I grabbed a few minutes to assemble my thoughts about the most recent fiasco with James White. My satire, "Spike & Little Chester," last drew White's blade against my throat (//link). Now slings his blade once again. Some query, "Why do you do this?" The same query was asked me in 2006 when I began to offer evidential sources against the Founders Ministries vision to "reform" the SBC one church at a time toward Five-Point Calvinism. Southern Baptists need more than ever to be informed concerning the aggressive, non-compromising efforts of Founders in general and James White in particular. In short, that's why I do it...
Here is the background of this latest conflict with James White in short form:
I published an excerpt from one of James White's videos where he critiqued one aspect of Jerry Vines' sermon preached at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in August, 2008. Immediately, while the twitter community went crazy over it, White published a piece entitled "Note to Peter Lumpkins: It is Hard to Lie Openly When the Videos are Posted On Line" (//link).
In White's post, I was charged with being a liar, a deceiver, a false witness. Further, I’m implicated in his post as having "done all [I] can to blow smoke so as to distract folks from realizing that Caner has yet to answer the mountain of documentation that has been posted regarding his numerous false statements." White alleges I have “no interest in truthfulness or honesty.” Indeed I fundamentally “lied about what [White] said.” In short, I have committed "blatant and deceptive dishonesty." And, the dishonesty in which I indulged was so flagrant, I even deceived a seminary professor into believing and supporting my "deceptive assertions."
At least three significant things have happened since White posted: a) White posted an "Update" (apparently to 'checkmate' my own "Update" b) James White's band of brothers (and a few sisters perhaps) swarmed my site and uttered White's specific allegation, "you, sir, are a liar" (//link) c) James White posts yet another post, this time apparently taking up his cause about me on his radio broadcast (I have yet to listen, however //link).
That's the background concerning this latest fiasco with James White.
Below is a response I originally composed for a commenter named "Katherine." She raised some legitimate concerns (//here //especially here).
And, while I normally do not bring the comment thread to the "front page," so to speak, I think my response is one concerning which most Southern Baptists would benefit. I think, in fact, it strikes the heart of precisely why we dub James White's method of dealing with honest critics as rabble-rousing among Southern Baptists. And, unless he sincerely attempts to change his method of addressing those who have another take on his words, no hope for future peace remains between James White and the Southern Baptists who support him and mainstream Southern Baptists.
Here is my response I logged but immediately withdrew to post here:
Katherine,
I can appreciate your position. And I am happy to address your concerns. Yet, from my perspective, what we have in dealing with James White is, on the one hand, an apologist who pounds his critics relentlessly for breach in examining his words, and on the other hand a group of followers who do not or will not or cannot hold him to the same standard they attempt to impose upon his critics. If you’re up to it, I’ll show you precisely what I mean. And no better illustration exists than your own contribution here, Katherine.
If I am correct, you made two entries specifically to me.
Your first entry on this thread indicted me for attempting to make James White “a liar,” an action you called “pathetic.” When I responded, I advised you to take a step back and re-read my criticism of White, for I made no effort, explicit or otherwise, to make White out to be a liar. In very simple terms, you misread my original piece and the criticism I offered toward White.
In the second entry, you made even more mistakes in your interpretation of what I have done here. While I could mention several things about which I think you’re deficient in your reasoning, only two are necessary to illustrate my point.
If I may, Katherine:
A) You say: “In no place did I ever get the impression that he thought that simply talking about God's love was dangerous.” Yet consider: neither James White nor I mentioned “simply talking” about God’s love to be dangerous. White originally used “addressing this subject” and I interpreted “addressing” as “preaching.” Your interpretation is no where to be found; instead you read into the record your understanding, so to speak.
B) You assert, Katherine, “you [Peter] compounded the situation by insinuating that he isn't fit to speak in a Seminary because he [White] has, in your very own words a "loose screw." Well, Katherine, look closely at what I actually wrote: “we have to wonder what loose screw invited him to teach in one of our seminaries.” The “loose screw” to which I alluded was a faceless administrator in our seminary, not James White.
Now, Katherine, your interpretation of this debacle is based upon horribly deficient “facts.” I nowhere made White out to be a “liar” nor is my criticism based upon the danger of “simply talking” about God’s love nor did I suggest White should not teach in our seminaries because he is and/or has a “loose screw.” None of this is true. None. In short, you botched reading my words big time.
Here is my point concerning the illustrations from your comments: you are obviously mistaken in significant ways precisely what I wrote concerning James White. That’s why I advised you to “re-read my criticism of White.”
In contrast, we have almost an impossible situation with James White and many of his followers. Why do I say this? Because rather than state the critic’s alleged errors in interpretation of White’s words, White and many of his followers routinely and immediately charge the critic as a liar, a deceiver, and a dishonest critic. That’s a demonstrable fact. I personally am but one of a long trail of bodies he dubs first a liar.
Hence, in White’s world, Katherine, you undoubtedly would be a liar and a deceiver and one who bears “false accusation”—a false witness—because you botched your interpretation of his words. What I granted to you as mistaken connections I did not make, advising you to re-read and adjust your interpretation, White's habit is to charge someone like you with lying, deceiving, and dishonestly accusing, calling for you to repent of your sin.
The difference in dealing with this type of conflict is astounding. It is the difference between correcting, on the one hand, an error one makes by stating X + Y = Z when, in fact, X + Y = K, and on the other, rebuking the sinner one is for stating X + Y = Z when, in fact, X + Y = K.
Nor may the magnitude of this problem be overstated.
Consider: according to White, I am not merely mistaken in my view of White’s words, I am a liar, a deceiver, a false witness. I’m implicated in his post as “blowing smoke” apparently to take the focus off Ergun Caner. White alleges I have “no interest in truthfulness or honesty.” Indeed I “lied about what I [White] said.” In short, I have committed "blatant and deceptive dishonesty."
In fact, the dishonesty is so flagrant, I even deceived a seminary professor into believing and supporting my "deceptive assertions."
Consequently, according to White, if I fail to post a notice of “repentance and apology”--not for stating my "incorrect" addition of X + Y = Z but rather for my blatant and deceptive dishonesty in stating X + Y = Z when, in fact, I knew the truth that X + Y does not "= Z" but it does "= K" ... if I fail to post my repentance from flagrant sin to rescue what “little credibility” I have left, then it follows I need to be “marked out” as the “troubler of the brethren” in accordance with Romans 16:17-18.
Again, may I say, this is typical James White. I could produce the same exact approach he takes with others. Instead of first, pointing out errors of interpretation—similar to what I suggested to you on your incorrect connections about my criticism, Katherine—he immediately charges “you, sir, are a liar.” And may I also say, no possibility exists that any meaningful discussion will come when one of the parties continues to hurl moral insults at the other. Indeed White himself creates these type exchanges when he makes it a matter of personal morality and repentance rather than intellectual exchange and correction.
Unfortunately, White does not see this. Nor many of his supporters. Indeed many of the band of brothers surrounding White literally swarm White’s critics with the same charge--"you, sir, are a liar." Read through the thread again and tally the ones who first flung toward me the accusation “liar” against the ones who actually attempted to show how I am mistaken in my interpretation of White’s words. Again, the magnitude of this problem cannot be overstated.
Nor can it be seriously entertained, Katherine, that White sit down with his critics and have a fruitful discussion and just iron out a few wrinkles we may have. Most critics are reluctant to correspond with White. Why? White holds no scruples whatsoever in posting correspondence on line. If I recall, the first time I ever corresponded with White via email, my email was posted on his site. The result?
White exploited a question I wrote in the subject bar to “prove” I slandered him. How one can morally jump from a private email to a charge of public slander is anyone’s guess. I do know this: I have no interest in corresponding with a person on any subject who has no moral scruples about publicizing a non-public exchange without the permission of the other party, all in the name of having to “prove” a point.
For the third time, the magnitude of this problem cannot be overstated. And, it is not the chief problem of White’s critics. Rather James White created this division by his routine action to those who question his words: “you, sir, are a liar.”
I challenge Southern Baptists everywhere to note the absolutely unacceptable liaison--especially employer/employee relationship--White has had with the Southern Baptist Convention. Trustees should take special care to research James White's failed track record in "settling conflicts" with those who criticize his words before offering him any further opportunity to be paid with Cooperative Program funds.
Indeed his approach of pressing upon others who possess sincere reservations about not only his inadequate method of dealing with critics, but also his theological views labeled hyper-Calvinism by accomplished theologians...White's practice of pressing upon those who possess these reservations the degrading moral insult of "liar," "deceiver," and/or "false accuser" surely cannot be spiritually or doctrinally healthy for Southern Baptists.
James White and his supporters may continue to label me as they wish. If one can’t take the insults one endues from posting on the internet, it’s best to stay off cyberspace. That does not mean, however, approaches like James White’s must be ignored rather than confronted.
Furthermore, his supporters can continue to swarm this site with the same accusations their leader makes on his blog. Nonetheless, I will neither be intimidated by the relentless charges of being immoral, nor will I cease to insist the sub-Christian attitudes and actions embedded in James White's method of dealing with those who hold honest reservations toward a considerable amount of both his Calvinism and his attempts at conflict "resolution" are insufficient measures of spiritual vitality for the good people of God known as Southern Baptists.
With that, I am...
Peter
James White frequently aggravates me with the level of his aggression against disagreeing parties. His tone is uncalled for and it certainly sets a bad example. That said, his points are usually right, even if overstated. People often respond to James White's tone without dealing with his actual points. That is what you are doing here.
Posted by: Chris Roberts | 2010.04.09 at 02:44 PM
I believe that was the point of the entire post, Chris. Was it not?
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2010.04.09 at 03:11 PM
David,
And the point of my comment is that the point of Peter's post should deal with the point of James' words rather than the tone of James' words. It's easy to be distracted from the particular issue at hand by addressing peripheral issues. James needs to tone down the rhetoric (though he's not the only one - Peter's last post on James contained nothing but overblown misrepresentation) but even if James says things badly, the point of his words usually remains true.
Posted by: Chris Roberts | 2010.04.09 at 03:42 PM
Peter,
I must confess that this is my first exposure to you or your blog. I have no "dog in the hunt" so to speak, but two things concern me in this issue:
1. The tone of the discourse.
2. The fact that you have obviously misrepresented what Mr. White was stating. Whether this was intentional or not, I do not know, though it does seem odd that the video was cut precisely where the clarification and context was being given.
All issues after this (who/what is a hyper-calvinist, whether or not you "lied", who was being mean to whom, Mr. White's history of being abrasive, etc.) are secondary.
The fact is, you misrepresented (intentionally or not) the view of Mr. White, and at the very least owe it to him to pull your (edited) video and post his actual comments. I think it would speak well to both your sincerity and to both your academic integrity and character to apologize.
Whether it was intentional or not, and whether his reaction was appropriate or not, the fact remains; you grossly misrepresented both what he was saying, and his position as a whole. As an outsider looking in, this is painfully obvious.
In context, to make it as plain as possible, his response appears to me to be the same I would make if asked the question "Do you support everyone having healthcare?" I would have to begin by stating that I have to be careful in how I respond, as my position could be represented as me not caring about people, or being greedy.. and then go on to clarify my position. This is clearly the case in Mr. White's video.
Again, I don't know the background of how this video was edited, or by whom, and maybe you don't want to throw someone else under the bus, but common sense and decency (and intellectual honesty) would dictate that a retraction is necessary. An apology would just be a classy touch.
Thank you for your ministry. May God richly bless you and keep you.
Marc
Posted by: Marc Yoder | 2010.04.09 at 04:10 PM
Peter,
You have presented a lucid and well reasoned rejoinder. It seems abundantly clear that no one is allowed to disagree with James White without being on the receiving end of blistering attacks from him and/or his followers. From my perspective, it seems I continually hear things like: "It is your fault no matter what. White is always right, everyone else is always wrong." Then, much worse is said about those who disagree with White.
Let me state again, as I did yesterday, I too came away with the same impression you did of White's actual words (and yes people, I did watch the unedited version). I do not believe that you mis-characterized what he actually said. What he intended is another story, but only God is omniscient, so I could not divine what he intended to say. But like you, I will give him the benefit of the doubt as to his intention. But that does not make you a liar and for that he and everyone who has called you such should apologize to you.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Posted by: Ron Phillips, Sr. | 2010.04.09 at 04:16 PM
Ron,
I find it very hard to believe that someone with any theological background, much less an understanding of Calvinism, didn't understand what was being said in that video. I have very little exposure to James White, other than listening to a couple of his debates, but it is abundantly clear that he has no issues with "the love of God" (which is clear in the unedited version of the video.)
I don't think anyone has an issue with disagreement over doctrine, but to misrepresent through questionable editing and subtitles is another story altogether, and not one I would expect of a Christian apologist.
The "disagreement" issue and White's being "disagreeable" are just tertiary.
Again, the issue is that his position (a position which is easily identifiable, given the body of his work in debates, books, blogs, podcasts, etc.) is obviously known as this is a group of people who have gone to great lengths to prove the doctrinal differences which make him a "hyper-Calvinist".
(I'm not going to argue either for or against White being a hyper-Calvinist, I'm simply stating that if one has enough background on White to argue this distinction, an issue as glaring as his supposed view of God's love being "dangerous to preach", should be readily known.
Again, intentional or not, it is glaringly obvious that White's stance was misrepresented. He may be a bad guy, with bad doctrine, and behaving badly in response, but it doesn't change the fact that he was misrepresented.
I know in my professional filed, such a blunder would demand a retraction at a minimum, and an apology for good measure. I don't think it diminishes you at all, Peter, in fact, I would personally think more highly of you (which alone with $10 will get you a Starbucks coffee) ;)
May God richly bless you and your ministry,
Marc
Posted by: Marc Yoder | 2010.04.09 at 05:58 PM
Of more importance than anything else in this discussion is the biblical doctrine of God's love for humanity. There is a reason why Carson labeled his book "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God." It is, in fact, a complicated subject since there are different ways the bible addresses it. Nevertheless, when it comes to God's benevolent love for every member of the human race, there are only a few options:
1) God loves everybody equally.
2) God loves everybody unequally, i.e. He only has an electing love for some.
3) God only loves the elect.
There is diversity even within these three camps. On this topic, White is, along with all other Calvinists, in position #2, not position #3. He has said that God loves all mankind. However, White very rarely speaks on the topic of God's general love. In fact, he usually leaves his affirmation of God's general love as to be inferred from his statements, rather than saying outright that God loves everyone. It's usually implicit, not explicit, in White's words. Moreover, you won't find White expounding at length on God's universal love. I doubt there is anything in White's writings where he expounds upon God's general love in connnection with the will of God, the free offer of the gospel or with Christ's death. It's as though White is so singularly focused on God's decree all the time in reaction against varieties of free will theology that one might say he suffers from supralapsarian tunnel vision. Consequently, it does seem as though he finds explicit and extended expositions on God's general love for all humanity "difficult." It is not difficult for him to expound on God's special love for the elect, but he rarely, if ever, addresses God's general love in explicit ways, particularly as it relates to other important doctrines. In this respect, he represents a "stiffer" form of Calvinism [as Phil Johnson describes White's position] than the Banner of Truth Calvinists and other major Reformed Baptist leaders, such as Erroll Hulse and Walter Chantry. Since White has been very busy hacking away at every biblical verse Calvinists use to sustain belief in God's universal saving will, it is no wonder that White keeps from expounding on the general love of benevolence in God for all men as it relates to His willingness to save all men through obedience to the gospel.
Rather than nit pick about Vines' sermon on John 3:16, as if there was anything surprising about his take on it, White could have taught about his own view on God's "common love" [as Thomas Manton phrases it] and how, if at all, it relates to the cross-work of Christ. Not only does White overreact against some of his critics with quick accusations of lying, but I think he also overreacts against Arminianism by neglecting to strongly and explicitly affirm God's common love at length. There are piles of Banner of Truth and Reformation Today articles that display the sort of balanced response I am talking about.
Sure, God's holy wrath against sin and sinners is neglected in our culture, but that doesn't justify a negligence on the part of an elder to expound on God's remarkable love for the whole human race as well. What attracted us to Jesus as lost sinners was primarily our perception of his gracious and sacrificial love for us. Saul was certainly convicted when he saw the loving Spirit of Christ glowing in the angelic face of Stephen when he prayed for his persecutors. Illuminating our minds to the truth of Christ's love is the constant wooing work of the Holy Spirit. In this way and more He "strives" with men throughout the earth.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2010.04.09 at 06:08 PM
Chris and Marc,
Excellent comments, and I give an amen to both. Peter, I understand being upset at White's response, but retracting the video (which, given responses, is at the least very confusing) would show an attempt at peacemaking on your part.
Posted by: D.J. Williams | 2010.04.09 at 06:45 PM
Chris,
You've logged a perfect example of the type of exchange which drains my desire to even respond to comments. In one sweep, you summarily dismiss my piece with the observation that I merely dealt with "the tone of James' words," the issue which you neatly assign to the ash-heap of "peripheral issues." I am utterly shocked that's what you found in this post.
"Tone" is a legitimate element to consider when criticizing documents which, in almost all respects, seeks to discern the feelings and or mood of the author. Further, "tone" is most often applicable when evaluating poetry.
Suggesting I sought to deal with White's "tone" in my op is very easy to assert, Chris. You just did. However, you offered not a scintilla of gleanings from this piece to demonstrate your assertion.
Consider: I care not a gnat's behind how White was feeling when he composed his piece. He could have been happy, angry, joyous, or depressed. Consequently, his word choice, etc could have been indicative of such "tone." The fact is, not one complaint I registered so much as hinted at such. Nor do my complaints question his word choice, sentence structure, vigorous spirit, passion, etc.
Rather I was clear the issue is not what "tone" saturates White's critique. Instead my concern focused on the very content White pursues, the actions he embraced in bypassing the possibility that mistaken interpretations were in play in the exchange--interpretations which can be corrected through honest exchange--and instead charging the critic with lying, dishonesty, and purposely twisting the information out of deceptive maneuvers. This is neither "tone" nor certainly not "peripheral issues," Chris. Rather it strikes the heart of viable exchange.
I spent a great deal of time offering both an immediate example (Katherine's comments) and an abstract one (X + Y = Z). I did so to offer teeth to my distinction. Nonetheless, you insist I dealt with "tone" a "peripheral issue."
Now, unless you're prepared to defend your "tone" assertion by offering precisely what you mean from the piece I offered, I'll assume this exchange is over. Frankly, I'm exhausted.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.04.09 at 07:31 PM
"... the actions he embraced in bypassing the possibility that mistaken interpretations were in play in the exchange..."
There's the issue. I may have overlooked something you have said (I did not read most of the comments in the previous post) but I've yet to see you acknowledge your misrepresentation of White. Instead of dealing with the fact that you were wrong, you've found something else to jump on. Politicians play that game all the time. Hide my mistakes behind something I'm trying to play off as the bigger issue. But White's attitude/tone/content/whatever-you-want-to-call-it in this is not the bigger issue. You misrepresented him. You haven't owned up to that.
Posted by: Chris Roberts | 2010.04.09 at 07:38 PM
Marc,
I beg pardon. It's far from established it's "glaringly obvious that White's stance was misrepresented."
D.J.
I appreciate your conciliatory remarks. However, I cannot retract my post on the basis which James White insists. I am not a liar; I am not a deceiver; I am not a false witness. I was not 'blowing smoke' to take the spotlight off a brother, as much as I love him.
Admittedly the arguments have been loud I "misrepresented" White's words. But loud does not mean confirm.
I trust your weekend well.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.04.09 at 07:39 PM
Marc,
I would defer to Tony Byrne's assessment. Who, by the way is a Calvinist who has a lot of exposure to White's writings and beliefs. It seems to be in opposition to your statement where you argue that his (White) position is obviously known:
It is not difficult for him to expound on God's special love for the elect, but he rarely, if ever, addresses God's general love in explicit ways, particularly as it relates to other important doctrines. (Emphasis mine).
Blessings,
Ron P.
Posted by: Ron Phillips, Sr. | 2010.04.09 at 07:49 PM
Last comment to you, Chris. You think you've found the key. And, what's the key? Dismiss yet another comment I post which demonstrates you either haven't a clue what I'm arguing here or you cannot tease out your own assertions with some type of rationale. Solution? Spin yet another simplistic observation in this fiasco--I've yet to admit I misrepresented White.
Wow.
I'm done.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.04.09 at 07:54 PM
Well... my goodness, gracious, I'm the subject of a blog! How exciting that my 15 minutes of fame is here, in the midst of an argument between theologians. Who knew that someone of my very ordinary, and not particularly noteworthy life, should be so honored?
I must have really hit home Peter. I was clearly the lightweight when it came to the actual theology concerning the 'doctrines of Grace'. As I told another one of the responders to this issue, I'm not even completely convinced that the 5 points of Calvinism are something I want to completely embrace. In fact, I started listening to Dr. White quite by accident in regard to his book the King James Controversy. He showed himself to be scholarly in his approach to the KJVO advocates and, he was straightforward with his examples of the irrationality that is so often employed by SOME of them. It's almost amusing that we find ourselves discussing this, because this is exactly the kind of thing that Dr. White explains in the book i.e., people take a verse of scripture here and there to prove their points, without taking the entire gospel into account. Sound like a familiar problem, Peter?
Nope... my comments to you essentially had nothing to do with the differences of opinion regarding the doctrinal teachings. I don't possess the requisite knowledge to even consider debating it with people who are educated, such as yourself, in theology. My apologies for my deficiencies. I'm an elementary school teacher, and it has often been said "Those who don't teach".
Whatever my level of education or exposure to the 'doctrines of Grace' may be, my objection to your video was simple. You did what the press does on a regular basis. You took one sentence uttered by Dr. White and completely misrepresented what the rest of the video actually said. We can label this in many ways, but it's clear to me, that you knew in advance of preparing your video exactly what Dr. White meant in his video. You chopped it up, turned it into something it never was intentioned to be, and then used it against him. I call that dishonesty and yes, I think you did this deliberately. You had all the information you needed, but you CHOSE to use deceit. Now you make your actions worse by choosing the weakest link in the parade of arguments against you, to continue trying with all your might to excuse your actions. You make the same mistake politicians do. They have a general disdain for the public and yet they use them to to sell their latest bag of tricks to the uninformed. It's just politics as usual to manipulate people.
I am not the least bit concerned about the entire history of this argument. I don't discount your thoughts on it, but it really has nothing whatsoever to do with your actions in THIS matter. I accept that there is a long-running dispute among you and Dr. White. I also accept that it will continue into the future. Think of me as an outsider, who, at face value, watched both videos side-by-side with only a limited understanding of the foundations of the argument. Do you honestly think that most people in that example could come away from the two videos without thinking that you purposely twisted the words of Dr. White? If you do, then I'd have to suggest that your view is myopic.
If I were to take one verse out of the Bible to attempt to disprove the Trinity, I could do that. After all, there are so many to choose from. Would that be a reasonable 'approximation' of what the entire scripture actually says? It wouldn't. I'd be reduced to a slick salesman who only tells me what he thinks I want to hear. It's a creative use of words, but it's not honest.
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. White and what he does. He is surely a gifted speaker. But even with all of the videos he puts out, he's not yet completely convinced me regarding his firmly held beliefs in the 'doctrines of Grace'. He does have me listening and evaluating. I can assure you however sir, that I am not a "sub-Christian". I am also not one of his "followers". I'm a Christian bought with the precious blood of Jesus. I do not know whether what you accuse him of regarding the "trail of bodies" he supposedly leaves behind, is accurate. I only know what I see. I certainly do not have your credentials, but I know it when someone, anyone for that matter, has not dealt honestly with another. If you had addressed the 'talking points' of the entire video, I might have come away with the impression that you disagreed with him, and nothing more. I have no problem with you disagreeing with him. From what I've seen, lots of good people disagree with him.
As far as your message to the SBC, I must tell you that the SBC, in my opinion, is in trouble in the here and now. While I get that you think you should advise us all, given your stature in this community of believers, I cannot fathom how anyone affiliated with the SBC could honestly not look at the entire situation with Liberty University and Ergun Caner and not be totally disgusted. Here we are again, faced with a situation in which a supposed believer has at the very minimum embellished his experiences and his resume. He holds a position that influences thousands of young Christian students and I don't think there is any doubt that he has been dishonest. Exactly what message are we giving the world about Christians? We exaggerate our personal history and accomplishments if it meets our self-interests? For the love of God, is there nothing we won't do to advance our cause? Is it really okay to lie? The Bible says it isn't. Cyberspace is now filled with messages from Muslims taking advantage of Caner's problems to show us all as spiritual weaklings, corrupt and unclean. At the very least, they think us complicit and guilty by association. I'm frankly appalled that we can't even follow the clear admonition from scripture on how we should deal with believers who are blatantly living in sin. It seems these days that Christian leaders need to have an entire team of PR advisors when the truth is always the best course of action.
I would be encouraged if people, would just take responsibility for their actions, admit that they are sinners and simply ask for forgiveness. Isn't that the Gospel message? I do not expect perfection from any mere mortal. Despite our efforts, we can't seem to consistently follow scripture. I'm reminded of Paul telling us that he does things he knows he should not do, and doesn't do the things he should. I am completely guilty of that.
I don't know what is motivating you to keep this issue on the forefront of your blog. I honestly see it as an attempt to redeem your words. I'm not buying your many explanations or your attack on my personal intelligence. If you want to classify me as a blundering fool, then there isn't anything I can (or even want to) do about it. You have to live with your actions as I have to live with mine. I wish you peace and will pray for you.
Because He Lives....
Katherine
Posted by: Katherine | 2010.04.09 at 08:39 PM
Ron,
You're wording is more precise than mine. I apologize if I was vague. I should have said that White's view, to even a casual observer, is not that preaching God's love is not what was dangerous. If my lack of precision caused confusion, I apologize.
Peter,
We will have to agree to disagree. If you can, in good conscience, state that you accurately represented Mr. White's position, then no amount of loving, Christian encouragement on my part will be taken to heart.
I still have difficulty in believing that someone who writes and thinks as skillfully as you have in these responses, understanding every nuance of argument, was able to view the body of the original video and come away with the understanding that White's view was that preaching the love of God is dangerous rather than the danger being his voicing objections to a particular view of that love and being painted in a negative light.
I agree, White is often abrasive and forceful, but that does not detract from the fact that is has been shown, quite obviously, that what you stated is NOT his position. Whether you agree with his view or not, is irrelevant. What possible reason could there be for not retracting?
I would ask that after you have been shown to be in error by several brothers, you search your heart and see if there be any pride or stubbornness. I would not call you a liar, and honestly believe that this error was unintentional. Your reaction is becoming quite intentional and it does not reflect well for you.
I can assure you had the roles been reversed, I would be asking Mr. White to search his heart as well.
May we never be so single-minded in our defense of our doctrine, any doctrine, that we rob God of the glory of the message.
May God richly bless us as we seek to give Him the glory,
Marc
Posted by: Marc Yoder | 2010.04.09 at 08:42 PM
peter brings knife to gun fight.
Posted by: aaron | 2010.04.09 at 09:31 PM
Katherine,
No, my sister, you did not "hit home" so to speak. Rather as I said you raised some issues which occasioned this response; that's all.
Know also that by my using the comment to you did not assume you to have a role in any theological debate as you appear to assume. Nor did you simply log on and state a simple objection, Katherine. Recall I corrected at least 4 specific assertions you made which completely botched your initial reading of my piece. Please go back and refresh your memory on that. Your had me making White out to be a liar, calling him a 'loose screw' and a number of other completely false assertions.
I don't think you intentionally did so albeit you did actually do so (i.e. make a number of significant errors). And from those mistakes, you proceeded to level your charges.
Albeit I gave you the benefit of doubt, you now not only boldly reaffirm even more strongly I intentionally "CHOSE to use deceit" but also strangely issue a new charge--I attacked your personal intelligence. How one is supposed to respond to such a vacuous assertion, Katherine, is beyond my abilities. Hence, I decline.
In the end though, it makes little difference. Since I am--in your mind at least--a deceiver, nothing I say could or should be trusted. With that in mind, I will not expend useless energy.
Furthermore, since not only I am in your mind a deceiver, but you also took presumptuous liberty to offer unwarranted personal remarks toward the Caners--a needless negative contribution--please do not solicit engagement on this site again.
Thanks, Katherine. I wish only our Lord's best.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.04.09 at 09:45 PM
Marc,
Yes, brother, we'll agree to disagree. I stand by the video as it is. And, know I very much appreciate your giving me, contra Katherine, at least the benefit of doubt that my alleged error was an unintentional error--while still an error (if committed) it was nonetheless not intentional deception. For that I am deeply appreciative.
The video will not be removed, however. If I am in error, it should remain a constant reminder. On the other hand, it is not shown to me I have taken too much liberty in my interpretation of Whit'e original words as he spoke them.
Grace.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.04.09 at 09:59 PM
Katherine,
I just wanted to commend you for your thoughtful and reasoned approach. Very classy. You are obviously a bright person and have demonstrated honorable discernment. May God bless you.
-Curt
Posted by: Curt Treece | 2010.04.09 at 10:09 PM