Pages

Saturday, June 09, 2018

My Take on White v. Wood

Note: There has been an addendum added to this post at the end.

I’ve been discussing the White/Wood Controversy on Facebook, and one of my friends mentioned he thought it would be a good idea to write something more in depth about it.  Before beginning, I want to give a little bit of background.

In the early part of the 2000s, I was a channel regular at #Prosapologian, James White’s IRC.  In fact, for some time I was an Op there, and it’s even where I got my website name of CalvinDude, since that was my chat handle there.  White very definitely blessed me with his ministry through some formative parts of my life.  It was through White that I was first introduced to presuppositionalism, and in fact I believe it was after one of his Dividing Line broadcasts that I heard of, so sought out and listened to, the Bahnsen/Stein debate on the Existence of God and later picked up Bahnsen’s book, Always Ready: Directions For Defending the Faith.

There were really only two topics that White and I ever disagreed on in the channel.  The first was paedobaptism (since White is a Reformed Baptist and I am a Presbyterian).  The second, ironically enough, has some bearing on the current dispute because it was about what type of language is permissible for Christians to use.  To his credit, White has remained consistent on that from the time we had our discussion up until today.  But then, so have I, so fundamentally we’re still going to disagree on that part.  That said, I have continued to follow White off and on and watch several of his Dividing Line episodes each year (I sadly lack the time to watch all of them).

It is also through White that I first heard about David Wood.  And soon after, Wood debated John Loftus who, back when I was first contributing to Triablogue, was a frequent foil.  It was also around this time that Wood was unjustly arrested in Dearborn at the Arab Festival, along with Nabeel Qureshi and others, which introduced me to the full ministry of Acts 17 Apologetics.

In short, then, I’ve followed White for about 15 years now, and I’ve followed Wood for about 8.  I’ve learned a lot from both of them and believe both are genuine brothers in the LORD.  But when it comes to the controversy, I do have to say that I very strongly believe the evidence backs David Wood.  This isn’t to say that White’s objections have no merit, nor that they do not need to be responded to.  In fact, I applaud White for two things in his critique: one, for wanting to remain Biblically consistent; and two, for his intense desire for the Gospel to be proclaimed.  The disagreement I have is that I believe that Wood satisfies both of those requirements, whereas White clearly does not believe that to be the case.

Steve Hays has already commented on this, and he also has already linked the relevant videos in that post, so I will not do that here.  Instead, I want to focus on a couple of items of the dispute.  First, I have watched both of White’s videos and I watched the entirety of the response.  I’ve also read White’s comment on Facebook made before Wood responded on the video, in which White laid out the specific Bible passages that he wanted Wood to address, namely: 1 Peter 3:15-16, Ephesians 5:3-4, 11-12, and 2 Timothy 2:24-26.  I believe those verses were all addressed in the video response, with the exception of 2 Timothy 2:24-26, although Wood’s general comments did address that as well.

To paraphrase Wood’s argument regarding the verses, whatever the passages mean they cannot be legitimately interpreted in such a manner that Jesus, Paul, Peter, or any of the other prophets and writers of Scripture would have violated the commandment.  I believe this to be a solid response, and I do think that most of the writers of Scripture will run into problems if the passages are interpreted the way that White is using them in this discussion.

When we look at Scripture, we have to look at the entirety of Scripture.  The Bible uses sarcasm, mockery, and even outright insults against certain groups of people (but not all groups of people).  Clearly, this calls for wisdom before being employed by us, and this is especially the case when we realize that we each have our own sin nature we must confront.  In a way, this is where holy anger also comes into play, because we know that anger can be righteous and just—God does indeed display wrath, after all.  Yet we also know that it is incredible easy for us to employ anger in a sinful manner, and much, much more difficult to be angry in love.  In the same way, it is far easier to resort to evil insults than to righteous insults.  And to the extent that White cautioned against that in one of his videos, I do applaud him.  I do not think that every Christian is mature enough to draw that line by any means, and that we must always weigh ourselves to ensure that we are acting out of righteous motives and not sinful pride.

But the fact that it is dangerous ground does not mean that it is ground that should be avoided at all times, nor does it mean that when a Christian does attempt a rebuking response along those similar standards that he is guilty of prima facie sin.  Just because it is easy to fall into sin at one point does not mean that someone has fallen into sin at that point.

Another aspect that White raised was that we shouldn’t be interested in the pragmatic, but rather on what is the right thing to do.  In fact, on his Facebook post, White said: “Well, personally, I am not interested in getting people to leave Islam.  I am interested in bringing people to the cross and seeing them bow the knee in repentance and faith.  So I am not impressed by pragmatic arguments.”  In his (I believe first) video, White also brought up the fact that when the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecies did not pan out, millions of people left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but virtually none of them became Christians.  I understand White’s point to essentially be that if you trade one heresy for another, what does that benefit?  You still end up in hell at the end.

That is true as far as it is applied to the individual, but it is not the case that all evil doctrines are equally evil.  Clearly in today’s world the vast majority of those who kill others in the name of a deity are doing so under the auspices of Islam rather than under any other religion.  I know that White began his ministry against Mormonism, so I would ask him a simple question.  Which would be the safer option for the world as a whole, if all Mormons became Muslim or if all Muslims became Mormon?  We agree that their eternal state does not change—under both systems, they will perish for eternity without Christ.  But clearly our culture would be far preferable if we had more of the kind of legislation that Utah passes than what Pakistan passes.

And this brings me to one of the points of contention.  Whereas White is adamantly opposed to the pragmatic aspects of ministry, I think such a view is at best naïve.  The real world exists, not a hypothetical world.  The real world has actual impact, not the hypothetical world.  We don't get to imagine a universe where everyone who rejects Christ will be equally evil, even if equally worthy of hell.

But beyond even that, I would maintain that God Himself is pragmatic.  He has not given laws against every single thing that is a sin, for example.  Let’s start with the most basic aspect.  Acts 17:30 says “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”  The “but now” indicates the command had not always been there.  This means that minimally there was a time when God did not have commandments for all things that are righteous, nor commandments against all things that are evil.  After all, Romans 5:13 says “sin is not counted where there is no law.”

Note very clearly that this doesn’t mean it is not sin—indeed, the first half of the verse specifically says “for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given.”  But that sin is not counted.  Again, even if we assert that God now has established commandments against all sins, we are left with the fact that He did not always do so.  Why not?

We can see at least some of the reasoning when Jesus says in Matthew 19:8 that, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.”  In other words, God knows our hearts are hardened and therefore He permits certain levels of sin to not only go unpunished but without any commands against them, because otherwise He would have to destroy us every single second of every single day.  It is an act of mercy on His part to not impose the full effects of the Law, by not passing Laws against certain behaviors and thus ensuring that those particular sins “are not counted.”

I can’t see how this can be explained by anything other than God being pragmatic.  He is instantiating His will by overlooking certain things such that He gets certain other things later.  The pragmatic outcome is that God’s glory is maximized through this.  At the very least, there is nothing wrong with pragmatism if we are pragmatic toward the glory of God (I would hope that is not controversial, but perhaps it is).  Add to this the fact that we are commanded to pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life” (1 Timothy 2:2) and it seems to me that taking steps that would lead toward more peace and quiet for believers is not only condoned, but commanded.

This is not the only verse along this vein either.  Jeremiah 29:7 says “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”  This is not asking to pray for the salvation of the city, and indeed Babylon was destroyed.  But God is clearly saying that our welfare is tied to the secular welfare in which we live.  Doing anything to make the world better is better for us, even when that is not tied directly to salvation.

Behaving in a pragmatic way, therefore, is not sinful.  It is wise.  Thus, even if Wood’s motivation was not to convert  Muslims to Christ, the fact that they are choosing a lesser evil is still objectively better for society as a whole.  But of course Wood’s motivation is also that Muslims embrace Christ.

White has criticized Islamicize Me for not presenting the Gospel.  Wood argued that in order for the Gospel to be heard, one must give reasons for the Muslim to reject Islam.  This is actually quite similar to arguments I’ve made against atheists in past debates with them.  For example, when I poked holes in a Naturalistic worldview, one atheist I was dialoging with responded with, “I don’t know the answers now, but it’s possible that we’ll find answers to those problems.”  My response to that was: “Why should I give up my worldview that provides answers for me as it is to take on your worldview that is only hoping to perhaps maybe get an answer in the future?”

Now suppose I was a Muslim.  If you present me an argument for Christianity, but you have not torn down the false worldview I’ve had in place, it would be easy for me to say, “Why should I reject the worldview that I hold to already, which I believe to be 100% correct, simply on the hope that your worldview might be at best just as good as the one I already hold to?”  This is precisely why apologetics isn’t just concerned with positive declarations of Christ, but also with the refutation of the impediments formed by the false doctrines others hold to.

But let me move on to the heart of the issue, as far as I can see it.  Do Wood’s videos contain offensive materials?  Do they depict evil?  The answer is clearly yes.  But what makes the video offensive?  It is not the showing of the thing that is offensive, but rather what is offensive is the thing itself.  It is the Hadith that offends, and Wood’s point in portraying it is not to shock for the sake of shock, but to shock for the sake of getting people to realize how crazy some of those commands in the Hadith are.  And this is the part that bothers me most.  White acknowledged in his first video response that you could easily find all the weird commands that Wood finds in the Hadith.  This means that White admits that Wood is not misrepresenting Islam by what he does.  To explain why I find this bizarre, I wrote on my Facebook page:
If I heard someone make a racist statement so I responded by making a video showing what would happen if people actually lived according to that racist statement, would it make any sense for you to get offended at *ME* for exposing that?  No, you ought to be offended by the one who created the statement and advocated for that world to be instantiated, not the one accurately informing what was said and showing you the consequences of it, especially when the intention of all of this is to get the original racist to *STOP*.
So, are the videos offensive?  Yes.  But they are offensive because they are accurate.  White has criticized the videos as being on the level of a Chick tract, yet Chick tracts do misrepresent opposing views, whereas Wood has not done that.  That is one clearly objective difference.  Wood is not lying to tear down Islam; he is being honest and showing the inevitable result.

But what of the next aspect?  Is the depiction of evil itself evil?  If so, I cannot see how the Bible would not be evil, for it depicts evil throughout.  It doesn't just say that some people are evil.  It actually shows them being evil.

And that showing aspect is key.  White has argued that one could simply talk about what’s in the Hadith and argue about it reasonably.  Yes, that is true.  And Wood has dozens of videos where he does just that.  But that sort of didactic rendering is very rare in the Bible.  Most of the Bible is not declarative statements or logical propositions.  It is stories.  Stories of events that happened.  But stories nonetheless.   And the key part of stories is that they become cross-cultural and relevant to everyone in ways that are far harder for didactic texts to accomplish.

Look at how much of the Bible is typological.  You can’t get through the book of Hebrews without realizing it.  God uses history to teach doctrine.  What is the purpose of story?  It is to bypass the intellectual filters that are put up.  When you see something happen, you have a visceral gut reaction to it.  Something that you will not get if you’re arguing a hypothetical concept in a rhetorical world.

Let me give an example of this.  In the book of Judges, we’re given the story of Jephthah.  Jephthah is famous for one reason.  He made a rash vow.  He vowed that if God helped him win a war against the Ammonites that he would sacrifice the first thing that came out of his door when he got home.  He won the war, and when he returned home…his daughter rushed out to greet him.

Jephthah murdered his daughter to obey the vow he made.  Nowhere in the book of Judges does the text ever give us a didactic explanation that Jephthah was wrong for what he did.  But by the same token, the story hits us so hard that it doesn’t need to.  We know just by visualizing the events as we read them that Jephthah’s choice ought to have been to take upon himself the sin for breaking the vow, not the sin of murdering his daughter.

It would have been easy for God to say in Deuteronomy, “You shall not make a rash vow, and if you have made a rash vow you shall break your vow rather than commit a sin against another person by fulfilling it.”  That would have been dead simple for God to have inspired.

But He didn’t.  He gave us the story instead.

The vast majority of Scripture is in story format.  Jesus taught via parables.  The history of Israel unveils the redemptive plan God uses: the slavery in Egypt followed by the Passover and the journey to the Promised Land—this just is the Gospel in story form.  All these types and shadows in Scripture are pointing in a much more powerful way than if God had simply said, “These are the facts of the matter.”

Again, this is why Christianity is so good at cross-cultural avenues.  We do not have to teach other cultures how to understand a story.  We do have to teach how to interpret law.  God communicates to us in stories because they engage our senses fully.  We imagine what we read.  We see it in our heads.  And we can recreate those visuals ourselves.

Consider what would happen if someone did a video about Jephthah.  Would you find that video offensive?  Yes.  because Jephthah's choices were wicked and evil, and to depict them is to depict evil.  But is that to condone evil?  Not in the least.  It teaches this is precisely why one ought not make such vows.

But this does lead to the final objection from White that I'll address here.  White has said, “What you win them with is what you win them to.”  And that is true, there is no denying it.  But in this particular case, it seems that White is concluding that if one can be “mocked” out of Islam, then one can be “mocked” out of Christianity.  But this is only the case if you do not really believe that there is an objective difference between Islam and Christianity.  Christians have answers for the problematic areas of the Bible, answers that Islam simply cannot use themselves.  We have the differentiation between the Old and New Covenant built into Christianity.  Islam has only that whatever Mohammed did is what is ideal for everyone to do.

That alone gives the Christian apologist a vast arsenal to resist one who sought to mock Christianity.  And of course as has been pointed out: Christianity is mocked relentlessly already.  We can withstand it, because we have the truth on our side.

But to respond more directly, I think that White is wrong that one would be “mocked” out of Islam through Wood’s video series in the first place.  This is not mockery for the sake of mockery.  It is not generated mockery from nothing.  This is Wood exposing what is actually there to the light of the sun.  If someone does the same thing to Scripture, exposing what it says without inventing mockery that isn't there—Scripture wins! In short, there is nothing to fear from “What you win them with is what you win them to” here.

To conclude, therefore, I do not believe that Wood is in the wrong with these videos.  In fact, I think he is engaged in the kind of thing that God did all throughout Scripture.  The offensive nature of the videos is solely in the offensive nature of the content of Islam.  If at any point Wood were to change and invent offense to add into his videos, I would immediately oppose him.  But he has not misrepresented Islam.  He has exposed it to the disinfectant of ridicule.

Addendum: Right after I posted the above (which is my original post), I discovered James White had posted a rejoinder video to David Wood.  Because of that, I wanted to touch on what White said there, because it did help to clear up one of his points.  You can also read the comments for a bit on that as well.

The main aspect that I want to update on this post is that White clarified his remarks regarding the statement that if we mocked the Hadith, Muslims could mock the Old Testament in response.  White intended his original statement to refer primarily to consistency, and I take the overall argument to be that if we use a specific tactic against Muslims then they have free reign to use that same tactic against us, and we do not have any consistent basis to object to that.  As far as that goes, I agree with that point.  I do disagree that Muslims will have the ability to mock the Old Testament in the same manner by which Wood is mocking the Hadith, and I explained my reasoning for that in the comments below.

However, one thing I must mention here is that while I do believe White intended to convey that point in his first video, he actually conveyed exactly what Wood, Malone, and McCray responded to.  In his rejoinder video, White took umbrage and said they mis-characterized him and were burning a straw man.  Unfortunately, this was a straw man of White's making in this instance, and I say that not only because I took what he said in the same manner that Wood did, but also every person I've spoken with on this issue (which is an admittedly small sample size, given that most of the people in whose circles I run haven't heard of either White or Wood) took it the same way as well.  When I examined what White said in his first video in light of his rejoinder video, I could see hints at his intent there, which is why I do not believe he intentionally moved the goal posts here, but he did not convey himself clearly in the first video so I do think it is a but uncharitable for him to characterize the misunderstanding itself as Wood and Company burning straw men.  They were responding to what he had originally said and it was on topic to that.

Additionally, I wanted to address something that White brought up that I do think Wood should have handled differently, and that's the fact that Wood was responding to White without having listened to White's presentation.  I almost mentioned that as something I found troubling in the first version of this post, but I left it out because I found Malone's and McCray's summary of what White said to be accurate.  It is plain that White disagrees on that, but I still believe they conveyed what White had said (although I find it likely, now, that it was not precisely what White meant).  Still, I do think that Wood ought to have at least listened to the videos White made before responding out of courtesy if nothing else.  Some people have noted that White appeared to be hurt by this.  If so, I definitely find that understandable.

One final aspect is that I do think there was a bit of what Wood said that White missed.  For example, White seemed to focus primarily on Wood's use of Ezekiel and stated repeatedly that he wanted to see where the New Testament evidence was, where there was any apostolic example of the type of behavior.  This seemingly overlooked the fact that Wood also spent a deal of time discussing Paul's comments in Galatians about his desire that the circumcision crowd emasculate themselves.  He briefly touched on Wood's use of Paul's rebuke to Elymas (Bar-Jesus) in Acts 13, but dismissed that as irrelevant to the discussion without precisely saying why it didn't matter.

In this case, I think Elymas does satisfy the requirement that White was asking for.  That is, nowhere does the passage say that Paul preached the Gospel to Elymas.  Instead, it says that Elymas was opposing the attempt of Paul to preach the Gospel to the proconsul, and Paul's response was: "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10).  Here is an instance where someone was rebuked with insults (and even struck blind) without any mention in the text that Paul ever preached the Gospel to Elymas, let alone with gentleness and reverence, and the end result was that the proconsul believed.  So I do think that White needs to explain why this is not relevant to the topic at hand.

That said, I do think White does hit the nail on the head in one part.  There is a radical difference between White's and Wood's purpose.  White quite clearly is concerned solely with presenting the Gospel and does not see any benefit for someone leaving Islam if they are not a Christian.  Wood on the other hand said at one point that he would rather a Muslim become an atheist than to stay in Islam.  At that point, White has rightly identified the disagreement and in the same place that I saw it.  As you can tell from my own statements above, I agree with Wood's position here that it is objectively better for a non-Christian to be a non-Muslim non-Christian than to be a Muslim non-Christian.

This is not anti-Muslim to say this.  It is anti-Jihad, yes, and it's applying the math of statistics.  It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent and would never commit terrorism.  It is equally true that almost every terrorist in the past fifty years has been a Muslim.  Until those demographics change, then logic would dictate that we want people to move away from that which would increase the statistical likelihood of bad behavior toward that which would decrease the statistical likelihood of bad behavior, even if they don't move all the way to Christ.

55 comments:

  1. BTW, I just noticed that White has a rejoinder to Wood's video that was just posted on YouTube. I have not yet watched that, but plan to. So White may have clarified some of his positions in that, and if so I will update my post as need be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was able to watch White's rejoinder video, and I will be tweaking a few things in my post tomorrow. For one thing, he clarified what was meant by the "If you mock Islam they might mock the OT" part, and it was much needed because I took it the way Wood, et al, did. I also agree with White that Wood should have listened to White's presentation before responding to it (that part did bug me about their video, but Vocab and Jon's summaries of White's points were, to my mind, accurate enough that I think Wood would have responded the same way--I still think it would have been courteous nonetheless). I also think White does identify the fundamental part by which he and Wood will never agree, which is on how much of the Gospel has to be presented in each apologetics presentation. There is also a bit here where I agree with what White says, but disagree with his application of it to Wood's position. Finally, either White or I misheard what Vocab said, because White seemed to think he was talking at one point about being political instead of apologetical, whereas what I hear is that they were being polemical instead of apologetical. I'm not sure to what extent that would impact anything else though.

      Either way, I do recommend everyone interested in this listen to White's rejoinder, and as I said I will update my post tomorrow (I sadly do not have time tonight to do it justice), most especially in the "If you mock Islam they might mock the Bible" part.

      Delete
    2. For one thing, he (White) clarified what was meant by the "If you mock Islam they might mock the OT" part, and it was much needed because I took it the way Wood, et al, did. I also agree with White that Wood should have listened to White's presentation before responding to it

      Yes; agreed.

      I understood it that way also.

      Delete
    3. >>>For one thing, he clarified what was meant by the "If you mock Islam they might mock the OT" part, and it was much needed because I took it the way Wood, et al, did.

      White actually made that an issue in his previous critique but rolled back when Wood laughed at the idea that the OT was not mocked. White did appear "hurt" on at least two occasion at what Wood said or did (or rather did not). One was, David not actually listening to White (in which I think White was right), and the other was David questioning White's ministry to Muslims which White interpreted as David undermining White's knowledge - which resulted in quite a bit of bragging/advertising of what White has accomplished, and the way in which he did (such as writing a better exposition of Surah 5 than David's extempore role play, the mosque debates/preaching, etc.) (I mean if Wood can advertise his jihadi threats (which are facts), why cannot we level the same charge on White?) Later though, White confessed that what David meant could only really mean that White's ministry was ineffective per David because of their methodology. So I guess the bragging was justified (I am being sarcastic).

      So long as White calls, like the Left out there, all critical views of Islam as anti-Muslims (like he suggested here in his rejoinder, and many times before on his DL), he will not be taken seriously by those who see Islam as a serious threat and worthy of ridicule. White may have his interpretation of scripture and its application to apologetics, but unless he is charitable to other voices than his, he is not winning a large crowd even among Christians. Accusing such people as anti-Muslims and being in it for money (on his other DL) is just silly and childish.

      Not to mention White is grossly inconsistent in his demand of Biblical standards and apostolic precedents. He wants Wood and the gang to produce apostolic example of what they are doing, but what about White? Did he stop to consider whether there was apostolic precedent for his Qadhi dialogue, where a member of an anti-Christ religion (per White's own admission) discussed his heresies on Christ without being challenged, or did he go with the format of the discussion regardless because it felt right in his conscience? I am not against the Qadhi exchange, but White's double standards.

      I am curious of your thoughts, though.

      P.S. I had to delete my earlier comment about of editing issues. Isn't it possible to edit comments on Blogspot?

      Delete
  2. Another aspect that White raised was that we shouldn’t be interested in the pragmatic, but rather on what is the right thing to do. In fact, on his Facebook post, White said: “Well, personally, I am not interested in getting people to leave Islam. I am interested in bringing people to the cross and seeing them bow the knee in repentance and faith. So I am not impressed by pragmatic arguments.” In his (I believe first) video, White also brought up the fact that when the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecies did not pan out, millions of people left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but virtually none of them became Christians. I understand White’s point to essentially be that if you trade one heresy for another, what does that benefit? You still end up in hell at the end.

    That is true as far as it is applied to the individual, but it is not the case that all evil doctrines are equally evil. Clearly in today’s world the vast majority of those who kill others in the name of a deity are doing so under the auspices of Islam rather than under any other religion. I know that White began his ministry against Mormonism, so I would ask him a simple question. Which would be the safer option for the world as a whole, if all Mormons became Muslim or if all Muslims became Mormon? We agree that their eternal state does not change—under both systems, they will perish for eternity without Christ. But clearly our culture would be far preferable if we had more of the kind of legislation that Utah passes than what Pakistan passes.

    And this brings me to one of the points of contention. Whereas White is adamantly opposed to the pragmatic aspects of ministry, I think such a view is at best naïve. The real world exists, not a hypothetical world. The real world has actual impact, not the hypothetical world. We don't get to imagine a universe where everyone who rejects Christ will be equally evil, even if equally worthy of hell.

    that was good; and you said it better than I was trying to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jepthah's stupid and rash vow - historical narrative genre, not teaching genre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's both. That is, yes it's historical narrative. But it's also in the Bible for a reason. History is condensed so the historian has to pick and choose which events he's sharing, so it was shared for a purpose. Add on to it the fact that God inspired it to be in Scripture too, and I think it's serving a teaching moment as well.

      Delete
    2. Ok, Yes, in the sense that the historical narrative teaches us that Jephthah's rash vow was stupid and killing his daughter was sinful and awful and difficult to even believe that a believer would do such a thing. Some commentators believe that the text means that she was condemned to a life without marriage.

      My point was historical narrative genre (like Noah's drunkenness, Abraham's lies, David's adultery and murder of Uriah, Solomon's lusts, polygamy, and compromises into idolatry are historical narrative that record the sins of humans and even the prophets but God does not approve of those actions. God records the sins of the prophets and humans without commending the sin; and even exposes the sinfulness of everyone (except for Christ who is the only human to never sin.) The text is inerrant in that it is teaching real history and exposing real human weakness and sin.

      Jepthah is mentioned in Hebrews 11 as one of the heroes of the faith; so that makes it hard that the NT does not say that he was wrong in what he did. It is still a difficult passage to square with the spirit of the NT - the whole atmosphere of the book of Judges - (Samson also) - the character trait of Jephthah that would put making a vow before, as somehow more important than the sin of murder and child sacrifice is a strange kind of atmosphere.

      Delete
  4. he (Dr. White) clarified what was meant by the "If you mock Islam they might mock the OT" part, and it was much needed because I took it the way Wood, et al, did.

    Yes, but I have to admit it went over my head about consistency. A lot of that presuppositional apologetics stuff I don't understand. I understand it somewhat - the idea of the noetic effects of sin, etc. and that skeptics and atheists when they complain about injustice and suffering, etc. are using God's morality to make arguments against God, etc. - I get those things.
    Douglas Wilson's debate against Dan Barker was excellent on that. Dr. White played that on the DL years ago - about why Dan Barker was so upset as death and dying and seeing his mother or grandmother suffer with cancer, etc. - D. Wilson said that if we are just chemicals bouncing off one another, then that pain and dying process should not bother Dan Barker, etc.

    I get that.

    But, as I wrote earlier, I think Ken Ham should have used that kind of issue or the moral argument or the cosmological and design and Intelligent design arguments at the FIRST in his debate with Bill Nye the science guy, rather than right from the start starting with 6 day 24 hours creationism - the rest of the debate was spent in trying to overcome that massive subject and all the questions that secular people bring up with that issue.

    What I am saying is that sometimes there is a process in evangelism, apologetics, etc. - I don't understand those Reformed folks that think evangelism is a 10 minute yelling the gospel in street evangelism kind of thing and "shake the dust off your feet".

    Regeneration is in one second; and God's work; but it does not happen apart from people hearing, thinking, using their mind, heart, emotions, process, etc. - "how can they hear without a preacher?", etc. - Romans 10:13-15.

    I have seen Muslims take several years of wrestling with the issues until they actually repent and believe. Iranians are open because they have been exposed to all the harshness, goofiness of Hadith type stuff that is in their culture and Islamic law, and the injustice of it applied in Iran.

    But that is one way that God has been using to break the hold of 14 centuries of lies and bondage to Islam. The Iranians are also more open because it was the Arabs that attacked and subjugated them to Islam under Omar Ibn Al Khattab's Caliphate (the second Sunni Caliph) - it took them 300 years to subjugate the Persians / Iranians.

    David Wood's part of wanting to free Muslims from thinking they are supposed to subjugate the whole world (Jihad, Caliphate, (the Shiite version of that is the Imamate and Velayate Faqi (Ayatollah's as God's spokesmen on earth for an Islamic government) - they don't use the words "Caliph" and Imam in Shiite Islam is only for the 12 (the last one is hidden); but in popular Islam in Iran, they called Khomeini "Imam" as a term of respect, like someone calling C. S. Lewis "Apostle to the Skeptics", even though he was not an apostle in the formal Biblical sense of office.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did not finish and got sidetracked by explaining difference in Shiite Jihadism vs. Sunni Jihadism, (and Dhimmi principles, etc.

    David Wood's part of wanting to free Muslims from thinking they are supposed to subjugate the whole world and freeing Muslims from participating in Jihadism and suicide bombing (Al Qaedah, Hamas, Taliban, Isis, etc.) (and Muslim brotherhood type political stealth in the west - CAIR, etc.) - those are all laudable goals and good goals; but also Dr. White's emphasis on the gospel is better; but I would not say "I have not interest in helping Muslims leave Islam" - there has to be some kind of both/and on this stuff, but I don't know how to put it all together in a coherent statement and I am not as smart as either Dr. White or Dr. Wood or Steve Hays.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Wood's friendship with Nabeel Qureshi and the process that they went through is a great example of proper outreach to Muslims. That is what is missing from most Reformed type methods of evangelism. Mostly what I see is a combination of just yelling the gospel in 10 minutes and then shaking the dust off your feet.

    Why do so many Reformed types not believe In ANY kind of process in evangelism??
    Just because regeneration happens in a second in the heart; does not mean that God does not use process of hearing, thinking, wrestling with the issues, building trust, things that missionaries do - learn language, culture, eat meals, learn how to cook and eat their food, hospitality, building trust, suffering, involvement in good works and good deeds as one shares the gospel.


    That is wrong. (that evangelism is just 10 minutes monologue and then if they don't listen, shake the dust off your feet, etc.)

    Here is what I wrote in 2012 and also posted under the other article on this stuff that Steve put up. (Muslim Mockumentaries)

    “Francis and Edith Schaeffer led many to Christ through their ministry at L’Abri in Switzerland. In my view, the power of their ministry was found in the combination of a thoughtful apologetic (“honest answers to honest questions”) and a loving ministry of hospitality.”

    John Frame, “Presuppositional Apologetics”, in Five Views on Apologetics, (Zondervan, 2000, edited by Steven B. Cowan), p. 220, footnote 17.

    Cornelius Van Til in a letter to Francis Schaeffer:

    “You have the advantage over me. You converse constantly with modern artists, modern existentialists, etc. as they eat at your table, you study their literature; whereas I am only a book-worm”

    Cornelius Van Til, “A Letter to Francis Schaeffer”, in The Works of Cornelius Van Til: 1895-1987, edited by Eric Sigward. (Jackson Heights, NY: Labels Army, 1997) Cited in CRI Journal, “Armchair Apologetics, Eric Brook, volume 25, number 4, 2003, p. 62.

    This is what is greatly needed today in the Evangelical church; both equipping in sound Biblical apologetics and Evangelism; along with hospitality and listening and love.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my opinion, the kind of relationship that Dr. White was trying to build with Dr. Qadhi and Shabir Ally and Adnan Rashid was a good method of applying missionary principles. He is to be commended on that.

    (But personally, after the debate with Robert Spencer, I see nothing wrong with seeking to have an open and honest question and answer session with Dr. Qadhi about the Muslim Brother-hood type tactics / strategy of "stealth Jihad" in the west, that they have, that even Dr. White admitted to Robert Spencer, is "standard Sunni Islam".

    But many hot-heads, both Reformed types and other Christians, reacted so badly to the Dr. Qadhi thing that this recent thing is kind of another aspect of the difficulty of doing evangelism with You Tube and internet type audiences also; and a whole world out there of other kinds of Christians and then there is the whole "fundamentalist / hyper-separation" [cannot have a debate in a church building, even on a Tuesday, not a worship service, apologetic issues are clear, no compromise, etc. ; cannot do anything with a Muslims; applying 2 Cor. 6:14 to Dr. White's debate with Dr. Qadi, etc.) types.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I was (and still am) 100% behind White when it comes to the flak he faced over Qadhi.

      And to be clear, I find nothing wrong with Dr. White's ministry to Muslims at all. The only issue I take is solely because I think Dr. Wood also is not doing anything wrong in his approach.

      Delete
    2. >>>In my opinion, the kind of relationship that Dr. White was trying to build with Dr. Qadhi and Shabir Ally and Adnan Rashid was a good method of applying missionary principles. He is to be commended on that.

      I dont see how White is doing anything new that David in his private ministry has not done. David's relationship with other Muslims he KNOWS personally - like the above examples - is similar to White's - minus the sweet talk.

      Wood's ministry is loving, but he calls the nonsense - nonsense. White pussyfoots about the issue - not the charity he gave to Catholic apologists in his ministry to them. I remember all to well as a Catholic back then (and I thank him for being clear like Wood is not).

      Delete
  8. he (Dr. White) clarified what was meant by the "If you mock Islam they might mock the OT" part, and it was much needed because I took it the way Wood, et al, did.

    I did not understand the explanation that Dr. White gave. Peter or Steve - can someone explain what he meant ? It has to do with consistency and presuppositional apologetics; and I confess; I don't really fully grasp what he was saying. After church, this after noon, I will have to listen to it again to try and understand what he means.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Ken,
      Part of the issue is that in the original video White was definitely not clear about what he was trying to say and, in fact as I discussed this with Steve, Steve pointed out to me that White's rejoinder video actually misrepresents what White originaly said rather than Wood's video misrepresenting it. (To further complicate matters, I also disagree with White's conclusions even after he clarified it.)

      To be clear about the misrepresentation aspect, I don't think it was intentional on White's part because I think he clearly MEANT to say it differently, but basically in the rejoinder he said: "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."

      But in the first video, he had clearly said something that was more than just "remotely similar": "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."

      Now, again I do not say he does this intentionally because there's enough there for me to go, "Ah, that's what he was driving at." But I think it's plain that so many people took it the way Wood did because White wasn't clear enough at that time.

      So, to summarize what I hear White say is, "If you use tactic X against Islam, then they can use tactic X against Christianity and you cannot complain that it's not fair of them to do that."

      The thing is, I wouldn't complain that it's not fair for someone to use the tactics Wood is using, because Christianity withstands that. To put it into presuppositional terms: Christianity has presuppositional consistency that Islam does not, so Christianity is not on equal footing with Islam. Christianity has a much more sure footing. In other words, I'm 100% all for consistency, and White is absolutely right to be concerned about that, but I don't see how consistency would be a problem here.

      Delete
    2. Put it this way: is there ANY context that can justify "the disease is on one wing and the cure on the other" when it comes to flies? No, that's a factual claim that is objectively wrong. White mentioned that there are Islamic scholars who can come up with answers on certain things, but that (to me) is about as relevant as saying that the Roman Catholic Church has a Vatican council that can come up with answers. Why? Because it's not needed. Any complaint about Scripture can actually be answered from Scripture. Someone wants to mock the dietary laws? We can point them to the passages describing Israel's covenental relationship to God and how they were set apart, as well as Jesus abrogating those laws in Mark 7:19, as well as the vision of Peter in Acts.

      In other words, I see the tactic as this: "You holy book contains dumb things that aren't explained by the holy book." And if someone tried to do that against Christianity, it would fail. We don't need extra-biblical things tacked on to make the Bible work. Islam definitely DOES need extra-quranic explanations tacked on to make IT work.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Peter! Now I don't feel so bad about my misunderstanding or not being able to understand Dr. White's point.

      So, to summarize what I hear White say is, "If you use tactic X against Islam, then they can use tactic X against Christianity and you cannot complain that it's not fair of them to do that."

      The thing is, I wouldn't complain that it's not fair for someone to use the tactics Wood is using, because Christianity withstands that. To put it into presuppositional terms: Christianity has presuppositional consistency that Islam does not, so Christianity is not on equal footing with Islam. Christianity has a much more sure footing. In other words, I'm 100% all for consistency, and White is absolutely right to be concerned about that, but I don't see how consistency would be a problem here.


      very good
      After I read and slow down; I understand; but I could never think that fast in a debate.
      I would have never been able to understand that point unless you had fleshed it out for me.
      I cannot understand Van Till, nor others who explain that aspect of Prepositional method.
      I praise God for both of those men who are fast thinkers in debate. Both White and Wood.

      Delete
  9. Thanks for the comments Peter. As someone who has actively followed and benefited from White's ministry since 2008 and followed Wood since about the same time as yourself, I'm getting really tired of what I see as a lot of talking past each other and unfair attribution of motives on both sides. There is a lot more heat than light between these two camps. I really wish Wood and White would just get together to do some sort of long-form debate or (preferably) discussion on these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So far, I've only had time to watch the first 5 or 6 mintues of White's rejoinder. I'll try to watch the rest later.

    However, even in these brief minutes, it's noticeable White is taking things very personally. Perhaps way too personally. For starters, White says Wood admits Wood didn't listen to White on the Dividing Line, then White immediately draws the conclusion that this means Wood doesn't "respect" White (e.g. "[Wood] shows more respect for Shabir Ally than me!"). However, even if it's true Wood didn't listen to White, that doesn't necessarily mean Wood not listening to White disrespects White. There could be good reasons Wood didn't listen to White. For example, wasn't Wood primarily responding to White's fans who Wood said "flooded" them with comments, not to White himself?

    Also, it seems to me White is piqued by the fact that (according to White) Wood doesn't read or watch White's debates or literature on Islam (while White says he does watch "most of" Wood's debates on Islam). White even says Wood doesn't seem to think Wood has anything to "learn" from White on Islam. This seems to really bug White. However, it could be Wood doesn't follow White because Wood has other reasonable priorities. It could be Wood doesn't follow White because Wood can access and read the relevant primary sources himself. But White seems to expect Wood to regard White as some sort of an expert on Islam. As far as I'm aware, however, White doesn't hold an accredited doctoral degree, let alone one in Islamic Studies or similar (like Andy Bannister), though White is now doing an accredited PhD in NT textual criticism at a South African university with a former student of Bruce Metzger's as his doctoral advisor. As such I'm not sure how White is supposed to be more of an expert in Islam than Wood? Aren't both White and Wood essentially very learned laypeople when it comes to Islam (though Wood does hold a PhD from an accredited university i.e. Fordham University)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another thing White mentions is how he has "stood in mosques around the world" "unlike any of those gentlemen [i.e. Wood, Vocab, Jon]". I don't know if that's really true, but okay.

      Wood was unjustly persecuted by Muslims (who instigated local police to arrest him) in Dearborn. Can White say the same when it comes to Muslims?

      Regardless, being invited or not invited to a mosque doesn't necessarily mean one is a better or worse evangelist to Muslims than another person if that's what White is getting at. The apostle Paul and other disciples were invited to synagogues, among other places and events, but they were likewise kicked out of towns and persecuted and jailed and so on. Whether invited or disinvited, they were faithful to the gospel and faithful in sharing it. So being invited to a mosque or not invited doesn't necessarily mean anything one way or another. It depends on the particular occasion in question. We'd need more information to better judge.

      Delete
    2. As someone who has been witnessing to Muslims since 1983, I can say that Dr. White's book on the Qur'an and his knowledge of the Hadith is right up there with Dr. Wood's.
      I learned about Muslims by being with them, and only in recent years (after 9-11-2001) and the publishing of the Hadith collections on line have I been able to see for myself what they say.

      David Wood is right in that many Muslims don't know a lot of the details of the Hadith; but also when a Muslim finds out what is there specifically, he will say, "Oh, so that is why we do that in our country/society, etc." Most Muslims are taught all that stuff; it is only the more modern and educated Muslims that have middle class and upper class westernized business and education that are more and more laughing at and questioning their own stuff that is backwards in those Hadith. And, the Muslim scholars also have answers for those strange and nutty Hadith, just like we have scholarly answers to the hard verses in the Bible.

      Delete
    3. Most Iranians hate the backwards stuff that the Ayatollah Khomeini re-instituted in 1979 in the Islamic Revolution there. Many educated middle class and upper class have fled Iran and are still fleeing - most of the same spirit of those crazy Hadith in Sunni Hadith collections that Wood is exposing is also in Shiite Hadith and traditions, with some exceptions and a lot more added stuff about the family of the prophet Muhammad, his children, grandchildren, daughters and sons; and a whole lot more traditions about the 12 Imams (descendants of Muhammad that came after him that Shiites claim are the proper interpretation/practice of Islam - from Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, Hossein and the rest of the 12 Imams after Hossein.

      Delete
    4. >>>However, even in these brief minutes, it's noticeable White is taking things very personally. Perhaps way too personally.

      I agree. I wrote the following in one of the comments above - and am reproducing it here to express the same opinion:

      White did appear "hurt" on at least two occasion at what Wood said or did (or rather did not). One was, David not actually listening to White (in which I think White was right), and the other was David questioning White's ministry to Muslims which White interpreted as David undermining White's knowledge - which resulted in quite a bit of bragging/advertising of what White has accomplished, and the way in which he did (such as writing a better exposition of Surah 5 than David's extempore role play, the mosque debates/preaching, etc.) (I mean if Wood can advertise his jihadi threats (which are facts), why cannot we level the same charge on White?) Later though, White confessed that what David meant could only really mean that White's ministry was ineffective per David because of their methodology. So I guess the bragging was justified (I am being sarcastic).

      So long as White calls, like the Left out there, all critical views of Islam as anti-Muslims (like he suggested here in his rejoinder, and many times before on his DL), he will not be taken seriously by those who see Islam as a serious threat and worthy of ridicule. White may have his interpretation of scripture and its application to apologetics, but unless he is charitable to other voices than his, he is not winning a large crowd even among Christians. Accusing such people as anti-Muslims and being in it for money (on his other DL) is just silly and childish. (He even mentioned SuperChat here - in what subtle context, I will let diligent listeners interpret. But he has been quite vocal in asserting monetary motives to what he views as anti-Muslim criticism such as this one.)

      Not to mention White is grossly inconsistent in his demand of Biblical standards and apostolic precedents. He wants Wood and the gang to produce apostolic example of what they are doing, but what about White? Did he stop to consider whether there was apostolic precedent for his Qadhi dialogue, where a member of an anti-Christ religion (per White's own admission) discussed his heresies on Christ without being challenged, or did he go with the format of the discussion regardless because it felt right in his conscience? I am not against the Qadhi exchange, but White's double standards.


      Of course, you can see that I am critical of White's behavior. I think its thoroughly uncharitable, childish and not worthy of a scholar with his erudition. I would say the same about Sam's criticism of White - and I still love both these gentlemen and their ministries even though they can rub you the wrong way with some of their behaviors.

      Delete
    5. Ken Temple

      “As someone who has been witnessing to Muslims since 1983, I can say that Dr. White's book on the Qur'an and his knowledge of the Hadith is right up there with Dr. Wood's.”

      That just reinforces what I’ve said. If Wood and White have essentially equal knowledge on these topics, then it’s true Wood doesn’t need to “learn” from White - even though Wood may have been cocky to say so, and even though White may feel slighted Wood doesn’t feel the need to “learn” from White.

      Personally speaking, it just seems to me Wood and White are both self educated laypeople on Islam. They both have the personal time and resources to devote to studying Islam in a way most people don’t, which they share with people willing to listen to them, but it’s not as if they’re Bernard Lewis.

      Delete
  11. Satire and mockery are fine. That is not the issue. They crossed the line when they role played breastfeeding. Sick and perverted

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How so? Is it sinful to breastfeed? Is it sinful to talk about breastfeeding?

      And for that matter, have you actually seen the video? It's PG-13 at worst.

      But if we want to go down that route, let me ask have you ever watched a movie or TV show where a character was murdered in the show? Murder is sick and perverted. Was the movie or TV show sick and perverted because it happened to one of the characters? I mean, I'm not talking about gorey movies. Think about John Wayne westerns where the bad guy kills someone which is why John Wayne has to go after him.

      Is that immoral? Or do you give it a pass. Because it seems to me that murder is actually a sin, whereas breastfeeding is not, so clearly it would not be consistent to condemn the non-sinful activity while letting the sinful activity have a free pass...

      Delete
    2. It was not breastfeeding per say (normally with an infant); rather it was depiction of breastfeeding by 3 adult men with one woman, and the added "sexy music" that seems to cross the line.

      Delete
    3. Ken Temple

      "It was not breastfeeding per say (normally with an infant); rather it was depiction of breastfeeding by 3 adult men with one woman, and the added "sexy music" that seems to cross the line."

      Without weighing in on the ethics, but just to get the facts right:

      The video in question is Islamicize Me #19. The scene in question starts at around 5 minutes.

      I only saw three people total (not "3 adult men with one woman"). I saw two men (i.e. Wood and Malone) and a third person who was most likely McCray dressed in a burka meant to represent a woman. No actual women were in the video as far as I can tell.

      I'm no musician or anything like that, but it sounds more like techno music to me, not "sexy music". Maybe some kind of a Arabic techno music? I don't know, but in any case I certainly did not take it to be "sexy music" at all. Moreover, I don't even know if sexy music was the intent of the filmmakers (i.e. Wood, Malone, McCray), was it?

      Delete
    4. "It was not breastfeeding per say (normally with an infant)"

      Of course, apart from the ethics of it, the point of Islamicize Me #19 assumes "breastfeeding" is indeed "normally with an infant". Otherwise, it wouldn't be absurd!

      Delete
    5. Yes, but how? That's my question. It's easy enough for someone to throw out charges that "that offends me" or "that crosses the line" but I'm asking for what Biblical evidence there is that any line has been crossed.

      Accusing someone of crossing some line ought, in the very least, be traceable back to an actual sin. So I'm asking those who have a problem with it just to let me know why exactly you have a problem. Is there any actual sin that you can trace this to, or is it just something that makes you uncomfortable? Or do you equate "this makes me uncomfortable" with "this must be a sin"?

      I'll have more to say on this later, but I have to run for the moment. As always, I appreciate talking with you Ken, but just so everyone knows, my questions are for everyone who was offended, not just you :-)

      Delete
    6. At most, I think the music might sound "forbidden", like something taboo, but I for one don't hear "sexy".

      Delete
    7. You forced me to watch it again. (and force me to spend too much of my time on this stuff; I wanted to just let it all go at this point; because of time and emotional energy spent over being depressed over all the fighting that Christians are doing with each other on these apologetic blogs, etc. )

      I confess I only watched a few seconds of it before, at that point; and got disgusted and turned it off when I heard the music. I thought it was 3 men with one woman being depicted. Ok, there are only 2 men. I assumed they continued from the earlier segment of the 3 men with the woman in the burka / chador. The hands of the person in the Burka show that it seems to me that is not Jon McCray. But you right in that there are only 2 men depicted - adults; and yes, they are depicting the absurdity of the Hadith in itself.

      Well, the music may be techno or whatever, and I guess I reacted emotionally to the whole enactment of it as offensive. I interpreted it as "sexy" or disco type, etc. - I don't like disco or techno music. I like more in the way of classic rock - 60s and 70s rock style type. The music was irritating to me as the scene, and I saw a few seconds of it and turned it off, thinking ok, I got the point.

      As Steve mentioned with analyzing David Wood's style (and personality) from the beginning, he pointed out that our current culture has grown up with TV shows like Southpark, Family Guy and the movie "World Police" type humor.
      When my 2 boys grew up, when they got into the older teenage years, they liked that stuff and we had disagreements over watching it - because I did not approve.

      That is what Wood's videos remind me of.

      As I slow down and watch more of them and also read all the interactions and reactions to the "Islamicize Me" video series; I am also realizing the point of the humor, but, as I wrote somewhere before in all this, just quoting those Hadith passages as is, with some comments that are reasonable and logical, would be enough to show them / expose them for the ridiculous nature that they are. (especially for modern world / society, etc. - some of them do have context in Arabian desert life in the 6th and 7th Centuries and the realities of dealing with that life in the desert.)

      I guess I just don't really like Southpark or Family Guy type humor. (explanation: When my 2 boys got old enough and independent to start challenging me on things (why I did not want them watching stuff like that) (around ages 15-18 and ongoing into their 20s (now 28 and 25); they forced me to watch one or two episodes, because I could not logically answer all the questions that they had for "why" and "why not", etc. - So I watched one or two in order to relate to them and not just be rigid; and I don't like that style at all; so I guess it is a matter of me being an older generation. I guess I share that with Dr. White.

      It bugs me that all this stuff is bugging me and taking so much time; yet I keep coming back to it.

      Delete
    8. Ken Temple

      "You forced me to watch it again. (and force me to spend too much of my time on this stuff; I wanted to just let it all go at this point; because of time and emotional energy spent over being depressed over all the fighting that Christians are doing with each other on these apologetic blogs, etc. )"

      Easy there, pardner. No one "forced" you to do anything. It's not like anyone has a gun to your head. If all this is truly making you feel like you're emotionally spent and depressed, then might I kindly suggest taking time away from it all? After all, I'm sure White is more than capable of defending himself on his criticisms without the need of others to do so, especially if it's causing them to feel this way.

      Delete
    9. By the way, I have grown up on South Park, Family Guy, and the like. But I've never really liked their humor either. So at least in my case I don't think I have some generational or subcultural blindspot or whatever due to the rest of my generation or subcultural having grown up on such fare.

      Delete
    10. I did not mean "force" literally.

      But, yeah, I am depressed over all the fighting and energy spent on this stuff; and my lack of being able to digest it all with other stuff in life.

      Delete
    11. I cannot avoid it completely, because the other content of both Triablogue (of the few articles that I am able to grasp and read with understanding. Most of Steve's stuff is over my head. I only read ones that I can grasp from the beginning or that I am interested in.) and Dr. White's material and Dr. Wood's material is very good, IMO.

      Delete
    12. The apostles Paul and Peter fought, but in the end it proved beneficial to the church (e.g. we might not have Galatians without it). Maybe that's a more optimistic way to look at things?

      In any case, no shame in sitting this one out. You've done a lot of excellent work for the Lord. Far more than someone like me could ever do.

      Delete
    13. Thanks for the other comment about Southpark and Family Guy, etc.

      If it is not a generational thing, I wonder what it is.

      why some people like that style of humor.

      Delete
    14. The apostles Paul and Peter fought, but in the end it proved beneficial to the church (e.g. we might not have Galatians without it). Maybe that's a more optimistic way to look at things?

      That's good and helpful way to look at it. Thanks for your comments and encouragement!

      Delete
    15. Thanks, Ken! I seriously appreciate your ministry very much!

      "Thanks for the other comment about Southpark and Family Guy, etc. If it is not a generational thing, I wonder what it is. why some people like that style of humor."

      To be fair, I should probably put it this way instead:

      On the one hand, I know many in my generation who likewise don't really like South Park, what we've watched is mostly meh if not worse like unpalatable, and so on.

      On the other hand, I think there is something to the generational thing. It's not unreasonable. I think to some degree we can't help but be influenced by things in our generation. So maybe despite my protestations to the contrary I am actually influenced by South Park at a more subconscious level or something. Like I do find some of their stuff amusing, even if I don't like most the rest of their stuff, but even the few things I find amusing might still be off-putting to earlier generations. So I can't completely rule out that there's something to the generational thing.

      Delete
    16. I suppose in every generation there are people who are more attracted to low brow vs. high brow humor. In this respect, it's more of a personal thing. But as I recall I think Steve mentioned White being a PK which likewise shaped what he finds appropriate or inappropriate humor.

      Delete
    17. Ken wrote: "But, yeah, I am depressed over all the fighting and energy spent on this stuff..." I am with you on that one. I think it's necessary, and I thank the Epistle of Dude for his response too, which makes it a bit more hopeful. But yeah, I feel the same way you do quite a bit on this topic too.

      Delete
  12. I'm not convinced that leaving Islam for atheism will be objectively better for society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess it depends what kind of Islam and what kind of atheism we're talking about. For example, if it's Islam that's sympathetic with militant Muslims to a popular level libertarian atheism, which I suspect would be the most likely path for most who do leave Islam for atheism, then I would think that'd be an improvement inasmuch as popular level libertarian atheism at least isn't typically sympathetic to militant Muslims and essentially just want to be left alone.

      However, even if it's something radical like militant Islam to militant atheism, then I would still think that's at least arguably an improvement inasmuch as militant atheists don't typically murder innocent men, women, and/or children (short of being a serial killer, I guess) and thanks to their beliefs about marriage and kids they typically don't have many kids like militant Muslims do.

      Delete
    2. Geoff -
      That is the one thing that David Wood and his group did convince me of and changed my mind on - not what you wrote, just "leaving Islam for atheism per se";

      rather leaving Jihadistic Islam (Isis, Taliban, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Anjem Choudary types in Europe and USA, etc.) and leaving the ideology of subjugating the world and Dhimmi -ism (Surah 9:29) - for Muslims to leave that kind of Islam or temptation to join those groups - that makes the world / society better; and we can still pray for them later to come to Christ, trusting God in His sovereignty to work and keep sharing the gospel, etc.

      Most Muslims go through a process; see this video of Al Fadi, a former Muslim from Saudi Arabia.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMn3C8Esm8E

      one of the main things I disagree with many Reformed folks ( and I am Calvinistic and Reformed), is that they seem to think evangelism is a 10 minute hit and run and then shake the dust off your feet - kind of method that seems to completely eschew or reject relationships / friendship / hospitality, process, etc.

      There are many methods/ means in evangelism, not only street preaching and 10 minute type things, while not rejecting all of those either. There is a place and time for all kinds of these kinds of methods; as long as it is not contrary to Scripture.

      There is a balance of the proper application of the verse "I have become all things to all people, in order that by all means, I may save some" see I Cor. 9:19-25

      But obviously, if all the atheists ban together later and create another Stalinist Soviet Union or Pol Pot's Cambodia or Mao's China, etc. - then I your point is a good one on that.

      Delete
    3. When I say there are many methods / means, I don't mean "seeker sensitive" type stuff like Andy Stanley or Bill Hybels, etc. I mean solid Biblical preaching and apologetics that also takes place over a long period of friendship, meals, coffee, hospitality, etc.

      That is the way it is done in the Muslim world, because they are very hospitable and USUALLY (not always; there are those that will do violence, etc. ) will listen when we learn their language and eat their food, and are not afraid and willing to suffer also.

      Delete
    4. I'm not convinced either. Atheists have killed plenty of people and probably more in the past century than Islam. Taking the ideology of Atheism to its logical conclusion results in a more dangerous person than an ideology of Islam.

      In the end these people do terrible things because they are evil, either ideology will give an excuse for their violence.

      Delete
    5. Lee

      "I'm not convinced either. Atheists have killed plenty of people and probably more in the past century than Islam."

      Like I said, I think it depends on the kind of atheism and the kind of Islam we're talking about.

      "Taking the ideology of Atheism to its logical conclusion results in a more dangerous person than an ideology of Islam."

      I don't know about that. If someone took Islam to its logical conclusion, then they could join other Muslims and attempt to conquer or subjugate the entire world under Islam. Until there is no more Dar al-Harb and all is Dar al-Islam.

      If someone took atheism to its logical conclusion, then they could commit suicide because they see no more point in living or they could continue to live as long as they can get away with it given societal confines.

      At worst, they might become a serial killer or serial rapist or other serial criminal. But evil people already exist, and the rest of society is able to deal with them. Of course, the atheist could become a Stalin or a Mao and murder millions, but that takes a particular kind of atheist (e.g. one charismatic enough for people to follow) as well as the right political, economical, societal, cultural, and perhaps other conditions for them to rise to such a position where they can murder millions. The average atheist couldn't do that.

      By contrast, the average Muslim already joins the worldwide Muslim community. If each average Muslim took their faith to its logical conclusion, then they'd want to see the entire world as Dar al-Islam.

      "In the end these people do terrible things because they are evil, either ideology will give an excuse for their violence."

      I agree.

      Delete
  13. This is the kind of reasonable analysis and comparison of Muhammad's Hadith vs. Jesus' teaching that I appreciate more (than the SouthPark and Family Guy Type humor of "Islamicize Me")

    But I guess what we are learning is that there are many different styles and ways of reaching people; in the greater body of Evangelicals.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX581PQJSxI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're a nice and good guy, Ken. I think generally speaking you are right to expect respectful dialogue.

      However, unfortunately, much of the rest of the world isn't as nice and good as you are. For example, look at how the late Muslim apologist Ahmed Deedat used to mock Christians.

      Delete
    2. I just now watched day 26 - Jihad Junior vs. Kafir King; I have to admit; it was very funny.

      Delete
  14. White's call for consistency seems to be a little bit dangerous to me. He seems to imply that the bible also has texts that would also lead one to the conclusion that they could not be true because they imply things that must be either absurd and/or demonstrably false. This is a fallacious equivalence on his part that we must not accept. Any part of our scripture can defend itself from being open to mockery because it is from the God of truth and infinite wisdom. White seems to imply that our scriptures have the same weakness as the islamic scriptures. This is what his consistency argument leads to in my view. It should be rejected. Our scriptures don't need to be defended by this tactic.

    ReplyDelete