I for one, with a tear in my eye, just thank God for you, Mr. James White by Peter Lumpkins

*On James White’s site are posted letters he’s received encouraging and comforting him in his time of deep sorrow for not only dealing with a “fallen” brother but also for the ceaseless "attacks" White has endured because of his pure passion for biblical holiness and the Kingdom of God...

According to his encouragers, White’s purpose has been swept clean of any traces of total depravity.  One wrote, “I for one, with a tear in my eye, just thank God for you- a man of profound integrity and everything the words "man of God" are meant to describe.”

Touching. 

And very moving. 

We all need an encourager in our time of need.

I did notice, however, White did not post the identity of the writers of the letters (some were ‘initialed’).  But I, for one, find his reluctance to do so very odd.  Why?

Well, when White receives emails he deems not so encouraging—in fact, some letters of which he thinks are highly critical of him—he shows no hesitation in revealing who the author is. Indeed many times he offers a point-by-point, line-by-line rebuttal of every word contained in the presumably intended private correspondence. And, one often gets the impression he is doing his best to embarrass the author of the correspondence.

But when White gets encouragement from presumably personal letters, he protects the person’s identity.  Why?

Well, White thinks since one of the comforters is a Liberty University student, he doesn’t want retaliation to be possible by the LU community .  Retaliation?  What has retaliation have to do with openness and honesty about which James White has been so ceaselessly adamant? If James White has comforters at LU, should they be about a big cover-up?  I thought that was White’s whole point in all this hoopla…being who one is…standing up for what one believes. Yet, White leads the charge in covering up and hiding behind what someone is not? 

I have to admit, I’m a little confused.

Hence, since much of the encouragement did not come from LU students, why doesn’t James White reveal the encouragers’ name?  He sees no reason to protect the identity of those who criticize him in private letters.  Why is he reluctant to identify those who commend him in private letters? 

This is really, really bazaar to me.  Or, in James White’s favorite words, “I find this an amazing mentality.”

Now one might suggest it’s because White is humble and therefore just wanted to be biblically modest.  But not posting anything at all and just being encouraged in one’s heart is much more consistent with such a proposal it seems to me.   

So, in the spirit of fairness, I do have a few guesses from whom the letters originated:

• Tom Ascol
• TurrintenFan
• David Woods
• James White’s dog
• Columbia Evangelical Seminary
• Timmy Brister
• Triblogue
• R.C.Sproul
• RazorKiss
• Mohammad Khan
• Alan Kurschner
• SBCVoices
• David Hewitt
• Debbie Kaufman
• Don Fry
• Wade Burleson
• Phoenix Primitive Baptist Association

Perhaps some readers have some educated guesses (if so, be nice!). 

With that, I am…

Peter

*Whew, I've just got to quit this.  I realize I only post a fraction of the posts with themes concerning James White's controversies compared to the digital ink James White logs toward his critics.  Nevertheless, I do have more topics to discuss which unfortunately have taken a back seat for the last two months.  That said, I hope to move on now and level off to an occasional piece dealing with the current topic. While James White's influence among Southern Baptists has taken a pounding in recent weeks--a positive thing in itself from my perspective--one must nonetheless remain alert to Hyper-Calvinism's most prolific internet blogger.

Comments

[The Seeking Disciple]

Well this time the "attack" came from me though that was not my original intent. Calvinists turned my post on my blog into something to rally around and for the last 48 hours, I have received over 130 e-mails attacking me or my posts.

[Ed Goodman]

One educated guess would be Matt Svoboda. He's a reformed Liberty student who has been vocal about the Caner situation.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

I also believe one of his encouragers is his dog. I know mine encourages me from time to time. Of course my dog isn't computer savvy enough to send me an email. :)

You are a hoot!

Blessings,
Tim

[peter]

TurretinFan,

No sir. No soup for you. Your mask hinders your contribution here. At SBC Tomorrow, we are open and revealing with one another.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Wade Burleson]

Uh, Peter, at least one of your guesses is wrong.

[volfan007]

Tim Rogers,

Does your dogs eyes glow as it tells you to do things like....well, uh, wear pink shirts? keep living in North Carolina?

And, what kind of voice does your dog have? high pitched? or, deep bass?

David

[Stephen M. Garrett]

Dear Peter:

I was one who was specifically addressed by James White in Seeking Disciple's blog.

James seems to have a big ego and loves it when he can post such letters where one is "singing his praises."

I just don't see much humility in the man. He seems to me to love debating and confrontation too much. I wonder if too much debating has a negative effect on people. He seems not to take criticism very well. He takes everything as a personal attack, as though anyone who disagrees with him is "out to get him."

I personally think that he violated scripture in how he dealt with Brother Bob Ross.

Blessings,

Stephen

[Craig Daliessio]

Well one of them was NOT Norman Geisler.

I saw that too and I wondered what 20 year olds college student who, like all 20 year old college students, knows everything in the world wouldn't be crowing about his big victory at L.U. Aren't you SUPPOSED to gloat when you just "took the moral high ground and 'stuck it to the man!"? I'm thinking thats more like someone who enrolled in the Liberty Home Bible Institute and considers himself a real L.U. Student...like Peter Lawford considered himself a Kennedy by Marriage.
You forgot Danny Spratlin who, at 25 knows more about everything than H.A.L. 3000 and also told me he was influential enough to keep me out of LBTS. I suppose being Jonathan Falwell's classmate in freshman year, and a continuing part of L.U. Men's hockey (I played hockey at Liberty and go back during the season to teach bible studies to the boys) won't override his clandestine coercions.
I informed Danny that I was far more concerned about the plethora of mug shots from my pre salvation days keeping me out. He never got back to me on that.
Oh one other person we can be sure DIDN'T write the encouragement...Jimmy White's sister. She was still apparently abused as a child, and he still apparently hasn't forgiven her for standing up for herself. In my neighborhood they would call him a "Struuts"

[peter]

Wade,

But how may we be sure? ;^)
With that, I am...
Peter

[Brennon]

I suppose I thank God that in his zeal to criticize everyone and their mother who disagrees with him, James White's influence among reasonable Christians wanes. Every time he calls a Norm Geisler a liar, he just looks more uncharitable and unreasonable. Perhaps that is one bright point to this whole thing.

[Brennon]

Hey, Stephen, some people seem to be able to handle debates very well and still be charitable and Christlike. William Lane Craig, for instance.

[Samuel]

I refer again to your labeling James White's tactics as "sub-Christian" and yet you post an article such as this, which has no purpose other than attacking Dr. White personally and speculating about his motives. It is truly eye opening.

But again, you defend Caner despite of the evidence that Dr. White and others have produced, and yet attack White for producing it. Some people seem to think that White is bringing to light these things about Caner because he is reformed and Caner is not, and he has an axe to grind in that area. But it seems to me that the opposite is true. It seems that the reason that you attack White the way you do, is because he is reformed and you are not, and that is where the problem lies illustrated by this comment: "one must nonetheless remain alert to Hyper-Calvinism's most prolific internet blogger".

It doesn't seem to matter how many times White makes it clear he is not a hyper-Calvinist and explains what a hyper-Calvinist is, his opponents don't seem to want to drop that accusation. I actually thing the poster you include for this article is a pretty fair, yet figurative representation of the truth.

[Drpenn]

LOL!! AMEN. You know, I wondered the SAME thing. I thought, hm...that's really odd. He usually has NO problem posting the names of people who send attacking mail. Mighty Jim White of him to protect his adoring fans.

Be sure to read Norman Geisler's latest - it's GREAT!
http://www.normangeisler.net/infurtherdefenseofcaner.html
Still makes me REALLY wonder why on EARTH LU kicked Caner off the Dean seat....this smells like politics!

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

It seems that Brother Wade has made a valid point. At least one of your guesses is wrong--James White's dog.

:)

Tim

[Craig Daliessio]

Buckle up Friend Peter...Dr. Geisler issued "Son of Defense of Caner" making even MORE salient points and defending my friend in even greater detail. And he pointed out the biblical contradictions with the way Ergun has been treated. I fear your position of 4 parts to the White Novella might be trumped. I am thinking now he might crash a server and this will end up being Tolstoy-esque.
Now I can set up a good chum slick, but Dr. Geisler just threw a bleeding bather in the shark tank.
Heeeere fishy fishy fishy...

[peter]

Samuel,

Begging pardon. I attacked no one. Nor did I mention White's motives. Instead, I asked a question about White practice: posting names of critics but protecting identities of those who commend. Why? That's all.

Now, if you want to offer a legitimate complaint, I suggest you actually deal with what I've written in this post.

With that, I am...
Peter

[A.M. Mallett]

What I thought was really amusing was the suggestion that LBTS would get all Geneva like on the young pup and maybe wack him if they found out who he was.

[Craig Daliessio]

Forgot a few more:
The channeled spirits of John Calvin AND Martin Luther
Lance Armstrong (apparently Tighty Whitey now reckons himself a look alike for Lance, per one of his recent blogs)

[Michael Smith]

I think one of the people who wrote the emails of encouragement to Dr. White was Ergun Mehmet Caner. Seriously!

[Chuck Beem]

Peter-

Again, as a lurker who:

1. Is a 'Calvinist'
2. Listens to White's show occasionally

BUT

3. Thinks he should take a chill pill in the way he criticizes people...

I find your comment that this was not White bashing disingenuous. You clearly joked that his dog sent him a letter- i.e., that White lied and made up one of the letters. While I have no desire to see Caner vilified, I also fail to see how your statements here are charitable or helpful in the least. As someone who consistently scolds others for unChristlike behavior, this is certainly starting to feel like a pot/kettle/black situation.

Just my .02. Now crawling back under my little rock.

Chuck Beem

[peter]

Chuck,

You write, "You clearly joked that his dog sent him a letter- i.e., that White lied and made up one of the letters" (emphasis mine).

Chuck, thanks for stating your reservations concerning White and that you think he needs to take a "chill-pill."

I encourage you to save one for yourself, however. While you have a perfect bead in perceiving I clearly joked that his dog sent him a letter how you can turn right around and suggest I meant White lied has no basis upon which to stand.

If you clearly see I was merely joking around, why on earth would you transform joking around into a literal accusation?

One pill should do ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Chuck Beem]

Peter-

'Joke' as in mean-spirited jerkiness. I merely pointed out that by giving a list of supposed letter-writers you implied that perhaps, just perhaps, he made it up. Hence, dog was an option. I fully admit you didn't say it explicitly and I never said you made a 'literal accusation'. However, giving the overall tenor of your blog these days it certainly wouldn't be a stretch to take it that way.
My point was merely that the more you rag on White the more you look like him- metaphorically speaking of course. You look nothing like Lance Armstrong after all.
I'll take 'one pill' when you have a drink. . ;^)

Chuck