Dean takes this chapter to encourage everyone to stop going to church.
Everyone and every church. As usual he has good points about persons who abuse
and usurp authority in the church and who do not show proper empathy for those
they are supposed to serve and humility in their service. As usual, this is not
a sign of the end at all, since it has been a problem since the first century
and even before in other contexts (as Dean even admits, apparently not aware of
the inconsistency this causes in his presentation).
As usual, Dean laments churchmen who look out only for themselves. As
usual, we are left to wonder why Dean's anecdotal experiences should be
universalized merely on his say-so. The good news is, Dean says:
“NOW let us have it understood
HERE AND NOW between us, that I DO NOT SAY that everyone who ever attended,
supported, or pastored a typical local church is NOT SAVED”.
That's good to hear, even if it is contrary to what Dean has been
confusedly implying for his entire text so far. But despite this moment of
humility, Dean tells us he was “very sure
that ALL the other 'churches' were pretty much the same” as his own,
thereby again universalizing on the basis of a single or a few trivial
associations. Would that life were that simple!
In the end Dean confesses that fear of being right OR wrong drove him to
flee further consideration of the matter for a while, which tells us more than
enough about the soundness of Dean's epistemic foundations. One moreover doubts
that what is going on in church authority structures is always as simple,
everywhere, as Dean paints it: “authority
to represent God proceeds from a TITLE, conferred upon a man by a self-serving
gang of other men, who only grant such authority to those whose primary
loyalties are to themselves and each other”. It certainly does happen. But
it is also certainly not universal or even proven by Dean to be a majority
problem. His commentary bespeaks personal bitterness until it gets the weight
of proof behind it and his claim that “most
churches” are this or that way receives actual confirmation.
We do have news for Dean. He says, “I
guess the Apostle Paul forgot to stop in at the church in Jerusalem and pick up
his ordination certificate...” He did do the equivalent, however, which is
precisely what he did when he confirmed his mission with the Jerusalem
apostles. This was a nod to the honor and authority codes of the day. So much
for Dean's head being in the sand when it comes to authority structures! It is
not based on popularity, true —it is based rather on who is qualified, and who
is called, and the two hand in hand.
Dean then speaks of churches in segregation by culture, race, economy,
and family. It may not occur to him that such segregation is not “in order to preserve the fellowship of the
flesh” of necessity, but rather of matters of simple practicality and
communication. Dean then embarks on a spiel of his usual “it happened to me and it must be universal” type in which he
speaks of how a church will treat a new visitor. We do not doubt the veracity
of his experience. We do doubt that he has any justification to universalize
it. We also wonder where he gets the authority to universalize Acts 13:2 as
though the Holy Spirit always and everywhere speaks to us verbally to call out people.
In any event it is clear that Dean has his own “explanation” ready for any pastor or authority who criticizes his
hermeneutic: If you do, you are a “HIRED
MAN who has been trained to come up with some kind of long winded, complicated
'explanation' that will obscure the obvious, ignore the facts, and nurse
[others] through their moment of insecurity”. That's quite a convenience to
have for every rebuttal.
Some points follow about deferring too much to pastoral authority, and
here Dean strikes home against a sheeplike mentality, though we would again
say, hardly anywhere near universally, and it is paranoia, not data, that leads
Dean to act as though all pastors care about is their “PAYCHECK”. Dean speaks of the experience of being “dismissed with contempt”; one may ask
whether it is Dean's own delusions that are the real problem, as his entire
complaint works upon the assumption that he is so obviously
right about everything!
That can hardly be so, for of course the hermeneutical homicide
continues:
“Our Lord Jesus
said, Swear not at all (Matt.5:34); and James said, ABOVE ALL THINGS, SWEAR NOT
(James 5:12): but they are PROUD to be seen on the stage with the newly elected
political big-shot when he swears an oath; NOT to support and defend the Bible,
but The Constitution; NOT to be loyal to Jesus, but to the interests of The
State. No, they say they see no conflict here, and they have already rehearsed
a veritable deluge of “interpretations, explanations, and excuses” to sputter
out at anyone who dares to suggest that a Christian who swears to represent and
defend the interests and policies of The State has entered a conflict of
loyalties”.
In essence what this more likely means is: They have produced a
contextually grounded explanation which contradicts Dean's “plain English” reading of texts like
Matthew 5:34 and James 5:12 (here and on his attempt to apply it to the Pledge
of Allegiance!), and because such answers are beyond Dean's ability to reply
to, he merely designates them “excuses”
for lack of a better answer. Such is the inevitable “fortress mentality” of one
locked in indefensible preconceptions. In Dean's comparisons of unnamed and
unspecified modern preachers to Pharisees and Sadducees, and their joining
together to get rid of Jesus, one wonders beyond the worthwhile moral lesson
whether there is not some ego trip involved in which Dean thinks of himself in
the role of Jesus.
Some dry and simplified history follows of persecutions within the
church of Anabaptists, Servetus, and others, where no effort is made to
ascertain whether their doctrine was correct, whether or not the responses to
them were proper or not. Then more decontextualizing occurs:
“How can a man who feels
obliged to love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that
hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you (Matthew
5:44) be of any use to the armed forces?” The answer Dean misses: Matthew 5:44 refers
to interpersonal relationships, not relationships among nations.
“How can a policeman that
knows that the throne of iniquity has no fellowship with God, when it frameth
mischief by a law (Psalm 94:20), be trusted to enforce what he KNOWS is an
unfair law, when by doing so he will bring ruin and hurt upon otherwise decent,
harmless, and productive people?” No specific is offered here, so no answer can be provided.
“How can any lawyer that
claims to be a Christian deal with these words of Jesus: And if any man will
sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also (Matthew
5:40)”. It's very
simple: by contextualizing the words of Jesus. Keener [Matthew
commentary, 198] notes that this verse offers a “shockingly graphic, almost
humorous, illustration of what he means by nonresistance to force his hearers
to consider their values”. Giving away both garments would have resulted in
total nudity, an “intolerable dishonor” in ancient Palestine. This act would
shame the person who sued you in the first place — Biblical law required the
overnight return of a garment taken as pledge (Exodus 22:26-7) and the person
taking your cloak would be quite a grinch! The verse does offer a polemic
against a litigious society, but it is also no different —actually better— than
Epictetus' comment that one should surrender one's cloak or even one's body to
those who demand it, for none of these things belongs to one anyway. The
emphasis is on the kingdom being valued more than things and offers no
commentary against use of law. (Unlike 1 Corinthians 6:7, which DOES speak
against use of lawsuits between Christians — but not against non-believers!)
Dean then offers some paranoia over tax exemption status for churches
and that you can't take an exemption if you just hand over money to a poor
family. True, but the poor family can just as well go to a charity which you
contribute to. Making this an issue of “'official
credentials' that are recognized and honored by THE WORLD” is a patent
overstatement. Having gone through the 501(c)(3) process, we will assure the
reader that it gets no “special privileges
in the jail, courthouse and hospital that are denied to everyone else who is
not an officer of The State” as Dean supposes. Nor can it be framed as a “subsidy” that forces taxpayers to
support religions that they do not agree with, as though what taxpayers give is
some kind of zero-sum game, and when you give to one church this forces some
other person to give more to pay for government services. In the end paranoia
leads Dean to declare:
“The modern
Pharisees and Sadducees stand ‘arm in arm’ with the policeman, the postman, the
fireman, the doctor, the mayor, and the schoolteacher: together they present a
UNIFIED front line of RESISTANCE to all revolutionaries, and a seamless wall of
contempt for any prophet that does not have his credentials in hand and a mob
at his back. This ALIGNMENT of the RELIGIOUS leaders with those who represent
the interests of THE WORLD is continuously implied, and often directly affirmed
to our children every day, to PREVENT them from realizing that The Truth
requires that they come out from among them, and be ... separate” (2
Corinthians 6:17).
The problem with this is context. Paul speaks just before: “Be ye
not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”. This means not
having public office? If so, one wonders why Erastus was not told by Paul to
quit being Corinth's treasurer. And let's not forget 1 Corinthians 5:9-10: “I
wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not
altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world”.
Paul's rule is “free association outside the community and strict discipline
within the community”. [Witherington, Corinthians commentary, 160], except
where idolatrous or immoral practices are involved. And 2 Corinthians
6:15-16, which Dean blatantly ignores for his purposes, makes it clear that
what Paul has in mind here is specifically “yoking” in a
religious sense:
“And what
concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an
infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the
temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people”.
Dean warns of being a “friend of the world” but when it comes to reading
the texts rightly, Dean is apparently strung out in orbit.
By the way, if you want to read about the model of New Testament Church
according to the New Testament, click here.