THE DIALECTIC IN LUKE 11: 14-27

The Dialectic As Used In Luke 11: 14-27 The absolute truth of the word of God, present as Jesus Christ, who has the power to cast out demons, and more, is the thesis in this Scripture. In Luke 11: 4 Jesus "...was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake: and the people wondered." Then comes the antithesis, the opposition to the thesis that Jesus Christ present in the form of human flesh, is God with all of God's power. In Luke 11: 17-19 Jesus knew the thoughts of the Pharisees who accused him of casting out devils through the power of Beelzebub. In Matthew 12: 22-24 when Christ had cast out a devil that caused the victim to be blind and dumb, the Pharisees said "This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." And in Mark 3: 11-22 when Christ had driven devils out of people the scribes said in verse 22 "He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils." Now there is a battle started between the thesis and the antithesis, between Jesus Christ as God having the power to cast out demons and restore the man's speech, and the claim of the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus was casting out demons through the power of Satan. The clash of opposites between the thesis - Jesus Christ as God having power to cast out demons - creates pressure to begin a dialogue between the parties supporting the thesis and the parties supporting the antithesis. The antithesis, that Jesus Christ is empowered by Satan, is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12: 31-32, Mark 3: 29, Luke 12: 10).. Someone in the group tries to start the dialogue to reconcile these two opposing positions, to arrive at a synthesis. The synthesis comes in Luke 11: 27, when a woman in the group said "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." The Pharisees and the followers of Jesus could have agreed with this synthesis which diverts attention away from Jesus Christ as God who is able to cast out demon spirits, to Mary, the mother of Jesus after the flesh. One dictionary definition of the dialectic is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic "In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: äéáëåêôéêÞ) is an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue." Another definition of the dialectic is from: http://m-w.com/dictionary/dialectic "from Greek dialektike, from feminine of dialektikos of conversation, from dialektos... discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation..." On the other hand, the didactic method of teaching is defined as: : http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Didactic Didactic: "from Greek didaktikos, skillful in teaching, from didaktos, taught, from didaskein, didak-, to teach, educate" The didactic method of teaching is generally a monologue in writing or in speech presenting statements as being true. Its the traditional method of classroom and textbook teaching. In teaching the Bible, the didactic is a way of presenting "thus saith the Lord," which is the word of a sovereign God, as absolute truth in its entirety. However, a false Christian teacher will often claim to be teaching the true word of God when in fact he or she is teaching a false man-made theology. So, we have to discern the purpose of the teaching, to know whether its purpose is to present the word of God or some false theory of men. And the teacher of false doctrine can himself be deceived and not fully know he is teaching false doctrine. We have to examine what he is saying in using the traditional preaching method to see if his presentation is true to Scripture or not. John Hagee is a good example of a Christian preacher who appears to use a form of traditional didactic preaching in his sermons. But when engaging in dialogue with others Hagee might sometimes use forms of the dialectic. First of all, the dialectic is usually found in conversations between people, as in the conversation between Jesus Christ and the Pharisees and Jews in Luke 11: 14-27. We are given something close to a verbatim account of what was said in that dialogue involving the casting out of a demon from a man who could not speak. For this reason, we can use Luke 11: 14-27 as a clear example of the dialectic. Forms of the dialectic have been used for decades to bring about attitude and belief change in groups within the larger society. The dialectic has been developed by social psychologists, educators and others into an effective method of change. But we do not often have verbatim accounts of what actually goes on in these small face to face groups controlled by what is called a "facilitator." If we make assumptions about what is said in the dialectic process in groups without having such a verbatim record, or a summary of such a record, we may create misunderstandings of what the method of the dialectic is. For different group leaders may use different forms of the dialectic. And, again, as with the didactic method of teaching, we have to discern what is the purpose of the use of the dialectic of the person who is running the group. Is the group leader trying to tear down absolute truth and absolute morality? Is the group leader's purpose to replace truth and morality with opinions, feelings, personal relationships and group consensus? In the exposure of the dialectic by Dean Gotcher, he focuses upon change agents in society whose purpose has been to replace belief in absolute truths and in following absolute morals with group conformity, group consensus, opinions, feelings and relationships. Here is what Gotcher says on: http://www.authorityresearch.com/IAR%20Dean%20Gotcher%20paper.htm "It depends on an attitude of compromise by all participants on a general social issue producing tolerance toward ambiguity. It seeks a collaborative effort in overcoming differences in an effort to find agreement on personal-social relationship needs (group consensus). It regards the resolution of personal-social relationship needs through the use of human-reasoning skills, or HOTS, as most important. It helps in determining what is the "best" or "most rational" solution to personal-social relationship needs. This does not mean that the solution agreed upon should be "fact" or "truth" (absolute), only that it is acceptable to all as a possible solution that could or should be tried relative feelings toward ambiguous facts." A change agent can often make better use of the dialectic as found in Luke 11 when there is a state of mental confusion in many members of a small group. In addition, the group leader or a group member can create a condition of stress, confusion and opposition by stating a startlingly opposed antithesis to a thesis. This is what the Scribes and Pharisees did in Luke 11: 18 (stated overtly in Matthew 12: 24). They stated a radically opposing statement to the thesis, that Christ did in fact cast out a demon from the previously dumb man. Their antithesis was that Jesus Christ was using the spiritual power of the devil in casting out demons. The purpose of the Scribes and Pharisees was to convince the Jews that Jesus Christ was not God, and was not making use of God's great power in his miracles. In fact, in Mark 3: 28-30, Christ explains that the Scribes and Pharisees saying he had Beelzebub is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and in verse 30 Jesus adds "Because they say, he hath an unclean spirit." The Scribe or Pharisee who so blasphemed the Holy Spirit is said to himself have a demon. Stating a radically opposing antithesis can set up stress and tension in a group in which most members want to be accepted by the others. This stress, confusion, ambiguity and tension creates a situation such that many members will accept a compromise to resolve the tension. The use of the dialectic by change agents whose purpose is to overthrow absolute truth and absolute morality is a deceptive method. Gotcher says "Diaprax survives today because of its ability to stay hidden behind the activities of the moment. The facilitator controls the agenda—environment—and thereby controls the direction all questions will be taking. The facilitator's ability to control group feelings gives him the ability to shape the definition each person in the group gives for his or her position. What is lost in the whole scheme of things is that someone is always influencing the definitions we give for our position and that apart from God and His Word, all positions are subject to change. There is only a skewing of positions, shaped by our desire to gain or retain relationship with others." Gotcher uses the term "diaprax" to describe the dialectic process. He goes on to say that "Consensus: means with sensation, with feelings, as in "we all feel good about the decision." Group feeling (mankind, human experience) now decides what is right and what is wrong. Consensus is the unanimous approval of man, the unanimous rejection of God and His Law, i.e. God's Law is rejected as the standard for personal and social behavior." The dialectic is used in Christian seminaries and in some churches. For example, on http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/3- purpose.htm Under the Purpose-Driven Process Rick Warren says ""The importance of helping members develop friendships within your church cannot be overemphasized. Relationships are the glue that holds a church together." ".... I'm confident the purpose-driven process can work in other churches where the pace of growth is more reasonable....Saddleback... grew large by using the purpose-driven process.... Healthy churches are built on a process, not on personalities." Rick Warren "Today's facilitated small groups or teams are not like the old Bible studies many of us attended years ago. Back then, we discussed the Bible and its wonderful truths; now people dialogue until they reach an emotional form of unity based on "empathy" for diverse views and values. Dr. Robert Klench gave an excellent description of this process in his article, "What's Wrong with the 21st Century Church?" The author of this web site says "Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or synthesis). "When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers... and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of God's Word has been watered down ever so slightly, and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise (synthesis). The new synthesis becomes the starting point (thesis) for the next meeting, and the process of continual change (innovation) continues. "The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God, and such a one usually remains silent (self-editing). The fear of man (rejection) overrides the fear of God. The end result is a "paradigm shift" in how one processes factual information." In the past, God's unchanging Word was the ultimate test of right and wrong and our goal was knowing God's will and aligning our thoughts to His truth. Now the goal is to bond diverse people into a "family" that must "respect" all kinds of Biblical interpretations and contrary opinions—even when conclusions clash with the Bible. The old guidelines for discussion were based on God's call for agapeo love, kindness, patience and scriptural integrity. Today's ground rules are based on humanistic psychology and manipulative guidelines for social transformation, "relational vitality," emotional unity and collective synergy." Yet when we apply the concepts of the dialectic versus the didactic to sermons by an apostate preacher like John Hagee, we can run into definition problems. In his sermons on TV and in person at his huge Cornerstone church in San Antonio, Hagee monologues. He dialogues in media interviews, but in his sermons he is not engaging in a conversation with others. In addition, those who have heard him preach say he is a powerful preacher and that he preaches as though what he is saying is absolute truth. I spent some time on search engines looking for online audios of Hagee's recent sermons, at least during the past year, after he formed Christians United For Israel. I did not find any. What I did find archived was for sale. Hagee they say is a millionaire and sometimes preaches prosperity doctrine. But lets assume that Hagee's sermons are didactic in nature, even though what he is saying is false. So to avoid misunderstandings about definitions of the didactic and of the dialectic, lets define both as methods. Lets make our discernment of the purpose or intent of the writer or speaker separate from the methods of teaching, either the didactic or the dialectic. A purpose is not a method. A method is something that is carried out to realize a purpose. Then, we do not make the dialectic equal always to falsehood. No do we always define the didactic as truth. Truth or falsehood depends upon the purpose of the speaker using the didactic or the dialectic. The dialectic in the hands of a change agent whose purpose is to lead group members away from absolute Biblical truth or other truth and away from Biblical morality becomes evil. And what appears to be a didactic method of presenting the Bible by a false teacher whose purpose is to teach the interpretations of a man-made theology rather than "thus saith the Lord" is also evil. In Luke 11 the purpose of the Scribes and Pharisees was to convince the Jews that Jesus Christ was not God and that he did not cast out demons in the power of the Holy Spirit or God the Father. Therefore, their antithesis was false and inspired by the devil. The used the method of the dialectic in conversation to try to carry out their purpose. John Hagee appears to use a method mostly identical to traditional preaching, that is, the didactic, to present his interpretations of Scripture. But his purpose is to present a set of false interpretations of Scripture, that all physical Israel is God's chosen people, and that Christians must uphold all Jews as God's chosen people and view ourselves as having some kind of lesser position in Christ. There are several other false interpretations Hagee probably preaches which are additional doctrines coming out of dispensationalist theology, such as the pre-tribulation rapture, or that the Old Testament promises a kingdom to the unsaved Jews in the end time. Hagee's war mongering and apparent belief that helping to start World War III in the Middle East will hasten the dispensaationalist rapture are also problems. The dialectic has been used by change agents whose purpose is to destroy absolute truth and morality, which is necessary for a totalitarian government and society to become fully established with the consent of most people. But the dialectic in small face to face groups could be used with the purpose of moving the majority of the group away from lies most people in society have now accepted. You can use the dialectic and dialogue in a group setting to move people away from conventional and traditional morality and truth. Or, you can use the dialectic same method to move the group away from what is essentially a lie. For example, in a small group a facilitator could start from the thesis that the destruction of the Two Towers and Building No 7 of the World Trade Center was the work only of Islamic terrorists under Osama, and that Western Intelligence agencies had no control over that operation. This "thesis" does not fit the facts. The facilitator could then state the "antithesis," an extreme opposite of the thesis that 911 was the work only of Osama and his crew. The antithesis might be that the CIA with help maybe from the Mossad and British Intelligence carried out the entire operation. A compromise, or synthesis, might be arrived at in the group by getting them to agree with the facts that the three buildings came down in the way a building comes down from highly skilled controlled demolition and that it is unlikely that it just happened that on the exact same day, September 11, 2001, the White House was running with cooperation from the Air Force drills dealing with terrorists flying airplanes into buildings which confused everyone who might have normally sent jet fighters to shoot down the hi-jacked airliners." A Christian should never use the dialectic in this way because it is a deceptive procedure for changing people's beliefs. But the dialectic could be used for the purpose of moving people away from lies. Bernard

Reply