In a situation that truly drips with irony, Dean begins here by
claiming, “Most of the people that I meet
like to ask questions for which they DON'T want any answers”. The irony is
that such people exist, and their usual tack is to become very much like Dean:
claiming to have some special insight; dismissing scholarly rebuttals to what
they believe as “excuses” or waving it off in favor of “what the Bible plainly
says”; calling other people liars who do not serve the true God; threatening
hellfire and damnation to those who disagree with them. It is this last tactic
especially that inspires Chapter 18, as Dean professes to identify for us “hirelings”
on this road to damnation.
Dean offers first a repeat screed about money and the church — the same
as before, good points mixed with paranoia, to say nothing of error: He
estimates a billion dollars “will come
into Christendom this week alone”, though he classifies “Christendom” so
broadly that it includes anything at all from rest homes to churches. In that light
his claim that “NOTHING in history can be
compared to it” is ludicrous. If we want to use such broad and vague
classifications, any major or mid-level industry we choose has that figure beat
even if it is correct. If you think not, ask how much “computers” will bring in
one week if we include everything from Microsoft to Circuit City down to Two
Guys' Computers and the EB Games store.
We also have a lesson for Dean in publishing. He opines, “Every day, in the Christian bookstores,
people pay $20, $30, $60, OH YES! And even $70, or even $80 for JUST ONE COPY
of God's Bible!” If the motive is to get glory by spending or to make
money, the complaint is valid. However, a Bible can be expensive for the very
simple reason that it is the only way to cover production of a specific
edition. Like college textbooks, or any book, a Bible can be expensive because
very few copies are printed and all expense in printing comes from initial
costs, which is also why a best-seller can be sold cheaply per copy and a college
textbook cannot be. Whether this all ends up (with i.e., Sunday school
materials, hymnals, etc) making Christian publishing “THE MIGHTIEST PUBLISHING AND PRINTING CONCERN ON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE
EARTH” as Dean thinks is another issue. We rather doubt Broadman and Holman
is in the Fortune 500 list.
Dean piles he rhetoric, however, pointing to money spent on greeting
cards, music, jewelry, etc. with no actual figures or comparisons, just
rhetoric to behold. As usual, yes, there are good points: our bookstores need
more study material (as the likes of Dean make clear!) and less knick-knacks. We
have real problems, too, with “Testamints” as an evangelistic tool. On the
other hand, Dean's generalized screed against “unsavory” individuals (with
special emphasis on “musicians”), and those who become pastors because they
like the travel (!) and the “freedom of schedule”, (!!) who are only out to
make a buck, is a delusion straight out of a Chick tract. Such individuals
certainly exist. But we have more news for Dean. He describes his own
experience as a pastor on a trip to speak, of how he was taken care of, his
expenses paid for, his transportation arranged. This is called normal
hospitality. It is also very close to how the Lord and Paul financed their
ministries: through the patronage of their supporters. Tough life? If Dean has
guilt over it, let him spread the excess elsewhere rather than trying to foist
guilt on others because of his own conscience problems.
Dean shows a little of contextual education by saying of the mustard
seed parable: “All that you may
immediately see in this parable is that the Kingdom of heaven would start out
small, but get real big. Even on the surface, this 'interpretation' seems
ludicrous to me. Why would the fact that the 'Jesus movement' was going to grow
large need to be called a 'mystery'? The word MYSTERY means SECRET. Besides,
it's obvious that something small is becoming big: anyone can see that; WHERE'S
THE MYSTERY?”
The “mystery” is in knowing that the term “mystery” does not mean “secret”
per se, but rather something revealed by God alone to those
who are initiates into the Kingdom. However, Dean doesn’t miss the point. He
decontexualizes further by adopting the Skeptical objection that “a mustard plant does not become a tree”.
The answer, he does say correctly, is not that Jesus was ignorant of botany. Dean's
conclusion that the mustard seed parable implies that “THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WILL GET BIGGER THAN IT IS SUPPOSED TO, AND BE
INFESTED WITH DEMONS” is right. Amazingly, there is neither decontextualized
exegesis nor extensive paranoia in his explanation.
Further poor exegesis occurs as Dean defines “the Kingdom of Heaven” as “ALL
THOSE THINGS, PEOPLES, AND TERRITORIES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO AND/OR
CHARACTERIZED BY ALL OF THE VARIOUS HEAVENS”. He should try scholarship's definition instead. Dean also offers an interpretation of Matthew
16:18 that could be considered correct.
Dean says all of this in the service of claiming that Jesus in the
parable of the mustard seed predicted the “apostate Christianity”. He is right
about it. But we don’t agree with this: “Another
evidence that Christendom is TOO BIG TO BE TRUE can be found in Our Lord's
description of His Church as a little flock (Luke 12:32)”. The Lord was
speaking to his disciples (12:22) which at the time WAS just a
little flock; if Dean plays that game, he may as well be a JW and claim only
144,000 will be saved. Our point is that “the apostasy” has always been with
us, and this renders Dean's analysis beyond this superfluous as we showed in our
analysis of chapter
2.
So it is that Dean goes on to abuse as well the correct principle that “God will use the wicked as well as the
righteous to accomplish His purposes is plainly illustrated throughout the
Bible”, to come to the paranoid conclusion that “you may just find out that YOU YOURSELF ARE ONE OF THE HIRELINGS”
or evil persons God uses for His purposes. Perhaps, but that is to be
determined objectively from the contextualized Scriptures, not by Dean's
personal experiences and classifications. He then offers several convenient
classifications indeed, and claims there hirelings “actually constitute the MAJORITY of the people who profess or practice
some form of Christianity in this present evil world”, though when he took
this poll and when he observed the whole lives of all these others we cannot
say. As usual he names no names and only vaguely generalizes, as for example
his superficial view of the Inquisition (his “just for
holding a different 'version' of the faith” proclamation being particularly
naive, and sounding more like an atheist). In a great irony Dean describes
himself in some portions under the heading “madmen”; we will intersperse
comments:
MADMEN: These are the insane ones that commit outrageous and atrocious
acts because “God told them to do it”. (Like writing a book after
quitting your job?) These men are not acting on any particular principle
of Righteousness, or in the defense of any particular truth.(In other words,
they lack in specifics, like Dean.) These MADMEN also act as
MERCENARIES sometimes. They are the ones that assassinate world leaders and
respectable public figures. (And do lesser deeds, no?) These MADMEN
are the ones who will set fire to a “gay bar” or bomb an abortion clinic. They
are frustrated and miserable men, searching for a way to become significant by
doing “some great thing”. (Again, like writing a book declaring that
the Lord commanded him to do such thing?) They look around for some
particular evil person or evil thing to blame the misery of the world, and the
misery of their own life on. They then feel as if they have received a “divine
commission” to do something about it. (No comment needed. Dean speaks
of himself and his paranoia.) They calculate the risks, but go ahead
anyway: for they are going to be HEROS in their own sight. Many of them claim
to have heard “voices”, or been given signs from heaven that tell them what
they are to do. It is usually impossible to convince these MADMEN that they
have not heard from God. (Yes, for example, they dismiss scholarship
contrary to what “God says” as “excuses”, etc.)
Dean does have some good points about “merchants” who sell religious
material for only marketing. Of course he does fail to note that while, to use
his example, a bookseller may not have a particular book in stock, this does
not keep the bookstore from ordering it on request. And Dean
even admits, “If a man is going to have a
rubber comb in his pocket, why not have a comb with a scripture printed on it?
Neither am I complaining that the merchants of these things may earn some money
from it. They deserve that money, and in my opinion, they don't get enough”.
Rather, he says, “What I will complain
about, is that you can hardly find a copy of Bondage of the Will in any
Christian book store”. It perhaps does not occur to Dean that his personal
preferences are not the yardstick for what should be in a store. Works
equivalent to Bondage of the Will have been written since then, in
much clearer language to us, by those with far more contextual education than
Luther. Ironically, Dean who so despises scholarship tells us, “To me, the Christian bookstores are a
hundred times more beneficial to the TRUE BELIEVER than our modern churches”.
Beyond this, little else needs be said of Dean's simple-minded
categorizations. “Merchants” is exemplary: just mix a few truths with Dean's
personal observations and judgments, and that’s all there is to a category.
Because it is close to our heart (and is also likely where Dean would put us
and other apologists!) we will only comment further on his category of “scribes”,
with interspersed comments:
SCRIBES: These are the “professional Bible scholars” of Christendom, who
are ever trying to outdo each other by writing new expositions, commentaries,
and reference works; Note that Dean has automatically ascribed their
motives as “outdoing one another” which is the hayseed approach that is
bewildered by the variety which they hope will displace the works of
those who went before them. Again with the motives. Not that, “which they hope to provide updated
information to”. Scholarship is not a static field and not every scholar can
cover every angle. This is why a variety of voices is needed. Wishing
to show themselves as “inspired”, or as “original thinkers”; they find it
necessary to depart from the formulas and expressions of their predecessors,
even though they are careful to remain within the doctrinal parameters of their
target audience. Again motive is merely imputed arbitrarily. For
example: Martin Luther wrote a commentary on the Book of Galatians. It is,
indeed, a wondrous work: embodying all the power and passion that provoked The
Reformation. Anyone who wishes to review a classic Protestant perspective on
Galatians is well advised to read it. So, what motivates a man to write a NEW
COMMENTARY on Galatians, if all he is going to do, is find a different way to
say the same things that Luther did? “Power and passion”, sorry, will
not cut it. Luther knew zero about the honor-shame dialectic that governed
Paul's confrontation with Peter; he knew zero about Greco-Roman rhetoric which
informs Paul's purpose and method in writing Galatians; in a real sense he was
little better than the average Dean who just read the text in English and
announced his anachronistic understanding. Our knowledge beyond Luther informs
our understanding of Galatians better than he could have hoped. Not that such
persons are not capable of being right — but when they are, it is only on the
lowest level of understanding. Perhaps he thinks that he can “say it
better” than the man, who by “saying it”, turned the whole world upside down
during his own lifetime? Apples and oranges of course. This only tells
us that the “whole world” was in such bad shape that even Luther's
decontextualized commentary could spark revolution. BUT, if this
ambitious author ends up simply harmonizing the words of Luther, What has he
added of any significance? They do much more than that, actually, but Dean's
head is too far in the ground to know this. But if he departs
radically from the viewpoint of Martin Luther, he will alienate his audience:
for Protestantism is essentially the product of Luther's exposition of the New
Testament. Again, let me ask you: What motivates a man to draw attention away
from those teachers and scholars that were able to change the world by their
preaching? I do not deny, that someone may have something ELSE to say about
Galatians that we need to hear; but then, he could simply annotate Luther's
commentary and present that. Note that the whole issue is that Dean
thinks Luther is the standard, which is what is very much at issue. The rate of
scholarship is such that an “annotated Luther” would be more annotated than
Luther. No, this won't do: for these HIRELING SCRIBES are not
interested in the welfare of the Church, nor in the triumph of the Truth; but
rather, are trying to make a name FOR THEMSELVES, and would be pleased to see
their commentary on Galatians displace Luther's as the best known and most renowned. Sad
news for Dean: he is merely assuming motives; and Luther's commentary deserves
to be displaced because it is 400 years out of date on scholarship. Power and
passion and “what we agree with” is not the plumb line for a useful commentary.
Dean knows full well that it will be thrown back in his face that he is
a “scribe” but he excuses that, saying, “No,
I am not. [This] is not a rewrite of any other work that I know of. You have
never read anything like this before, AND YOU KNOW IT”. Wrong. We know that
we HAVE read things like it before, countless time. Dean matches in paranoia
and poor exegesis with Texe Marrs. His social observations have been made time
and time again by those more greatly informed (for example, Chuck Colson). Dean
offers not an original word to speak of, except for 1) his personal
experiences; 2) his contorted exegesis, which we may be thankful are “original”.