A reader called my attention to the fact that James White has posted another piece involving me.
In it, White complains about some ad copy for The Bible Answerman Debate referring to his ministry as a Fundamentalist one.
This is a fair complaint, and I’ll talk to the sales and marketing department about changing that.
He also refers to an article that I pointed him to concerning the types of formal debates that I accept.
Unfortunately, White followed what seems to be his frequent practice of not linking to the things that he’s talking about, which has the effect that it’s harder for his readers to read it for themselves and see if he’s handling it accurately.
That’s particularly unfortunate in this case because White is handling the article in a demonstrably inaccurate fashion. He complains about our exchange on The Bible Answerman being referred to as a debate and writes:
I would also say that if he [Akin] took his own writing [in the article in question] seriously he would stop calling his BAM appearance a "debate" of any kind. He demands equal time for a debate, rightly so. Nobody gets equal time on a call-in radio program. He demands a clear thesis that is debatable, rightfully so. Just what was the clear thesis statement on BAM again? Uh…right.
Sorry, James. You need to read a little more closely.
As my readers can see from the link I provided above to the article, the opening of the piece reads:
Debates are fun. They can be stimulating, challenging, and informative. No wonder many people find them the most exciting form of apologetics.
I am often asked whether I have any debates scheduled. The usual answer is no, as far as formal debates are concerned. My schedule is packed, and doing a formal debate takes a lot of preparation. I still do a good number of informal radio and television debates (they take far less preparation), but these aren’t as apologetically interesting. They don’t bring the same focus to a subject as a formal debate.
Over time I have developed my own guidelines for when and how to do formal debates. I’ve shared these with individuals who have asked for them, but putting them in print could benefit individuals who haven’t yet ventured into the world of debating but are contemplating it.
White has missed the fact that I clearly distinguish between formal debates (ones that have guaranteed equal time, thesis statements, etc.) and informal ones of the type that occur on radio and television, including such popular shows as . . . say . . . Hannity & Colmes, which has the word "DEBATE" featured prominently in its opening credits without, so far as I know, FoxNews getting a lot of viewers claiming that the guests on that show don’t debate issues.
That’s not saying that it’s good debating or helpful debating, but it’s debating.
St. Paul debated with folks in his day, but I severely doubt that he ever did anything in Lincoln-Douglas style.
So . . . I take what I’ve written quite seriously, James.
I just don’t hold that a debate has to have the kind of formal structure that is used by debating societies before it is worthy of the august name "debate."
Next time you want to publicly accuse me of being inconsistent with what I’ve written, try to make sure that I’m actually . . . y’know . . . being inconsistent.
So “debate” joins “ad hominem” on the roster of terms the semantic range of which James White is apparently unable to handle.
Perhaps it is the “debating” mindset others have noted, and which causes him to always come off to me like a lawyer couching every syllable and phrase for rhetorical effect, always looking for the angle, the point to score.
Two cents. It really is time to shake the dust of James White exchanges from our feet, and walk on to the next town.
Or at least ask the Lord to call down thunder and lightning.
Wasn’t it Elijah that sent some bears to maul a bunch of boys who had been pestering him?
Remember, “Fundamentalist” is a Roman Catholic buzz-word, always meant to engender visions of Jack Chick
I wonder if he ever asked a group of Catholics what the word ‘Fundamentalist’ makes them think of?
I certainly don’t think of Jack Chick.
twas me that just posted…
If he is going to complain about the usage of the term fundamentalist, which as Jimmy pointed out is a proper criticism, he really ought to stop misusing the term “Roman Catholic.”
“Wasn’t it Elijah?”
It was EliSHa. “Go up, thou bald head!” etc.
Wasn’t it Elijah that sent some bears to maul a bunch of boys who had been pestering him?
It’d take too long to train a bunch of bears to maul ONLY James… Ninjas would be much more efficient.
J.I. Packer called himself a fundamentalist & is proud of the title. Indeed somewhere in my house I have a classic Catholic Answers tape about CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALISM done by the Keating man himself.
If memory serves Karl Keating has ALWAYS been against using the word “Fundamentalist” as a pajorative. I agree. I learned that from listening to him. BTW I wouldn’t equate Fundamentalists with Jack Chick. Chick is just a disordered anti-intellectual lunatic anti-Catholic. James White is a somewhat intellectual 🙂 non-conspiracy theory obsessed anti-Catholic five point Calvinist Baptist.
Which he is.
When did JI Packer call himself a “fundamentalist”? He put “fundamentalism” in quotes in his excellent book ‘”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God.’
Jimmy, I have been following your blogs, and at the same time I have been engaged in a discussion of “faith and works” with a Calvinist over at another blog (http://asahel.wordpress.com/2006/06/05/lying-to-death-part-ii/).
It’s funny because today, who does he recommend that I consult for the “truth” but James White!
You know, Jimmy, it seems like you’re trying “to shake the James White dust from your feet and walk to the next town” as someone says above, but James is acting like an ill-tempered chihuahua who won’t release your ankle from his jaws.
Annoying, that. Maybe you just need to kick harder.
–Ann
How, exactly, is James White not a Fundie?
White is a fundamentalist. He’s just a fundamentalist who has finally figured out that a large part of the world doesn’t see “fundamentalism” as something to emulate. (“Back-pedal, back-pedal, back-pedal. Deny, deny, deny…;-)Have they starting believing me yet, Maud???”)
James White isn’t a Fundamentalist because fundamentalism is the name of a particular type of Protestant, just like Baptist or Methodist is. Mr. White is a Baptist. Fundamentalists are those who follow the The Fundamentals, a series of books which were written in the early part of the 20th century.
Whatever, Shane, these people all look the same to me.
Inquisitor, its no more right to call a Baptist a Fundamentalist than it is to call an Italian a German. As Christians, we must love as Christ loves. We must treat others with humble respect. Even the God and Creator of the Universe Himself treated Pontius Pilate with respect. St. Paul gave the same to the high priest whom he dealt with in the book of Acts. We are called by Jesus Christ to follow the truth, and that indeed means following the Catholic faith and being critical of those who teach against it. We are also, however, called to love both neighbor and enemy. If one were to ignore the flasehoods taught by Mr. White for the sake of loving and respecting him, that person would be failing to fulfill his calling as a disciple of Christ. However, it would be no less a failure of discipleship to treat Mr. White disrespectfully or unlovingly for the sake of holding to the truth.
Not all Protestants are the same. Anglicans are much closer the Catholicism than Salvationists, and this is important to take into account. A different approach is necessary in relating to people from each group. Those who lack the fullness of the Catholic faith are not our enemies, Inquisitor, but our patients. We are called to participate in Christ’s physicianship of the soul as we work to bring them to His Church, and we can no more accomplish this by lumping them all together than could a doctor of the body by lumping all sick people together. If a person has a cancer of the liver, it requires diffeferent treatment from one with an infection of the heart. Could a doctor write liver cancer on the chart of a man with a heart infection simply because they are both sick?
Not all anti-Catholics are the same, either. For instance, Robert Zins has been known to present true anti-Catholicism in his formal debates, expressing few facts but many rhetorical, often utterly false, seemingly hate filled quips against the CHurch. Mr. White, on the other hand, presents a great deal of information, and attempts to approach his debates in a responsible way. He may be wrong, but he is far more respectful a critic of Catholcism than Mr. Zins. Similarly, Fundamentalist apologetics is far more filled with rhetoric, bigotry, and falsehood than Mr. White’s is, to the point that he has at times been critical of such apologetics.
As Catholics, we often make the statement that if we are to be hated or told we are wrong, we at least want to be so for what we really believe. We owe Mr. White no less respect than this. He does not wish to be associated with Fundamentalism any more than I would want to be associated with worshipping Mary. Mr. White does involve his ministry with the sort of apologetics practiced by Fundamentalists, and we must respect that fact. It is no more right to call him fundamentalist than it is to call a Byzantine Catholic a Roman Catholic, or to call a Roman Catholic a pope worshipper.
Anglicans are much closer the Catholicism than Salvationists, and this is important to take into account.
In view of some of the things coming out of the Church of England, I’m not sure that’s true. Many Anglicans, perhaps.
Labeling someone without defining what the label stands for makes the label a perjorative.
C.S. Lewis talks of this at the beginning of his book, “Mere Christianity.” Words mean something and we should start trying to use words with their real meaning.
Dr. White is not a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist in the true sense of the word is someone who embraces the basic essential truths of a belief system and follows them. Dr. White by definition can not be a fundamentalist because a review of his website archives demonstrate that he is incapable (at least in that forum) to embrace the basic essential concept of Christian charity something that Calvinists certainly accept and believe in. He certainly doesn’t follow it there.
Dr. White is anti-Catholic in the sense that he opposes the teachings of the Catholic Church that he perceives to be in error. Since he believes in private judgment, his perceptions or opinion is no more valid or less valid than any one elses. No matter how well-read he is, how many college degrees he has, or how many languages he speaks, if he can’t demonstrate that the Holy Spirit moves him to say the things that he does and with charity, he is no different than a “sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal” expressed by St. Paul in I Cor. 13:1.
One last thing~why do some apologists have this insatiable demand for debates? What is more important: winning a hundred debates or even a million debates (See Matt. 6:1), or winning even just one other person’s soul over to Christ by your deeds (See, Matt. 25:34-40)? Rather than raising sophistry to an art form perhaps we would all be better served by practicing what St. Augustine once said, “Audi partem alteram”.
Perhaps we can distact Mr. White into fighting with other Protestants over what it means to be Protestant?
Meanwhile, any chance I can get a discount coupon to catholic answers for the Bible Answerman Debate I just bought since the price is about to be lowered to the Alpha and Omega Ministries price?
Since he tries so hard to get Protestants back to their roots, maybe someone can get him to agree with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli that Mary was a perpetual virgin! That ought to help his ministry.
>When did JI Packer call himself a “fundamentalist”? He put “fundamentalism” in quotes in his excellent book ‘”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God.’
I reply: Keating said so. I believe him.
Mr Akin is to be applauded for acknowledging Mr White’s complaint that characterizing AOmin as “the Fundamentalist apologetics organization Alpha and Omega Ministries” with a capital F was a legitimate objection.
I happen to think that marketing strategy of characterizing an informal call in radio show as a “masterful debate” is simply that, a marketing technique. At 28 dollars one can certainly understand the need to jazz it up a bit.
I have listened to several of Mr Whites debates and he has always conducted himself in a respectful and scholarly manner. Now; the style and tone of his blog and his call in show are more informal and his sense of humor can be somewhat grating at times but when someone calls in as Mr Akin, (and was it Shane?) did, his tone is always serious and respectful. Have you ever heard James White try to do accents? It is surely one of the most painful experiences you are ever likely to endure. 🙂
My work on Jack Chick is complete. If you want to have a look:
http://www.AuthorsDen.com/GaryDaleCearley
It is basically a rebuttal about Jack Chick’s claims that the Catholic Church created Islam in order to eliminate rival Christian groups. I hope you find it interesting…!