Yesterday at 7PM my time I called into James White's dividing line. I was challenged by him from an earlier post that I posted on him, to come on his radio program and address it. I did just that. What resulted was James White giving about 3 minutes of time, most of which he spoke, then after asking me one question he hung up on me because he did not like my answer to his question. I do not know whether Dr. White knows this or not, but when he speaks or writes something in the apologetics realm, any facts that he uses to build an argument, or use as an example are subject to historical accuracy. Dr. White rejected this notion and said since his main argument of his Sunday school lecture was not Catholicism then I have no right to hold any other statements in his lecture up to historical accuracy. This in a nutshell is what he did. Dr. White says he is going to post the video of the radio program today sometime. You can check it out and see if I was treated with any kind of charity, or any kind of respect on his program.
Later at the end of the program, which I did not hear, White evidently invited me back on to discuss other topics that he wanted to discuss. I am not sure what they are, and if he will let me know what he wants to discuss I will try one more time to call back in to his show, provided he treat me with a little respect next time. We will all see how that works out wont we? I find it funny that White can treat me like this, hang up on me rudely, mock me after he hung up on me, then invite me back again. Anyways, I will give it one more shot.
Here are the two posts that i put up regarding White's historical blunder.
Post 1
Response to White.
When someone makes a historical inaccuracy like White did, there are serious consequences involved. Some people are wondering why I picked that comment to focus on. I will be very clear here. I picked it because it is a comment which slanders the character of practicing Catholics, that is why. If I had posted something on baptism for example, and in my lead in I mentioned that a majority of Protestants were practicing homosexuals in Germany during the Reformation, would I not have every "Reformed" apologist on their blogs attacking me? Of course I would. But something inaccurately mentioned about Catholics does not have to pass historical scrutiny does it? Not in James White's world I guess. Well, we will see what happens next week.
Posts
11 comments:
Adding on to my comments earlier:
Alex said...
"I have a question for White:
White do you admit that you were wrong in your statement? Can you prove that a large portion of the guards were practicing Catholics? No, you can’t. Instead you do the next best thing, and that is deflect, ignore, and ridicule.
Then he had the nerve to complain that Catholic apologists (as if he has read and spoke with every Catholic apologist out there, but that is just a minor detail, and we can all observe how White treats details), he complains that, “They can say anything they want. They will not respond to refutation.” Oh, where have I seen that attitude recently?
Was White just making a passing comment? Yes. Should even passing comments be held up to scrutiny? Yes, unless you are James White. Suppose I were giving a speech about homosexuals in the media, and lets say that I were to make an unsubstantiated passing comment that a large number of protestants favor gay sex, would that comment be above scrutiny? Couldn’t someone reasonably question me about my statistic, and ask me to either prove that my comment was accurate or retract my error? I’m not certain what would pass in unaccredited schools like the ones White attended, but in the university I attended I couldn’t respond to a professor who had noticed an error, or inquired into an unsubstantiated claim that it was just a passing comment and he is petty and ridiculous for bringing it up. Nor do I suspect that it would bide well for the lawyer during oral argument to criticize the justice for questioning a factual error made by the lawyer.
White claims that overall this was not an argument against Roman Catholicism, that he was not criticizing Roman Catholicism, and maybe due to his arrogant attitude it is hard for him to see that he is indeed making an implicit argument against Roman Catholicism in the comment itself. By not providing any further clarification or retracting his comment altogether, White has done one of two things; he has cowardly abandoned his comment by simply ignoring it, or he embraces his error and adds further insult by mocking and attempting to disparage his opponents. Regardless, he did attack Roman Catholicism by intimating that a practicing Catholic (and he did not clarify what he meant by practicing) could ignore the precepts of the Church and remain in good standing. Besides, who gave White the authority to determine what we as Catholics should be allowed to find insulting?"
I have another question for White:
Mr. White, do you still agree with this comment you made in your book The Fatal Flaw on page 43:
"Any 'grandstanding' that results in a caricature, a mis-representation, even if it is not central to the argument, can result in a loss of integrity."
Wow, I like that quote. Let me quote it again so I can digest it.
James White wrote in The Fatal Flaw on page 43:
"Any 'grandstanding' that results in a caricature, a mis-representation, even if it is not central to the argument, can result in a loss of integrity."
I would think that this particular point that I am addressing falls into this very category. I would like to see Dr. White respond to this! I doubt we will see that any time soon.
Maybe I should make a post on this quote alone. What do you think?
The Fatal Flaw on page 43:
"Any 'grandstanding' that results in a caricature, a mis-representation, even if it is not central to the argument, can result in a loss of integrity."
After reading your previous posts on the topic and listening to the actual Dividing Line episode, I have to say that, as a longtime White fan, I'm shocked by the way he treated you. He diverted by saying, "Well I wasn't talking about Roman Catholicism." That may have not been his point, nevertheless he brought in Roman Catholics by mentioning them. If I was talking about WWII and said, "It's well known that the greatest number of German sympathizers in Libya were Muslims," even as a side view, Muslims would have a right to criticize me, do research, and present to me that I had made an error. Out of humility, I would have to either accept the correction or at least try to come to some kind of middle ground. White has often stated his opponents need to do this on his videos. Just now I saw him have a chance to do it and not do it at all.
The quote from The Fatal Flaw as well as Mister White's comments in his other videos, especially regarding Islamic apologists, is especially shocking. Calling Steve Ray "Jerusalem Jones," playing the Indiana Theme music while talking about him, and laughing while talking about their beliefs is a caricature of who he is and what he believes - in fact that's exactly what political pundits like Keith Olbermann, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh do. It is also what his Muslim opponents often do, both online and in debate.
Likewise, interrupting a person's argument when they're explaining their point, asking them a yes or no question and demanding they answer, then cutting off their mike and presenting to the listening audience your interpretation of what they were saying is a caricature - it's also extremely disrespectful. The James White I had listened to in YouTube videos is a different James White here. I couldn't listen to the rest of the Dividing Line after that because I was so disgusted.
I'm sorry you couldn't finish your argument. I've had that happen to me in real life, and I know it's frustrating. You did the right thing though trying to enter into open, friendly debate.
I think White is frustrated because Catholic apologists rarely engage his core arguments against Catholicism. I can think of one example off the top of my head. Remember when Patrick Madrid wrote an entire article based solely on a footnote in one of White's books? The title of the article was something like "The White Man's Burden" I believe. It's very easy to take one statement from your opponent's work and focus exclusively on that. I even find myself doing that sometimes. I remember listening to one of White's Sunday school sessions wherein he made a statement which (to me) was clearly incorrect about Islam. However,it was a passingly statement related to a larger point he was making on another subject; I realize that he probably would qualify his statement had Islam been his main subject that Sunday. Did White handle the phone conversation correctly? Perhaps not how I would handle it but we are all different, and I really do think he is frustrated with the fact that his opponents attack non issues, ignoring his main arguments.
Thanks for your comments guys. I appreciate your thoughts. I have in the past addressed some of Dr. White's main arguments. In fact I have done 3 You Tube videos responding to 2 of his videos. He never chose to respond to them. As far as this topic goes, it is not just the fact that he made a historical error. The statement he made painted large numbers of practicing Catholics as being antisemitic murderers in concentration camps. That is what I have a problem with. I will attempt one more time to go on Dr White's show and address another topic, since he chooses not to be held accountable for this statement.
I think if the original speech was about Roman Catholicism, then White may have a right to feel frustrated. However, even White admitted in the Dividing Line broadcast that his speech entire wasn't about Roman Catholicism. What Matthew was trying t show was that White's comment was out of line and historically inaccurate, thereby misrepresenting an entire people. For White to cut his mike and then go on about problems with Roman Catholicism in general is a strawman - in fact, that's exactly what Nadir Ahmed does in a lot of his debates with Christians. He'll avoid the main point entirely, bring up problems he has with Christianity, and DEMAND the Christian answer.
White is here confronted with a mistake he made that could easily be resolved with a "I'm sorry" or "Oops my bad," and instead he refuses to listen to the other side and goes off on a tangent regarding Roman Catholicism in general.
I have been a fan of James White for almost 10 years. He is largely responsible for my adoption of Calvinist beliefs, and for much of my thinking in regards to religion.
However, I have got to say that I am extremely surprised and distressed by the manner in which he treated Matthew B. on the Dividing Line - hanging up on a person presenting an argument is not the mark of either maturity or respect; of either the dispassionate scholar or someone approaching the issue with integrity.
I have observed over the past year or so that James White seems to be gradually spiralling into the same behaviours he once opposed: treating people with mockery and contempt rather than dealling with the issues in charity.
The Jerusalem Jones saga was an embarassment to any thinking Calvinist. I cannot imagine R. C. Sproul engaging in such behaviour.
The lengthy self-justification in relation to his sister which is utterly immaterial to apologetics has become a tired and rather superfluous consumption of time.
The new "Twitter" move, so that the world can be plugged into his thoughts 24-7 is simply strange.
And now, the latest is the rude and bewildering conduct on the Dividing Line. This is not academic, or honest - it is simply bullying and bluster (the rest of the DL episode descended into self-justification which is apparently becoming part of White's standard fare lately).
I am greatly disturbed by what has happened to the James White I once held in such high esteem of only five or six years ago.
You do realize, don't you, that Steve Ray uses the "Jerusalem Jones" motif of himself, even showing up for speaking engagements in safari hat and vest? (see his website for example)
Nevertheless, James White's use of it can rightly be said to be laughing at Steve Ray, not with him. It's a hint of Ruckmanism that, as I said, is disappointing to see.
I have seen quite a few of James White's videos on YT, and honestly I think the pressure must be getting to him. His antagonitic approach isn't apologetic at all. It's just rude and less believeable with each passing minute.
James seems to think that he is the only voice on what constitutes 'context'. In the DL conversation, Bellasario used a wholistic Scriptural approach to refute a central Calvinistic doctrine. White's only answer was to restrict the conversation to a few verses from Romans 8, then yell and hang up a while later.
White lost on every level.
Post a Comment