Satirical apologetics

The immediate occasion for this post is James White's attack on the Muhammad's Boom-Boom Room video. I've commented on White's professed philosophy of apologetic engagement in detail. I'll try not to repeat myself. 

1. Is it wrong to ridicule something that really is ridiculous? If we treat something that's ridiculous as if it's not ridiculous, we misrepresent it. Truth and honesty require us to treat things the way they are. 

Does White think it's wrong to mock drag queens at public libraries who are grooming little boys? Take White's statement that:

I've sadly spoken to many Muslims. All they knew of the Christian response to their beliefs was either ignorance or mockery. And they were shocked when they discovered there were Christians who knew what they believed and were able to interact with them on a respectful basis and not just simply mock them…I lament the attitude Christians have towards the Muslim people.

Let's swap out Muslims and swap in drag queens:

I've sadly spoken to many drag queens. All they knew of the Christian response to their beliefs was either ignorance or mockery. And they were shocked when they discovered there were Christians who knew what they believed and were able to interact with them on a respectful basis and not just simply mock them…I lament the attitude Christians have towards the predatory drag queens at public libraries and gay pride parades.

Maybe I missed it, but has White every spoken up on behalf of drag queens the way he speaks up on behalf of Muslims? He bandies the word "consistency", but in my experience he carves out an exception for Muslims that's conspicuously absent in his treatment of other groups he disapproves of. He doesn't pander to members of the LGBT "community" the way he panders to Muslims. 

2. There are different kinds of satire, viz. Horatian, Juvenalian, Menippean. Does White regard all forms of satire as unacceptable in Christian apologetics? 

3. People may not realize how absurd their position is until you show them how absurd it is. They must be made to see it. And that can have an impact that dry analysis does not.

4. It's sometimes argued that there are different rules under the new covenant. 

i) One problem is methodological. Suppose we don't find satirical examples in the NT that correspond to OT examples. However, it's fallacious to infer that the silence of the NT in that regard implies a change of rules. The NT gives us a tiny sample of apostolic practice. A basic reason we find many things in the OT we don't find in the NT is simply because the OT is 3 1/2 times longer, so there are more opportunities for the OT to cover a wider range of topics. 

Silence doesn't contradict anything. What one part of Scripture says isn't abrogated by what another part of Scripture doesn't say. 

ii) I'd add that it would be far riskier for 1C Christians or apostles to openly lampoon paganism than Isaiah, from the comparative safety of Israel. So that may be another factor to consider. 

5. That said, satire isn't confined to OT examples. For instance, Rev 17-18 is a sustained and merciless political satire. 1C readers would recognize the Roman ruling class. Later readers can apply it to oppressive regimes generally. 

6. There's a distinction between lampooning a position and lampooning a person. Even if we suppose for argument's that it's contrary to NT ethics to lampoon individuals, it doesn't follow that it's contrary to NT ethics to lampoon positions. There's a difference between what you say about Islam and what you say to Muslims. White even concedes there's a difference between disrespecting Muhammad and disrespecting the person you're talking to, but that's a throwaway line because, immediately thereafter, he acts like you mustn't disrespect Muhammad since that's tantamount to disrespecting Muslims.

In the spoof about Muhammad and Satan, Wood and Vocab don't disrespect Muslims but Muhammad. White draws a distinction, then he instantly collapses the distinction.  

7. As to what you should say to Muslims or atheists or Catholics or whatever, there's no justification for a cookie-cutter approach since individuals vary widely. 

8. White repeats the slogan that "what you win them with is what you win them to". 

i) Consider Isaiah's satire in Isa 14, Isaiah's satire in Isa 44-45, or Ezekiel's obscene polemics in Ezk 18 & 23? Does White say, "I know how you mock idolatry in that fashion, but I don't know how you defend Judaic truth in that fashion? I'm concerned about Christians and Jews who read Isa 14, Isa 44-45, as well as Ezk 18 & 23!" 

ii) A steady diet of satire is spiritually unbalanced. But that's not all David Wood does. It's just that his satires are generally more memorable, so that's what sticks in the mind. Indeed, that's a mark of effective communication. 

9. White says apologetics should be practiced within the context of the church. Apologetics is what the church is supposed to be doing, not left to outsiders. 

i) Is he alleging that Wood and Vocab are not members of a local church?

ii) In my observation, young apologists express frustration that many evangelical churches are hostile to apologetics.

iii) When Kenneth Kitchen wrote his classic monograph On the Reliability of the Old Testament, is that something the church was supposed to do? How would the church write that monograph? 

iv) And White's appeal to the church is an utter charade because he doesn't use the church as a yardstick for the apologetics. To the contrary, he says you shouldn't attend a church that finds Muhammad's Boom-Boom Room video acceptable. So he doesn't really believe apologetics is subservient to church authority. Rather, White has his personal opinions about what's appropriate or inappropriate, independent of the judgment of the church, and he uses that as yardstick for choosing a church, rather than using the church as a yardstick for what's appropriate or inappropriate in apologetics. 

v) I agree that the Muhammad's Boom-Boom Room video is rather sophomoric. But is it more (or less) sophomoric than Jeff Durbinn's late-night comedy show Next Week with Jeff Durbin? This is an example of White's duplicity. He indulges in moral preening about "consistency", but he makes opportune exceptions. Compare White's high-principled rhetoric to his associations. Have you ever noticed a suggestive pattern to his alliances? He's been buttering up Phil Johnson for years and years. Is it just a coincidence that James White, John MacArthur, and Phil Johnson are all parties to The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel? Is it just coincidence that MacArthur has a far larger audience share than White, so that White benefits from the crossover traffic? Why did he cultivate Michael Brown? Is it just a coincidence that Brown has a far larger audience share than White, so that White benefits from the crossover traffic? Is it just a coincidence that by schmoozing Durbin, White gains access to Durbin's younger constituency? 

Also, I was interested to see White reversing himself on abolitionism. He used to be a critic of AHA, but recently he sided with AHA against the mainstream prolife movement. Is it just a coincidence that his change of heart dovetails with his move to Durbin's church? Isn't Durbin a proponent of AHA? On the face of it, there's an element of self-interest in White's alliances. Are his associations governed by consistency–or expediency?