See no evil

Part I: The story so far

As many people are aware, there's been a debate between James White vs. David Wood, Vocab Malone, and Jon McCray over the latters' "Islamicize Me" videos. On the offchance someone isn't aware, here's the story so far, at least the major bits, as objectively as I know how to put it.

The debate began when White took issue with some of the "Islamicize Me" videos. White believes the videos are not only in poor taste but violate Christian ethical standards (e.g. Eph 5:3-4, 11-12). White then posted a comment on Facebook which asked for Wood to look at verses and passages in the Bible that White thought relevant to the debate; also White broached the topic of whether Wood was "accountable" to his local church elders. Wood, Malone, and McCray disagreed with White's original video and explained their reasoning in a nearly three hour long video response. White replied in a 40 or so minute video which primarily seemed to focus on whether Wood, Malone, and McCray were accountable to local church authorities. And White wrote a Facebook post where White alleged Wood, Malone, and McCray were "disconnected from the direct work of the local body and not seeing the importance of having mature leadership". There have been some other things especially tweets from White and Wood, but I think this should cover the salient points.

Throughout this, Steve Hays and Peter Pike (and many others in our comboxes and on other social media) have posted their own thoughts on the matter. Thus far the Triablogue post are (in chronological order from earliest to latest):

1. "Muslim mockumentaries" (Steve)
2. "Islamicize Me!" (Steve)
3. "My Take on White v. Wood" (Peter)
4. "Excusing Muhammad" (Steve)
5. "What Constitutes 'Crude Joking'?" (Peter)
6. "The Westboro cult and Acts17" (Steve)
7. "An Unanswered Question" (Peter)
8. "Robert Spencer on the 'Islamicize Me' controversy" (Steve)
9. "'Obey your leaders'" (Steve)

Update: The following Triablogue posts have been added since my post (in chronological order from earliest to latest):

1. "I Want Consistency Too" (Peter)
2. "Bullitt reboot" (Steve)
3. "Wrapping Up A Few Things" (Peter)
4. "Got milk?" (Steve)
5. "You distinguish 'gutter humor' by what faculty?" (Patrick)

Part II: My background

Now, I'd like to add my thoughts as well, but first I think it'd be good to provide some background information about myself.

I became a Calvinist in large part thanks to White's ministry. It started when a good friend gave me White's book Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, where I thought White handily won the argument from Scripture, and which persuaded me to investigate Calvinism further. After being persuaded of Calvinism by White and others, I prayerfully and financially supported White's ministry for some time, though I forget precisely how long. I bought and learned from many of his debates. And I even attended some of his debates as well as his sermons where I thanked White in person (though I doubt White would remember me since I'm not a memorable person!). I've amicably moved on from following White and A&O Ministries since then due to other priorities. But I still have a lot of respect for White and the ministry he has built from the ground up.

For better or worse, I have no history with Wood, Malone, or McCray. I believe I've only ever seen Wood once in person in a live debate while seated far away. I have seen plenty of his YouTube videos and have learned a lot from him. I differ with Wood theologically in significant ways; I'm a lot closer if not nearly identical to White in that respect. I've never followed Malone or McCray until recently.

All this to say, while I believe I'm coming at this with a lot of respect and appreciation for both White and Wood as apologists, and while I have a growing respect and appreciation for Malone and McCray, if anything, I'm likely more biased in favor of White for personal and theological reasons.

Apologies for the long background. I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from.

Part III: Thoughts and concerns

I'd like to make several points:

1. An allegation against the "Islamicize Me" videos is that they depict "crude" content (e.g. urination, breastfeeding). Of course, both sides debate whether the content is "crude". It's still being debated, but my perspective is it seems White keeps assuming the "Islamicize Me" videos are "crude" based on...I'm not sure what? His personal distaste? But if the videos are "crude", then that needs to be shown based on biblical standards, not personal distaste.

   Here's something I find analogous to watching the "Islamicize Me" videos: God revealed prophecies to prophets in dreams and visions. The prophets were "watching" what God visually revealed to them. Some of these dreams and visions arguably contain "crude" images (e.g. blood and guts). Was it wrong for prophets to see these "crude" images in their dreams and visions? Since that's what God explicitly showed them, then it seems to me the answer would have to be no.

   Some might retort that textual imagery is fine but visual imagery is wrong. But I think it's simplistic and perhaps a false dichotomy to say it's licit if it's textual but illicit if it's visual. After all, God revealed prophecies in visual media like dreams and visions which were later transcribed and recorded on parchment. After all, the prophets really saw and experienced many of the things that later "were written down for our instruction".

2. White brought up the issue of being accountable to one's local church (e.g. Heb 13:17). Here White alleges that Wood, Malone, and McCray aren't connected to a local church. Moreover White implicitly alleges Wood, Malone, and McCray are immature and disobedient. Strong language, harsh words, but true or false?

   At best, it sounds like an argument from silence, because to my knowledge Wood, Malone, and McCray haven't explicitly said one way or the other whether they are or aren't. If so, then it would've been more fair and prudent for White to have withheld judgment until it's clearer rather than to condemn them without evidence.

3. At the same time, if one should be accountable to a local church while doing apologetics, then this would apply to White too. However, if it's true White made a less than fair or imprudent judgment, then that doesn't reflect well on his judgment. Furthermore, again if true, this raises the question of what to think of an apologist who makes a less than fair or imprudent judgment as public and as significant as one such as this? What will White and White's elders do about it if this is the case?
4. It seems to me even at the level of common sense the accuser should be held accountable for their accusations as much as the accused is held responsible for the accusations against them, at least in some cases. If a woman accuses a man of raping her, and if it's true, then the man should be punished. However, if a woman accuses a man of raping her, but it's false, then the woman should be punished for making false accusations.
5. I'd like to turn to Heb 13:17 which White brought up against Wood, Malone, and McCray. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but here's my thinking as I read Heb 13:17:

   First, I would think believers ought to "obey" and "submit" to leaders who are good leaders, which means the text isn't solely about believers, but likewise about leaders. The text cuts both ways, so to speak, toward believers as well as toward leaders. It wouldn't make sense to have to "obey" and "submit" to bad leaders. Such as leaders who issue unbiblical commands. That might be a recipe for following a cult leader!

   Next, I think we need to recall Heb 13:7: "Remember your leaders". Not to mention the "heroes of faith" gallery in Heb 11 to the beginning verses of Heb 12 with Jesus as the consummate "hero of heroes". I think what's in view is that Christians ought to imitate those leaders who have genuinely proven themselves leaders in the past and present. Leaders who have truly set a godly example in their lives, by their lives, and even with their lives, for many died martyrs. Those are the ones we ought to be inspired by, look to, and imitate.

   Practically speaking, then, for leaders, the question becomes: are you such a leader that believers ought to imitate you inasmuch as you imitate our Lord, "who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame"? Are you the type of leader who is willing to humbly take up your cross daily for God's flock? Who is willing to die for God's flock?

   This kind of leadership isn't solely one that can be demanded and expected purely by virtue of one's title, degrees, or the like. Rather it's leadership that (among other things) is recognized by other believers as one lives a biblically "heroic" life which is a life that's exemplified in the heroes of faith in Heb 11 and ultimately in our Lord Jesus' life. In short, biblical leadership in Hebrews isn't primarily leadership that touts itself but rather primarily leadership that others tout (and that touts others). Faithful believers following faithful leaders.

   Thus, just as White asks Wood, Malone, and McCray whether they're "obedient" and "submitted" to local leaders in the vein of Hebrews, so might Wood, Malone, and McCray ask White if he's the type of leader that's exemplified in Hebrews.

6. Of course, some people including leaders act like they are willing to die for others. Some act like they're being persecuted. Some act like they're martyrs to a greater good. But it's one thing to shout at the top of one's lungs that you're under fire while standing for the truth, but it's another thing to actually stand for the truth while being under fire.
7. Sorry to say but I'm afraid White's latest Facebook post comes across as condescending and sanctimonious. It's as if White is sitting on a high horse and acting like he's morally superior to Wood, Malone, and McCray, and talking down to Wood, Malone, and McCray. The stereotypical holier-than-thou attitude. Unfortunately, White doesn't address the substantive issues over whether the "Islamicize Me" videos have crossed the line. Rather, White seems to assume they have crossed the line, then reprimands Wood, Malone, and McCray for it.
8. White likewise asks rhetorical questions like: "How can one consistently call members of a false religious group to repentance if that person is himself in rebellion against these words of God [i.e. Heb 13:17]".

   Actually, as far as this goes, why couldn't someone in sin still call another person in sin to repentance? Isn't that what one of the thieves on the cross did to the other? Luke 23:39-41:

   One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."

   Of course, the real issue is that White assumes without evidence that Wood, Malone, and McCray are "in rebellion" against God's words.

   Alternatively, perhaps White assumes the evidence that Wood, Malone, and McCray are "in rebellion" against God's words is their behavior in the "Islamicize Me" videos and/or their responses in social media. However, the problem with this is that it's the very point of contention whether their behavior in the "Islamicize Me" videos and/or their responses in social media is sinful in the first place.

   And if it's fine to call people out on their online behavior, then that would include White's online behavior too. Just as it's possible Wood is sinning, so too is it possible White is sinning.

9. Here's the latest tweet from White:

   Yesterday we had wonderful, gospel-centered, missions-rich discussions about greatly expanding global outreach to Muslims through sound local churches and Scripturally-based evangelism. I will not sully that wonderful time with this kind of rabid social media frenzy.

   — James White (@DrOakley1689) June 13, 2018

   I'm not sure I understand. One doesn't necessarily have to "sully" the other. Why couldn't White have had "wonderful, gospel-centered, missions-rich discussions" at the same time as respond to Wood, Malone, and McCray as well as others like Steve and Peter's points in a God-honoring and biblically faithful way? These aren't mutually exclusive.