual medical professional may sincerely believe that he is helping somebody while participating in a larger structure whose spiritual significance he does not recognize.
Deception through social influence
Deception does not always require a person consciously telling a lie.
Human beings influence one another socially. The manner in which an argument is delivered can affect how persuasive that argument appears.
This creates an important distinction:
- The argument is persuasive because it is true and well supported.
- The argument feels persuasive because of the social influence of the person presenting it.
The two can easily become confused.
Social niceness can also feed the ego. When somebody makes another person feel affirmed, understood or important, the recipient can become increasingly receptive to that person's ideas.
This need not result in ordinary personal attraction. One does not even necessarily have to particularly like the person.
The effect can instead be persuasiveness.
An argument which would appear weak when examined independently can seem considerably stronger while accompanied by a particular interpersonal influence.
This creates a possible form of deception in which the social carrier of an idea affects one's judgment concerning the truth of the idea itself.
Antipsychotics and social influence
I have personally come to believe that antipsychotic drugs can sometimes be connected with this phenomenon.
This conclusion arose from experience rather than merely from the fact that particular people happened to take medication.
In one important case, I knew a person before she received regular antipsychotic injections and also interacted with her after she was receiving them. I perceived a marked difference in her social presentation.
Over time I perceived something resembling this socially persuasive effect in other people taking antipsychotics.
This led me to consider a possibility:
A psychoactive drug may affect not merely the person who takes it, but indirectly affect other people through the drug-altered person's social interactions.
I regard this as a conclusion drawn from my personal observations. I do not claim that every person taking antipsychotics produces this effect. Neither do I claim that antipsychotics are responsible for every deceptive or unhealthy social relationship.
Other people who take no psychiatric drugs whatsoever can obviously deceive, manipulate or badly influence another person.
The narrower question is whether pharmaceutical alteration of a human being can itself become one means through which social influence is altered.
If so, the consequences of psychoactive drugs cannot be understood exclusively by examining what happens inside the patient's body. Human beings continue interacting with other human beings.
When separation reveals the influence
One of the most useful ways I discovered this phenomenon was through separation.
There have been circumstances in which continued exposure to somebody made it difficult for me to understand the influence itself. Listening to more arguments did not necessarily resolve the problem.
The effective solution could instead be extremely simple:
Stop listening.
After the social influence disappeared, ideas could be considered separately from the person communicating them.
This provides a useful test regardless of whether the proposed connection with pharmakeia is accepted.
If an argument remains compelling when separated from the speaker, then its persuasive force may genuinely reside in the argument.
If an argument loses much of its apparent power once the social influence of the speaker disappears, it is reasonable to reconsider what originally made it persuasive.
Sometimes separation makes visible what continued involvement conceals.
Different forms of dangerous social influence
Not every social danger has the same origin.
Over time I have found it useful to distinguish several different categories.
Relatives and Matthew 10
Jesus specifically warned that conflict could arise within families and households.
(Matthew 10:34-36 [KJV])
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Family relationship does not automatically guarantee spiritual agreement or beneficial social influence.
Matthew 10 also contains a principle of separation:
(Matthew 10:14 [KJV])
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
There are circumstances in which continuing a conflict indefinitely accomplishes nothing.
Religious people and Matthew 23
Another danger comes from religious environments.
(Matthew 23:27-28 [KJV])
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Religious language does not guarantee that a social environment is beneficial.
A Christian internet community can become particularly dangerous when people continually judge one another's salvation, demand doctrinal conformity, produce public accusations, answer one another through videos and turn interpersonal disagreements into public entertainment.
The believer can consequently become trapped in an endless loop of proving himself to other Christians.
But everlasting life does not depend upon winning that social contest.
The pharmakeia brethren
A third category is what I have called the pharmakeia brethren.
The expression refers to professing Christians within a psychiatric/pharmaceutical environment, particularly where psychoactive drugs and Christian social influence become intertwined.
The expression does not mean:
This person takes antipsychotics, therefore this person cannot be saved.
It means that somebody can be a brother in Christ while nevertheless participating in, supporting, or being affected by a larger structure which I believe may have characteristics of biblical pharmakeia.
A Christian can be deceived without ceasing to be saved.
A Christian can also influence another Christian badly without deliberately intending to do so.
A real relationship is different
There is another distinction which prevents this argument from becoming a simplistic rule about avoiding everybody taking psychiatric medication.
An actual relationship between two people is different from mediated social influence through YouTube, internet forums, Skype or religious communities.
I have personally experienced this distinction.
A relationship can involve loyalty, shared life, responsibility and genuine relational connection. Consequently, knowing that somebody takes a particular drug tells us neither everything about that person nor everything about the relationship.
The problem therefore cannot simply be reduced to:
antipsychotic = bad person
That is not the argument.
The concern is with the possible interaction between psychoactive drugs, social influence, deception and particular forms of association.
Social breathing versus ego feeding
Another distinction I have found useful is between social breathing and ego feeding.
Not all pleasant social interaction has the same effect.
Ego-feeding social interaction can produce an escalating cycle:
social contact → affirmation → increased receptiveness → increased appetite for the social source
A person may interpret this as an unusually valuable relationship when what is actually being reinforced is his desire for affirmation.
What I call social breathing is different.
It is a relational effect which can remain after the other person is absent. The relationship does not have to be continually renewed through conversation, affirmation or attention.
The pattern is closer to:
contact → relational connection → physical separation → continuing sense of social connection
The difference matters.
Something that continually stimulates appetite may feel socially powerful without actually satisfying relational need.
Something genuinely relational can sometimes make continued immediate interaction less necessary because the connection remains after the encounter has ended.
The unexpected safety of unrighteous mammon
This leads to what initially appears to be a paradox.
Ordinary secular commercial relationships can sometimes prove safer than explicitly religious or therapeutic relationships.
Jesus said:
(Luke 16:8 [KJV])
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
And:
(Luke 16:9 [KJV])
And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
A commercial relationship ordinarily has obvious limits.
The employee works.
The customer buys something.
Neither needs to determine the other's spiritual condition.
Neither needs to diagnose the other's mind.
Neither needs to establish a theological hierarchy.
Neither needs to expose the other publicly.
Neither needs to demand membership in a community.
Neither needs to become the other's spiritual authority.
Precisely because unrighteous mammon makes limited claims, ordinary human interaction within it can sometimes be safer than environments promising fellowship, spiritual authority or psychological support.
The unjust steward can beat them all.
This does not make unrighteous mammon righteous. It means that a bounded relationship can sometimes be safer than an apparently spiritual relationship which continually demands greater access to the person.
Salvation permits separation
Free Grace theology makes an important difference here.
If everlasting life depended upon remaining within the approval of a religious community, separation would become frightening.
But Jesus said:
(John 6:47 [KJV])
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Once everlasting life has been received through faith in Christ, another Christian does not become the gatekeeper of that life.
I do not need another Christian to continually certify that I am saved.
I do not need a YouTube community to certify it.
I do not need a church social structure to certify it.
I do not need a psychiatric community to certify it.
This creates freedom to evaluate social relationships according to what they actually produce rather than remaining within them out of fear.
Pharmakeia is not the only deception
Finally, I do not regard pharmaceutical psychiatry as the only possible manifestation of end-times deception.
Scripture describes widespread deception in the last days. There can be political deception, religious deception, technological deception, economic deception and interpersonal deception.
People who have never swallowed an antipsychotic can deceive other people.
Therefore the identification of a possible connection between psychoactive pharmaceuticals and pharmakeia should not become another universal theory through which everything is interpreted.
It is one category within a much larger spiritual landscape.
Conclusion
The central question of this article is not whether psychiatric patients are good or bad people.
Neither is it whether somebody taking an antipsychotic can be saved.
The question is whether pharmakeia can operate through modern systems of drug administration and whether psychoactive alteration of human beings can consequently have social effects extending beyond the person receiving the drug.
My own experiences have caused me to take that possibility seriously.
They have also taught me a broader lesson:
Do not confuse social persuasiveness with truth.
An argument should remain true when the socially persuasive person presenting it is gone.
A Christian should be able to separate from another Christian without believing that his everlasting life disappeared with the relationship.
And sometimes ordinary, bounded relations under unrighteous mammon can prove safer than communities which promise spirituality, fellowship or support while gradually acquiring influence over a person's judgment.
Separation can therefore serve not merely as protection.
Sometimes separation is what makes deception visible.
See also
- Witchcraft
- Pharmakeia brethren
- Regarding psychiatry
- Youtube theology
- Unrighteous mammon
- Under the law to Christ
- Separation
- Matthew 10
- Matthew 23
References
- King James Bible.
- Matthew 10:14, 34-36.
- Matthew 23:27-28.
- Luke 16:8-9.
- John 6:47.
- Galatians 5:19-21.
- Revelation 18:23.
- Strong's Greek 5331, pharmakeia.
AI Disclosure: Parts of this page may have been created, edited, or assisted by artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT or other language models). All AI-assisted content is reviewed by a human before publication. For questions, contact the site administrator.