Geisler Syndrome

Recently Jamin Hubner has raised issues relating to a simple question: is the modern secular state of Israel religiously and theologically significant? Is it "Israel" as in the Israel of Scripture, or Romans 11? And if it is not, is it open to criticism? He is concerned about the strength of the movement, mainly amongst American evangelicals, that has granted to Israel not only a theological position it does not actually hold, but which precludes even the slightest mention of criticism of a secular state. Now, I am not going to re-hash everything here, but he has even been accused of being a "shill for Hamas" due to sources he has cited and issues he has raised (which seems to me to provide strong evidence of the need to raise such issues and challenge the knee-jerk reactions of many in the Evangelical community as a whole).

If Dr. White can quote where I suggest that Hubner is a shill for Hamas because Hubner has criticized the Dispensational view of modern Israel, he’s welcome to do so. Otherwise, he’s burning a straw man.

Hays is simply unfair in his attempted response to Jamin. It is scatter-gunning, it is not sober, fair, researched writing. It is "you sound like a CNN reporter" rather than "here is a more sound, historical way of seeing those events."

i) Jamin’s notion of “sober, fair, research” is to glean his factoids from a PC-USA minister and writer for Sojourners magazine.

ii) Yes, Jamin is acting exactly like the average CNN reporter. Whenever you have a jihadist attack, the mainstream media goes out of its way to step around the elephant in the room. It studiously avoids suggesting a religious motivation. Anything but that.

Likewise, in his discussion of why “Palestinians” or “Arabs” kill Israeli Jews, Huber went out of his way to ignore the Muslim connection.

It seems that Hays leaps from the reality that Islam as a whole has a long history of anti-Jewish behavior, one which is easily documented today in Palestinian broadcasting and writing, for example, to the unfounded conclusion that there has never been any period of time in all of history where Muslims and Jews lived in relative peace in close proximity with each other.

i) The reason I brought up the long history of anti-Jewish behavior in Islam should be obvious: Hubner raised the issue of what motivates “Palestinians” to kill Israeli Jews. Do purely local circumstances account for that? Or is that part of a larger historical pattern, grounded in a religious ideology?

ii) Sure you can have peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Jews when Muslims subjugate Jews. When Muslims rule over a Jewish populace and bilk Jewish dhimmis for all they’re worth. When Jews are ghettoized. Second-class citizens. But I didn’t expect White to defend dhimmitude.

You can also have peaceful coexistence if both grounds are under the thumb of another overlord (e.g. the defunct British Empire).

This is part of the problem with this kind of thinking: it is far too easy to provide counter-documentation of where there have been enlightened, unbigoted Muslims (and Muslim leaders) who did not follow this path. The reality is, of course, that Islam is not a monolith, either today, or in the past. Is there violence against Jews based solely upon a deep and abiding presence of religiously inspired bigotry amongst some Muslims based upon, say, particular hadith stories?

So now we see White taking the CAIR line. We must distinguish between “true Islam” (the “Religion of Peace”), to which peacenik “moderate” Muslims adhere–and those wacky “radicals” who’ve “hijacked” the true faith, what with their twisted ideology and all.

It is absurd to accuse Jamin of being a Hamas shill, first of all. Jamin is not "constantly reciting the Hamas narrative."

Just compare Hubner’s narrative about “mass murder,” the right of return, and so forth and so on, with any jihadist website like, say, “The Palestinian Information Center”–to see that Hubner has simply repackaged the same rank propaganda.

Is Hubner a jihadist? No. He’s just a dupe for the jihadists.

The gospel transcends all geopolitical boundaries and is for all people at all times and in all places. Christianity does not require the importation of any political, cultural, or governmental system, again, unlike Islam. This is part and parcel of my presentation, and the role of politics, the existence and rights of Israel as a secular state, etc., have never had anything to do with my defense of the faith or my criticism of Islam. So on any logical basis, anything Jamin Hubner has said about the secular state of Israel, world history in the 20th century, etc., has nothing at all to do with my apologetic regarding Islam. Further, I challenge the implied assertion that speaking to the issue of whether the secular state of Israel has theological import or ramifications would undercut meaningful Islamic apologetics.

That’s hopelessly naïve. For while the “gospel” transcends all geopolitical boundaries, “evangelism” does not. Islam disallows evangelism. Islam disallows conversion from Islam to Christianity (e.g. the law of apostasy). Wherever possible, Islam tries to suppress Christian expression. And that agenda is facilitated by willing dupes like Hubner.

Secondly, Hays' view of Islam is way too simplistic when he speaks of taking a position on the "role of Islam in geopolitics."

Once again, White is taking the CAIR line. We mustn’t blame all the “good” Muslims for a few “isolated incidents” perpetrated by a fringe group.

Unfortunately, White is suffering from Geisler Syndrome. Geisler syndrome is when a mentor automatically covers for his protégé. White constantly faults Norman Geisler because Geisler automatically covers for Ergun Caner.

Of course, one symptom of Geisler Syndrome is that you have to be an outsider to recognize the symptoms. The mentor himself is oblivious to the syndrome.

Because Caner isn’t White’s own protégé, White can clearly see the problem with Geisler. But because Hubner is White’s protégé, he lacks the same objectivity in that case.

Taken by itself, that’s simply a common human foible. What’s more unfortunate is that in order to defend his protégé, White is now sticking up for “moderate” Islam.