Update: James White wrote a response to this piece (//link). Well, he tried anyways. I think he was mostly blowing off steam, given the merciless unloading of spitballs blown my way. And, in light of his piece, I'm going to go back on what I'd said to one commenter about the present post being my last on James White for a while. I now plan to post just one more, and then I'll be moving on, at least so far as SBC Tomorrow is concerned. I'll continue to update James White On periodically and as time permits.
=========================================================================================
James White insists he does not consider himself an "expert" on Islam. Instead he'd prefer others perceive him as a "student" of Islam. To be more precise, White eschews the status of being dubbed an "expert" in Islam. Indeed in Part I, we favorably noted White's distinction drawn between himself as a self-described "student" of Islam" and others presumably like the Caners who have been "given the status" as "experts."
In their book entitled More Than a Prophet (Kregal Books, 2003), Ergun and Emir Caner write:
"This book is not a comprehensive guide to Islam. There is no such thing... Others have called us "experts" in the subject. No one--not even a Muslim ulema--is an expert in all the complexities of Islam...We continue to grow in our knowledge of this historic religion" (p.21; emphasis added).
Scroll to page 21 and read the second full paragraph. These words were written by the Caners in 2003
Question: did James White take a cue from the Caners on describing himself as a student of Islam rather than an expert in Islam? The reader can be the judge.
One thing is certain: given the Caner brothers' denial above, it seems right to conclude that the widespread "expert" status the Caners have obtained through the years is not because they proclaimed themselves "experts"; rather it is because their personal and academic backgrounds, coupled with an undeniably passionate ethos in public communication, naturally drew the cultural many to bestow upon them the "expert" status.
Allow me to repeat a lengthy quote from James White:
“Once again Lumpkins shows himself utterly incapable of either research, or honesty, or both. Those who have taken the time to listen to my debates, or listen to my lectures, or listen to my interactions with Islamic claims on the Dividing Line… know that I have consistently eschewed the title of "expert on Islam." Honest people know I refer to myself as a student of Islam… So once again Peter Lumpkins has beaten up a straw-man of his own imagination, which is about as far as he has ever gotten in his campaigns of late.” (emphasis original; //link)
As I noted here, White has improved significantly in his standard reaction to most things I write. Let’s just say, James White really likes to call people liars. At least in the above “critique,” White offers an option that his problem with me, contrary to before, is a question of “research” and alleged “straw-man” arguments not personal character. Let’s see if White can make the tar I am “utterly incapable of either research or honesty, or both” stick.
Consider.
James White insists that anyone who’s taken the time to “listen to his debates” and "interactions" with Muslims will come away from them with the clear understanding that he has ‘consistently eschewed the title of "expert on Islam"’ (italics original; embolden added). Instead White humbly claims he is but a lowly “student.”
My contention is, whatever James White may claim about his abilities in Muslim thinking, it is not entirely accurate to describe him as personally coming across as a “student” of Islam rather than an “expert” in Islam. In fact, White comes across at times as highly offended anyone would dare question his “scholarship” in Islamic studies.
Allow me to show you what I mean*:
If James White viewed himself merely as a “student” of Islam, why was he so aggressively defending against those he perceived as “attacking his scholarship” in Muslim thinking? Hence, we could rightly ask, in view of the above clip with White complaining about Muslim apologists “attacking his scholarship,” is it fair for James White to not only claim he has ‘consistently eschewed the title of "expert on Islam,"’ but also dub those who raise the question as “utterly incapable of either research, or honesty, or both”? I do not think it is fair.
Indeed perhaps Mr. White needs to listen to more of his own debates and/or interactions with Muslim apologists. White’s fuse is fairly short when someone raises questions or, as he puts it, “attacks my scholarship.” But why should this be if White is but a “student” of Islam and not an “expert” in Islam?
As for me, I do not have a clue.
Another example comes to mind if James White does not consider himself an “expert” in Islam but a mere “student” of Islam. In a recent Christianity Today article, John Kennedy quoted James White as an authority “who teaches on Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary” (//link). White is quoted as expressing his concern that a man (Caner) poses himself as an Islamic expert (when, the implication is, Caner clearly is not) going around doing the things he (i.e. White) does. Presumably, White was referring to his debates with Muslim apologists (one of which I mentioned here).
Two concerns.
First, to read Kennedy’s article and expect readers to come away with the impression that James White considers himself a “student” of Islam and not an “expert” in Islam is hardly credible. Kennedy unequivocally states James White teaches Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. What is the average reader to assume? If Golden Gate seminary is a credible, graduate-level theological institution, and James White teaches Islam at a credible, graduate-level theological institution, then James White is most likely an “expert” in the subject he teaches at the graduate-level.
Second, it’s highly questionable at best whether James White should have allowed the CT article to stand as written concerning Kennedy’s assertion that he, in fact, “teaches on Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.” Why? Because James White does not teach Islam at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. While it’s true he taught a 3 day intensive course in January--a course in Christian Apologetics in general not Islam in particular (//link)--White currently has no contract with Golden Gate to teach any subject, much less Islam.
And, the official word is, James White will not be offered any future contract as adjunct instructor to teach any subject for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary including Islam.
In light of this, it is not unreasonable to query whether it was morally sober for White to allow Christianity Today to refer to him as currently teaching Islam at Golden Gate when, in reality, he was not; he is not; and, the official word is, he will not. James White evidently had no contract with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary to teach apologetics generally or Islam particularly when CT interviewed him. Yet, White still allowed the false impression to stand that he teaches Islam at Golden Gate.
We might also query if such a reference—a reference to White as presently teaching Islam at a respectable, graduate-level theological institution--gave the impression James White was and is an “expert” in Islam? I think, for the average reader, it most certainly does.
And, if this is so, then James White insisting he ‘consistently eschewed the title of "expert on Islam”’ becomes much harder to accept.
In fact, James White needs to clarify the wrong impression the CT article leaves by correcting its error concerning his relationship with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.
With that, I am…
Peter
"And, the official word is, James White will not be offered any future contract as adjunct instructor to teach any subject for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary including Islam."
Where can this official press release be found, Peter?
Posted by: RazorsKiss | 2010.06.05 at 09:56 AM
Peter,
as you are, are you going to allow anyone to make comments about this tread and what is troubling about it or are you only going to allow comments that heap profuse praise for your outstanding intellect and acumen?
Posted by: michael | 2010.06.05 at 11:00 AM
Peter,
Just as Calvin requested that Servetus be put to death by decaptiation, that same spirit seems to live on among certain Reformed leaders that would join forces with Muslim Jidadists in a relentless quest to bring down Dr. Caner. Sad! What is the real motive -- I ask myself. I don't know, my mind doesn't work that way. Thanks for your investigation!
Posted by: Ron Hale | 2010.06.05 at 11:54 AM
Peter,
You know, my friend, that I love you, no matter what. You know I will be loyal to you come what may. And you know that at times I've questioned where in the world you are headed with a particular blog series, only to find myself fully informed at the end of such series. Most times I find no need to comment and add to a mountain created by a bunch of moles furrowing ground higher and higher by each mole climbing on top of one another to create another mountain. Neither am I tempted to stomp up and down and rant and rave because you don't blog on your own blog what I get giddy and gooey about.
I realize, now, the import of why you've chosen to blog so thoroughly about the subject matter you have most recently. Such duplicity is visible in the actions and words of some that I wonder why they even dare to criticize another. Yet, I am a bit confused. Is this what apologetics is?
I must say, however, I am pleasantly pleased you might blog about something other than the subject of which you've lately been compelled to address. Why? Because you have so much wisdom and are so capable of addressing so many of the theological questions, and doctrinal systems that flutter through my mind. And while sometimes I find your responses to your "dissenters" quite valuable in addressing dysfunctional minds I encounter in life, (indeed, sometimes I chuckle when I shouldn't and must "rrr-repent" from sticking my toes in your comment streams), I miss Socrates and his kindred spirit. just saying...selahV
Posted by: selahV | 2010.06.05 at 01:27 PM
SelahV,
I hear you and know I thank you.
I too miss Socrates.
My brittle replies undoubtedly are indicative of the polemical spirit slowly cooked on flaming conflict--albeit cyber-conflict but conflict nonetheless--leaving but a crispy, burnt crust behind.
Only the Lord's Spirit may scrape such from one's inner sanctuary. Please pray for me.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.05 at 01:48 PM
Michael,
As for me, I think the profuse praise for my outstanding intellect and acumen fits this thread perfectly.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.05 at 01:51 PM
Don,
Guess you caught on to my free plug for reformed doctrine :) I got a smile out of your response.
I would think the majority of reformed folks would challenge Elder White when he is wrong. That is, those in his circle who have contact with him. Just as my circle of friends correct me when needed. I would like to see "brotherly Love" in action between Elder White and pastor Lumpkin. This apparent "hatred" between the two of them, should stop today. I use the word "hatred" because there does not seem to be an outward Brotherly love relationship between them. I am utterly clueless why the two of them don't get on the phone, restore brotherly love, and publically show how two brothers can be on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum, argue their case passionately, yet do it with respect and love. How hard can a phone call be.
I suppose Elder White reads this Blog, he does respond to it on his Blog. He doesn't allow comments, so I'm directing this to him as well. It can't be said any stronger than this. Does God's Word allow you two to carry on this fight? Does God's Word call you to love one another? If you are not willing to TRY and restore fellowship, do you have the right to enter the pulpit again?
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Joh 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another. Ro 12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 2 ¶ With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Pressing on
Eric
Posted by: Eric Opsahl | 2010.06.05 at 03:28 PM
Eric,
Two things. First, I am not a pastor--at least not now. I served mostly as pastor from 1981 to 2002. Since then, while I've served Interim pastoral positions, I have not served as "full-time" pastor though I've stayed busy doing ministry.
Second, I do not agree with your assessment that the issues I've raised, particularly with James White, constitute "hatred" apparent or otherwise. You ask, "Does God's Word allow you two to carry on this fight?" Speaking for myself, yes it does. It calls me to speak honestly and forthrightly concerning justice on the one hand and mercy on the other. It calls me to embrace what is good. It calls me to stand for what I believe to be the true and the real even if I stand alone. And even if I stand alone on the opposite side of one brother or many.
You query again, "Does God's Word call you to love one another?" Speaking for me, it most certainly does. And, in this case, when I strongly oppose another's actions or positions, loving the other necessarily includes I attempt to fairly criticize my opponent's words, attempt to stick to the topic at hand, and, as much as possible, concede ground which either proves faulty or irrelevant.
On the other hand, loving another may or may not mean having a phone conversation.
Would to our Lord conflict were as simplistic as I sense you portray it, Eric.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.05 at 05:47 PM
Eric,
I'm glad you got a smile.
I disagree about Mr. White's followers ever challenging him. To them he is always correct even when they know he is not.
I believe Mr. White over the years has done alot of good. Of note his debates with Catholics. Particularly Gerry Matatics. He probably means nothing to you, but I knew Gerry long before he became a Catholic. I would cheer for Mr. White in those debates.
My biggest problem with Mr. White is his treatment of those who are not of the Reformed persuasion. I can site several instances. He gives much more respect to atheists, Mormons or Muslims than to the non-Calvinist. Despite his claims not every non-Calvinist is afraid to debate him.
I'm in complete agreement with you on your stated verses.
Don
Posted by: Don Johnson | 2010.06.05 at 07:22 PM
Peter,
in response to Eric above you said this: "... attempt to stick to the topic at hand, and, as much as possible, concede ground which either proves faulty or irrelevant.".
Ok, I have something troubling me about this particular thread.
The title of it is as we can all read above: "James White, Scholarship, and Insulting Ergun Caner (Part II) by Peter Lumpkins".
Yet, when I read through the whole article, my take on what I read is not an issue between Dr. White and Dr. Caner, but rather you expressing that you have something bugging you about Dr. White, an unresolved inner conflict that you are struggling with and you have taken the Ergun Caner issue as the "spring" board so you can vent your personal unresolved conflict against Dr. White to us?
Why is that?
Why just after: "Allow me to repeat a lengthy quote from James White:..." the rest of the article shifts to issues you personally have with Dr. White?
That appears to me to come across as a departure from the initial title of this thread to your own personal unresolved issues you have between you and Dr. White?
Granted, I do not deny that Dr. White, in the update link provided, takes up issues against you.
Why should be "prove faulty or irrelevant" when your initial issue was not?
I believe it is of poor taste for you to combine the two matters together. But, as you have said, forcefully and sharply at times, this is your nickel and you can do as you please!
I don't think it very modest of you to do this.
Posted by: michael | 2010.06.05 at 07:56 PM
Michael,
I've given you a fair amount of space to continue on about me personally. And, yes, this is my nickel but more often than not, I do not "do as I please" so to speak. Nor am I concerned you think I'm being modest or not.
What does concern me is for you or anyone else to attempt to second guess the inner life of someone else, especially if you offer not a single shred of something tangible to substantiate it.
For example, you attempt to read a "inner conflict" I allegedly have with White and imply I'm exploiting Ergun Caner as a cover to express it. For me that is despicable and highly offensive. Please don't say this here again.
Now, if you've got something tangible you'd care to ask me about, great. Perhaps I would entertain it.
On the other hand, if all you have is "your take" I'm venting "personal unresolved conflict" when you cannot specifically offer a hard example, keep your psychological theories to yourself, not only toward me, but toward anyone else on this thread.
I gave specific examples, quoted words, and interpreted actions of both White & the Caners in the OP. If I have drawn unwarranted conclusions in any part of what I wrote, please point it out. If you are uninterested in dealing with what I actually wrote, however, instead of attempting to analyse me psychologically, I really see no need in any exchange at all.
I trust your evening well.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.05 at 10:09 PM
Peter,
Have you ever watched or listened to a debate of Dr. Whites? Have you listened to the last several episodes of the Dividing Line where James has been discussing the arguments of Sheik Awal, an upcoming Muslim debate opponent, from Awal's previous debates? Have you "listened" to the "substance" of James White's apologetic claims in action in debates or on Youtube?
I have for 4 years. I have a PhD (1998) in Communication Studies from the University of Kansas, with a focus in argumentation and debate. I have also coached two Baylor University debate teams to national championships in 1987 and 1989. James White is in my opinion the best Christian apologist debater I have heard, irrespective of his degrees, and I have listened to countless debates.
I have tried to listen to or watch any debates by Ergun Caner, but I can't seem to find any available for download or purchase. But I have been thinking of buying one of Dr. Caner's T-shirts he has for sale on his website? Will he make a debate audio with a Muslim or Hindu available if I buy a T-shirt?
Dr. Cary Voss
Debate Expert
Posted by: Dr. Cary Voss | 2010.06.06 at 12:39 AM
Dr. Voss,
Welcome. And, know I appreciate your lending the weight of your expertise here.
To answer your questions:
a) yes, I have listened to both White's debates and DL broadcasts, though no, not the ones you specifically cite (arguments of Sheik Awal)
b) yes, I do take note of substance when I have listened to debates
As for your learned estimation that James White is the best Christian apologist debater you've have heard, I thank you for your assessment and have not a single reservation to add...for two reasons:
a) I am not an expert in debate communication and hence my estimation, while not completely irrelevant, should not be comparable contra an expert like yourself
b) I have no reason at all to doubt, at least initially, what you say is so; i.e., James White is the best Christian apologist debater you've heard
Now, as for Ergun Caner, since you've not heard him debate, perhaps its best not to make further judgments about him or his "missing" debates. Agreed?
Hence, since I answered your questions and do not disagree with your estimations, hopefully those issues will not need to be revisited. If you find me contradicting my answers above, please feel free to remind me what I conceded.
Now that that’s settled, Dr. Voss, if you have a moment, I would like to pick your brain about a matter you're definitively qualified to consider. I just posted, from James White's latest "response" to me, a veritable list of descriptive phrases through which I must filter my understanding so I can offer to Mr. White a rejoinder.
Allow me, for illustrative purposes, to post a partial list for you:
A full listing may be found here. The list above is, as I said, only a partial listing. Nor are those I listed above the most negative from the entire list, but exist only as representative of a larger body of similar descriptions with which Mr. White has, shall we say, assessed me.
Now for the question(s), Dr. Voss: as an expert in the field of debate, and given your experience as a debate coach—and a very successful one at that—what do you tell your debate students when they are faced with an opponent’s response laced in and out with similar phrases to the above? Is there a literary category to which you’d assign a debater’s usage of the above phrases? Based on your professional opinion as a debate expert, would you say a debater who employs the language (or similar) above qualifies as a debater in the top rank of his or her profession?
Thank you for considering this little exercise. Also, you’re more than welcome to leave response at the link I offered above.
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.06 at 08:34 AM
Peter,
Thank you for posting my comment. I will write a longer reply to your questions about Dr. Whites "ad hominem" arguments against you when not using my iPhone.
But for the record, his attempts to discern your motives is bad argumentation and lacks objective support. I also think labeling you Alexander the Coppersmith was simply wrong. And because I believe James is intellectually honest and responsible before God for every idle word, he will eventually agree that many of his charactures of you and others are driven by emotion rather than reason.
More on the other thread,
DrV
Posted by: Dr. Cary Voss | 2010.06.06 at 03:39 PM