Recently, in reference to the kerfuffle over the Islamicize Me series, James White characterized some of his critics as "assassins". Interesting choice of words. Normally, "assassin" has–shall we say?–a slightly pejorative connotation (unless you work for the Mafia). Yet I must assume that White was actually using "assassin" as a term of endearment, given his prooftexts for how a Christian apologist ought to comport himself: Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Pet 3:15); The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition (2 Tim 2:24).
Unfortunately, White didn't name names, which leaves us in breathless suspense. I'll be terribly disappointed if I didn't make the cut. Assassins can be hip and cool. Consider the stylish driver of the muscle car in Bullitt, with his nappy black suit and leather gloves. In fact, this might be an opportunity do a reboot of Bullitt to cap the Islamicize Me series. Snipers! Beautiful broads (Jacqueline Bisset). High-speed chases!
I volunteer to play the driver of the 1968 Dodge Charger R/T. Spencer can be the triggerman in the passenger seat, with the sawed-off shotgun, Wood will reprise the role of Frank Bullitt, in the 1968 Mustang GT, while White can play the Johnny Ross character. And if White declines the honor, we'll cast Al Pacino or Christopher Walken to play White.
Humor aside, the main thing I find so striking is how hostile White is towards Wood and Spencer compared to how chummy he is towards Muslims. He acts like Wood and Spencer are the enemy rather than Islam. How did Muslims become the good guys while Acts 17 & Jihad Watch are the bad guys?
"Recently, in reference to the kerfuffle over the Islamicize Me series, James White characterized some of his critics as "assassins". Interesting choice of words. Normally, "assassin" has–shall we say?–a slightly pejorative connotation (unless you work for the Mafia). Yet I must assume that White was actually using "assassin" as a term of endearment, given his prooftexts for how a Christian apologist ought to comport himself: Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Pet 3:15); The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition (2 Tim 2:24)."
ReplyDeleteSadly this is a major weakness in White's position. In his latest response he even admitted that harsh language can be used in apologetics. But once he allows the above passages to be contextualized to the point of allowing that not every command applies the same way to every apologetic encounter, it seems to me the fundamental battle over whether other methodologies are at least conceivably allowable in certain situations is all but lost. After that it's just down to arguing over the specifics of what is biblically allowable and in what situations - the hard exegetical and systematic work that sadly none of the major commentators on this debate are touching.
"Unfortunately, White didn't name names, which leaves us in breathless suspense. I'll be terribly disappointed if I didn't make the cut. Assassins can be hip and cool. Consider the stylish driver of the muscle car in Bullitt, with his nappy black suit and leather gloves. In fact, this might be an opportunity do a reboot of Bullitt to cap the Islamicize Me series. Snipers! Beautiful broads (Jacqueline Bisset). High-speed chases!"
The level of childishness on all sides in this discussion is quite discouraging.
"Humor aside, the main thing I find so striking is how hostile White is towards Wood and Spencer compared to how chummy he is towards Muslims. He acts like Wood and Spencer are the enemy rather than Islam. How did Muslims become the good guys while Act17 & Jihad Watch are the bad guys?"
Really Steve? I find it hard to believe you don't know that White would argue that he holds those who proclaim the gospel to a higher standard and has a responsibility to hold them accountable (1 Corinthians 5:12) in a way that he does not have with Muslims.
WittenbergsDoor
Delete"Sadly this is a major weakness in White's position. In his latest response he even admitted that harsh language can be used in apologetics. But once he allows the above passages to be contextualized to the point of allowing that not every command applies the same way to every apologetic encounter, it seems to me the fundamental battle over whether other methodologies are at least conceivably allowable in certain situations is all but lost. After that it's just down to arguing over the specifics of what is biblically allowable and in what situations - the hard exegetical and systematic work that sadly none of the major commentators on this debate are touching."
Isn't "arguing over the specifics of what is biblically allowable and in what situations" precisely what Christians should do in a debate over ethics?
"The level of childishness on all sides in this discussion is quite discouraging."
How is what Steve Hays said above "childish"? You don't explain what you find "childish" about it. You just shake your head in disapproval and disappointment.
"Really Steve? I find it hard to believe you don't know that White would argue that he holds those who proclaim the gospel to a higher standard and has a responsibility to hold them accountable (1 Corinthians 5:12) in a way that he does not have with Muslims."
Actually, White is doing a lot more than holding Christians to a higher standard. He's treating felow Christians like sworn enemies and Muslims like his best friends.
Also, I don't see how 1 Cor 5:12 proves what you want it to prove here. You just cite the text, but you don't show it applies with regard to your conclusion.
Thus far you're not meeting your own stated standards about how Christians ought to conduct themselves in a debate.
"Isn't "arguing over the specifics of what is biblically allowable and in what situations" precisely what Christians should do in a debate over ethics?"
ReplyDeleteYes... that was my point. No major commentator in this debate has made an attempt at doing that. So far it's either been appeals to the "gentleness and respect" passages on the one side or the "mockery and harsh language" passages on the other. No one as far as I can tell has wanted to do the hard work of systematizing these passages in order to present a set of clear and coherent principles for Christians to follow in apologetic and evangelistic encounters (or just in general) - something that might actually be useful. James White, Rich, and Ryan have not done it on the one side and Steve, Peter, David Wood et al. have not done it on the other side.
"How is what Steve Hays said above "childish"? You don't explain what you find "childish" about it. You just shake your head in disapproval and disappointment."
The statement has no rhetorical purpose other than to mock, deride, and insult a fellow believer in order to (presumably) get a rise out of him. I view this as childish.
"Actually, White is doing a lot more than holding Christians to a higher standard. He's treating felow Christians like sworn enemies and Muslims like his best friends."
That statement is absurdly hyperbolic at best and outright dishonest at worst. Please cite a single example of White doing either of those things.
"Also, I don't see how 1 Cor 5:12 proves what you want it to prove here. You just cite the text, but you don't show it applies with regard to your conclusion."
You're not sure it proves that Christians have a greater duty to judge those inside the church than those outside the church? That's the only application I was making, it's also the only point I was making. If you disagree then you'll have to tell me why because the passage seems pretty straightforward in context.
"Thus far you're not meeting your own stated standards about how Christians ought to conduct themselves in a debate."
What "standards" do you suppose I have set and how have I violated them?
WittenbergsDoor
Delete"Yes... that was my point. No major commentator in this debate has made an attempt at doing that. So far it's either been appeals to the "gentleness and respect" passages on the one side or the "mockery and harsh language" passages on the other. No one as far as I can tell has wanted to do the hard work of systematizing these passages in order to present a set of clear and coherent principles for Christians to follow in apologetic and evangelistic encounters (or just in general) - something that might actually be useful. James White, Rich, and Ryan have not done it on the one side and Steve, Peter, David Wood et al. have not done it on the other side."
Your concerns aren't White's or Wood's concerns. The debate was never framed around your concerns for "a set of clear and coherent principles for Christians to follow in apologetic and evangelistic encounters (or just in general)". The debate was framed around White's concerns over Wood et al's violation of Christian ethics in their IM videos. And every other "major commentator in this debate" has responded in light of these concerns.
If two people are debating whether it's right or wrong to eat pork, you don't just interrupt their debate and demand they write a cookbook with a set of clear and coherent recipes and ingredients for cooks to follow. Sure, maybe someday they will write such a cookbook, maybe someday they will be inspired to write such a cookbook because of their debate over pork, but that's not their main concern in the middle of their debate.
Similarly, neither White nor Wood were trying to come up with "a set of clear and coherent principles for Christians to follow in apologetic and evangelistic encounters (or just in general)". That was never their goal. If you want that, maybe you should start by consulting a Christian ethicist.
"The statement has no rhetorical purpose other than to mock, deride, and insult a fellow believer in order to (presumably) get a rise out of him. I view this as childish."
You must have a tin ear for satire. And you're evidently ignorant about the context.
"That statement is absurdly hyperbolic at best and outright dishonest at worst. Please cite a single example of White doing either of those things."
No problem. Start here with White calling militant Muslim Yasir Qadhi his "kindred spirit".
"You're not sure it proves that Christians have a greater duty to judge those inside the church than those outside the church? That's the only application I was making, it's also the only point I was making. If you disagree then you'll have to tell me why because the passage seems pretty straightforward in context."
DeleteThat misses my point. I don't have a problem grasping the text. I have a problem with you not showing your work in deriving your conclusion from the text. Nevertheless, even supposing your intrepetation is correct, what does Christians having a greater duty to judge fellow Christians have to do with how White treats Muslims as opposed to Christians? How are these connected?
Is it that you think this verse gives White some kind of right or permission to treat Christians in a more hostile manner than he treats Muslims simply because they're Christians?
Also, this verse is talking about Christians who are in serious sin, not Christians who are not in sin. Paul is telling the Corinthians to cast out such grievous sin from the church. To keep the church as pure and holy as possible. But how is this relevant to how White is treating Christians in general? White may think all the Christians he's dealing with are in serious sin, but that begs the question as to whether the Christians White is dealing with truly are in sin or not. So how is this verse relevant?
All things equal, shouldn't it rather be that White should treat non-Christians well but treat Christians better? See Gal 6:10: "let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith".
Suppose I am a non-Christian. Suppose I'm an atheist. Suppose I am an impenitent thief too. Suppose I even think my stealing is permissible because I'm an atheist and I don't believe in universal objective morals. Suppose White calls me his "kindred spirit". Suppose White then turns to fellow Christians who aren't thieves or aren't in any other sort of sin and calls them a bunch of immature rebels because he thinks they shouldn't be making fun of atheists and atheism. How would this kind of behavior by White be justified by 1 Cor 5:12?
"What "standards" do you suppose I have set and how have I violated them?"
I'm referring to things like your call for "the hard exegetical and systematic work that sadly none of the major commentators on this debate are touching". You didn't show "hard exegetical and systematic work" in bringing up 1 Cor 5:12 in your criticism of Steve Hays's point in his post. In fact, you didn't show any work. You merely cited 1 Cor 5:12.
>>>That statement is absurdly hyperbolic at best and outright dishonest at worst. Please cite a single example of White doing either of those things.
DeleteOne example: Just see his twitter feed replies to Spencer in general and contrast it with Qadhi or other Muslim apologists. It is actually apparent that White has a low view of Spencer which comes out in the way White treats him. I know Spencer is not a Christian per many here - but I still mention him because Whites other messages to other Christians he may disagree with may not be as clear unless you have followed White's history of dealing with them.
Second, and a better example is Whites double standards in dealing with truth with it comes to Muslims and non-Muslims critical of Islam. This couldnt have been clearer in the Qadhi-White exchange: White believed a lie from Qadhi and let the lie perpetuate to their audiences (because he did not correct Qadhi when he said that the clip Spencer used of Qadhi was doctored by Spencer, and that Spencer's lawyers created a lot of hurdles in getting the said clip removed.), or later after Spencer wrote to White. White could have clarified on his platform(s) that Qadhi was mistaken about it. If White had believe Qadhi and had good reason to do so (which would, like, require forensic proof of didital tampering of the nature Qadhi accused Spencer - he should have clarified that with SPencer. He has not. But when it comes to his Qadhi, White expects strong evidence before admitting any negative comments on him. Typical "White" double standard.
WittenburgsDoor wrote:
Delete---
Yes... that was my point. No major commentator in this debate has made an attempt at doing that. So far it's either been appeals to the "gentleness and respect" passages on the one side or the "mockery and harsh language" passages on the other. No one as far as I can tell has wanted to do the hard work of systematizing these passages in order to present a set of clear and coherent principles for Christians to follow in apologetic and evangelistic encounters (or just in general) - something that might actually be useful. James White, Rich, and Ryan have not done it on the one side and Steve, Peter, David Wood et al. have not done it on the other side.
---
I thought my position was clear, but no problem. I can clarify and expound upon it. In short, my general view is "That which is not forbidden by Scripture is permitted." But of course, just because something is permitted doesn't mean it is wise.
In fact, if White had opposed Wood by just saying, "I don't think it's wise to do that" then I wouldn't have written anything (I would still disagree, but wouldn't have found it worthwhile to say so). Instead, White said that Wood was engaged in sinful behavior, and I still believe if you accuse a brother of sin you have an obligation to show how.
And just to be clear, using an easy example, I'm not saying anything like "The Bible doesn't say it's sinful to use poison gas on civilians, therefore you can totally do that!" But the Bible does say "You shall not murder" and an argument can easily be made that poison gas on civilians would be murder.
Again, we might disagree on particular cases, but the Bible is my guide to objective morality. If you can show specifically how the Bible forbids something, then it is forbidden. If you cannot do so, then who are you to judge your brother? (Romans 14:4 again.)
But when it comes to his friend Qadhi, White expects strong evidence before admitting any negative comments on him. Typical "White" double standard.
DeleteTo more fully address the "systematizing" aspect, I think the key is found in Proverbs 26:4-5. Atheists love to point out that those two verses actually contradict each other. Except they don't. They give you the two outcomes of what happens if you answer a fool, or do not answer a fool. You have to be wise as to which one you apply at what times.
DeleteThere are definite audiences where you need to approach the situation using White's methods. But there are also situations where you need to approach it using Wood's methods. And there are various places between, and indeed even other extremes beyond both of their positions, that may apply.
As Ecclesiastes 3 says, there is a time for everything. You have to listen to the Spirit and know when to apply it yourself, because the Spirit is working on who you're talking with. Sometimes, you "shake the dust off your sandals" and sometimes you pray and invest time for years and years. Again, you have to listen to the Spirit's leading on this to know when to apply it.
It becomes more difficult when you're dealing with a general audience, like YouTube. I believe evangelism is one-on-one in a relational ministry, not when it's "Watch these videos and read these tracts." Those are door openers, not a substitute for evangelism.
I don't think Wood has a responsibility to tailor a video to every single type of person who might want to watch it. I believe YOU have a responsibility to know who you're evangelizing to and to know, "This person needs to hear this video from Wood" or "This person needs to hear this video from White." If you expect Wood or White to be doing your evangelism for you, you're not doing it right.
I have a lot of time for White. I once showed a YouTube clip in church of him explaining Psalm 22. The church loved it. But.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Wood and Spencer on this one. Islam is the spawn of satan. It deserves no respect whatsoever.
I would have to agree that the ideology of Islam is of Antichrist. Nothing personal against Muslims, just Islam.
DeleteSome can't seem to differentiate the ideology from the followers?
I can't find where the Islamicize Me Series was misrepresenting the teachings of Islam/Muhammad.
Christian Hill
Delete"I can't find where the Islamicize Me Series was misrepresenting the teachings of Islam/Muhammad."
Indeed, it seems to me the IM series takes Muslim teachings and acts them out. They are following the Quran and Hadith to visually show how foolish the Muslim teachings are.
>>>the main thing I find so striking is how hostile White is towards Wood and Spencer compared to how chummy he is towards Muslims. He acts like Wood and Spencer are the enemy rather than Islam. How did Muslims become the good guys while Acts 17 & Jihad Watch are the bad guys?
ReplyDeleteThis almost reminds me of Muhammad. Just as Muhammad longed for the Quraish to accept him, and therefore he piously imagined the satanic verses (went overboard) - White in his longing for Muslims to become Christians (Or Reformed Christians), is viewing those who "hurt" the feelings of Muslims as enemy (i.e. going overboard). Misdirected, and disproportionate love?
"Your concerns aren't White's or Wood's concerns. The debate was never framed around your concerns for "a set of clear and coherent principles for Christians to follow in apologetic and evangelistic encounters (or just in general)". The debate was framed around White's concerns over Wood et al's violation of Christian ethics in their IM videos. And every other "major commentator in this debate" has responded in light of these concerns."
ReplyDeleteSir, you're not following this conversation very well. The debate is over whether the Islamicise Me videos are an appropriate form of apologetics/evangelism in the context of reaching members of Islam. That's the entirety of the debate (at least that part of the debate with any substance). The answer to that question is either "yes," "no," or some degree of "partly yes and partly no." The only way to know the correct answer is to know what is biblically permissible and what is not, and the only way to know that is to have the very sort biblical principles I have described. Up until this point it's just been one side piling up proof texts against the other side's proof texts. But we all agree that all those texts are there, the question is how they collectively direct Christian apologetics and evangelism. It's possible some of this may be a conscience issue, but again the work that I'm describing is a prolegamena to knowing, and it's the work no one is bothering to do. It's like arguing over whether it's ever permissible for a Christian to lie to save a life without ever looking at the whole biblical witness on truth telling. This goes to the very core of the debate and I'm not sure how you're failing to see that.
"You must have a tin ear for satire. And you're evidently ignorant about the context."
That's not an argument.
WittenbergsDoor
Delete"Sir, you're not following this conversation very well."
Ironic you're the one making this allegation since it applies to you.
"The debate is over whether the Islamicise Me videos are an appropriate form of apologetics/evangelism in the context of reaching members of Islam."
This shows your bias. It's obvious you're mainly listening to White's side even though you pay lip service to both sides. What you say here is how the James White side (so to speak) frames the debate, but it's not how the David Wood side frames the debate. Wood's side is that he has explicitly stated the Islamicize Me videos aren't necessarily evangelistic alone but likewise meant to be seen by non-Muslims (e.g. indifferent secularists) to show them how ridiculous Islam is, or to be seen by Muslims who leave Islam but don't accept Christianity.
However none of this is my point. My point was to take a neutral stance (as neutral as possible) with regard to White and Wood. That's why I said it's a debate over Christian (Biblical) ethics of the IM videos. Whether the IM videos are too crude for Christians. That's about as fair to both sides as I know how to frame it.
What you say here shows your bias is toward how White has framed the debate.
"That's the entirety of the debate (at least that part of the debate with any substance)."
To say "at least that part of the debate with any substance" suggests you have an idea about what's substantial or insubstantial in the debate. That's fine if you are arguing for or against particulars in the debate as your own arguments. But again it shows your bias in how you want to frame the debate. How you want to frame the debate is your prerogative, but it's not how Wood or White necessarily want to frame the debate.
"Up until this point it's just been one side piling up proof texts against the other side's proof texts. But we all agree that all those texts are there, the question is how they collectively direct Christian apologetics and evangelism. It's possible some of this may be a conscience issue, but again the work that I'm describing is a prolegamena to knowing, and it's the work no one is bothering to do. It's like arguing over whether it's ever permissible for a Christian to lie to save a life without ever looking at the whole biblical witness on truth telling. This goes to the very core of the debate and I'm not sure how you're failing to see that."
As I've said, it depends how the debate is framed. Y're imposing your own views about how the debate should be framed (which is much closer in alignment to how White wants to frame the debate than Wood) over and against how Wood has framed the debate.
"That's not an argument."
You have a tin ear in general. It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was based on what you said about Steve Hays's remarks - that Steve Hays's "statement has no rhetorical purpose other than to mock, deride, and insult a fellow believer in order to (presumably) get a rise out of him. I view this as childish."
But that itself is not an argument. You are just labeling. Putting a label onto what you think Steve Hays's statement is about.
Howver, that's not how I read Steve Hays's remarks. He didn't write what he wrote "in order to (presumably) get a rise out of him [White]". What Hays did was write satire or parody or similar. The context was White's behaving as if he was a martyr and being attacked by snipers and people spitting on him even though White was the one who started the entire debate.
"No problem. Start here with White calling militant Muslim Yasir Qadhi his "kindred spirit"."
ReplyDeleteYou're either ignoring or deliberately misconstruing the context. The phrase was "kindred spirit on the other side of the vast chasm that divides us." He then went on to explain what he meant, in that he sees a desire for consistency and truth in Qadhu. You can disagree with what White was actually saying about Qadhi, but he wasn't saying what you're saying he was saying. I don't know about you, but I don't describe there being a "vast chasm" between me and my best friends.
"That misses my point. I don't have a problem grasping the text. I have a problem with you not showing your work in deriving your conclusion from the text. Nevertheless, even supposing your intrepetation is correct, what does Christians having a greater duty to judge fellow Christians have to do with how White treats Muslims as opposed to Christians? How are these connected?
Is it that you think this verse gives White some kind of right or permission to treat Christians in a more hostile manner than he treats Muslims simply because they're Christians?"
You have not demonstrated that White is guilty of being "hostile" to Christians. It's amazing to me how many Christian's view criticism as a form of personal attack. It's very reminiscent of SJW snowflakes on campuses who view contrary opinions as violence, though obviously to a lesser degree. Might White sometimes be too harsh? Possibly, but that does not equate to attacking Christians or treating them like the enemy.
"I'm referring to things like your call for "the hard exegetical and systematic work that sadly none of the major commentators on this debate are touching". You didn't show "hard exegetical and systematic work" in bringing up 1 Cor 5:12 in your criticism of Steve Hays's point in his post. In fact, you didn't show any work. You merely cited 1 Cor 5:12."
That would be a non sequitur. Just because exegesis is necessary in one case, it does not follow it is necessary every time one sites a verse
>>>"No problem. Start here with White calling militant Muslim Yasir Qadhi his "kindred spirit"."
Deletereply: You're either ignoring or deliberately misconstruing the context.
My response. I did not have an issue with White calling Qadhi his kindred spirit. My personal impressions are White is floored by that man - could be because of many reasons, noble also - and thats okay. My issue is I have not seen White offer similar respect for people critical of Islam. The Jihadist can be a kindred spirit, but White has to distance himself from the Spencers and the Woods (he said as much in one of his last DLs). That's weird, because he obviously disagrees with Qadhi on many gospel related issues - yet such expressions as kindred spirit, but when White disagrees with another non-Christian (eg. Spencer) or Christian (Wood) on gospel matters - he has to distance himself. EVen if someone cries out, its because of guilt by association, When someone holds White guilty for the Islamicise series, White can very well provide a response why he has himself condemned the series.
>>>You have not demonstrated that White is guilty of being "hostile" to Christians.
DeleteIf you want an example where White is in a rabid frenzy of using strong condemning words, and direct-harsh language on the person he has a beef with - you wont find it. White is too polished for that. I would not be that careless of my comments either.
White is generally very critical of non-Muslims (including, but not limited to Christians) who are critical of Islam. The common accusation I have heard him is that they are in it for money. "Fear sells" - but on what documented grounds is he saying that. And yes, those are his insinuations to people like Spencer/Warner who have published material or have a standalone profile of critiquing Islam. Sometimes White is clear in whom he is addressing, sometimes he insinuates. But one thing is clear, he views all who are against political Islam or generally very vocal about the threat of Islam in poor light. I have not heard him mention one exception who is not in for money (but is still misguided about Islam per him) yet critical of Islam.
"You're either ignoring or deliberately misconstruing the context."
DeleteAh, the common debate tactic of alleging your disputant is either ignorant or immoral!
Here's what actually happened. You asked me to "cite a single example of White doing either of those things" i.e. behaving as if fellow Christians are his enemies or as if he's friends with Muslims. I chose to cite the example of White behaving as if he's friends with Muslims. Hence I gave you a link to material between White and Qadhi including where White calls Qadhi a "kindred spirit". If a "kindred spirit" is not behaving like a friend, then I don't know what is. And that's not the only "friendly" thing White says to Qadhi if you look at the rest of that article (among many other articles people can Google).
Therefore I answered your challenge: I "cited a single example of White doing either of those things" - behaving like Qadhi and he are such good friends. That's what you requested, and that's what I delivered. You can say there's nothing wrong with White's behavior in how he treats Qadhi, but that's a different argument. The point in this case is that White's behavior toward Qadhi is like they're best friends (in contrast to how White treats fellow Christians).
And even if you disagree with how I put it (e.g. "hyperbolic" which I actually think is a fair point against me), in essence what I'm saying is no different than Steve Hays's original observation about how hostile White is towards Wood and Spencer compared to how friendly he is towards Muslims.
"The phrase was "kindred spirit on the other side of the vast chasm that divides us." He then went on to explain what he meant, in that he sees a desire for consistency and truth in Qadhu. You can disagree with what White was actually saying about Qadhi, but he wasn't saying what you're saying he was saying. I don't know about you, but I don't describe there being a "vast chasm" between me and my best friends."
The "vast chasm" is an obvious allusion to the fact that White is a Christian while Qadhi is Muslim. But that's precisely what I already presupposed in my answer, that White treats Muslims like friends, while he treats Christians like enemies, even though there is a "vast chasm" between Christians and Muslims.
"You have not demonstrated that White is guilty of being "hostile" to Christians. It's amazing to me how many Christian's view criticism as a form of personal attack. It's very reminiscent of SJW snowflakes on campuses who view contrary opinions as violence, though obviously to a lesser degree. Might White sometimes be too harsh? Possibly, but that does not equate to attacking Christians or treating them like the enemy."
DeleteIt's amazing how you jump to conclusions. Yes, White criticized Christians and I would even say White made personal attacks against Christians (e.g. calling people "assassins", "snipers", who are "spitting on" him as if his critics are venomous snakes or character assassins), but how does the fact that people who point out that White is criticizing fellow Christians or even personally attacking fellow Christians mean that it's now "reminiscent of SJW snowflakes on campuses"? The latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former.
For instance, how does this apply to Steve Hays or Peter Pike (both Triabloge members in this thread) or James McCloud (also in this thread) who (in my view) I don't see behaving anything like "SJW snowflakes on campuses" but actually given good reasons for their criticisms of White, even if you disagree with their reasons? They are not making shrill and emotional remarks like SJWs but for the most part are quite tempered and rational in their criticisms.
In fact, Peter Pike and James McCloud have observed and offer even more examples and reasons about how White treats Muslims in comparison to how he treats fellow Christians. And even Ken Temple, who is very sympathetic to White, and defends White's behavior, nevertheless grants some of White's behavior is how his critics have described it to be.
"That would be a non sequitur. Just because exegesis is necessary in one case, it does not follow it is necessary every time one sites a verse"
All I did was hold you to your own stated standard. You are demanding people make a "hard exegetical" case, but all you did was cite 1 Cor 5:12 without making a "hard exegetical" case.
Yasir Qadhi his "kindred spirit".
ReplyDeleteIs that White's opinion or is he speaking for all Christianity?
"Is that White's opinion or is he speaking for all Christianity?"
DeleteGive the size of White's ego (e.g. White casting himself in the role of mature and godly elder in contrast to casting Wood et al in the role of the immature and rebellious children), I'm not sure if there's any discernible difference!
*Given
Delete"the main thing I find so striking is how hostile White is towards Wood and Spencer compared to how chummy he is towards Muslims. He acts like Wood and Spencer are the enemy rather than Islam."
ReplyDeleteSimple really, Dr White seems to believe/strategize that 'True Islam is peaceful & kind, so we should ONLY push this narrative until all extremism is sidelined and dies out!'
This explains his gentle hand during debates against Muslims, his dialogue with Yasir Qadhi, and his beef with harder-hitting polemicists like Wood, Shamoun, Spencer etc.