At request we are now having a closer look at some material on the site apostasynow.com that is an online book titled "The Great Dream." Apostasynow.com is one of those worrywart "no one is saved but me and thee, and I'm not so sure about thee" sites which purports to have pressed a panic button revealing that most or all of the current crop of Christendom is headed down the hell-tubes. As usual with such sites, there are genuine bits of wisdom and genuine bits of legitimate concern mixed in with a whole lot of fluff and a mess more of decontextualized exegesis that would make scholars and the studious want to toss their bon bons.

As a help to our requestor, then, here is a chapter-by-chapter analysis of this rather extended, mildly-manic diatribe, which we will reference as TGD for short.

Chapter 1

TGD starts out earnestly enough, with commentary making the point that those who accept the responsibility of teachers need to be responsible people, and in essence claim to speak for God and represent his truth. That's fairly good advice, and it needs to be taken more broadly by the sort of people who use Kersey Graves as a reliable source, not just Christians. TGD also affirms that the Bible is the Word of God. Not much to discourse with until we get to some personal diatribing, to wit:

Theological debate is treated like A GAME WITH NO STAKES: a GAME, that is played by people who are more concerned with feeling like they won an argument than with LEARNING or PROVING any Truth.

Hopefully TGD doesn't presume to be able to mind-read and assume that it is impossible to intelligently and correctly dispute what they will present, but when it comes to setup like this, it's usually a bad sign that the guy knows he'll be argued against and wants some security, convinced he's already right. Of course we may have already expected that from a site called "Apostasy Now." There follows some good stuff about priorities in life and about subjective interpretation which is agreeable. It remains to be seen whether TGD's material will rely on sound interpretative principles or whether this is just another pre-emptive strike against those who claim TGD is messing with the text.

We get some signs of heigh-ho and disdain for scholarship starting here:

But NOW, Christendom is completely saturated with a veritable HOST of "trendy translations", and "revised revisions", and "polished paraphrases", which not only differ from the King James Version in form and expression (which is not always bad), but also in SUBSTANCE and CONTENT (and this, is very bad). So-called "Modern Scholarship" has told us that the Bible we have now is NOT RELIABLE: So, these new "versions" completely omit, discredit, or change, scores of Bible verses that once stood as the walls of a canyon around the narrow way (Matt.7:14) of truth. On every page there are all those LITTLE NOTES that tell you that you CAN'T REALLY TRUST WHAT YOU'RE READING. We are told that these DOUBTS and questions about the CONTENTS of the Bible are the product of "better scholarship and recently discovered evidence."

SO, I GUESS WE BETTER WAIT, AND NOT COMMIT OURSELVES: for these "scholars" are sure to get around to introducing another "new and improved Bible": one that shall FINALLY tell us the real truth. This is THE DIMINISHING GROUND OF THE ABSOLUTE: when the longer and harder you look, the more faint everything becomes.

Ah, yes, the panic button of unsurety that becomes the frightened in faith. Hmm, there aren't many specifics here, so not much can be said, but here's an equally generalized statement. Christendom is supplied (hardly "saturated") with a goodly number of translations that, following Paul's instructions to be "all things to all men" do what they can to make the Bible accessible and intelligible to the modern reader. Some (i.e., the gender-neutral NIV) are pointless exercises in political correctness. Others are serious attempts to make the Gospel message coherent in a different language, in a different culture, and have used further study and disciple to make the substance and content more intelligible as well. Modern scholarship has NOT told us that the Bible we have now is not reliable; it has told us that there are only minor issues of verbiage, and no issue that affects doctrine and in no way places a chink in that canyon. Only the paranoid or uneducated could believe such a thing. The little notes tell us such things as what a variant reading may be in the LXX or in other mss. Those who take this as a way of divorcing all trust are stepping towards the edge of paranoid lunacy. These are not "doubts and questions" of anything of significance, and for the most part these Bibles are indeed the product of "better scholarship and recently discovered evidence" (i.e., earlier mss., and discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls). To quote Alfred E. Neuman, whose scholarship is a hair better than what TGD displays so far, "What? Me, worry?" No diminishing ground here at all, but there is more latent paranoia, to wit:

NOW WHO, I ASK YOU, is going to risk their MONEY, their CAREER, their HEALTH, their FAMILY, or their very LIFE, on the counsel of a Bible that admits to being full of errors, and which MAY OR MAY NOT BE CORRECTED LATER?

Now who, I ask in reply, is going to be so paranoid as to think that such textual issues are of enough difference that we will run like frightened lambs from a decision for Christ? TGD offers no specifics; it is as though we are to believe that there are Bible versions which claim new scholarship showing that Jesus didn't call himself Christ but that he called himself an Amway dealer. Hmmm. If you want to risk your money, career, et al. on whether Chronicles says 4000 baths or 5000, go right ahead -- you can join the Skeptics who do the same.

One final panic button before ending Chapter 1:

If I say, THE BIBLE SAYS THIS: they say, "That verse was added in the 10th century, so it has no authority". If I say, THE BIBLE SAYS THAT: they say, "My version doesn't read like that". WHERE DOES THIS END? It ends.....in APOSTASY.

It ends, frankly, in paranoia. Only one verse (the famous Comma of 1 John) falls under the "added in 10th century" category, and that one isn't needed for the doctrine of the Trinity. "My version" et al is a vague generality which is beyond addressing. What's it run down to? TGD has the appearance of the guy with the sign that says THE WORLD WILL END IN 10 MINUTES and walks around with it 24 hours a day. It's that bad.

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 begins with some non-directed commentary about how "many now say that we are on the brink of the greatest revival of Christianity since the Book of Acts..." They are in fact right, as Philip Jenkins says in The Next Christendom; it's just happening in the Third World, not here. In any event, after claiming that "the Lord directed me" and the Lord even gave him passages in Isaiah as a warning to others...Can we hear Joseph Smith knocking? Yes, we can:

All I am going to do here is present you with a 'book report' on what the Bible says about the last days of Christendom....You ought to know then, that I am not writing this book for you; but for God; Who certainly knows "what I am up to", and has already decided whether I am living up to the light I have, or just inciting a controversy for some malicious and selfish purpose.

...and in what follows, TGD cites exactly the same passages that Mormons use to claim that the Christian church went "apostate" in the second century. And yes, TGD falls the same way. The references used either refer to an apostasy with known content that occurred in the first century (2 Tim. 4:3-4), or contain no specific reference to what "apostasy" will occur (Acts 20:29-31, 2 Peter 2:1-3, 1 Tim 3:13). But just to cover himself and make sure he can use this stuff, TGD assures us: "... there is NO, not so much as a single mention in the New Testament of any time in which this evil trend will ever be reversed...." Nor is there a single specific word that justifies broadening these passages beyond the times of their referents. It runs down to this: Obviously there will be error and apostasy as long as people exist. But simply throwing these passages in the air in advance (as even the Mormons often do) is to beg the question and to cheaply use the Bible's authority to advance a case prematurely. If TGD thinks he has a great apostasy proven, let these alleged predictions of "it" appear not in Chapter 2, but in Chapter 100 once he has proven his case.

TGD does engage a specific at least here:

2Pet.2:3 And through COVETOUSNESS shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgement now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. Now we all know, don't we, that one of the main complaints made against the churches, is their their endless pleading for more of your money, right? And here we have it said that through the desire to get your money shall they with carefully rehearsed words make MERCHANDISE of you: or, in other words, THEY COMPETE FOR YOUR LOYALTY IN ORDER TO GET YOUR MONEY. It is impossible for me to believe that you do not see this!

It is also impossible to believe that TGD does not see his own begged question: That the complaints about "endless pleading" are indeed ALWAYS valid (and not the errant complaints of selfish parishoners who refuse to support legitimate missions); that the motives of anyone requesting support are always impure. TGD has made it his business to mind-read anyone who requests support as being "covetous" with no concern for discernment. Well, what of that Jesus' ministry was supported by others financially, as was Paul's? In that day and age, to get support, you went and ASKED a wealthy person or two to be your patron (Luke 8:1-3). In that day also it was considered a mark of honor to share the wealth, and shameful to refuse. Now it is considered honorable to have wealth and a shame to ask someone to share it! TGD has fallen for the anachronism of reading modern values into the text.

It should be noted here that TGD obviously holds to a traditional dispensational eschatology, which we of course find wanting. In other words, one of TGD's foundational premises -- that we are "NOW and INDEED at The End of This Age" -- we consider completely false, having seen the referred age end in 70 AD. Thus also warnings TGD uses in 2 Thess. 2:1-4 about a "falling away" we also consider fulfilled long ago (and see them as fitting in with warnings like Paul's that apostasy would occur in the lifetimes of his listeners). In any event, TGD puts forth the vague claim that all manner of teachers (no specific names or teachings yet) are "ALL, and EVERY ONE of them, LIARS" and proposes that modern prophecy teachers are "attempting to DECEIVE YOU." I doubt if it's that direct, but one thing is for sure: with an injection of preterism, TGD's entire case collapses in a heap. But let's proceed to more particulars anyway.

Chapter 3

"Where is the love?" TGD wants to know, and he assumes that since he doesn't see much, we must be near the End and in the Great Apostasy. Unfortunately, where we should expect a broad sociological study on the lack of love around the globe in Christian circles, the only evidence we get from TGD of a lack of love ("This love is nearly extinct in Christendom today.") is...

...his personal experiences in the 60s and 70s verses his experiences today.

One has to wonder, what of the great churches in the Third World? What of the homeless missions, the hospitals, the expressions of agape? What of them? TGD like many has assumed that "love" in the Biblical sense means personal sentimentality; it actually means (see here) Joe Clark wielding a baseball bat in the public interest. TGD is thus only partly right when he says it is love that "does something"; it is indeed, but not just anything that pacifies. TGD writes of those who made "GREAT SACRIFICES of...time, their money, and their privacy" and "walk[ing] the streets looking for someone to witness to." He doesn't show us any stats that show that this (or similar efforts) are any less than they were, pro rata. He does complain that he's not personally satisfied:

I remember those days very well. When I was troubled or confused, there were many people who would SIT UP ALL NIGHT with me; to COMFORT, COUNSEL, or PRAY with me. People that I had just met: people who didn't know ANYTHING about me, would devote an entire afternoon, or even several afternoons, to discussing The Faith with me.

Yes, well, unfortunately, at about the time Adam Walsh was kidnapped, certain things about such encounters changed: The one who would "sit up all night" with you was justified in wondering whether doing so would end up with some crime as a result. But even so, what evidence is there that this has stopped? None. What evidence is there that this was going before TGD's heydays of the 60s and 70s? None is given. What range of data is offered outside of TGD's "this is my life" program, saying that these days he only meets people who have "ulterior motives"? NONE. TGD takes a tiny slice out of his life and universalizes it, and from this we are to assume that there is evidence of a church-wide apostasy.

TGD speaks of "GROWING COLDNESS" (all caps) in the secular world as well, but while indictments such as this often do hold, it remains that such "proof" as he has of loss of love in the Body of Christ is anecdote and affirmation: "The love that makes SELFLESS SACRIFICES, TAKES RISKS, and ENDURES ALL THINGS for the sake of God, Bible, and Truth; IS GONE from religious society AND YOU KNOW IT." Yep. We "know" it. That's the ultimate proof, isn't it?

TGD is right in one respect: We are less loving in American Christendom, and more focused on prosperity and things like the purchase of carpet, than the ancient church. But that is because we are individualists, and agape is a collectivist-oriented phenomenon. In the meantime collective societies have vibrant, loving and giving churches that match the apostolic churches, and TGD seems to see nothing outside his own front door. Maybe he'll tell us the End will come only here first and later to Africa.

In what follows TGD offers some rambling comments about the nature of faith and works, which might be resolved by consultation here. But the final score is: right about perhaps his limited view of the church, but far from enough evidence to claim some "great apostasy" is at hand -- even IF the dispensational view of eschatology were correct. Oddly enough, TGD comes very close to agape contextually at the very end of this chapter:

THE LOVE THAT IS ALWAYS SELFLESS will be loud, and demanding, and EVEN annoying; and RISK REJECTION by the very ones you love; if by doing so you may save them from GREATER HARM, or awaken them to their NEED FOR God.

It is regrettable that TGD chooses anecdotes over data when it comes to "proving" that there is a lack of this in the church as a whole and worldwide.

Chapter 4

This is a huge chapter, which TGD lays out in three parts, but it boils down to just a few points, since it turns fully on TGD's assumed dispensational eschatology. Scattering hayseed about liberally, TGD assures us that:

AFTER READING more than 20 commentaries on the Revelation, which were written at different times by various men who held to an assortment of theological persuasions, I only arrived at a few firm conclusions. Nearly every commentator was able to produce a most convincing argument in behalf of his own peculiar way of interpreting certain and particular symbols and passages. NOT a SINGLE ONE of these commentators was able to adhere to his own rules for interpretation throughout the book: but all found it necessary to compromise their previously established principles to avoid flatly contradicting one or more of their fundamental premises. I truly respect these men for making the attempt, and I certainly do not think that I could do any better.

Not that we are told what books these were or who wrote them (Aune? Walvoord? Snuffy Smith?) or what TGD knows of first century life that could enable him to tell who might be right or not. But in the end, it seems TGD missed for sure the preterist understanding of Revelation (see here) and since he assumes throughout that some dispy version is all that is available, there isn't as much we can say in reply.

For the next few pages, though, TGD's spiel -- repeated several different ways -- amounts to this:

• Revelation promises hell to liars.
• You guys out there are lying (not mistaken honestly) about how to interpret Revelation (and the rest of the Bible, too).
• You're gonna BURN, you liars!

There are a few things we could shock TGD with here (such as the notion of "honorable lies" in honor-shame settings), but while no one is going to dispute that false witness is sin, as is permissive ignorance, we surely did not need pages of rampage from TGD to tell us this.

With some humility, TGD admits that even "[a]fter 20 YEARS of agonizingly meticulous Bible study: and after many long hours of prayer and detailed research just for THIS one article" he is still not sure he is offering the whole truth, just a "somewhat better" one. He relates his frustration at finding out how to interpret Revelation (we could have saved him some trouble by sending him to a seminary library) but we are also assured:

The Lord answered me in A DREAM; and He showed me, that He has PURPOSEFULLY obscured the details that surround His Return...The Same Lord also COMMANDED me to write a book about THE GREAT and FINAL APOSTASY of Christendom...

Well, folks, that sure puts TGD outside of the parameters of scholarship, doesn't it? If a personal dream is going to be the foundation, we may as well dip our hats to Wayne Harrington. But either way TGD is wrong. There is nothing obscure or difficult about Revelation -- nothing more so than any other ancient work -- that serious contextual study will not resolve. TGD apparently never explored these limits in those 20 years of reported study. We're left to wonder as well why "The Lord" while issuing these commands did not give TGD knowledge of first century life and symbolism. Ever a mystery.

TGD then goes into some detail on the subject, "When will the rapture happen?" Since our preterist view is that the only such event is the final resurrection and judgment, and that it is not associated with the so-called "tribulation" (which occurred 66-73 AD) there is no reason for us to engage TGD's ramblings on this issue. It is worth noting only that TGD exorcises himself significantly by not being aware that language like that found in 2 Peter 3:10-13 while "plain" is not thereby literal, but within the context of Jewish apocalyptic language in the first century, is symbolic of an overturning of the social order.

TGD a little later spends many lines explaining to use the need for a definitive "AUTHORITY" for interpretation, and we are told: "That AUTHORITY is: The Common Dictionary." It may surprise TGD to learn that when it comes to reading any text, ancient or modern, "the common dictionary" is only of the least amount of help. Common dictionaries do not provide the contextual detail needed to understand any text outside of the sphere of the culture for whom the dictionary is written. TGD naively quotes 2 Cor. 1:13:

For we write none other things unto you, than what ye can read or acknowledge (recognize and understand); and I trust ye shall be willing to acknowledge them even to the end.

TGD pomps, "The Bible declares on it's own behalf, that it has been given to us in LANGUAGE that EVERY man can acknowledge, RECOGNIZE, and UNDERSTAND: it is the UNIQUE and RELIABLE EXPRESSION of the Mind, Will, Character, and Purpose of God; ACCOMMODATED to all the NORMAL RULES FOR LANGUAGE and all the NORMAL DEFINITIONS FOR WORDS." Yes, he gets all of that out of 2 Cor. 1:13, a tremendous tour de force of eisegesis that neglects the salient point that this was a specific communication between Paul and the Corinthians, persons of a different culture, a different time, a different understanding. None of this by any means ensures "every man" in every place, time and ability will "get it" all through the text in the same way. Indeed the data overwhelmingly declares that this is not the case. TGD naively states further, "The ONLY reason WHY men will insist on 'special rules' for language and 'abnormal definitions' for words when INTERPRETING the Bible is BECAUSE they DISAGREE with what the Bible SAYS." Amazing -- no doubt we will be told that i.e., we interpret a text in terms of the honor-shame paradigm of the ancient world, only because we "disagree" with what the Bible "PLAIN LANGUAGE". Does this sound like certain atheist commentators we all know?

And yet TGD rambles further, "If the DICTIONARY, the GRAMMAR, the LEXICON, and the COMMENTARY are all shown to CONFIRM and SUPPORT the PLAIN LANGUAGE that the dishonest man is offended at; he denies any obligation to submit to the opinions of other men. If this same man is asked HOW he arrived at his 'own interpretation' of The Bible, he claims that he was 'taught by the Holy Spirit'." TGD cannot see the irony of his own contradiction. Above we are told that a dream was used as an epistemic foundation for what he did; yet we are also told here about uses of things like lexicons and commentaries. TGD is apparently torn between two epistemic poles, but perhaps there is some hope here where there was none for our present Skeptics of this type.

In the next section, though, we have yet more eisegesis. Luke 23:29 is quoted, "For behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." TGD claims that Jesus prophesies here that "FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY" (doubtful, but we'll let that pass) women "will count themselves FORTUNATE to have never given birth to ANY children, and FORTUNATE to have never been RESPONSIBLE for the care of children." We are assured: "THOSE days have already come; they are here NOW. We are living in THE AGE OF ABORTION: when children are often thought of as an 'inconvenience' or as an UNWANTED 'expense'." Well. That Jesus addressed this point to "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children," apparently does not click, as it ought to if we think that this prediction was fulfilled 66-73 AD when more than a few of these folks and their children would be alive. That the "blessed" statement comes of those who say it because of all the suffering at hand that makes life miserable -- not because of "expense" or "inconvenience" -- also seems not to be perceived. TGD goes on to offer a mix of good points, paranoia ("the devil is using abortion to target pre-born Christians") and wild rambling on this subject, but for our purposes it is enough to say that his use of Luke 23:29 is irresponsible.

Here it may be worthwhile to defuse a likely speculation TGD will offer against the preterist view: "THE FACT IS, my Friend, that MOST people DON'T want Jesus to come back 'just now'. Any 'Christian' who finds sound reasons to deny that we are NOW in The Last Days should be in sorrow for having such knowledge: NOT RELIEVED!" Let us lay out that the variety of preterism we espouse -- that shared with R. C. Sproul and Gary DeMar -- does NOT claim that Jesus will not be coming back. Rather, it is said that he IS returning, but when he does, the only thing that we are sure will happen in association is resurrection and judgment -- no accoutrements of an anti-Christ figure, no triple sixes on the forehead. Let it not be argued that this position "doesn't want Jesus to come back." It does, and it maintains, even as the common dispensational view, that this return could happen at any moment from our perspective (the "millennium" being what we are in now, and obviously having passed by now a good long time). It simply does not envision him coming back with a train of luggage.

A sample of error in the meantime, beyond what is refuted by the preterist position: TGD declares, "The doctrine of a Final Resurrection and Judgement was well known among the Jews, and Jesus refers to 'Resurrection' as a fact to be taken for granted on several occasions, so WHY would the Apostle Paul refer to 'a resurrection' as a mystery? The Greek word for mystery means 'a secret, known only by a select group'. But how can something that has been 'on record' in the New Testament for almost 20 centuries be called a mystery?" Because actually, the word "mystery" here means not something secret per se, but something revealed only by God. And for the Greek Corinthians, for whom resurrection was a foreign concept, this would indeed by something (relatively speaking) newly revealed to them. TGD's eisegesis of the matter beyond this is irrelevant.

One final note here, on Chapter 4: TGD offers an extensive and interesting account of his interactions with the "88 Reasons" book that predicted a 1998 Rapture. It is interesting in part because he admits that as a date-setter, he had independently arrived at the same 1988 date 15 years earlier! But it is also tragic in that TGD goes on to suppose that the disappointment of 1988 was itself something that fulfilled prophecy, since it now enables people to scoff at the idea of Jesus' return! It seems that TGD still falls for the idea that failures can always be spun out into triumphs. It is symptomatic of TGD's unthinking zeal that he proposes such nonsense as: "The abomination of desolation (Matt.24:15) may well be nothing more surprising than a television set on the pulpit in the Jewish temple or a Christian church"! It is symptomatic of TGD's hayseed approach that he tells us: "No one who 'buys in' on The New Eschatology (in TGD's view, a form of Reconstructionism that completely denies any sort of future eschatology) will do so because they were convinced by the academic evidence."

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 begins with yet more spreading of hayseed about: "The Christian Bible is SO consistant, that NO translation of it, no matter how biased or inadequate, is able to obscure what God intended for His Bible to SAY to the mind of any HONEST man." The news for TGD is that the Bible is ALSO a very "high context" document written in an era when much implied meaning was taken for granted. The "honest" man (whether all in caps or not) isn't going to be helped by honesty if he lacks context. (For more on that, see what we said about an essay also on apostasynow, here.)

But after an appropriate challenge to prove him wrong, we get something that tells us TGD doesn't conceive of that happening:

I am fully convinced that I have personally received orders from The God Who Wrote the Christian Bible to declare in His Name that what you are going to read in this exposition on 1 Timothy 4:1-5 is THE VERY WORD of GOD for these Last Days; and that when Jesus Christ gets back here, and even before then, He will REPROVE, DENOUNCE, OR PUNISH everyone and ANYONE who resists, disagrees with, or contradicts THIS MESSAGE. Got it?

Got it. If I find scholarship that disagrees with TGD, it's all a CONSPIRACY by LIARS who are going to BURN in HELL and who even INVENTED stuff like HONOR AND SHAME out of DECEIT. Because not only is the Bible God's Word; TGD's exposition is, too! God told him so! Is anyone ready to use this man's words as an epistemic foundation?

But what of 1 Tim. 4? It is matched well with known Gnostic-oriented heresies of Paul's day and beyond. Forbidding of marriage and meats matches with the known asceticism, and the Greco-Roman rejection of the physical body. But convinced that the "latter times" are now, TGD bellows: "The 2 SIGNS OF THE APOSTASY are doctrines of devils about MARRIAGE and about DIET." So deprived of the context of first century thought, where do we suppose TGD will find confirmation that people today in what he thinks are the "latter days" are being a) forbidden to marry; b) being told not to eat meat? Simple observation sees none of the former and the latter only in a few corners (yes, your local vegetarian is the anti-Christ!). So how does TGD find it today? As might be expected, by stretching a point as far as he can. Though it plainly says "forbidding to marry" (to start with) TGD slips in that it means, "these doctrines HINDER people from getting married or staying married." Not one hint of justification exists for that "staying" bit; it is inserted just to fit TGD's purposes. And anyway, what of not seeing this all over the place? No worries: "Not every person who has departed from the faith embraces these particular doctrines. This is just ONE FORM of that GREAT and FINAL APOSTASY by the churches of Christendom, that has ALREADY begun and is well underway in the Year of Our Lord, 1991." Um hm. So TGD is confirmed even if ONE person switches from beef to tomatoes on order? This is just an excuse for the point that these alleged signs are NOT appearing on any scale; it is much simpler to realize that this fits in with the Gnostys of Paul's day (TGD's declaration that such ideas "COULDN'T have become popular before now" notwithstanding) -- and that the "latter times" culminated in 70 AD.

TGD seems particularly enamored of the point that these are "doctrines of demons" and insistent that these ideas were planted directly in the heads of people by demons. The problem is that real scholarship isn't so sure. Mounce (Pastorals commentary, 237) notes that what TGD wants is a possible reading (if the genitive is subjective) but it is also possible that this means that the teachings are demonic (attributive genitive). Mounce thinks the former is stronger as a possibility, but being that this is a form of teaching found in the Greco-Roman world long before this, there isn't much functional difference between the two interpretations.

So now to details in how TGD sees these two signs run amuck today. For the first, forbiddance of marriage, he sees it in the level of promiscuity without marriage we see today. How this is "forbidding" is hard to say. The word here is used of very deliberate action (Acts 27:43 "But the centurion, willing to save Paul, kept them from their purpose; and commanded that they which could swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land") and however less we may think of sacred vows, no one is taking shotguns to people at altars and forcing them to turn around. Nor is it being said "Don't get married," period. If anything we have people marrying too quickly and too often.

In a section following TGD makes the same gross error in evaluating Jesus' teachings on divorce that we analyzed here. TGD astoundingly quotes Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, which clearly (in line with the Jewish Shammaite regulations) lays out fornication as an exception for allowing divorce, and regards it as a different occasion being recorded (!) and claims that Jesus says "that if the wife commits fornication BEFORE the divorce, the husband is not at fault for THAT," then also reads 19:9 (the same words!) as referring "to the discovery that your 'fiance' is not a virgin before you actually come together"! Such a twisted interpretation cannot be read even by TGD's naive "plain language" standard, and is also, as shown in the link, completely contrary to all contextual data. (The latter case he tries to support by appeal to Joseph and Mary's example, but this does not show that AFTER the consummation, the same rules do not apply!) TGD also offers decontextualized exegesis about 1 Cor. 7 which is corrected by this.

TGD follows with some commentary on familial obligations which we will refrain from comment upon. Some is right (even after the broken clock, twice a day); much is decontextualized from the first century. There is perhaps a tremendous irony in that TGD comments extensively upon how the Industrial Revolution has changed family practices. The irony being that it never occurred to TGD to check and see whether there were any changes since the first century that undermined his interpretations!

In the end of this section, TGD proceeds, with excessive paranoia, to suppose that Paul's warning about "forbidding marriage" is fulfilled in the modern tendency to wait until one has educational, vocational, or financial stability to be married! While making some good points about family unity (that have not been made elsewhere with much more informed commentary!), it remains that "delay" is not "forbidding" whatsoever. TGD's stretch is contextually inaccurate and completely unwarranted.

But if you think the stretch is over, by all means, stay seated. Next we are told that Paul's prophecy of meats being forbidden has been fulfilled today. In the modern vegetarian movement? No -- guess again. Rather, Matt. 6:31, "Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink?," is stretched like Silly Putty to mean not just that we should not worry about how we will get our basic needs for food met (a real and genuine first-century concern), but also means not to worry about "whether the food that God supplies is 'nutritional' according to 'modern SCIENCE'" ! Matt. 4:4, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," is taken to mean "our health, and subsequently our survival are NOT dependent on how we 'select' what we eat or drink. When Jesus sent the 70 Disciples out to preach, He told them to eat and drink such things as they give (Luke 10:7). Jesus never told them to 'watch what you eat.'" (!!) This commentary is of such magnificently decontextualized stupidity that it is hard to keep a straight face. TGD would have us come to the conclusion that we are obliged to eat what is set before us even if it is filled with botulism and covered in mud. Let's contextualize these comments of the Lord, rather: In the day of Jesus, the diet of the peoople "consisted of a few basic staples" (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science commentary, 95) with other items "depending on availability and expense." Bread was half of the average caloric intake; the rest was mostly vegetables, especially legumes; wine (very weak by our modern standards) was also a staple. Meat was rare, so much so that livestock was never kept for the sole purpose of meat. Fish was desirable but available only near water. Milk products were available but had to be eaten quickly. The point is: At this stage of the game, nutrition and "watching what you eat" was a practical non-issue. It is absurd, therefore, to suppose that matters of balanced diet would not be a concern for today (does TGD forget that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit?). Even more absurdly, since nutrition was indeed an unknown issue, Col. 2:8, 16 ("Beware lest any man spoil (captivate) you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition (accumulated wisdom) of men, after the rudimentary laws of matter of the world, and not after Christ...Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink.") is taken as a proscription against nutritional science; and naivete of naivetes, 1 Tim. 6:20, versus "science falsely so called" is taken as more of the same! TGD is patently unaware that nutrition as a science did not exist in the first century and would not exist for millennia to come! (That is even IF he is right about Col. 2:16 being such a reference -- not only could it not be, but it refers rather to the sort of Gnostic asceticism, mixed with Jewish speculations, that we note above -- and 1 Tim. 6:20 uses the word gnosis which is again a proto-Gnostic reference not to hard sciences, but to knowledge alleged to be received by revelation!)

While TGD's comments do forewarn against gluttony well enough, the simple fact is that TGD is grossly decontextualized here. The absurd claim is made that the word used for "meat," bromaton, is "a special Greek word that means, 'foods which are counted as nutritional'"! This is patently false, and it is also absurdly stated that are "NEVER are we advised by The Bible to 'pay attention' to calorie counts and vitamins and what science falsely so called tells us is a 'balanced diet,'" an absurdity because such concepts were unknown! (No justification -- sorry! -- is found in that "The Children of Israel survived for most of 40 years in the wilderness on a 'one course meal' made of manna (Exodus 16:35)." Nothing says this diet was exclusive of such vegetables and animal products as were available otherwise; beyond that, if TGD really wants to get technical, none of our food today is supernaturally provided!)

TGD does correctly note that OT diet regulations were not concerned directly with health (see here). However he does continue to vainly babble about the lack of proscription in the Bible for "proper diet" as though the ancients really did have the knowledge of what that was, or even the option for that matter; as if Paul would find a Jenny Craig clinic right next door to the synagogue. TGD justifies his inanities further with the anecdotal point that there are people who have bad diets and live to an old age (as if there were not other factors to consider, such as genetics, environment, and personal care!) and in the end you might suppose that TGD would have us have no qualms about Twinkies for dinner every day of the week. It is of course true that Twinkies are not something that make us unholy (though again, TGD seems oblivious to the principle extended in "glorify God in your body") but in fact TGD's end result is even worse that you could hope. Not just Twinkies, apparently, but "intoxicants"; TGD rails in fury at those laws which would keep us from alcohol (hmm -- keeping in mind, as noted here, that in the time of the Bible no one could have imagined a drink that was 500 proof and cheaper than dirt and accessible at every corner store to any schlep with a Visa card) but -- get this:

Alcohol, tobacco, and all drugs are ALL DRUGS; along with caffeine, and aspirin, and sleeping aids, and cough medicine, and laxatives. They are ALL JUST DRUGS. Sometimes even vitamins are classified as drugs. The difference between OPIUM and ASPIRIN, and the difference between CODEINE and COUGH DROPS, is a line you have drawn in your own mind. If you have a "right" to use any of them; you have the SAME RIGHT to use all of them. These doctrines of devils make "holiness" into a matter of what you MAY or MAY NOT consume.

Fancy that! So drugs that induce states of hallucination, that cause destruction of brain cells, that cause tooters to drive recklessly into crowds of innocent victims; that undermine the social order that TGD claims allegiance to, you have a perfect "right" to, yes indeed! What this goes to show is that when someone like TGD severely decontextualizes the text of the Bible (reminder: the refinement of such things as opium was as yet unknown in the ancient Mediterranean; at best, the Scythians were just learning to get a mild buzz because they burned cannabis on an open fire), the road ends in one of two destinations. One is the frustrated apostate like a Barker or a Till that can't live with the cognitive dissonance. The other is a naive literalist like TGD who sacrifices any principle necessary in order to maintain any sort of intellectual consistency. As a friend of mine says, I might find this plausible if I smoked some dope first!

Next on TGD's list of texts to decontextualize is Romans 14, though as it happens, he does get it right -- this is not a matter of mere annoyance, but of serious damage. Nevertheless the ridiculous assumption remains that Paul's words can be used to justify taking snorts of cocaine. TGD's simplistic screeds against Prohibition (despite shortcomings, it did significantly decrease alcohol consumption and was a necessity brought on by the social dangers, including mortal injuries and deaths, being caused by careless consumption) and paranoid claim that laws against drugs exist "whose ONLY purpose was to funnel money to the medical, pharmaceutical, and liquor industries" are the product a mind gone awry.

Chapter 6

This chapter is about a "false Jesus" TGD sees running around our churches, and what it amounts to is that TGD is upset because children are not taught everything about Jesus he thinks they should hear, and then he supposes they get upset later in life when they find out "the truth". As has often been the case TGD rests on 2 legs out of 4 on his stool. The problem in inadequate discipleship in our churches is real (not just with children, but also adults). Nevertheless it is hard to suppose that what TGD describes amounts any more to "deception" that it is to fail to teach kindergartners calculus at the same time as their times tables. TGD worries that children are not told of words of Jesus like, "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, then having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Presumably TGD also thinks we can educate children ages 3-6 about such relevant contextual matters as Semitic hyperbole and Jewish eschatology. He wants such children to hear, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal." He whines that this is not mentioned because parents wants their children to be "'financially responsible', and to KNOW that WHEN he grows up, he will have to provide for himself." (We wonder if he would mind as well if they were taught that in the ancient world, such financial responsibility was practically impossible; rustproofing and mothballs were eons in the future.) Perhaps TGD has a point, if children (and adults) remain with the view of Jesus as only a "nice man", but it is pure paranoia to suppose that such gentle, by-stages introduction amounts to "TRAIN(ing) YOUR CHILDREN to be the ENEMIES of Jesus Christ" and making out parents to be "false prophets".

Not surprisingly, TGD criminally decontextualizes Matthew 18:3 as the atheist George Smith did, supposing it means one must be as ignorant as a child to convert when it actually means one must be as humble as a child. Given this mishap of eisegesis it is little wonder TGD rejects contextual study, for we are told with paranoia attached that:

To be AS a little child is to TRUST and BELIEVE Jesus Christ, without demanding that He "explain" what He "really meant"; instead of obeying what He really said. The attempt to escape or "explain away" the SIMPLE MEANING of the teachings of Jesus Christ is to try and CREATE "some other" Jesus: ANOTHER JESUS.

If this is so, one wonders about Paul's advice to "test everything" and why the Scripture-checking Bereans were regarded as so noble -- and why true faith is based on evidence. Decontextualized, indeed.

In what follows TGD is correct to admonish that a Jesus suited to ourselves is not a real one. But it remains that we will not discover that Jesus by reading the "plain" English version and drawing decontextualized conclusions which we stubbornly defend in ignorance, as in:

These EXCUSES are usually in the form of "explanations and interpretations", by which they attempt to OBSCURE the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ. Instead of OBEYING or even trying to obey, in simple childlike trust: they EXPLAIN "what Jesus really meant": When they are done "explaining", SIMPLE OBEDIENCE is not necessary. They MISREPRESENT Jesus Christ by putting words into His mouth that He NEVER SAID, and by "explaining" His teachings so that they actually CONTRADICT what He said.

While such is indeed done in error at times, it remains that one such error does not make all erroneous. TGD says the fake Jesus is a sign of apostasy and a coming end. We say that fake Jesuses have actually been around since the Galatian controversy -- and are no such special sign at all. And that in addition, TGD's "plain meaning" Jesus is as fake as any of the others he rails against. (For a corrective on his abuses of Matt. 6:19, see here. TGD also abuses Mark 16:16-20, oblivious to issues here, and arguing that this means we should be seeing miracles today; aside from issues related here as well, if this is so we need to ask TGD what miracles he has done lately!)

Chapter 7

This chapter, mercifully short, notes that "in the last days, mankind will embark on a rampage of PRIDE, CRUELTY, and SELFISHNESS" though when this has not been the case in history, we would like to know. When TGD wrote in 1991 there was as much of this as in 1891, 1791, or 1632; the only real difference is that there are more opportunities. Not that Paul was wrong to see such greater in the "last days" he truly referred to: Between 60-70 was a particularly difficult time in the Empire. However, if TGD thinks the late 20th century was any more exemplary, he needs more than anecdotal generalization to back it up. Oddly enough, TGD even admits that "It's IMPOSSIBLE to make any DEGREE of moral decay into a CLEAR sign of the last days, because we don't know how much better the people in the past really were. We do know this: our forefathers took some pains to conceal their wickedness; while today, many are bold to boast of their wickedness; even on TV, in front of millions." He covers this problem by alleging that, well, what we DO have worse of is people who have a "form of godliness", namely, false TV preachers who claim to heal but do not. Hmmm. Maybe we need to introduce TGD to the likes of Cardinal Richilieu and the hucksters of salvation rebutted by Luther. Then to support his anecdotal fulfillments further, TGD insists that these preachers fit the bill of Paul's warning that they "lead captive silly women laden with sins" because, he supposes, "you would find that the MAJORITY of their supporters are MIDDLE AGED and ELDERLY women" who are "almost always divorced, widowed, single, or trapped in UNHAPPY MARRIAGES, and they are ALWAYS unsaved." Not that an ounce of demographic data is offered to prove it. (TGD also falls for the usual naive and decontextualized commands of "silence" to women in Paul's letters; see here for a contextualized corrective. TGD would probably fall over in shock to be told that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an example of Paul quoting back an opponent's position he disagrees with! No doubt we will be told that this is a case of a "RAT" that is "find(ing) a hole to squirm through". Rather than answer it we will also be threatened, "God will trap all such RATS on Judgement Day." Have some cheese, Glenn, you Rat!)

Chapter 8

In this chapter TGD wonders of problems that preterism solves of why 1 John 2:18 would speak of that day as the "last time." TGD's own resolution is to reveal that the word for "time" in this verse "is really the Greek word for HOUR!" (not that you won't find this "secret" in versions like the NRSV and the NIV) and then, without explaining why this makes any difference, supposes he has found a solution preterism finds much more easily, in for example James 5:3:

Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. YE HAVE HEAPED TREASURE TOGETHER FOR THE LAST DAYS.

Makes sense if there will be a big blow-up in 70 AD, but according to TGD he solves it first by noting that "for" should read "in". How does this solve the problem? In the end, after much boasting and pontificating, and after wagging his finger at readers demanding a fideistic allegiance to any solution that works and demanding repentance if they don't do so, we are told:

THE CLOSER TO THE END OF THE NEW TESTAMENT YOU GET, THE MORE FREQUENTLY THE END OF THIS AGE IS MENTIONED, and also, THE CLOSER TO THE END OF THE NEW TESTAMENT YOU GET, THE NEARER THE END OF THIS AGE IS SAID TO BE.

That's very interesting and even possibly true, but how does this help? All books of the NT were written before 70 AD, or before 100 even if you are a "liberal". The answer, TGD says, is to decontextualize, and assume that John, et al were not talking to who they were actually writing to, but to us, because "the peculiar subject matter of these books would only be clearly understood by men who were living in the times to which they are most specifically addressed." And that is about as useful as saying that "this generation" means, "....the generation I am speaking to. Not you people!" Unfortunately, the present-orientation of the ancients makes that a heavy burden to proclaim.

But it all runs back to TGD's 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 TGD 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 TGD 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. In the end TGD gives us no reason to think that 1 John 2:18 should be preferred to refer to "now" rather than "before." That TGD 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 TGD's anecdotal profession to have "met quite a few along the way" who were not doing this exactly, but who were making use of TGD as a teacher! Thus TGD tells us that he himself was an "antichrist" for a time!

Sadly, TGD 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 Tim.3:7)." That this contextually refers to the "weak women" in Timothy's church, and not to everyone, and to those who are involved in the proto-Gnostic heresy in particular, does not stop TGD from midrashing his way to a conclusion that this personal experience in his inner circle proves we are in the end times. For some reason, the idea that perhaps he was just inadequate as a teacher does not cross his perception.

In turn, TGD supposes that because these people he "taught" had "FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS" this is another sign, but he does not develop any connection of this to 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 TGD's inadequacies were part of the problem. Given his questionable exegetical methods so far, I 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 as abused by TGD, 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 (Col. 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? It is never quite clear what TGD thinks this means; 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 wood chippers tossing mulch:

Matt.23:5 ... 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.

Um hmm. 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 it stands TGD'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 TGD 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 TGD 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 TGD's arbitrary generalizations are more than reckless; they are irresponsible.

Some errors of note: TGD says of 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..." TGD is again historically confused; these were not the "same people" because the establishment in Jerusalem was not the peasantry of Galilee. TGD 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 Jesus was a "figment" and not a flesh and blood person); it therefore cannot be abused to support TGD's arguments about modern preachers who act as false representatives of God.

Chapter 9

This chapter offers a rambling discourse on not being popular with the world or acting like the world, and not pursuing worldly fame and the church admiring the wrong people (sports heresies, stars, etc) and using church service as nothing but a pep rally and then being a Christian in name only the rest of the week. As such we find little at fault with it in this part, other than that like all of TGD's discourses it is about 95% longer than it needs to be. It is rather excessive in the paranoia department against i.e., dramatic performances in church (what of being "all things to all men" in order to communicate the gospel or be effective in doing so?), which is waved off as having the goal in mind that "God is pleased with an uproar." It is less off the mark where it concerns issues such as not ensuring that church speaking guests are doctrinally correct (I note this exceptionally with those who fail to realize that the music ensemble Phillips, Craig and Dean is composed of ministers from the Oneness Pentecostal church, a modalist offshoot).

Ironically enough TGD also notes that "personal testimony" has become too much of a meat market. This is ironic because in the issue of the Christian Research Journal that came out the same time as this article, I noted much the same (in less manic tones) and that the apostles in their preaching appealed to facts about Jesus, not personal testimonies.

TGD does however stick its head in the sand with an extended screed against "PAPER CREDENTIALS" noting that, "Never in the Bible does any one of God's spokesmen ever certify his divine authority by producing or referring to some piece of paper." The sad news for TGD is as follows:

• While it is not useful to use a "piece of paper" to certify divine authority, it certainly does have use in terms of who has better ability to render a qualified exegesis -- which understandably would not be in TGD's interest!
• Paul and Matthew were both educated rabbinic students and Luke was an educated physician. Between these three we have almost all of our New Testament.

It will not do for TGD to spray hayseed around and claim that "(a)ll a diploma means is that one has memorized enough answers to pass a test and had enough money to go to school," or that it is just a means to "SING THE PARTY LINE in order to make a 'career' from it." It is not a matter of "Who, or what, gives a man permission and authority to speak for God?" but who or what gives someone authority (in the knowledge sense) to competently expound on Scripture. Obscuratanists like TGD who think anyone can just open a Bible and start preaching accurately are oblivious to the point that everyone, even the Apostles, even Apollos, had to be taught by someone else, whether Jesus or another. How much more so today when our culture is miles away from theirs?

It bespeaks TGD's paranoia that he remarks that "most of our Presidents have been members" of "secret societies" like the Masons.

Chapter 10

This chapter assumes that TGD has proven we are in the end times, and then makes an issue over people living "business as usual" contrary to Jesus' words. Actually as usual, when we shave down TGD's 95% non-required verbiage, we are left with a kernel of gold. Even as a preterist I affirm that Jesus will return at any time. I also affirm that one must live with God in the forefront of priorities. On the other hand we are also treated to an extend4ed diatribe against "science" as the "treacherous, merciless, lifeless, IDOL-GOD of the DREAM WORLD!" One wonders whether TGD would say the same of Biblical scholarship that tries to understand the text in the context it was written, and whether TGD would have any words for my friends at Creation Ministries International. Naturally 1 Tim. 6:20-1 is once again abused for purpose. TGD also seems hostile to the use of medicine but does not clearly say so.

TGD also makes much of denominational differences: "The very existence of a Denomination presupposes that there are other 'groups' of professing Christians that have a HERETICAL 'version' of The Faith." TGD we think doth protest too much. While that is sometimes the case, it is far from always so. Some have spoken well of liberty in non-essentials; even the NT makes room for this, as for example Paul while denouncing circumcision on one hand had Timothy circumcised on the other for the sake of not offending others. To compare cooperation between Baptists and Presbyterians, who nevertheless remain separate groups, to a religious Babylon not only begs the question that their disagreements are on soteriologically essential issues, but also reeks of paranoia. TGD simply universalizes his own personal confusion and ability to be discerning in such matters. Some ecumenical outreaches should not be made (i.e., Baptists to Mormons) but others can and should be as needed or desired.

At any rate TGD "exegetes" (if one can call such a clumsy and manic procedure by such a word) Revelation to prove that "Mystery Babylon" is the current apostate church, but as shown here that will not fit the context. Much babbling follows in which TGD delivers his opinion of world events ahead, offers simplified political commentary, analyzes the role of the Catholic Church in his "Great Dream" schemata, and reaches the conclusion that almost all of Christendom is currently apostate. How and when TGD completed a complete spiritual inventory of every member of this set, I cannot say, but while much of his description well describes a handful of prominent names in American Christianity, it would be hard to apply it wholesale worldwide without significantly greater experience and exposure than TGD evidences. It is telling enough that TGD must resort to threats and subjective messages declaring his own prophethood: "And by the way, Pal, The Lord has told me that all who resist THIS message are going to get JUDGED...There is One Lord, and One faith, and if you disagree with me, well, then ONE of us must be wrong. AND IT ISN'T ME. The Lord has sent me to tell Christendom that they (you?) have rejected Him by REJECTING His words, and that He is going to AVENGE Himself against those who CLAIM to speak for Him and yet DENY, CONTRADICT, and FAIL TO MENTION the very things that He Himself said. YOU CAN BET ON IT." Given TGD's extremely poor exegetical skills, one suspects that "the Lord" isn't the one informing him, but that perhaps his imagination is. An irony is that TGD then produces a list of spiritual "heroes" whom he admits differed on issues he has claimed difference today in proves apostasy: "Which local assembly to attend? Which rituals and procedures? What does 'Free Will' mean? What is the present state of the deceased, and how does the world end?" He even admits that he thinks there are such disputes in the NT (though his example of James vs Paul is erroneous). What TGD sees is apostasy in the decision to "forget" differences in the name of unity, but despite paranoia, this is not what has happened in ALL ecumenical councils, and TGD offers no direct proof -- merely anecdotal "this is what it looks like to me" argumentation -- that any essential doctrine is being compromised.

In the end it is no surprise that TGD professes not to be able to "pin down" the nature of the alleged apostasy and concludes that it is just about anything and everything, which makes his thesis conveniently non-falsifiable. He does cite what he thinks are three common characteristics:

Shocking? Signs of the end? No, because all three of these have been happening since 33 AD. Cooperation and not truth? What of political alliances between Catholic and Protestant governments in the medieval period? Compromise? Again, query the medieval period, as well as heretics from Arian to the present day. Cowardice? In the full span; faith given up under pressure is known from the Roman era and continues to this day. The paranoia in TGD sees ahead a "super church", one "that will incorporate people, money, and clergy from all Denominations." TGD says they were busy at this in 1991 when he wrote, but it is now 2004 and what progress has there been? The paranoia continues by saying that unnamed "BIG SHOTS" get involved in charity not to actually help people, but "to make disciples to themselves because they rate their own success by the volume of applause and the size of their income." Details, none at all. If TGD is right to say that God "sent me to tell you this" we have to wonder when after 13 years God will tell him to provide some documentation.

Chapter 11

In this mercifully short(er) chapter, TGD speaks of God as priority over family. There are few surprises here; TGD as usual mixes good points with poor exegesis, such as the usual misread of Luke 14:26 (see here; TGD is aware of the "love less" understanding but says this is not so anywhere else is the NT, where it would "look RIDICULOUS" -- apparently he is unaware that the Matthean parallel indicates a "love less" meaning (as well as of Semitic and secular parallels), so apparently RIDICULOUS in capital letters will be the extent of TGD's scholarship on the matter. There is also the expected abuse of Luke 2:41-52 and John 2:4 (they DO mean distance from family by Jesus, but not for the reasons TGD thinks!), and to add to his own misery TGD speculates that all the kids must have accused the young Jesus of being a "know it all" and that he must have been hated as an adult for being right all the time and insisting on it. (You don't suppose TGD is setting up a paradigm for reactions to himself, do you...? Nah.) Actually, given the nature of the world Jesus lived in, such "insults" may have been common, and Jesus would respond in kind in the manner of riposte-challenge, as he did against his various opponents. But it runs down to that as usual TGD takes 95% more words than he needs to get his message across and adds in enough bad exegesis to render his commentary useless.

Chapter 12

This chapter, also mercifully short(er), drills home the point that the body of Christ needs to do its share to help others. It does however get paranoid to excess: "If the world's BIG PROBLEMS are YOUR responsibility, then YOU ARE GUILTY. As long as there is ONE MORE thing you can do, or ONE MORE dollar you can give, you are STILL GUILTY." Hmm. Somehow I don't think TGD has given away all he can; he still has his computer. What's that? He thinks the end justifies the means, and he needs his computer to spread this warning around? No, he doesn't. He can use a computer at the public library. And so on. The bottom line is that one can always find an excuse to say someone isn't "doing enough" but let's ask a simple question: Did the apostles never sleep? Did not Jesus bring the disciples to Tyre and Sidon to get away from the crowds (Mark 6:31) and rest? Is rest and "down time" therefore not part of the paradigm? Obviously it is, but in stomps TGD telling us that no, the disciples and Jesus could have given one more minute, one more ounce, one more umph. TGD is right in one respect: we are not near the communal model of the early church, where all shared in common. But ironically, though TGD lists many things Jesus did NOT do (i.e., he did not heal all sick people at the pool, just one) he does not see the glaring contradiction.

Just to make your paranoia even more prominent, TGD now cites James 1:5 to tell is that the Holy Spirit is definitely talking to you and giving you assignments. It may interest TGD to know that Joseph Smith cited this very passage to justify his own visions. Is this license a hotline to the Holy Spirit? If it were, one wonders why Paul and James ever had to write letters. The best TGD can do is grossly universalize the Spirit's directions for Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:2 as though the Spirit will speak at all times like this. And just in case you doubt, TGD has the guilt trip ready: "The reason why some people don't want to believe that The Holy Ghost still SPEAKS to specific persons with specific instructions is because THEY DON'T WANT to hear those instructions." The lessons that the Mormons should learn, so likewise TGD.

Chapter 13

We are back to mercilessly long diatribes, as TGD now (justifying his excess verbosity by appealing to our alleged inability to "face up" to Biblical challenges) abuses Matt.11:12 ... "from the days of John the Baptist until NOW, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and THE VIOLENT TAKE IT BY FORCE," by saying that this means:

BUT NOW, the right and the power to speak and act for God are obtained by the violent. By saying that the violent take the kingdom of heaven BY FORCE, Jesus denies that Divine authority, power, and confirmation, will EVER be awarded to those make some sort of PASSIVE CONCESSION to Christian Doctrine or the need to believe in God.

Er, not quite. Bivin and Blizzard (Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, 123ff) explain that this relates to a rabbinic midrashic exegesis of Micah 2:12-13, "I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men. The breaker is come up before them: they have broken up, and have passed through the gate, and are gone out by it: and their king shall pass before them, and the LORD on the head of them." The picture is of a shepherd penning his sheep for the night, blocking the exit with stones, which in the morning he opens by tossing some of the stones aside. The sheep are anxious to get out, pushing and shoving and breaking the hole open even more. Rabbinic midrash interpreted the shepherd as Elijah and the king as the Messiah. "Suffereth violence" here means "breaking forth" and "the violent take it by force" means "those who are breaking out, break out by means of it." The verse is therefore saying in essence that John opened the breach and now Jesus the king is leading the people, the sheep, through it. There is nothing to do here with "passive" acceptance of the Gospel.

If any point is worth taking from TGD, it is indeed summed up in the idea that one who truly believes will also truly serve; faith without works is dead, being the simple way to put it. Regrettably TGD spoils this insight with a peculiar idea that all of us must make the same impact as the "heros" (sic) of the Bible, which stands rather against the idea that in the Body of Christ, there are members suited for different purposes at different levels. TGD also seems to think that we are plagued with "willingness to accept tragedies, failures, and losses that are only supposed to happen to the wicked," but I am not sure who other than TGD has this problem. Quoting the proverbial Psalms 91:10 does not exclude us from such; if it did, one wonders how TGD reconciles this with the indications (as he agrees) that with faithfulness comes persecution. TGD also could stand to be informed by the relationship of faith and works (see here); even as TGD rails against Protestants for minimizing works, and Charismatics for turning "faith" into a magic word, he gives no answer, supposing in ignorance that "the Bible does not supply us with a synthesis of these things." The background and context that TGD is oblivious to does so, in fact. TGD also badly misinterprets Luke 6:30 the same way anti-missionaries do, and while making much of Jesus' command to give all one has to be his disciples, fails to note that Abraham (a wealthy tribal chieftain) and Zacchaeus and Nicodemus apparently did not simply give all their wealth away, which makes it clear that the command is to consider what you have as though it were not yours, rather than that we are to give it away indiscriminately.

TGD's next concern is to "comfort" those who are worried about their past failures. He is certainly right that failures are not reasons to "lower our expectations, or compromise our confession." The advice to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and press ahead in Christ is sound. Where TGD misses as usual is his apparent confusion of salvation and reward. Paul speaks of those who will be saved but whose works will be burned up, and who will enter eternity smelling of smoke but still alive. (Though oddly, contrary to his earlier verbiage, in this chapter TGD seems less inclined to say that those in the weak condition he describes are damned!) Jesus speaks of those given ten and five cities, having been given ten and five coins. Does this not tell us that some will not have as grand roles as others, and that their salvation is not dependent on it? By no means is this to be understood as an excuse for an underachiever; the fate of the man with one coin tells us as much, and tells us such a person is not loyal to our Lord to begin with. But it does tell us that TGD's "you can always do more" is a misplaced sentiment without ground in the concept of the Body of Christ with its many functions. If we wish to press the analogy, the body has hands and feet that are most active; but it also has buttocks and toenails whose purpose is to sit by until such time as they are needed. TGD is right that some accept a Gospel of Resignation, but his claims of membership in this category are suspiciously expansive to include anyone not up to his own standard rather than those up to the Biblical measure illustrated by such parables as the master with the five, ten, and one coins.

Though he never gets to the point of stating it clearly, TGD also seems to offer the impression that diseases, accidents, etc. will never impress themselves upon the faithful person. I think he does not state it clearly because he knows that not even the apostles were exempt from persecution and sickness. TGD's commentary maintains this tension and never resolves it. Nor do we hear that TGD's life is sickness- or accident-free, which one would take as some evidence of his cause; indeed he admits such times. The rub will be that under TGD's paradigm, there is no falsifying his thesis; for any sickness with be taken as evidence of unfaithfulness, even if we can't figure out what it was -- and in the Bible, the persons best known for taking this position are Job's loudmouthed friends who ended up being put in their place by Yahweh. And TGD is also forced to admit that even the most faithful may have "temporary" setbacks, and thus he molds the data to fit his thesis rather than abandoning the thesis in the face of plainly contrary data. In the meantime those "unfaithful" by TGD's view whose prayers were answered are considered to have just "appeared" to have had their request granted. In the end TGD cannot resolve the paradox of "unanswered" prayers by the faithful except by decontexualizing. His abuse of the relevant verses is answered here and here. As for TGD, what we see suggests that he will never abandon the paradigm because of contrary data:

Even now, as I write this; I am in critical danger. Any moment now my creditors are likely to show up with the truck and start cleaning out the house. I believe GOD TOLD ME to leave my job, and devote myself to writing this book. There are children in this house, that look to me for their food and shelter. You have NO IDEA . . . . . .BUT, even if the worst happens to ME, I will not go back on anything you have read here.

TGD is certainly an example of the bills of the church come due, for not teaching contextualization of the Word.

Chapter 14

In another mercifully short(er) chapter, TGD decontextualizes Jesus' promise of a light burden (Matt. 11:29-30) to mean that "they addressed ALL of our concerns for the future" -- seriously decontexualized indeed, because as TGD would not know, Jesus here alludes to himself in terms of the figure of Wisdom, and thus this is not a promise to bear "ALL" concerns but to bear more of the load; for after all, the yoke is still a yoke, however much lighter it is! If this is "promising HELP and RELIEF in EVERY situation that we would EVER face" it is only in the sense that our view of the long-term will be influenced by Christ. For the unsaved, a sickness unto death is tragic without qualification; for the saved it is tragic only temporally.

Ironically, and still not seeing the tension with his prior statements, TGD allows: "If YOU truly LOVE God. . . .YOU want God to HAVE HIS WAY in YOUR life. You will NOT be eager to GET anything that would in ANY WAY challenge His PERFECT WILL for YOU; or that would not GLORIFY God." This is the essence of our essay on prayer linked above; but TGD does not see the contradiction with his prior professions.

Chapter 15

To celebrate this new chapter, TGD thoroughly decontextualizes Matthew 6:19 to turn it into a screed against saving money (it is here will be will find resolution to what he calls the "BIG MYSTERY of the teachings of Our Lord about YOUR MONEY for you"), and again Luke 6:30 (see above). TGD is right to point to the need to serve God and not money; but he is oblivious to the point that not all were told to give up their wealth (Zacchaeus, Nicodemus, Abraham) and certainly not all at once. Nor did Paul tell wealthy Corinthians and Philippians to contribute all they had to spare. The bottom line is that "serving mammon" in the NT world meant much more obsession that in would today; it does not "serve mammon" to leave money in a bank where you do not need to do so much as visit it. Thus it is patently false and an absurdity for TGD to claim that "the word mammon was the DIRECT EQUIVALENT to what we now call 'SAVINGS'." The answer is not to get rid of mammon completely but to put it in the place of priority it belongs: behind God. TGD's screeds against money "deciding" life choices is like most of his points, gold tarnished by absurdity, a tension that finds its resolution in the principle of stewardship that parables like the five and ten coins illustrate. Perhaps TGD needs a reminder that Jesus' own ministry was financed by people with plenty of money (Luke 8:3) as was Paul's. Some are therefore arguably predestined to be Christianity's "breadwinners".

Chapter 16

This chapter is called "The Lie of Tithing" and we consider that our advice here is far more contextually sound. That's all that's needed.

Chapter 17

Having assumed that he has now proven the whole church apostate, TGD 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 TGD even admits, apparently not aware of the inconsistency this causes in his presentation). As usual, TGD laments churchmen who look out only for themselves. As usual, we are left to wonder why TGD's anecdotal experiences should be universalized merely on his say-so. The good news is, TGD 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 TGD has been confusedly implying for his entire text so far. But despite this moment of humility, TGD 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 TGD 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 TGD's epistemic foundations. One moreover doubts that what is going on in church authority structures is always as simple, everywhere, as TGD 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 TGD 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.

I do have news for TGD. 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 TGD'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.

TGD 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. TGD 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 TGD 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 TGD strikes home against a sheeplike mentality, though we would again say, hardly anywhere near universally, and it is paranoia, not data, that leads TGD to act as though all pastors care about is their "PAYCHECK". TGD speaks of the experience of being "dismissed with contempt"; one may ask whether it is TGD'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 like this one which contradicts TGD's "plain English" reading of texts like Matt. 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 TGD'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 TGD'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 TGD 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 (Matt.5:44) be of any use to the armed forces?" The answer TGD misses: Matt. 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 (Matt.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 (Ex. 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 Cor. 6:7, which DOES speak against use of lawsuits between Christians -- but not against non-believers!)

TGD 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, I 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 TGD 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 TGD 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 Cor.6:17).

Hmmm. 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 6:15-16, which TGD 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.

TGD warns of being a "friend of the world" but when it comes to reading the texts rightly, TGD is apparently strung out in orbit.

Chapter 18

In a situation that truly drips with irony, TGD 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 TGD: 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 TGD Tours professes to identify for us "hirelings" on this road to damnation.

TGD 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 in one week if we include everything from Microsoft to Circuit City down to Two Guys' Computers and the EB Games store.

I also have a lesson for TGD 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 TGD thinks is another issue. I rather doubt Broadman and Holman is in the Fortune 500 list.

On TGD 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 TGD make clear!) and less knick-knacks. I have real problems, too, with "Testamints" as an evangelistic tool. On the other hand, TGD'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 I have more news for TGD. 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 Jesus and Paul financed their ministries: through the patronage of their supporters. Tough life? If TGD has guilt over it, let him spread the excess elsewhere rather than trying to foist guilt on others because of his own conscience problems.

TGD shows again his contextual miseducation 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. Therefore, TGD's "it's obvious" grossly misses the point. The fact is that no one would see this happen for hundreds of years to come -- and none of Jesus' contemporaries on earth. TGD 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; it is that "tree" (dendron) could by no means have the same scientific classification in the first century that it does today. Four feet high is not what we would call a tree; it IS what the ancients would call a tree, and if you doubt it, ask the Japanese about bonsai. Therefore, TGD's absurd 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 the result of his two usual flaws: decontextualized exegesis, and extensive paranoia. (The latter in particular is accomplished by noting that "birds" represent agent of Satan in another parable, so that the "birds" who perch on the mustard tree must be demons, also! If TGD wants to play that kind of "jump across the text" game, then let's play along too: "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head," means that Jesus is compared to birds, and Jesus is therefore a demon! "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?" means that demons were sold by the Jews at cut rate. "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them," means God feeds the demons. See how easy it is to become ridiculous when you have an agenda to pursue? Thus also with TGD's abuse of the "leaven" parable, simply because elsewhere in the Bible it "represents evil"! Keener [Matthew commentary, 388] however notes that while leaven was often used in Jewish texts to represent evil, it was also used as a positive symbol in other texts, the main issue being its pervasiveness, not that it was good or evil in itself.)

Further poor exegesis occurs as TGD 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. TGD also offers an interpretation of Matt. 16:18 that matches that of Mormon apologists I have seen, and which I refute in Chapter 6 of The Mormon Defenders.

All of this TGD abuses in the service of claiming that Jesus in the parable of the mustard seed predicted the "apostate Christianity" he sees under every rock today. And it is said: "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)." Um, yeah. But Jesus was speaking to his disciples (12:22) which at the time WAS just a little flock; if TGD plays that game, he may as well be a JW and claim only 144,000 will be saved. It runs down to this: while there are indeed "tares" among the wheat, none of this is predicted by Jesus in the parables TGD cites, and in turn it is no sign of the "end times". It has always been with us, and this renders TGD's analysis beyond this superfluous.

So it is that TGD 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 TGD's personal experiences and classifications. He now 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. However, as usual his classes name no names and only vaguely generalize, if anything against the data, as for example his clouded 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 TGD 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 TGD.) 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 the whole of Christendom apostate and predicting the end times?) 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. TGD 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.)

TGD 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 TGD 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 TGD 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, TGD 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 TGD's simple-minded categorizations. "Merchants" is exemplary: just mix a few truths with TGD's personal observations and judgments, and that us all there is to a category. Because it is close to my heart (and is also likely where TGD would put myself and other apologists!) I 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 TGD 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 TGD 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 TGD'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 TGD 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 TGD: 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.

TGD 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. I know that I HAVE read things like it before, countless time. TGD matches in paranoia and poor exegesis and in concept with Texe Marrs. His social observations have been made time and time again by those more greatly informed (for example, Chuck Colson). TGD offers not an original word to speak of, except for 1) his personal experiences; 2) his contorted exegeses, which we may be thankful are "original".

Chapter 19

This short appendix is simply TGD's encouragement to readers to make a decision for Christ, and warns them that it will not be a popular decision. As such, it contains nothing requiring comment or rebuttal, and is in fact quite sound and a good message, but we do have an observation:

The next choice you make is to publicly refuse, reject, and denounce any idea that contradicts or explains away the counsel of the Bible. Your circle of religious friends will suddenly grow smaller, for by doing this, you will offend everyone who ignores or explains away "what the Bible says", whenever "what it says" contradicts or condemns their opinions, their plans, or their friends.

This of course offers TGD's "excuse" for anyone who tries to contextualize the Bible, so that it no longer means what he thinks it means in his lack of education.

Chapter 20

This misplaced appendix argues that "MUSIC IS WORSHIP" but that is somewhat misplaced.

Our Conclusion: As no