This chapter is right about many things and we agree with Dean on most
of his exposition. But, the fact that
there are some good things in this
book does not prove that all that is
in it is true or right. There must be some
bait on the hook or no one would bite. Even if the intent is evil, one would
expect some apparent good as a means of
enticement. Christians would hardly be drawn to something that is clearly and
totally wrong and harmful.
We don’t believe Dean’s intent in writing TGD is evil. We believe he has
been misled by “the voice he believes comes from God and commanded him to write
this book”. We believe he has been paying attention to evil spirits, and that
he has been used by them to spread error, confusion and contention among the
people of God. This is why we can find good and bad things in his book, right
and wrong, true and false. Our concern is for others —for those who have not their
powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from
evil (Hebrews 5:14). We want to help them to see that Dean is a salt pond that
sometimes yields fresh water (James 3:11).
But it all runs back to Dean's big theme —“apostasy now”— and in that
respect he tells us that we have “antichrists” all over in the form of “A CLASS
OF POPULAR CLERGYMEN”.
No names; but not that Dean is wrong in one sense. Of course we have “antichrists”
even now of all sorts and we had them in the first century. But compared to
those in the first century, the ones Dean thinks are the danger are mere
amateurs. They do not even make Messianic moves as did Theudas. They do not let
people proclaim them Messiah, as even Bar Kochba did. That Dean sees the need
to stretch the meaning of “antichrist” to include those who “allow someone to use your APPROVAL as THE
PROOF that all is well between them and God, OR, to account THEIR APPROVAL OF
YOU as THE PROOF that THEY are genuine and sincere” — a class of people
whose existence is dependent, not surprisingly, on Dean's anecdotal profession
to have “met quite a few along the way”
who were not doing this exactly, but who were making use of Dean as a teacher!
Thus he tells us that he himself was an “antichrist” for a time!
Sadly, he claims that he refused to see “CLEAR EVIDENCE” of his antichrist status in that he missed “LACK OF PROGRESS” by his students and
an avoidance of “FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS”.
He supposes that his students coming back to him repeatedly and asking the same
question, over and over again, is an example of being “Ever learning, never
able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy3:7)”. That this
contextually refers to the “weak women” in Timothy's church (and to the “weak
women” of the last-day church), and not to everyone, and to those who are
involved in the proto-Gnostic heresy in particular, does not stop Dean from
midrashing his way to a conclusion that this personal experience in his inner
circle proves Christianity as a whole is full of little antichrists. For some
reason, the idea that perhaps he was just inadequate as a teacher does not
cross his perception.
In turn, Dean supposes that because these people he “taught” had “FORBIDDEN
SUBJECTS” this is another sign of this last-days apostasy. Interestingly we
are told that these others “would twist
my words and slander me in public”, which while hardly admirable behavior
does lead to the question of whether indeed Dean's inadequacies were part of
the problem. Given his questionable exegetical methods so far, we would not
doubt it.
An extended diatribe follows on the evils of superstitions ranging from
thinking company is coming if you drop a utensil to breaking a mirror for seven
years of bad luck; on shamans, and assuming too much authority. The purpose of
this connected narrative seems to be to warn us not to become mediators of
salvation like Christ, which is sound advice but is abused by Dean, who shows
himself here more than a little paranoid. We are the body of Christ, true; and
it is said: “The only part of the human
body which is at once both conspicuous and absolutely necessary for life is the
head (Colossians 1:18), but the head is Christ, Himself. Anyone who
'functionally' plays out the role of the head has supplanted Jesus Christ, and
therefore is an antichrist”. But how does one “functionally” do this? Being the pastor of a congregation? It is
never quite clear why Dean thinks others are usurping Christ headship over His
church by playing the role of a pastor in a
congregation while he is free of that accusation while he plays the same role
among his parishioners?
Allusion is made to “that Great
Conglomerate of competitive and socially exclusive Denominations that make up
Christendom” as not being exemplary of the body (a grain of truth to that)
and a more clear reference is made to the clergy. On that point, though, the
hayseed flies through the air like a woodchipper tossing mulch:
He quotes and explains Matthew 23:5 this way “... all their works they
do for to be seen of men; they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the
borders of their garments. Phylacteries are little boxes that contain printed
passages from the Bible; they were thought of as testimonials to the sanctity
of the wearer. It is not a far stretch to compare these to the diplomas,
licenses, and certificates by which our modern ‘clergyman’ thinks to certify
his spiritual authority”.
Well, while it is obviously true that a clergyman can use and abuse these
things in the way described, to “present
the appearance of social, spiritual, and moral superiority”, the same can
be done with any degree, license, etc. possessed by anyone in any field, and
in fact one can use one's alleged brainpower and/or personal charisma, without
pieces of paper, in the same way —as he usually does it throughout his book. As
it stands Dean's screed is structured as one very much opposed to the mere act
of self-education, and his implicit comparison of a certificate of education to
a “dog's head on a stick” used by a
shaman, is beyond absurdity and presupposes no real basis or need for
education.
As usual Dean mixes just enough concerted truth to be dangerous but not
enough of it to be accurate. Yes, preachers may dress well to impress; they may
also dress well to honor God before others, but he cannot look beyond the act,
it seems, to motives. We surely do have problems of pride among the clergy that
match those of the Pharisees Jesus condemned; of those who become too “worldly”
and do not separate themselves enough; of those congregations who will refuse
to discipline someone they too much revere. But while a preacher's television
show may be self-named out of pride, it may also be self-named for the sake of
ease of communication and identification. Not that we have not always had such
issues; it is not new to this time and place, and so no sign of any “end” at
hand. And thus Dean's arbitrary generalizations are more than reckless; they
are irresponsible.
Some errors of note: Dean says of the Lord Jesus and the crowds, “Sure. . . they all came running when there
was free food and miracles of healing; but these same people turned away once
Jesus started preaching, and they said 'crucify Him' when they realized that
His teachings threatened the social, religious, and economic order of their
society…” Dean is again historically confused; these were not the “same
people” because the establishment in Jerusalem was not the peasantry of
Galilee. He also claims that 1 John 4:3, “And
every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh”,
is a denial “that Jesus IS come NOW to
save YOU”, when contextually it refers to the heresy of docetism (that Christ
was a “figment” and not a flesh and blood person); it therefore cannot be
abused to support Dean's arguments about modern preachers who act as false
representatives of God.