(Blog) Hail Satan: America's Spiritual Reversal - Ep. 993 - October 8, 2026

Hail Satan in Ottumwa: A Warning to the Church

A reported invocation ending in "Hail Satan" at an Ottumwa, Iowa, city council meeting prompted a forceful discussion about public leadership and the church's response. In the October 8, 2026, episode of our Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland examined the incident through a Christian understanding of spiritual responsibility.

If you're concerned about Christianity's place in your community, our concern centers on both the prayer and the officials who allowed it. The discussion began with a report about the invocation, then turned toward the condition of the churches around us.

What the Report Says Happened in Ottumwa

The episode drew on an article from Prophecy Newswatch, a publication we recommend for news and commentary. According to that report, former Ottumwa city council member Matt Dolby delivered an invocation on October 6, 2026, associated with the Satanic Temple. He concluded with the words "Hail Satan."

Alan and Jeff said they had heard the prayer. In their account, it began with an address to the "father of darkness" and included language about partaking of the tree of knowledge.

Dolby's history as a council member intensified their concern. They argued that someone familiar with local government understood the setting and the significance of opening an official meeting this way.

A Pastor Objected, and the City Defended Its Policy

The article identified Pastor Rick Bick of New Life Center as the person who immediately objected. He described the invocation as a curse upon the city.

The city, according to the report, defended its policy of allowing diverse religious viewpoints and said it couldn't discriminate against particular denominations.

Jeff clarified that he had initially seen only two short clips of the meeting. He had thought the person objecting might have been the mayor, but the article identified him as a pastor. He wanted to find the full recording to see the rest of the exchange.

Individual Expression and a Council's Responsibility

A central point in our discussion was the distinction between personal expression and an official invocation.

Alan and Jeff acknowledged that an individual can express his beliefs. Their objection concerned the council's decision to permit that expression as the opening prayer of its meeting.

In their view, describing the incident only as a matter of the speaker's freedom left the public officials' responsibility unanswered. They argued that the council had allowed a prayer to Satan to become part of its proceedings, and that its decision deserved scrutiny.

The hosts challenged the city's explanation that religious inclusion required this outcome. That was their position in the discussion, rather than a legal analysis of the city's policy.

Both also argued that the content of an invocation matters. A public prayer communicates something about the person delivering it. They believed the officials' willingness to include it communicated something about their judgment as well.

Why We Viewed the Prayer as a Spiritual Issue

Our objection rested on what Satan means within biblical Christianity.

Alan contrasted Christianity's work of redeeming the lost, repairing what is broken, and bringing life with the destruction he associates with Satan. Both hosts described the invocation as dark and demonic.

From that perspective, the prayer couldn't be treated as religious language with no moral content. The name invoked carried a meaning that religious-inclusion terminology didn't remove.

Jeff also interpreted such an open invocation as evidence of spiritual influence in the community. He argued that Satan's public manifestation indicated territory in which darkness had become comfortable expressing itself. This was his understanding of spiritual warfare, not a claim about the meeting's legal status.

The article called the incident a "snapshot of America's spiritual transformation." Alan and Jeff resisted the idea that it could be dismissed as one unusual person at one meeting. They saw the council's acceptance as the greater concern.

The Call for Council Accountability

Alan and Jeff called for every member of the Ottumwa council to resign. They believed the decision to allow the invocation reflected a failure serious enough to require a change in leadership.

Their criticism extended to any member who might have privately disagreed. In their view, an objection should have been public and unmistakable. Jeff argued that a council member opposed to the prayer should have objected strongly enough to resign rather than remain part of the proceedings.

He also described how he would respond if a similar invocation occurred where he lives. He said he would attend the meeting and preach, even if that led to his arrest.

Alan replied that, under the approach the council appeared to be taking, Christians should also be able to express their faith. The exchange reflected their determination to respond publicly. Jeff's statement about arrest was his personal commitment, not an explanation of anyone's legal rights at a council meeting.

Similar Invocations Mentioned Beyond Iowa

During the episode, Alan cited other places where satanic or nontraditional invocations had appeared in public meetings. He mentioned Kenner, Louisiana; Scottsdale, Arizona; and an assembly in Alaska.

The summary he read said there was no single official database tracking every such instance. He also distinguished Ottumwa's direct language from other examples, which he understood to have been less openly confrontational.

These references strengthened the hosts' belief that the Iowa incident wasn't isolated. They connected the examples to policies that allow different community members to provide opening remarks or invocations.

The discussion also recalled earlier podcasts about after-school Satan clubs. Alan and Jeff said they had previously discussed a school in eastern North Carolina in connection with those concerns.

Jeff also raised concerns about Islamic influence in Minnesota, Michigan, and Maine. He referred to Dearborn, Michigan, and a reported mosque project in Mooresville, North Carolina. He connected those remarks to his broader concern that Christian churches were losing influence in their communities.

The Satanic Temple's Use of Religious Equality

The article discussed the Satanic Temple's campaigns involving public invocations, religious displays, and after-school clubs. It described the group as seeking access to spaces where Christian religious expression had already been permitted.

Alan and Jeff understood this strategy as a challenge to Christianity's historic position in public institutions. In their reading, the objective extended beyond persuading people to worship a literal devil. These campaigns forced public bodies to confront whether Christian expression should receive any special standing.

That distinction mattered to the discussion because the hosts saw religious-equality language as part of the campaign itself.

Why a Symbolic Satan Still Matters to Christians

Alan noted that people defending Satanism sometimes say they don't believe in a literal Satan. Both hosts rejected the idea that this explanation removed the significance of invoking his name.

The article described the biblical Satan as a deceiver, destroyer, and adversary of God. Those descriptions shaped our response to the prayer.

Calling Satan a metaphor for liberty doesn't change what that name means to Christians. Alan and Jeff argued that a deliberate invocation still carries spiritual meaning, even when the person delivering it offers a different explanation.

The Gradual Change in Public Religious Expression

The article traced the controversy to changes that had developed over decades.

"Nobody woke up one morning and decided America should replace Christianity with Satanism."

Alan and Jeff agreed with that account of gradual change. They connected it to recurring disputes over:

• Prayer in public schools.
• Displays of the Ten Commandments.
• Nativity scenes in public spaces.
• Public expressions of biblical morality.

Religious practices once treated as ordinary, the article argued, had increasingly become subjects of litigation and demands for government neutrality.

The hosts believed Christianity's cultural influence had weakened during that process. They also argued that the resulting society remained open to religion while becoming less willing to accept biblical Christianity's claim to authority.

Jeff warned that this direction could lead to public acceptance of prayers to Satan while Christian preaching in Jesus' name faced accusations of hate speech. He presented that as a warning about where public tolerance was heading.

When a Spiritual Concern Becomes an Administrative Question

One sentence from the article captured the concern at the center of the episode:

"A prayer invoking Satan had become an administrative matter."

The city, as described in the report, focused on whether it had followed its religious-inclusion policy. Alan and Jeff focused on the spiritual content of the prayer and the judgment of the people who permitted it.

That difference in perspective troubled them. They believed a policy explanation allowed officials to avoid confronting what the invocation meant.

The hosts also challenged the response that Christians were getting worked up over one incident. To them, the combination of the prayer and the city's defense showed a wider problem: Christians had become accustomed to watching changes they once would have challenged.

Their concern was normalization. Once a prayer to Satan becomes another item handled under a meeting policy, its spiritual meaning can disappear from the official discussion.

Why the Discussion Turned Toward Church Silence

Alan and Jeff directed much of their criticism toward the church.

Jeff argued that churches had stopped winning souls, speaking to people on the street about Jesus, and preaching the gospel without apology. He connected that retreat to seeker-sensitive approaches and a greater emphasis on making people comfortable.

He also criticized churches that celebrate their programs while overlooking the condition of the surrounding community. In his view, activity inside the church doesn't answer the loss of Christian witness outside it.

The hosts illustrated their concern with a house on fire. People stand in the front yard discussing mulch, shrubs, and the neat lines left by a lawn mower while the house burns behind them. The yard work captures their attention while the urgent problem goes unaddressed.

They also compared the boldness they wanted in pulpits with Donald Trump's outspoken political style. Their point concerned the willingness to speak plainly despite objections. They believed church leaders needed that kind of courage to make people hear the seriousness of their concerns.

Biblical Knowledge and the Weakness of Church Leadership

Jeff expressed particular frustration with people who say they've known the Lord for years but know little of Scripture.

He described encountering church leaders who could talk about the Bible without explaining its basic teachings. Some held opinions that agreed with Scripture, yet couldn't show the biblical foundation for those opinions.

His concern was the difference between having a philosophy about the Bible and understanding what it teaches. He wanted leaders to recognize the Word of God as part of Christian warfare and to apply its truth.

Jeff connected shallow knowledge with a weakening church. When leaders lack a firm biblical foundation, he argued, the congregation becomes less able to speak clearly. As the church's influence recedes, other beliefs and philosophies gain room in the community.

He also questioned whether many people sitting in churches had truly been born again. He acknowledged that they could be good people with good intentions. His concern was their apparent lack of spiritual urgency about conditions such as the Ottumwa invocation.

This was his pastoral assessment of the church's condition, not a determination about any particular person's salvation.

The Response We Called For

The hosts called for unashamed churches, clearer preaching, and a renewed dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Jeff referred to an independent, fundamental, King James-only Baptist church and a Jack Hyles-type preacher as examples of the forceful response he wanted to see. His emphasis was on a church willing to confront local officials openly.

He also called for "old-fashioned anointing." He stressed that this wasn't simply a preference tied to his age. He said he would make the same appeal at 15 because, in his words, "it's the anointing that breaks the yoke."

The response described throughout the episode included stronger biblical teaching, renewed evangelism, public conviction, and prayer. Alan and Jeff believed churches needed spiritual power as well as a willingness to speak.

For more of our discussions on Christian faith and public life, our podcasts and commentary are available at Kingdom Prophetic Society.

Our Closing Concern for the Church

The reported Ottumwa invocation brought public leadership and church responsibility into the same discussion. Our concern was the prayer's spiritual meaning, the council's decision to include it, and the church's willingness to respond.

Alan and Jeff closed by asking listeners to pray and remain aware of what happens in their own communities. The episode's strongest appeal was for churches to know God's Word and speak about their faith without apology.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Hail Satan: America's Spiritual Reversal - Ep. 993 - October 8, 2026"