James White recently criticized David Wood's mockumentary series on Islam:
i) I've watched some of Wood's videos on Islam, but not this particular series ("Islamicize me"), and I don't plan to.
ii) Both Wood and White have strengths and limitations. And they're a study in contrasts. There's a generational difference. In addition, White is a P.K. White is more straight-laced. In addition, White is status-conscious.
White raises a valid issue, but to some extent acts like a throwback to the Eisenhower era. His cloistered upbringing left him in a starchy time warp.
Wood is a typecast New Yorker. Loud, in your face. In addition, he lacks empathy, due to his personality disorder. As a result, he's somewhat lacking in social intelligence. Tone-deaf to how normal people react. Sometimes Wood seems to be baiting Muslims.
iii) We've also had a generation that's grown up on South Park/Team America/Borat fare. (I've only read reviews.) Wood reflects that edgy profane satire.
iv) It's useful to have different kinds of apologists with different styles. There's a place for the gentle, respectful approach of a missionary like Ken Temple. We also have a younger generation of UK apologists who operate at a more academic level, viz. Andy Bannister, Wesley Huff, Luis Dizon, Jonathan McLatchie–although Huff and Bannister can be hip and cool.
v) Insofar as Islam fosters an honor/shame culture, it can be tactically useful to spotlight the embarrassing, disreputable nature of so much Islamic custom and tradition. A lot of Muslims are ignorant of their own tradition. In addition, the cultural elite walks on eggshells around Muslims, so they benefit from the rude shock value of exposure to how their religion looks to unsympathetic outsiders.
And in fairness to Wood, his methods were effective with Nabeel. It's striking because he and Nabeel seem to be opposites. Nabeel: the sweet, gentle, tearful, heart-on-his-sleeve guy, compared to Wood, the brash raconteur and provocateur.
vi) Scripture is not averse to mockery. In Ezk 18 & 23, the prophet even resorts to obscenity for shock value.
White is aware of that and counters that we're not prophets. But that's hardly adequate. If Christians don't get their speech code from Scripture, where should they get their speech code? Moreover, inspiration isn't the same as sanctification. Revelation and inspiration don't make an apostle or prophet more saintly than a garden-variety Christian. That said, Scripture uses obscenity and ridicule rather sparingly.
vii) White says we should avoid ridicule because Muslims and atheists will retaliate by lampooning the OT. But that's an odd objection. To begin with, Muslims and atheists already do that. They're not doing that in response to certain Christian apologists. That's something they do regardless of what we do.
And it's unavoidable that Christian apologists need to have prepared answers to stock objections to OT ethics. Even apart from Muslims and atheists, it's not uncommon for Christians to find this material unnerving. We need to have prepared answers for our own benefit, irrespective of what outsiders think.
viii) White seems to suggest that the unseemly material in the Koran/Sunnah/Hadith should be off-limits in Christian apologetics and Muslim/Christian debate, both because that's disrespectful to Muslims and because we ought to treat such material in Muslims sources the way we'd like Muslims and atheists to treat the OT.
This goes back to White's dismally confused notion of double standards. Yet it's only a double standard to treat the Koran/Sunnah/Hadith differently than the OT if you're a religious pluralist. But from a Christian perspective, we don't make the same allowance for uninspired Muslim sources that we make for the OT. Muhammad was a child of his times. His social mores mirror the culture-bound, time-conditioned outlook of a backward degenerate.
Sure, a Muslim will say that assessment begs the question, but it's not a question of merely asserting the superiority of the Bible over the Koran. A Christian apologist will give reasons for the superiority of the Bible in contrast to the inferiority of the Koran/Sunnah/Hadith.
1. I think an assumption White makes is mockery is inconsistent with Christian ethics. If that's the case, then is it wrong for Christians to read The Screwtape Letters (let alone write such a book as C.S. Lewis did)?
ReplyDelete2. However, perhaps White means the degree to which one takes mockery or only certain kinds of mockery are inconsistent with Christian ethics. If that's what White means, then I'd be interested in hearing a more full-orbed treatment from him for how to distinguish between mockery that's consistent with Christian ethics and mockery that's inconsistent with Christian ethics. It could very well be some kinds or degrees of mockery should be off-limits.
3. Some kinds of mockery seem licit to me. At least, I fail to see what's necessarily fallacious about, say, responding to a person on their own grounds in order to show their position is a reductio ad absurdum, which is what it seems like Wood is doing in some of his "Islamicize Me" videos. It seems to me Wood is pushing certain Muslim beliefs to a logical extreme in order to show Muslims and others how absurd these beliefs are. This potentially helps Muslims see the absurdities of Islam, but it potentially helps non-Muslims who might convert to Islam see the absurdities of Islam as well.
4. There's something proud and stuffy about not being able to take a joke about oneself or even one's religion, at least to a certain degree or in a certain kind of way. However, many Muslims typically overreact when it comes to others needling their faith (e.g. Charlie Hebdo).
5. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a satirical piece. Of course, it has to do with cannibalizing babies, which is shocking, but that's precisely the point. However, what should be more shocking is how the British at the time treated the poor. Similarly, when it comes to Muslims and Islam, it may be shocking to mock Muslims in the manner in which Wood mocks them, but shouldn't it be more shocking how Muslims violently overreact to others mocking Muhammad or the like?
6. In general, I think it's reasonable to use a multi-pronged approach against Islam. As Martin Luther once said: "The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn." So, against Islam, why not use the Bible, reason, evidence, internal and external criticisms of Islam, scientific inconsistencies, and so on, but sometimes satire and mockery too?
"3. Some kinds of mockery seem licit to me. At least, I fail to see what's necessarily fallacious about, say, responding to a person on their own grounds in order to show their position is a reductio ad absurdum, which is what it seems like Wood is doing in some of his "Islamicize Me" videos. It seems to me Wood is pushing certain Muslim beliefs to a logical extreme in order to show Muslims and others how absurd these beliefs are. This potentially helps Muslims see the absurdities of Islam, but it potentially helps non-Muslims who might convert to Islam see the absurdities of Islam as well."
DeleteAlso, I think Wood's approach may have fellow New Yorkers (and similar types) talking about and engaging with Islam and Muslims in a way a more plaid presentation wouldn't. That's not to suggest we always ought to stir things up, or that it should be our primary goal. Not at all. Nevertheless, in some cases it might be an extra benefit. Like it might be a bonus to have more people aware of Islam's absurdities, which in some cases might only be possible with the kind of approach Wood takes.
"5. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a satirical piece. Of course, it has to do with cannibalizing babies, which is shocking, but that's precisely the point. However, what should be more shocking is how the British at the time treated the poor. Similarly, when it comes to Muslims and Islam, it may be shocking to mock Muslims in the manner in which Wood mocks them, but shouldn't it be more shocking how Muslims violently overreact to others mocking Muhammad or the like?"
Not to mention some Muslim beliefs themselves ought to be more shocking than Wood's mockery (e.g. child-brides).
Watching Wood's videos -
ReplyDeletebut not this particular series ("Islamicize me"), and I don't plan to.
I think you if you did watch them, you would change your mind .
(showing urination, vomiting, farting, breastfeeding with sexy music !!!!)
If Christians don't get their speech code from Scripture, where should they get their speech code?
In my opinion, I think Ephesians 5:3-14 ( do not even speak about the things they do in the darkness; walk in holiness and the light, etc.) and 4:29
(let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear it." - not much grace in those videos )
are the New Testament Era for speech that is a clearer teaching than thinking we can be prophets and mock and shock like Ezekiel 16 and 23.
Overall, Dr. White is right.
I agree that they each they have their different gifts and personalities. But that video series is not glorifying to God. We are not prophets.
To begin with, Muslims and atheists already do that.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But Wood could have taken each Hadith passage and exposed the content without mocking; and then contrast it with the beauty of the gospel and Christian marriage in Ephesians 5, etc. just as Dr. White said.
The video that Wood and Nabeel did about "The original burn the Qur'an Day" was excellent, full of content, and funny. But it did not have dirty toilet content and mocking.
Wood is usually very good in his debates. I think I have watched all of his debates vs. Muslims over the years. He can do good apologetic material. He is fast, sharp, witty; indeed. I don't have that gifting; but I think he went too far in this series.
I don't know much about the precise orthodox interpretation of Islam, but does White ever object to large scale Islamic immigration into the west?
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, he consistently ducks that issue.
DeleteI finally had a chance to watch Dr. White's comments. I've seen several of Wood's videos as well, so I can definitely understand where White is coming from. However, I also believe that what Wood is doing is important because I actually think our culture gives way too much respect to Islam already. It's the one religion that no one is permitted to mock in any way on television or in the media. It needs to be knocked off that pedestal.
ReplyDeleteChristians had to learn how to respond to offensive attacks on Christianity--"art" such as "Piss Christ", blatant attacks on network TV, documentaries questioning the existence of Jesus intentionally run during Easter week, and so on. Christian apologetics learned how to withstand those.
Islam gets a free ride and a special place. It can make whatever claims, completely unchallenged. Having someone point out that the emperor IS naked is sometimes necessary, and our culture certainly isn't going to do it.
I don't think Wood's videos are going to impact any of the circles that White walks in in his ministry with Muslims, but I DO think there are lots of Americans who are being tempted toward Islam precisely because they are thinking, "Why does everyone treat this religion with such reverence when they do not do that with any other religion on earth? Maybe there's something to it." Having someone come crashing through and tearing it all to the ground like a bull in the china shop is, in my opinion, a good thing.
Islam gets a free ride and a special place. It can make whatever claims, completely unchallenged. Having someone point out that the emperor IS naked is sometimes necessary, and our culture certainly isn't going to do it.
DeleteYou make a good point there.
I don't think Wood's videos are going to impact any of the circles that White walks in in his ministry with Muslims, but I DO think there are lots of Americans who are being tempted toward Islam precisely because they are thinking, "Why does everyone treat this religion with such reverence when they do not do that with any other religion on earth? Maybe there's something to it." Having someone come crashing through and tearing it all to the ground like a bull in the china shop is, in my opinion, a good thing.
DeleteIt is hard for me to relate to that - that people out there thing there is something good about Islam and are being persuaded by the respect it gets. A thinking person should be able to see / can see through liberal political correctness, etc. A secular person like a Jordan Peterson or even the Atheists like Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens see and saw the problems with Islam.
After having slept on this, I think I've come up with the main reason why Dr. White's response has bothered me. Nowhere in the video does White say that Wood is misrepresenting the Hadiths at any point, and in fact he points out that what Wood is finding is actually there. It seems to me that the ridiculousness that Wood is exposing is not something Wood is manufacturing--it's FUNDAMENTAL to the Hadiths themselves. What's offensive is not Wood's treatment of the Hadith; it's the Hadith that's offensive.
ReplyDeleteWhite's response that a Muslim could point out similar things in the Old Testament also bugged me and I also realized why that was the case. White is making an error here he would never make if he was debating an atheist. Since White is a presuppositionalist, he knows that each worldview has to be able to come up with an internal defense. You do not just "gift" your defense to the opposition. For example, if a Christian claimed that atheism has no basis for rationality, White would never respond with, "An atheist can just make that claim against Christianity" because White would know that Christians can DEFEND against the charge while an Atheist cannot.
In the same way, Christians can defend against charges that parts of the Old Testament are "weird" and "mock-worthy", but Islam cannot. What I mean is that built into Christianity is the fact that there is a reason why Israel, while under theonomy, had certain restrictions that no longer apply after the incarnation. Jesus Himself abrogated the dietary laws, for one example. Even if Christians might be accused of "ad hoc" explanations here, it is a licit tactic.
Islam does not have this same tactic. Islam cannot explain why a Hadith would have applied in 700 AD but not today. There is no built-in defense they can use, so it's an error to assume, "Well, they could make the same charge against us, so therefore we shouldn't make the charge against them." We can defend against the charge; they cannot.
Again, I don't see White making this error when he debates atheists. In fact, it's partly due to listening to White tear down atheism in just such a manner that I first learned about presuppositionalism in the first place. I know White has also said that he doesn't find presuppositionalism as useful against other religions as it is against atheism, but there is still an objective difference between Islam and Christianity. Just because Christians can make a specific defense doesn't mean any other religion can do so, and what really bugged me is that I learned that tactic...from Dr. White.
But Dr. White pointed out that he has a series of lessons/sermons on the holiness code in Leviticus/Deut. were he does deal with some of the most difficult passages for all us in today's society and time to understand.
DeleteI confess some of those passages are indeed difficult to explain. Not impossible; but some things of theocratic Israel are similar to Islamic Hadith stuff. (executions, men and women issues, war, etc.)
"But Dr. White pointed out that he has a series of lessons/sermons on the holiness code in Leviticus/Deut. were he does deal with some of the most difficult passages for all us in today's society and time to understand." <-- Yes, this is what I mean. Christians can do that. Islamic scholars don't have the ability to do that. So, there is objectively a difference between Christianity and Islam and, in my opinion, it is therefore missing the point to say, "They can do the same thing back to us" since Muslims cannot defend their Hadiths the way we can defend the OT.
DeleteIt seems to me that the ridiculousness that Wood is exposing is not something Wood is manufacturing--it's FUNDAMENTAL to the Hadiths themselves. What's offensive is not Wood's treatment of the Hadith; it's the Hadith that's offensive.
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly why we don't need the other stuff (goofy acting of showing men urinating, farting, breastfeeding with sexy music, bloody shirts from killing in Jihad, projectile vomiting, etc.)
All Wood has to do is show the Hadith in a serious manner, and the reference and point out how stupid and ridiculous they are and compare whatever is comparable to the high moral standard of the New Testament teaching in the relevant issue.
Actually, I think Wood does do that in other videos, doesn't he? I mean, it's not an either/or approach, but a both/and. Wood uses both serious videos as well as satirical videos.
DeleteYeah, but even some of that had a mixture of serious discussion/teaching but mixed in with mocking and over the top stuff, IMO. For example, using a cartoon of Muhammad that is deliberately drawn as some kind of ugly violent person is just too "in your face" bombast, IMO. I just don't think it is necessary to add the extra snarky-ness into the mix with good intellectual content.
DeletePersonally, I appreciate some snark, but to teach their own. :-)
DeleteAnyway, my point is just that Wood has both serious as well as satirical videos on Islam. I've seen both.
Part of the problem is the difference between an Internet world-wide audience vs. a local evangelistic or local church discipleship context. In 35 years of dealing with Muslims (first 10 with Arabs in USA) and the last 25 with Iranians all over the world; the kind of mockery of the "Islamicize Me" that they do - IMO would never work in a local teaching context of being with people. It only works with the far away TV / Internet type thing with some Muslims (that David keeps giving as examples of Muslims who have left Islam because of that.) All Iranians I know (fled Iran and are refugees all over the world) all over the world are already disgusted with Islam because of what the Islamic Khomeini Regime has been doing for the last 39 years in Iran. They have exposed the nature of Islam as political and harsh and backwards just by the nature of what it is when applied in their Shiite understanding of the 1979 Khomeini Revolution. Many today are atheists, secularists, agnostics, skeptics, etc. Those that have not come to Christ make fun of Christian stuff also. Those secular former Muslims are in my experience even more difficult to talk to than the sincere Muslims who believe in revelation and that God communicates and does miracles.
ReplyDeleteGod in His sovereignty has exposed the nature of Islam to most Iranians in the last 39 years.
ReplyDeleteGod in His sovereignty is also exposing the nature of Islam to the rest of the Muslims and the world by allowing all the other terrorism and terrible things and ability to research the Hadith on the internet now a days.
Thanks for your comments, Ken. They definitely give me more things to think on! And I should point out that I only watched up through episode 9 of the videos, as well as watching #23 because I wanted to see why it was the one that got banned by YouTube, so there could have been lots of other things I have not viewed that could be worse than what I did look at.
ReplyDeleteI saw this YouTube comment:
ReplyDeleteYakup Korkmaz
David [Wood], I have been a missionary in the Muslim world for over 15 years. Doing apologetics with Muslims in their native languages. I have been using similar arguments for years. (Negative apologetics.) and no one has ever been offended. They also have never heard of any of these Islamic teachings and it makes them consider the problems in Islam. I could go on about this but, in the Muslim world, in their languages you can be up front, passionate and confrontational, and then walk away friends. This is normal speech for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7ViV3GMaJU
I think it depends on the language and culture and the depth of personal trust one has built with the people you minister to. They can sense when you are treating them like a project or if you are just doing ministry like a business.
DeleteI agree. I think that's likewise why there's no one-size fits all approach to evangelizing Muslims (or anyone else), because each person or group is different. Some Muslims might take offense at Dr. David Wood's approach, others might find it engaging. Some Muslims might find James White's approach informative, others might find it staid and dry. It just depends. That's why (as I've mentioned earlier) I think it's good to have a multi-pronged approach. Sometimes serious, sometimes satirical, etc. Know the audience, love the people, convey the truth. These are the main things.
DeleteOf course, I'm assuming all this is within the bounds of orthodoxy. However, as we know, the problem is White thinks Dr. Wood's approach transgresses Christian ethical boundaries.
By the way, I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but it looks like Dr. Wood, Vocab, and Jon have responded to White in a nearly 3 hour Q&A available here.
I agree that you have to be passionate and not afraid. They can sense fear, and prejudice , and they respect you when you stand on principle.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I tweeted to David Wood on Twitter after listening to him and Vocab Malone and Jon McCray's explanations of why they did what they did on the "IslamicizeMe" video series:
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to your explanations on You Tube tonight, I have changed my mind; you are right- if Al Qaedah /Isis/ Taliban / Hamas types - if they leave Islam, the world is better. I think you are both (Dr. White & you guys) working in your respective areas of giftedness.
"I changed my mind" = on at least one aspect - that is - David's point that there can be 2 goals to doing what he is doing- 1. expose Islam (and see violent Muslims leave Islam - a good result for peaceful society / less Islamic terrorism in this world; and 2. preach the gospel / answer questions with apologetics about truth and Biblical issues, etc.
DeleteJust as a general note (which applies to me too; and just to be extra clear this is not at all directed at Ken whose work I highly respect):
ReplyDeleteI think there could be a danger in some Christians presuming to speak on behalf of Muslims. It's like how some white liberals attempt to speak on behalf of minority groups. Self-appointed spokepersons for what this or that minority group thinks, which is really what white liberals think, not what the minority group thinks.
It might be better to ask and consider what Muslims who have converted to Christianity think. For example, what do they have to say about evangelism to Muslims?
Nope, you are WRONG. Only White knows how to deal with Islam, because his approach is 100% Biblical. He is an elder in a good standing church, he is a scholar, he is learning Arabic, he has authored many books, he has debated several dozens of highly informed Muslims, preached gospel in a mosque.... did I miss anything? (lol)
DeleteSeriously though, I think there is a place for different approaches here. The ISLAMACISE ME would work wonders on those who are horribly ignorant about their faith (majority of Muslims) yet who have not be "radicalised", and also those non-Muslims thinking of converting to Islam. But it would not work on some of the other type of Muslims. There has to be a mix of approaches, and yes Muslim converts to Islam will have a lot to add to this topic.
After listening to David Wood, Vocab Malone and Jon McCray's explainations - stayed up late just to finish listening. After that one tweet last night; I tweeted some more this morning: (beginning at bottom)
ReplyDeleteI guess the biggest difficultly, because of the nature of the internet, is that each side ( White side vs. Wood side) has to explain to Muslims, when the Muslims ask about /criticize/ get angry about aspects or statements of each other's different styles and different emphases.
Iranians are already disillusioned with Islam, so that is a different situation than the kind of Muslims you are trying to "shock". Iranians have already been shocked for almost 40 years. They are more open to the gospel now because they don't like Islam as exposed to them by government
(The late Ayat'ollah Khomeini / current leader Ali Khaumenei Regime)
The Live You Tube explanations last night was necessary to hear and see you guys explain yourselves in a rational way. I actually thought the urination scene was real - explaining that it was apple juice from a squirt bottle helped me; but still I could not do that kind of humor
I still have problems w/ depicting the adult breastfeeding along with sexy music; & "I have changed my mind" meant on the aspect of getting Muslims to leave Islam-that is a good thing for the world; and hopefully, by God's grace,& word & Spirit, get the gospel and also be saved.
David and Vocab and Jon also have good points that God uses all sorts of different methods and personalities and there are different audiences, etc.
ReplyDeleteI also see that even though I am Reformed/ Calvinistic (Baptist / Credo-baptism like Dr. White); I don't always agree with the way some people apply Presuppositional Apologetics to every situation (like a cookie cutter method) and I also don't agree that street preaching is the only Biblical example of evangelism in the Scriptures. (some people seem to think that - it seems some Reformed Evangelists think you just yell and scream the gospel for 10 minutes or so and that's it - they walk away and shake the dust off their feet, etc.) Some don't see the need for relational or friendship evangelism. That is sad to me. the late Francis Schaeffer in the LaBri Fellowship model had a great combination of hospitality and answering questions. Even Cornelius Van Till admitted to Schaeffer that he was the one who applied apologetics rightly. (see quote below in next post) The reality of people and relationships just does not usually work that way. God can convert someone in a second if He wants to, with a few minutes of the person understanding the issues; but that is not how is usually happens in history and with people. Usually it is a long process of people hearing the truth and wrestling with it over time. (until God finally gives the grace of regeneration, faith and repentance.)
I think we can legitimately start with the more classical apologetic approach like R. C. Sproul advocated; and also use lots of the evidential content along with Presuppositional methods; depending on the issue, the circumstances, person we are talking to, and the audience.
For example (on a different issue of "Evolution vs. Creation/ Creator), in the debate of Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye, I think Ken Ham should have used Intelligent Design and the Moral argument and Design arguments first in dealing with him, rather than starting from the beginning with the 6 day 24 hour view. (even though that view has the best exegetical evidence among Bible Believers; with an unbeliever I would start with the other 3 arguments and work from there in discussion, etc.
Which, I think relates to some aspects of David Wood's arguments, it that usually, it is a process with people over time in which they think over what they hear and wrestle with Scripture. I cannot relate to the Reformed folks who seem to think that everything will happen in one second. Regeneration is like that, true; but most people go through a process of wrestling with Scripture in their heart and mind before the actual event of regeneration takes place in the heart. (that we don't see)
“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.”
ReplyDeleteJohn 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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDr. White mentioned Ephesians 5 as a conduct of Christian living in all circumstances, and invoked the standard apologetic verse of 1 Peter 3:15 to assert that satirical messages, especially those bordering on profanity, are not allowed by scripture to be used under any conditions. He dismissed other similar precedents in scripture by suggesting something on the lines of, "we are not prophets and apostles, so we are not authorised to repeat those precedents."
ReplyDeleteWell, that is White's opinion and by all means, he is entitled to it - but if he wants Christians to take his position seriously he ought to make a stronger Biblical case than merely asserting, "We are not prophets."
What does that even mean apart from cherry-picking the code of conduct from scripture with what is inline with one's upbringing and cultural mores? The Old Testament is as valid in its teaching as the New Testament (eg. 10 commandments, Messianic prophecies, God's promises to his faithful, God's warnings etc.), except when it describes specific history and distinct cultural practices no longer upheld, or it strictly communicates precepts of the Mosaic covenant, or when Jesus or his apostles improve on it (Eg. Sermon on the Mount), or it was a specific commandment to a specific person (Isaac's sacrifice). These are at least the 4 categories I can logically think of, if I were to avoid cherry picking verses to suit my motives. Scripture in its totality is the yardstick of the Christian life, not just the NT.
First, if one would scripturally want to assert that what the prophets of old said or how they behaved is invalid for Christians post the New Testament, one would have to show how the said practice fell into one of the four categories above. There could be more categories, I am merely laying out the ones that immediately jump at me.
DeleteSo let us consider the case of Elijah: when Elijah was mocking the prophets of Baal insinuating the imagery of a toilet, was that behavior authorised by God "only" for him? Can that be shown from scripture? Or did Jesus correct Elijah or such behaviors from any of the prophets? Or was Elijah just expressing what was acceptable in his culture? You see, to be taken seriously, Dr. White will have some demonstrating to do. He is a scholar for crying out loud - does he expect his thesis, exegesis to just be accepted at his word? Similar is the case with Ezekiel, and God asking him to cook his meals on human excrement. My goodness, if ever there was anything that was the most repulsive, it was this. Even Ezekiel revolted and asked for God's mercy! Sure, in this case the content of the satire was specific to Ezekiel, but was the need of satire specific to only him? Can this be shown from scripture? Can it be shown that there is no other way in which God could have communicated that message (maybe our God admitting that)? No.
Second, there is a problem of moral double standards here. To suggest that such behavior was morally acceptable of God and his prophets/apostles, but is not acceptable of us - are people REALLY suggesting that God has double standards of morality: one reserved for him and his prophets and the other for us? Does the Christian God have double standards? Don't we get our own moral standards from him?
So, if he, the Master of the Whole Universe, thinks there is a time for very harsh talk (and at times (seemingly) profane talk?) to jolt people out of their apathy, does that not suggest moral acceptability of such a direct, harsh approach in some situations? Example: The shocking street-play of Ezekiel 4-5 precedes Ezekiel 14, 18 and 20, and ultimately the sack of Jerusalem in chapter 33. (Not to forget the the explicit mention of penises in chapter 23). John the Baptist's and Jesus' utterly harsh, and contemptuous rebuke of the leadership in Jerusalem comes 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter and Paul used harsher words also (eg. Acts 13:10). The point is that in some circumstances, usually the ones closer to some disaster but not restricted to it, God did allow for very strong (read explicit) language. Many would interpret the Islamic threat as such a problem approaching a tipping point in the coming decades.
Is White suggesting that because they were apostles of God, God gave them morally convenient privileges, not to mention to himself, like Allah gave Muhammad? Where is White going with this?
Third, White's stance is inconsistent. On the one hand he states that the gospel needs to be presented, and to let God do his work - but on the other hand he goes about studying other religions in order to effectively present the gospel. This necessarily implies that merely mechanically presenting the gospel and hoping God would do his job converting the heart of people is unrealistic and ineffective. Yet when others want to try out other approaches to share the gospel, White critiques them as implying they dont have confidence in the gospel message. My goodness! What double standards! He has done that with Dr. Craig and Licona and a host of others.
DeleteFourth, White, it appears, stubbornly refuses to believe that undermining Islamic theology FIRST -- is a necessary step which can, and does many times, precede the preaching of the Gospel. That that step is a preparatory work, much akin to John 4:38 in which Jesus suggests that the sower and the reapers are different people. The sowers do the preparatory work. Just as one has to till the ground, and see its nutritional content before even thinking of sowing seeds, with Muslims one must first shake their confidence in Islam (till the ground) and then sow seeds (preach the gospel). White conflates both these, and wants the tilling and the sowing to be done on the same day/preaching/presentation. Even Paul did not expect to convert people at first preaching! There can be a lot of time - years - that goes before a Muslim is receptive to the Gospel, especially with Islam which corrupts the gospel. White just does not seem to come to grasp with this. He is stuck in his myopic world where only his method is scripturally supported - which by the way he has not demonstrated. According to him, one must just present the beauty of the gospel and leave the conversion to God, without critiquing Islam. But we already saw that he himself does not believe in such a simplistic approach (point three above).
Fifth, White's misapplication of 1 Peter 3:15 is glaring. The verse in question reads, "...always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." His exegesis introduces two problems which defeat White's criticism. One, the verse in question addresses the behavior of defending one's belief when one is approached to defend it. The Islamicise Me! project does not remotely fall in that category. The project seeks to expose Islamic beliefs and practices, not defend the gospel. Two, if Peter's command is to be understood as universally addressing everyone with gentleness and reverence, Peter himself falls short of that standard, not to mention also Jesus - his (and our) Lord. To escape this dilemma, if one suggests that the Biblical figures were exempt from this command, apart from that being an arbitrary statement, it would insinuate at the double standards of God as described above.
Merely asserting, "we are not prophets," wont do. That is not an argument, and frankly not worth the time of any serious Christian on the other side contemplating the issue. Ah, perhaps for his choir this might suffice.
In closing, unless we are given sound exegetical reasons of why the precedent of harsh communication like that of Elijah, or that mentioned in Ezekiel, or in the rest of scripture is not available to us, it would be unscriptural to refrain from those approaches. Scripture uses this sparingly, and in dire situations, and so must we.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOne final comment: to suggest that all criticism of the false religions must be necessarily followed by a presentation of the gospel is lame. I have already provided the sower and the reaper analogy, but we can also learn from scripture itself. There are two scriptural books that don't explicitly mention God, but underscore his working: Ruth and Esther. One can also reference James who is largely silent on Christ.
DeleteI firmly believe that since there is one Truth, an objective Truth, undermining all other competitions to that Truth underscore that objective Truth - even when that Truth (i.e. the Gospel) is not referenced. This is why I believe sharp criticism of Islam on factual grounds aid the gospel even if the gospel is not necessarily preaches. It aids the gospel in clearing the way, and making the soil fertile.
Over at Blogging Theology (now run by Ijaz Ahmad. Paul Bilal Williams old blog.
ReplyDeleteWhen I pointed out the Hadiths themselves are what is ridiculous; the response I got was what Dr. White was talking about. Of course all of those verses are defensible; but it would take too long and too much time to type it all out.
https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/06/06/inspired-plagiarism/#comment-70253
It looks like I hit a hornet's nest after that.
:)
I personally would not care if the OT is satirised. I dont know which planet White lives on, but the OT, and even the NT, is mocked left, right and centre day in and day out. And frankly, if the OT is mocked, and we are unable to defend it, it deserves to stay mocked.
DeleteBut we will defend that later. First, we get on with the current agenda and critique Islam. Even if the OT turns out to be foul, that does nothing to change the fact that Islam is proven to be foul by their own source. The tu quoque would work only on novices who dont know a thing about staying on topic - the basis of any argumentation. White sadly is not a novice, but "bad company corrupts good morals," or in this case, good judgment in argumentation.
I don't think the point is that many difficult passages get mocked, especially in the OT (see the blog at a Muslim blog above, Blogging Theology) and also the NT.
DeleteThe point is, in my opinion, 2 fold:
1. Some of them take a long time to explain and take away from explaining the main things, like the gospel truths, Deity of Christ, Trinity, etc.
2. Some of them are a mystery and I don't have a good answer for some of them. It is easier to understand some things in the Mosaic law as part of Theocratic Israel that have been abrogated. (Civil and Ceremonial law - Hebrews chapter 8-9 & 10, Colossians 2; Mark 7:19; Matthew 22:43-46
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOkay - I agree on the two points. I was referring largely to White.
DeleteBtw, since I mentioned White, I saw his reply to the gang. For a man who wants to be consistent, he engaged in firing at strawman within the same hour he decried one against him (for example David's YouTube metrics dictating his ministry, or some similar nonsense) . Strangely, that is consistent with his past behavior. While he noted that David "advertises" his jihad threats, can we note White "advertises", not to mention brags, about him debating/preaching in a mosque?
And finally, according to White, David and gang are anti-Muslims. Wow. Is it a wonder White is shunned by most of his peers in the apologetics community? (He mentioned once that he is not invited in major apologetics conferences. One wonders why? And I suspect is not his erudition that's the problem). What a disgraceful thing to say.
P.S. According to me White was right in pointing out David not going through with his rebuttal. During the live chat by the Islamacise Me! gang,me and many others had to remind them of the objections by White. Ideally, when you want to rebut someone, especially in a video presentation, you should let the man you are rebutting speak for himself (i,e. play his case) or at least make a systematic points that you can go through. The gangs' live chat was severely disorganised, and White is right to critique that, even if he gets the rest of the things hopelessly wrong especially Wood being an anti-Muslim.
And if our code of conduct is from the New Testament alone - why not tear the OT and get rid of it altogether? Can White show that any of the apostles saw their teachings ALONE being the code of conduct for Christians? And coming to White asking them, on whether any apostles ever preached without mentioning the gospel, did White ask himself if any apostle ever invite an anti-Christ (Yadhi - according to the definition of 1 John, not to mention White's presentation of Islam as an anti-Christ religion) among the faithful without rebutting them? Consistency? Fair measures? Not applicable to White I guess. How saddening it is that a premier Christian apologist is reduced to such low standards now. His scholarship is top-notch, but his attitude sucks - Biblically. If the Lord's bondservant must not be quarrelsome, White fails thats. I have only seem him quarrelsome with regards to other apologists, and resentful in this specific video. That is failing on two counts on 2 Tim2:24!
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." (Matt 7:3-5)
P.P.S I was amused to here White emphasize "positive" teachings in scripture. Are there negative teachings too, to make that distinction? One can only wonder.
Delete