Pages

Saturday, June 16, 2018

You distinguish "gutter humor" by what faculty?

Not unlike Emperor Palpatine, I continue to follow the debate between Dr. David Wood and Dr. James White (and others) with great interest:

  1. I'm afraid I'm still not clear what fundamental criterion (or criteria) Dr. White is using to adjudicate what constitutes unethical or illicit "gutter humor"?

    It does not appear to be the Bible, or at least it has not been satisfactorily established. Dr. White claims he has evaluated the relevant Scriptural passages according to "the fundamental rules of exegesis and hermeneutics", while Dr. Wood claims: "Nonsense. You apply scriptures in ways that the Apostles could never have meant them (unless they were utter hypocrites), all to justify your personal preferences and feelings. Awful exegesis. Requires careful refutation." Likewise, it's been pointed out that the Bible itself does seem to use both gutter humor as well as mockery (e.g. Elijah and the prophets of Baal is a paradigm case to consider in more detail than Dr. White appears to have considered it; my own argument from analogy about watching the Islamicize Me videos and God revealing to biblical prophets dreams and visions arguably containing "crude" content). Both Dr. White and Dr. Wood believe they're behaving consistently with Scripture and argue as much. (It sounds like Dr. Wood may have a more detailed argument from Scripture in the works too.)

    So I would have to (continue to) agree with Dr. Wood. I don't see how Dr. White has established his argument that the Islamicize Me videos are illicit "gutter humor" from Scripture or, indeed, from anything else save for his personal offense at or distaste for the Islamicize Me videos.

  2. Also, I don't think it's fair to make "gutter humor" and "mockery" equivalent to one another which is what it reasonably seems Dr. White meant when he typed "gutter humor/mockery". It's the very point of dispute whether mockery is tantamount to gutter humor. The fact that gutter humor and mockery are equivalent must first be established; it can't simply be assumed to be the case by Dr. White.
  3. What's more, even if Dr. White can establish mockery is equivalent to gutter humor, and that the Islamicize Me videos' mockery of Islam or Muhammad is equivalent to gutter humor, that still does not get us to the conclusion that therefore "gutter humor/mockery" is biblically unethical or illicit. But this is the very conclusion Dr. White needs to arrive at if he is to justifiably condemn Dr. Wood for the Islamicize Me videos, in light of Dr. White's condemnations of Dr. Wood from Scripture.
  4. All this correspondingly brings to my mind the classic debate between the Catholic philosopher Frederick Copleston (C) and the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (R):

    R: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

    C: Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

    R: I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

    C: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

    R: By my feelings.

30 comments:

  1. I wrote this in elsewhere, but it bears repeating here:

    In the new DL, White's problem is the "portrayal" of sinful action (@52 mins) which he says cannot be tied back together with the gospel. But Wood did not tie it to a gospel presentation, nor did the examples of mockery in the Bible Wood cited exhort people to come to faith at the time they were mocked in the normal fashion as any of the other gospel presentations in the Bible (eg. Acts 2:14-24). .Further, from this it follows seeing someone (or oneself) urinate is a sin (those who take care of kids, or the injured, or who accidentally see it - sin), seeing someone puke is a sin, seeing someone's underwear is a sin, seeing poop is sin (sorry pet owners), and seeing that the back of the burka is sin... etc. And White apparently gets all of this from the Bible. Perhaps the Bible reads differently in the original languages.

    Second, I think he changed the point of contention - first he was of the view that harsh language could not be spoken of per 1 Peter 3:15 and Eph 5 - now he is saying harsh language can be used, and he himself used it, but in some context.

    White seems to be very unclear on what EXACTLY turned him off. His shifting statements to me give no reason to think otherwise.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUUDEZz0yiY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *looking at the back of the burka

      Delete
    2. Oh, and those who use Asian toilets get to see their own poop on a daily basis. What a bunch of sinners!

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the comments, James McCloud. In fairness to Dr. White, I'd say he might not have a problem with "crudity" in general, but with the use of "crude humor" or "gutter humor" as he has described it. But I don't know for certain that's his position. I could be wrong. It's all non-specific. Dr. White seems to drop dirty bombs that scatter everywhere rather than targeted or precision munitions.

      Delete
    4. >>> It's all non-specific.

      I'll admit to that. We are all left guessing here. What does he EXACTLY mean by "portrayal of sin", and in what context did he object to vomiting and urinating scenes? Which of those were sins, and which other non-sins objections. How is White's interpretation of crudity or gutter humour bearing on the rest of Christians? Its all too unclear.

      Delete
  2. >>>I don't see how Dr. White has established his argument that the Islamicize Me videos are illicit "gutter humor" from Scripture or, indeed, from anything else save for his personal offense at or distaste for the Islamicize Me videos.

    He probably sees it in the original languages of the Bible, but since most of us dont know Biblical Greek/Hebrew, he probably does not mention is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Part of the reason that I've been poking fun at the inconsistencies in White's position instead of rebuking him harshly is because I do not believe he is being maliciously inconsistent here. That is, I don't think he sees it. I believe he is sincere in that he believes what he is saying, and he also probably does just think it's obvious. His moral compass tells him to shun what Wood is portraying.

    Here's the thing about that moral compass. He is created in the image of God, and he is a believer, so the Spirit is informing it; but by the same token, he is a fallen sinner like the rest of us, and the flesh distorts things. Not all distortions of conscience go towards licentiousness--some go toward adding restrictions God did not give. Both sins are based off the same fundamental flaw: we want to be our own masters coming up with our own rules.

    This is why I've been so adamant that we MUST be able to trace morality back to Scripture. Subjective reasoning doesn't cut it. The thing is, I know Dr. White agrees with that principal, and I'm confident that he thinks he HAS done it. After all, he quoted several passages, such as Ephesians 5, etc. But the thing I think White is overlooking is that it's not just the word that needs traced back, but the concept. And he would see this if it was in another topic.

    For example, if a Mormon told him we are saved by grace, White would not be able to agree with that because he knows the Mormon is not defining "grace" anywhere near the way the Bible does. He would insist that the Mormon demonstrate the meaning of "grace" objectively, via the Bible. In the same manner, I'm asking White to consider that his concept of what constitutes "crude" or "indecent" behavior needs grounded in Scripture, because simply importing your own definitions is exactly what eisegesis is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are 100% right on this. What does James say about the prophets and the instances they mock the false gods of the nations? (I haven't read all the discussion)? Seems like his argument is "well, the prophets get a free pass because they were inspired of God". Doesn't make sense. James responses, as much as I've read of them, seem to be more conditioned by modern decorum and his cultural sensibilities than Scripture.

      Delete
    2. This is the fundamental problem that White is eventually going to have to address. Up until this point he has simply relied on saying it's "obvious" to a "spiritually-minded" person. Unfortunately that just seems to be a way of attempting to win an argument without having it, and seems to shade into a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. As you've been pointing out Peter, it's important not to confuse the sensibilities and traditions we've grown up in with the biblical standard, even if it was generally considered the biblical standard.

      My mother grew up in a fairly well-to-do southern family who put a strong emphasis on proper etiquette. Because of that for a while when I was young something like wearing Jeans to church would be nigh unto a moral offense, and no amount of discussion would be able to dissuade her. I don't know if this is the type of thing motivating White in this situation, I do think it's unfortunate though that he has handled the situation in the way that he has. It puts those of us who appreciate his work in the place of either agreeing with him or not being counted among the "spiritually-minded," over an issue that is at least debatable.

      For my part I think neither White nor Wood have handled this situation very well. I think it was a mistake for White to broach the topic in the way that he did and at the time that he did (sandwiched between two big trips). The whole thing between the two has gone down hill since then. It probably would have been better for White to focus on specific places in the series he felt crossed the line, rather than framing it in terms of big methodological issues that I don't think he thought out very carefully, which is why he seems to have already contradicted his initial position by allowing that "harsh language" (as opposed to "gentleness and respect") is sometimes permissible in apologetic encounters. I largely support the series, althoughI think there are some moments in it that could fairly be criticized (ironically not the ones that are normally mentioned), but to be honest I think the same could be said for White on occasion and I still defend his ministry because I think the good outweighs the bad by far, and I think the same can be said for Islamicize Me.

      Delete
    3. C. M. Granger wrote:
      ---
      Seems like his argument is "well, the prophets get a free pass because they were inspired of God".
      ---

      That's pretty much the whole argument. The only specific thing I remember him saying on it is that you have to take into the consideration the context of Ezekiel (since that's what he was mentioning--I don't recall him saying anything about Elijah, other than that might have been when he said his (me paraphrasing now), "Let me know when you're a prophet" quip).

      Delete
    4. Thanks, Peter! Good comments.

      For my part I've been attempting to be respectful to Dr. White in this post and the previous post. Hopefully I've been doing okay.

      Delete
    5. Peter Pike: "This is why I've been so adamant that we MUST be able to trace morality back to Scripture."

      C.M. Granger: "James responses, as much as I've read of them, seem to be more conditioned by modern decorum and his cultural sensibilities than Scripture."

      WittenbergsDoor: "As you've been pointing out Peter, it's important not to confuse the sensibilities and traditions we've grown up in with the biblical standard, even if it was generally considered the biblical standard."

      Thanks, gents! I wholeheartedly agree.

      Delete
    6. C. M. Granger:

      "Seems like his argument is "well, the prophets get a free pass because they were inspired of God"."

      I don't understand how Dr. White's counter-argument works. Does that mean inspired biblical authors (e.g. prophets, apostles) were not sinning when they were inspired, but they were sinning when they were not inspired and simply speaking their mind as normal people?

      For example, I imagine Elijah didn't think or speak differently about Baal and the prophets of Baal when he was not inspired. So, according to Dr. White's counterargument, I guess Elijah would've been in sin when he had said similar things about Baal or the prophets of Baal to other Israelities when he was not under divine inspiration?

      It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

      Delete
    7. >>>Seems like his argument is "well, the prophets get a free pass because they were inspired of God". Doesn't make sense. James responses, as much as I've read of them, seem to be more conditioned by modern decorum and his cultural sensibilities than Scripture.

      My opinion: truer words were not spoken.

      Delete
    8. Dr. White's argument is essentially "they were prophets", which is no real argument and inconsistent with his assertions. And you know what he always says about inconsistency, it's a sure sign of a weak argument. Either the prophets sinned in what they did, or not. If not, White is misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture. He's clearly on the horns of a dilemma. I hope he does the right thing.

      Delete
    9. >>>It puts those of us who appreciate his work in the place of either agreeing with him or not being counted among the "spiritually-minded," over an issue that is at least debatable.

      That is EXACTLY where I think White is divisive. I am certain his motivations are pious... but, does it help?

      >>>The whole thing between the two has gone down hill since then

      Wood's reaction is not limited to the Islamicise me critique of White.


      >>>rather than framing it in terms of big methodological issues that I don't think he thought out very carefully, which is why he seems to have already contradicted his initial position by allowing that "harsh language"

      By that statement, it is clear to me that you either dont follow White (and his DL) closely, or somehow you have missed the crux of his argumentation. White is an incorrigible cribber of the authority and validity of only his methodology.

      To sum it up: I agree with your disagreements, but you have no idea what is the real bone of contention here. Good news, follow David's upcoming rebuttal on White, and you should be onboard.

      Delete
    10. And by "right thing" I mean dial it back and admit his assertions are really his opinion (which he's entitled to). He also needs to stop falling back on the "Wood needs to be accountable to his church leaders" to act. Violating the opinion of others is not a church discipline issue, but certainly has entangled some Reformed Baptist churches in a cantankerous web of useless squabbling.

      Delete
    11. *to act* following "church leaders" was a typo.

      Delete
  4. When I had a discussion with Dr. White about whether Christians ought to tattoo their bodies, and contested his faulty exegesis of Lev 19:28 based on 1Cor 6:19,20, he blocked me. Of course he has a tattoo.

    One blind spot I think James W has is he usually engages in esoteric debates with scholars rather than street level encounters with evil. His arguments are of little account to rank and file Muslims or Americans. It is a matter of light invading darkness, not fair and balanced logical arguments. Evangelism must begin with confronting sinners with their sin in the power of the Spirit. Until a sinner's self-righteousness is shattered, he has no need of the Savior. Islam is idolatry, the wicked suppression of the knowledge of God. And Muslims must be confronted with their sin of idolatry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, HPCBS! Quite eye-opening. I think you might be onto something with Dr. White's blindspot. It's ironic Dr. White is engaging with Dr. Wood who is a scholar who brings apologetics to the street (Dr. Wood has a PhD in philosophy).

      Delete
  5. Wood just had a livestream on the IM videos for about an hour:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edRbclUa7c8

    ReplyDelete
  6. Personally, I'm just sick and tired of JW constantly attacking other Christians. His tone on the DL is down right ugly. He should spend some time listening to Dr. Brown and Leighton Flowers. They are so graceful, kind and meek. When I listen I hear there compassion, their concern for those in error and their listeners. Not so when I here JH on his show. It's the opposite.. Listing to him just makes me angry..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it that I only see my writing errors after I post it!! grrr

      Delete
  7. I noticed that James White retweeted the death of Ronald Lee Ermey back in April of this year. Presumably, Dr. White watched Full Metal Jacket and appreciated Ermey's scathing foul-mouthed sewer-level-vulgarity-filled-rants. They were pretty darned excellent and realistic, due greatly in part to the fact that the Ermey did that very thing in real life. It's memorable in terms of humor, intensity, and excellent acting. That swearing also was literally done, I.E. not faked, whereas anything done in Wood's videos is simulated. And that was done purely for creating an entertaining movie. Does Full Metal Jacket still get a pass for consumption because it's fictional? Seems to me that if Wood's videos serve a practical purpose, they should deserve a pass even more. If we can tolerate the worst kind of vulgarity to allow ourselves to be entertained, why not be even more willing to give it a pass if it breaks people free from the religion of Islam?

    As a 10-year+ fan of White, I've seen him demonstrate his fallibility in his treatment of others on multiple occasions. Right now he seems to be behaving as the token nice-guy who beholds the (seemingly) abominable behavior of the bad boy (Wood), recoils in disgust at such a non-gentleman, and wonders how anyone could appreciate such a rude, brutish man. The fact that the bad boy still gets the girls doesn't deter him from his disdain for what the bad boy does. He remains resolute that he's on a higher level, despite the fact that the bad boy is clearly getting somewhere he can't.

    Of course, Dr. White has had successful outreach to Muslims, so he's not an impotent nice guy- not exactly. The thing is, the vast majority of Muslims are not nice guys with some higher-level decorum and intellect who come pre-made for Dr. White to politely reason with. Dr. White has said before that he will not persistently witness to someone who tells him to go bye-bye. If David Wood knows how to reach out to the non-nice people that White has pre-emptively decided to give up on, I say let him. Dr. White may not like it and may never figure out why- and that's unfortunate. However, there's no way his disdain for Wood will hurt Wood at all. I think he's only hurting his own credibility.

    P.S. I haven't watched Wood's videos. Just commenting on them in light of what has been reported to be in them from James White and the Triabloggers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>>As a 10-year+ fan of White, I've seen him demonstrate his fallibility in his treatment of others on multiple occasions. Right now he seems to be behaving as the token nice-guy who beholds the (seemingly) abominable behavior of the bad boy (Wood), recoils in disgust at such a non-gentleman, and wonders how anyone could appreciate such a rude, brutish man. The fact that the bad boy still gets the girls doesn't deter him from his disdain for what the bad boy does.

      White is guilty of speaking with his peers and opponents in a condescending way on many occasions. Sure, he does not attack their person directly nor use swear words - because he does not have to. His condescending demeanor is sufficient for that.

      Besides, one can argue that he is upset by the fact that the bad boy gets the girls.

      Delete
    2. Just looking at YouTube subscribers alone, Wood is a heck of a lot more popular than White is. Wood has 230K YouTube subscribers vs. White has 43K YouTube subscribers. Numbers aren't everything, they don't tell the whole picture, but if we do look at the whole picture, then it's probably even worse for White as far as popularity goes.

      Of course, White would say something like we shouldn't care about popularity but care about the truth. But both White and Wood are preaching the truth, at least when it comes to Islam. Popularity is not "all important" but it is a significant factor to consider if we care about how many people we are reaching with the truth.

      Wood is a YouTube star and still rising, while White is someone who has been around for a while and on the decline. And it probably doesn't help White that a lot of evangelicals know White is soft or easy on Islam.

      Bottom line White has done a lot of good and I respect him. I'm sure he will always be around and be beneficial especially to people in Reformed circles. White has probably reached his height in influence. But Wood is a rising star. Wood has a much wider reach. Wood is just as smart if not smarter than White. Wood is a scholar (PhD in philosophy) who is bringing the gospel to average people. Wood doesn't take himself seriously like White does. Wood has a lot more novel ideas about how to reach the unreached in the current and younger generations. Unless there's some scandal lurking somewhere, it looks like Wood has a very bright future as an apologist and evangelist. And all that's wonderful for the gospel.

      Delete
    3. It's good that Wood, Malone, and McCray aren't giving the debate the attention that White wants them to give it. See this tweet as an example.

      This frustrates White. But hey, they tried to respond to White, White didn't have much of a reply apart from YOU ARE IN REBELLION AGAINST GOD AND THE CHURCH FOR YOUR VIDEOS!, so now they have other priorities in life! Speaking of other priorities in life, Wood et al started their UnIslamicize Me series of videos. Looks very promising. The first is on Jesus' resurrection.

      It's smart for Wood et al to capitalize on the popularity of their Islamicize Me videos and not get too distracted by detractors. Focus on the doing something positive for the gospel and others instead of getting bogged down by ankle-biters.

      Delete
    4. ^^^In one of his tweets Wood mentioned that he has agreed to make an entire series on White. Poor Mr. White. I am afraid he has bitten more than he can chew this time.

      Delete
    5. Wood used footage of White in the series finale. Now I wonder if a petty lawsuit is incoming. It was nothing major or out of context

      Delete
    6. I am not sure about lawsuits - but some whining and victim-status-claiming on the next DL is certain.

      Delete