A Review of “Is Ethical Deception a Fiction?”
As is usually the case, when I take issue with someone, I send that individual a copy of what I have written so that he will: 1) know that someone disagrees with him, and 2) have the opportunity to respond if he should choose to do so. Most of the time, these are ignored, but occasionally someone responds. In this instance, Mac Deaver responded to the three articles I wrote recently which analyzed his doctrine of “Author-ized Ethical Deception” with more than 17 pages of single-spaced material. We shall try to be briefer in answering his comments.
He said he would stick with the term deception because the Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary that he uses says that deception “may or may not imply blameworthiness, since it may suggest cheating or merely tactical resource” (1). No one is going to quarrel with his dictionary, especially since that definition could refer to what was done by Israel at Ai. The question, however, is not what a dictionary says, but how does Deaver apply its words.
1 Samuel 16:1-5
Although Deaver gives me credit for stating various things accurately, he soon accuses me of trying to rewrite Scripture in dealing with 1 Samuel 16:1-5. To suggest that God could just have easily said or done something another way is not rewriting the Bible; it merely shows legitimate alternatives or possibilities. In dealing with Mac’s claim that the whole thing was deceptive, I don’t have to prove that it was not—I only have to show that he is possibly wrong in his assertions. One way of doing that is to suggest an alternate explanation for what occurred, which I did.
When God told Samuel to go anoint David, He told him the part of the plan that the prophet was interested in hearing. We do not know God’s thought processes (although Mac hints that he does). Did God think of the anointing of a new king first and then offering a sacrifice to cover what fallout might occur? Mac actually argues that this is the case. Or might He have thought of the sacrifice first? Or did He think of both of them at the same time? Admittedly, I don’t know, but to ask the question is not rewriting the Scriptures. The point is that for Mac to make his case, he needs something ironclad—not something which can legitimately be interpreted differently than he does.
Deaver does not seem to analyze 1 Samuel 16:2 carefully. In verse 1, God authorizes Samuel to go anoint a new king. Verse 2 says:
And Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me.” And the Lord said, “Take a heifer with you, and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.’”
Deaver accurately records Samuel’s protest to God but mishandles the answer. He seems to think that God told His prophet to say (if Saul heard about it), “I’m going up to Bethlehem to sacrifice this heifer.” But that interpretation is incorrect. (Did Mac rewrite the Scriptures?) God’s answer was that he should take a heifer with him and say (to the people of Bethlehem), “I have come to sacrifice to the Lord.” In other words, Saul would only hear about Samuel’s journey once he arrived (presumably). So he was to take the heifer with him, and when he arrived at Bethlehem, he was to say that he came to sacrifice to the Lord. Incidentally, when he arrived there and they asked him if he came peaceably, he told them exactly what God had told him to say (vv. 4-5). Therefore, Samuel’s action was pre-emptive (to prevent the question from being asked) rather than trying to smooth things over if caught.
Although Mac insists that the deception was used, it could only be called such if God had never intended for a sacrifice to be made and only tacked that part on so that He could accomplish His main goal. But how does Mac know that God had not planned on Samuel going to Bethlehem even before He commissioned Saul to kill the Amalekites? And how does he know that, in light of Saul’s disobedience, God did not decide to accomplish the two things at the same time?
Ai
Mac indicates that he is disappointed with my remarks on war-time ethics and that my response was inadequate. He is free to think so; the reader of that article (9-8-13) can decide for himself. But the point was that, just because different strategies are required for different situations (peacetime versus war) does not prove that deception is authorized under normal circumstances. Deaver is correct in his assessment that I do not think that lying or adultery are acceptable even in war.
Elisha (2 Kings 6:18-23)
Apparently, the explanation offered on Elisha in my previous article hit a nerve because Deaver says I misrepresented him, rewrote the Scriptures, and wasn’t paying attention. As comedian Pat Paulsen used to say, “Picky, picky, picky.” Unfortunately it is difficult to determine what he means when he writes:
The king of Syria sends spies to find Elisha (vs. 12-13). Summers says that the Syrians were not truly trying to find Elisha though the text says that they plainly were. It is certainly true that the king of Syria wants to find the king of Israel, and that is why he is trying to locate Elisha. This is another instance where Summers tries to rewrite the text to support his position (3)
Did what I wrote really contradict the text? Mac offered no quote to prove this point; so who can tell what he is referring to? The two paragraphs below are copied from that article.
The text says that Elisha kept warning the King of Israel about where the Syrians would attack him; thus, he kept escaping. The king of Syria grew frustrated and thought he had a traitor in his midst. One of his servants informed him that it was Elisha the prophet who was telling the king of Israel what he said in private. Having heard that Elisha was in Dothan, he sent horses and chariots to surround the city, which they did.
The Syrians had been sent to Dothan to capture Elisha. Why? Because he had been warning the king of Israel where the Syrians were going to be. They wanted to do battle against the king and his army, but Elisha, through his advice, had kept them from finding the king. The next logical move was to find and capture Elisha; then he would no longer be able to alert the Israelite king of the Syrians’ movements. So they found Elisha, but in answer to his prayer God struck them with blindness.
The fact is that I agreed with the text in saying that the Syrians were sent to capture Elisha. Apparently, Mac did not read some of the later comments I made in light of these two paragraphs. How did he miss them?
Deaver is correct in saying that I associated his comments with those made in the Pulpit Commentary and in Keil and Delitzsch. He says he does not agree with them when they say that Elisha told a lie. However, in denying that he approves of lying, he makes a strange statement.
Summers had already told us that in war time, ethical conduct rightfully changes! So, since this account of action is in an historical context of war time (and it is, v. 8), why won’t Summers allow for a situational lie (emph, gws)? This is curious, isn’t it? (4).
These words do not make sense because:
1. Mac already said that concerning me, “I do not think that he would claim that ‘lying’ is acceptable behavior even in war time’” (3). Then he asks why I would not allow for a situational lie in wartime (?) and calls it curious. Was he not “paying attention” to what he wrote earlier?
2. He denies that Elisha told a lie and wonders why I will not allow for a situational lie. Mac needs to decide whether or not Elisha lied. He has both denied and then admitted it. Then he denies it again in the next sentence: “However, again I say that my position in my previous article was never that Elisha lied…” (4). Okay, so Deaver never said that he lied but wonders why I won’t allow for a situational lie (which implies that the prophet did lie), and then claims he never said that Elisha lied. Did he lie or not?
If Elisha did not lie, what did he do? Mac answers that “he in a justified way, attempted with words to deceive the Syrians” (4). Hmm. One of the definitions for lie in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is: “anything meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.” Isn’t that what Mac just said?
While it is true they sought Elisha because he warned the king, the man the Syrians actually wanted to find and defeat was the king of Israel. Elisha said he would take them to the man they sought, and he did. No lie or deception was used.
Sermon Outlines
Deaver quotes part of what I said on this subject but, as before, he left out the relevant portion of my comments in order to convey a misimpression, just as he overlooked the two paragraphs on the previous point. The following words, which he omitted from the same paragraph he quoted, show that I understood his point:
Mac chose to close his five-page justification of AED by using an illustration. He asks: “Is it ever ethically right for a preacher to hide his sermon outline in his Bible while preaching, hoping that the audience will not know he uses one?” This writer would not know since he has always used copious notes when preaching and never tried to hide them.
I must admit, however, that my response to Mac on this point could have been better. I should have taken a closer look at his last few words after he described the preacher pretending to be preaching without notes when he was actually using them. He asked, “Is all subtlety unethical?” Then he answered, “No.” If this statement were isolated, it would be correct, but in this context, it must be objected to. If someone passes off his preaching as extemporaneous when it is not, that tactic is both deceitful and unethical.
It was comforting to see that I would not be an exception to the rule and somehow escape Deaver’s arsenal of adjectives, although it took him until page 5 to bring out the words pathetic and pitiful. No one is ever sure if he is getting through to Deaver until he trots out these words to describe an adversary’s efforts. One wonders if it is even possible for him to debate and write without dealing with the opposition in this manner. Brother Daniel Denham phrased Deaver’s use of such derogatory terms as his “default defense.”
Although Mac was at times fair and deserves credit for that, he did not represent me accurately with respect to Elisha, and the reason for that is elusive. Most of my defense consisted in reprinting what I wrote the first time. Mac has not successfully assailed any of the explanations I offered in my first article on his advocacy of Authorized Ethical Deception.