Excusing Muhammad

James White posted a rejoinder to Wood et al. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfTKP7DbrBs

1. I'll begin with a few general observations. White accused them of misrepresenting his position. I'll revisit that allegation, but for now I'd like to make a technical observation. There are two ways to misrepresent someone's position:

i) Misquote

ii) Misinterpret

In the case of (i), you misrepresent what they said by providing an inaccurate summary or paraphrase. That can be intentional or unintentional. In the case of (ii), you may quote them verbatim, but misrepresent what they meant. That, too, can be intentional or unintentional.

To some extent, we're becoming a postliterate society. Reverting to oral culture. Nowadays you can make your own video by talking into a camera, then uploading that onto the internet. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, it makes it very likely that most viewers will summarize or paraphrase what you said rather than combing through the video to find where you said something, then manually transcribing what you said. If, by contrast, you respond in writing, then it's much easier for people to locate what you said and quote you verbatim. They simply copy/paste. In some cases an automated transcript is generated. That's very helpful. The takeaway point is that if you want people to accurately represent what you said, then you need to make it easier for them to quote you by expressing yourself in writing. 

2. White recycles a number of his talking-points which I critiqued in my two previous posts. He simply ignored that. That's his prerogative. But it's a problem for him, not for me, when he ignores counterarguments. That means my objections went unrebutted. 

3. White likes to drape himself in the mantle of "the Gospel"–or what he's pleased to call the Gospel. He says the Gospel is his "matrix". His ministry is "Gospel-focussed". That's a way of putting himself on the rhetorical high ground and demoting his critics. 

Suppose I said I'm not Gospel-focussed. Suppose I denied that the Gospel is my matrix. Imagine the gasps. Imagine the hay that White would make of that admission. But is it really such a damaging admission? It all depends on the point of contrast. The Gospel is not my matrix…compared to what? What's the alternative. If I say the Gospel is not my matrix, if I deny that I'm Gospel-focussed, is that statement inclusive or exclusive of the Gospel?

Suppose I said my matrix isn't the Gospel; rather, my matrix is the Bible. Or my matrix is Christian theology and Christian ethics. Well, that sounds very different. 

White's "Gospel matrix" is reductionistic. If to be "Gospel-focussed" stands in contrast to the Bible generally, or Christian theology and ethics in general, then his formula is suddenly exposed as defective. 

Indeed, White bifurcates evangelism from ethics. He feigns concern about evangelism while his critics only care about "politics". Yet taking prudent measures to protect innocent men, women, and children from sharia, jihad, and dhimmitude isn't "politics" but social ethics. We have a standing duty to protect our families from gratuitous harm. That's only "political" insofar as social ethics overlaps with law and public policy. 

Suppose I'm a young muscular dude who's jogging in the park when I hear a lady scream. I dash through the bushes to the other side to find a pickpocket mugging a little old lady. What should I do? Whip out a Gospel tract or flatten the mugger> If I flatten the mugger, will White wag his finger because I prioritized "politics" over "the Gospel". 

Suppose I say my first order of business is to protect the old lady from being hospitalized by the mugger. Later I'll contact the chaplain to pay a visit to the mugger in jail. Will White wag his finger becasue I'm making "politics" secondary to "the Gospel"? You only have to strip away White's sophistical rhetoric and false dichotomies to see how vacuous his position really is. 

4. Moreover, he misrepresents Wood. Wood didn't say the Gospel is secondary or "tacked on". Rather, Wood made two different points:

i) Many Muslims won't give the Gospel a fair hearing unless you undermine Muhammad's credibility.

ii) Even if some Muslims deconvert from Islam without converting to Christianity, that's still an improvement over their killing, raping, torturing the innocent. That's still better than WWIII. 

5. White accused Jon, Vocab, and Wood of misrepresenting his position:

The sad fact is I had to open the windows to let all the smoke from the burning straw men escape from the room…because it wasn't my argument obviously…getting twisted…[They said] we shouldn't mock Muhammad because the Muslims might mock the Bible or the OT. Of course I never said anything remotely similar to that. 

Let's compare that to what White originally said:

But the other thing is, and this is a real problem in my perspective, and that is, this could be used in reverse. One of the things that keeps me from addressing at least in that type of fashion so much of what's found in the Hadith is the fact that I know that we have to be able to consistently provide an answer for materials for example that are found in the OT that many people fine to be extremely troubling…An atheist could very very very easily produce the kind of mocking, deriding video about the Bible that are being produced about the Hadith, and we would have to ask for fairness and balance in analyzing the background, placing it in its historical context…in the same way the serious-minded Muslim can make the same appeal to contextualize and make modern application…When someone pushes Muhammad as being the example of all things, then instead of mocking him and opening up the door for a mockery of the OT…contrast him to Jesus.

So they didn't misrepresent him. Rather, he misrepresented what he originally said. In his latest rejoinder he's adding ex post facto caveats he didn't mention in his original response, but acting like that's what he said all along, then accusing critics of misrepresenting what he originally said. He's now offered a much more qualified statement, but backdated that as if critics misrepresented what he said, when in fact they were responding to what he actually said at the time. Blaming them for failing to comment on something he said before he said it.

6. Apropos (5), his says his position is about "consistency". "Equal scales".  Having the same standard of argumentation for the Bible and Muslim sources alike. But Wood already addressed that comparison. Among other things, Wood said:

That response–you're opening up things in the OT to mockery–that's the parallel to you shouldn't criticize jihad because then people can point out that there's violence in the Bible. Well, there are lots of differences between violence in Islam and violence in the Bible…the final marching orders are different, so the takeaway message is very different about violence.

Either you think there's no better reason to believe the Bible than there is to believe the Muslim sources–in which case I have no idea why you'd invite a Muslim to Christianity if you don't think the case is any better or any more true…or you believe the Bible is superior–in which case, mock away.

The situations are also different in that when you look at all of these very very odd teachings from Muhammad and you ask, I see tons of silliness, what reason do I have on the scales to outweigh this silliness…if you had really good reasons to believe he's a prophet…amazing miracles, so we have to trust him. Do you have that in Islam? Suppose you read the OT and you're confused about all these passages. Do you have good reasons to believe it's the word of God even if you couldn't find any justification for these passages? Yeah, you've got Jesus rising from the dead.  

Even though White's latest response was supposedly a rejoinder to what they said, he didn't begin to engage Wood's counterargument.

7. And he simply repeats his fundamental fallacy by putting the Bible and the Koran/Hadith on an equal playing field. Yet we should only treat two (or more) sources equally if they are in fact comparable. But presumably, White doesn't think the Koran/Hadith enjoys the same evidence as the Bible. So there's no presumption that the Koran/Hadith isn't as bad as it appears to be. Why is White unable to absorb that elementary distinction? 

8. White accused Wood of contextual mockery. Wood failed to acknowledge the explanations and contextualizations that Muslim scholars have been offered. But that allegation raises several issues:

i) Since White is raising the objection, if he thinks some of those explanations successfully domesticate the offending passages, then the onus is on him to present those explanations for our inspection. But if he doesn't find those explanations plausible, then why should Wood take them seriously? Even if Wood had a burden of proof to take those contextualizations into consideration, White shoulders a corresponding burden of proof. He can't shift the onus onto Wood when this is White's objection! It's incumbent on White to contextualize those passages if he thinks that's plausible.

ii) Naturally the videos reflect Wood's interpretation of the Hadith. And perhaps he's familiar with how some Muslim scholars try to defang those passages, but finds their explanations unconvincing. 

iii) Wood's interpretation doesn't prevent Muslims scholars from responding to his videos by proposing alternative interpretations. If and when that happens, the debate is joined. Wood doesn't have to make their argument for them. He can wait and see how well they respond. 

9. Just a few weeks ago, didn't White lambast Andy Stanley for unhitching Christianity from the OT? But when Wood, Vocab, and Jon cite OT precedent to authorize their methods, White's reaction is to unhitch Christianity from OT ethics!

10. The point of citing examples where apostles and prophets depart from general guidelines is to demonstrate that these guidelines are, at best, prima facie duties rather than universal, unconditional duties. If they allow for exceptions, then they're not absolute.

This is, moreover, an ironic problem with White's contention that we're not allowed to do what they say and do. A telltale mark of a false prophet or cult leader is that he exempts himself from the rules he imposes on his followers. Muhammad is a classic example. The NT warns against spiritual leaders who "lord it over" the laity (Mt 20:25; 1 Pet 5:3). That militates against a double standard, where spiritual leaders are allowed to do what's forbidden for laymen. 

11. White says Ezekiel was a specific prophet, called to a specific situation, sent at a specific time, to the covenant people of Israel. Of course, the same could be said for Moses. By White's logic, Mosaic prohibitions against rape, sodomy, and prostitution are defunct. The Decalogue is obsolete. Christians are free to commit idolatry, adultery, perjury, theft, and murder. Yet it's my impression that White subscribes to the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which says the moral law was codified in the Decalogue (19.2). So it's much too facile to dismiss OT ethics in toto. 

White is committing the same fallacy as egalitarians who contend that because Paul's teaching about manhood and womanhood was occasioned by particular situations, therefore his teaching is timebound. But the fact that some ethical injunctions arise in response to topical circumstances doesn't entail that they have no more ultimate basis. These can be general principles or universal principles which come to light as the occasion demands. There was no biblical prohibition against murder until after humans began to murder each other. That doesn't mean the prohibition is culturebound. But there's no point outlawing wrongful behavior if no one commits it. Some crimes depend on certain technological developments. But that's not what makes them wrong. Yet it was unnecessary to make it illegal it before anyone was in a position to do it. 

12. White thinks atheism is more dangerous than Islam. He cites examples like Stalin and Mao. 

No doubt both are very dangerous, but he overlooks the cumulative impact of Islam over the centuries. Stalin and Mao inflicted massive suffering while they were alive, but because Muhammad founded a world religion, he has an enduring influence that they do not. Arguably, Muhammad is responsible for far more human suffering than any other man who ever lived, due to the geographical latitude and chronological longitude of his influence. Just consider the ongoing impact of his pernicious doctrine and example in time and space. 

13. Rich Pierce asked Wood, Vocab, & Jon: 

Are you men actually accountable to elders? did you ask them to view this work before you aired it?

And in his rejoinder, White reiterated and expanded on that very point: 

They're not elders, these are laymen. Are you under the authority of elders. Do you have an ecclesiastical responsibility?

Does this mean White thinks laymen must have permission from their elders for what they say and do? Advice and consent? 

If a Christian bachelor wants to marry a woman, must he obtain the consent of his elders? If a Christian couple want to have a third child, do they require pastoral approval? Does White think elders are the official groups?