White makes right

I just watched the section of James White's Dividing Line where he talks about David Wood and Vocab Malone's satirical series "Muhammad's Boom Boom Room". White begins his remarks about Wood and Vocab's series shortly after 1 hour 16 minutes and ends around 1 hour 24 minutes. Respectfully:

1. I suppose the best explanation that comes to mind for White's remarks is perhaps White has a tin ear for satire. If so, that's unfortunate, for the Bible itself contains satire, and one would need to be able to appreciate satire to some degree in order to faithfully interpret satirical passages in Scripture.

Not to mention some of the biblical writers employ sarcastic language and even offensive language. For example, consider how often Jesus and others call people "fools", consider 1 Cor 4, and so on. Indeed, sometimes this kind of language is addressed to fellow Christians whom we're supposed to love all the more. Indeed, White himself told Steve Camp to "repent and shut up" shortly before White began discussing Vocab and Wood. Was the "shut up" really necessary? If so, then surely White doesn't have a problem with sometimes communicating in offensive ways to people. But I digress.

2. White states Vocab and Wood are "the ones who came up with the terminology of mockumentary". White's statement seems to be a statement about mockumentaries in general.

Anyway just based on a quick Google search I conducted mere moments ago, mockumentaries have been around since at least This Is Spinal Tap (1984). More recently, consider shows such as The Office, Parks and Recreation, Arrested Development, What We Do in the Shaodws, and so on. Surely White isn't a desert monk who is hermetically sealed from the world around him? I'm not suggesting White needs to have ever seen a mockumentary in his life, but I'm simply saying it's strange he isn't even aware of the existence of the mockumentary genre.

In any case, I don't know that I'd call Wood and Vocab's "Muhammad's Boom Boom Room" videos "mockumentaries". It's not as if there's a pretend camera crew following Muhammad around and watching what he does in his day to day life. More importantly, I wouldn't characterize what Wood and Vocab are doing as mockery, period. Rather I think it'd be better to characterize what they're doing as satire which sometimes employs mockery or ridicule.

I'm not entirely sure what White believes is wrong with mockery. Is it because he believes mockery is ad hominem? For one thing, that would ignore where Wood and Vocab have, in fact, offered serious non-satirical arguments against Muhammad and Islam. They have satirical videos as well as more straightforward apologetical videos against Muhammad and Islam. They're not simply personally attacking Muhammad or Islam while ignoring arguments for Muhammad and Islam.

Also, not all ad hominem is necessarily fallacious. For example, see Ed Feser's post as well as Bill Vallicella's post. An excerpt:

I am using ad hominem in the way Peter Geach uses it on pp. 26-27 of his Reason and Argument (Basil Blackwell 1976):

This Latin term indicates that these are arguments addressed to a particular man -- in fact, the other fellow you are disputing with. You start from something he believes as a premise, and infer a conclusion he won't admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent's present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it's up to him to modify it somewhere.

As Geach points out, there is nothing fallacious about such an argumentative procedure. If A succeeds in showing B that his doxastic system harbors a contradiction, then not everything that B believes can be true.

3. White doesn't offer an actual counterargument against one of Vocab and Wood's arguments for the use of satire or mockery in apologetics, viz. Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal. He states that's what Wood and Vocab have argued in the past, but White simply moves on after stating this fact. White doesn't attempt to argue against their point.

4. Instead White states apologetics is a "dangerous" field because "knowledge puffs up". He then talks about how Christian apologists need to be "mature" including serving in the church. He also says apologetics is "something that is to be done within the context of the church...it's not to simply be left to outsiders".

All this assumes Vocab and Wood are prideful, immature, and not serving in their churches. However, White doesn't demonstrate how Vocab and Wood are prideful, immature, and not serving in their churches. He is simply assuming they're prideful and immature based on their satirical videos. In short, White seems to be reasoning in a circle: satire is wrong because satire reflects pride and immaturity, and Wood and Vocab are proud and immature because they're creating satirical videos.

At the same time, Wood and Vocab could reply that White is acting prideful and immature toward Vocab and Wood by assuming without evidence and alleging slanderous things about them.

5. White seems to assume Wood and Vocab have never had respectful dialogue with Muslims and that Wood and Vocab have only ever "mocked" Muslims. However, if you're going to assume anything, why not assume Wood and Vocab have done both, i.e., had respectful dialogues with Muslims and used satire? Indeed, Wood had respectful dialogues with Nabeel Qureshi whom Wood won over to Christianity. In any case, it's not either/or, but both/and when it comes to satire and respectful dialogue with Muslims.

6. White seems to assume a false dichotomy between truth and satire. However it's possible to convey truth via satire.

7. White states that in his experience Muslims have only ever heard from Christians "ignorance" and "mockery". White implies Muslims have never heard respectful dialogue from Christians - I guess apart from White himself! (Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume no other Christian apologist has ever had respectful dialogue with Muslims besides oneself? Hopefully that's not what White is implying.)

Surely that's a huge exaggeration. I know of many fine Christians who have had respectful dialogue with Muslims. And in any case it's not logical to generalize to all or most Muslims based on White's own experience.

8. At the same time, why should Christians be beholden to how Muslims wish Christians to behave toward Muslims? Of course, Christians should be beholden to biblical ethics. However, if biblical ethics allows for satire, then there's nothing necessarily wrong with using satire in some situations. At the very least, it's the very point at issue, i.e., whether or not biblical ethics in Christian apologetics allows for satire.

To be frank, some people (Muslims included) need to be shaken out of their false beliefs. Satire can sometimes accomplish this goal in a way even the most cordial tête-à-tête can't always accomplish.

Suppose a black person is offended because someone does a satire about black people and fatherlessness. Suppose it's a clean but satirical music video called "This is America" (by Mature Adult Gambino) which involves a black man sleeping around with several black women, fathering children, then leaving them. That might be offensive to black people, but why is it unethical? And it's not impossible that such a satirical music video could cause a black person engaging in such behavior to change their behavior and become more faithful to their spouse.

9. In fact, White agrees some Muslims can be won over by satire. However, he immediately follows this up with: "What you win them with is what you win them to". In context, I presume White means a Muslim who is won over to Christianity by satire will become something of a satirical Christian too. If so, that's hardly the case.

Someone can be won over to Christianity by weak arguments for Christianity, but that doesn't mean they'll remain Christians based on the same weak arguments. Someone can be won over to Christianity by Arminian Christians, but they become Calvinists. Wasn't White himself an Arminian before he was a Calvinist?

10. White says he understands how one can mock Islam using satire, but White says he doesn't understand how one can defend Christian truth using satire. As such, White argues, one can't be "consistent" Christian apologist if one uses satire.

That's a silly point. Why assume the purpose of satire must likewise be to defend Christian truth? Why can't satire simply defend truth in general? Isn't all truth God's truth? That said, satire can implicitly defend truth even if it doesn't explicitly defend truth.

Also, one doesn't need to be "consistent" in the use of satire in order to be a consistent Christian. Rather, one needs to be consistent with the Bible in order to be a consistent Christian. If the Bible allows for satire, then that's "consistent" with the Bible, and hence one would be a consistent Christian.

11. White says he's concerned about Wood and Vocab. White says Wood and Vocab can't be walking on an edifying path in their use of satire to mock Islam. White suggestively asks whether Wood and Vocab have "stronger relationships" in their local church and whether they're "serving" well in their local church.

It's obvious White doesn't believe Wood and Vocab are mature. In saying so, White is (intentionally or more likely unintentionally) casting himself in the role of the seasoned and mature elder, while simultaneously casting Wood and Vocab in the role of young and immature guys who engage in potty humor or something along those lines. Ironically, this is condescending, for White doesn't know the state of Wood and Vocab's spiritual maturity. He's judging them by their satirical videos.

As I've already mentioned above, this is circular reasoning, for White is arguing that to engage in satire reflects immaturity and they're immature because they engage in satire.

Again, I say all this respectfully.