Category: Non-Catholic Apologists

What you are looking at may be the first known, recent photo of Jack T. Chick (left) to emerge on the Internet.

It is found on the home page of Victory Baptist Church in Clarkston, Michigan and is captioned as "Jack Chick & Pastor Bob Nogalski, Summer 2006."

The figure alleged to be Chick is holding a copy of his tract Bad Bob! and pointing to Pastor Nogalski because of the similarity of Pastor Nogalski’s life story to that of the character Bad Bob.

The Victory Baptist Church web site also includes Pastor Nogalski’s testimony regarding his life and how it intersects with Bad Bob’s.

VIEW THE PICTURE IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT.

READ PASTOR NOGALSKI’S TESTIMONY.

READ "BAD BOB!"

Now, the question on the minds of most JA.O readers will be: Is the photo of the reclusive Chick authentic?

In our day and age, photos certainly can lie, and so I’d be interested to know what PhotoChoppers can make of the picture’s authenticity. That’s a subject I can’t speak to, but perhaps we’ll hear from some of them in the combox.

What I can say is this: The man in the picture does look (apart from the comic expression on his face) much like I remember Jack Chick looking when I met him at the premier of his film, Light of the World.

YOU CAN READ ABOUT THAT HERE.

And here’s the picture I drew of Chick after the event:

I can also say that the setting in which the picture was taken lends some credibility of the photo. It looks to me like the descriptions of the foyer of Chick Publications that I’ve read. I would guess that Pastor Nogalski visited Chick Publications in Summer 2006, met Chick, and (impressed by the pastor’s testimony regarding his connection with Bad Bob) Chick let the picture be taken, likely not realizing that it would find its way onto the Internet.

I’ve thought about driving up to visit Chick’s offices. They’re just a couple of hours up the road from me. But I’ve never done it.

Maybe after this picture, I will.

(BTW, a TEN GALLON CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Yesterday Michelle posted about James White’s attitude problem and this sparked one of the perennial combox discussions about whether the title "Dr." should be given to White (with or without quotation marks; they’re used here because standard English orthography requires quotation marks around words that are themselves the subject of discussion; if I were to initiate a discussion of the word "word," it would get quotation marks too).

For the record, I do not think that this title should be given to White.

I come from an academic family, and doctorates mean something. They are awarded to individuals by accredited institutions to certify that the individual in question has met the academic requirements needed to earn the degree. The individual is thus entitled to the use of the title and the authority and respect it commands.

For an individual to claim this authority and respect based on a doctorate issued by an unaccredited institution is, howeve, unacceptable. Without accreditation there is no guarantee that the individual has academic achievements comparable to those of doctorates being issued by accredited institutions. In fact, most non-accredited institutions issuing doctorates are little more than diploma mills.

To concede the title "doctor" to someone just because they have a diploma from an unaccredited institution cheapens all doctorates everywhere by creating a doorway for bogus doctorates achieve social recognition.

The social recognition of bogus degrees is precisely what the accreditation process was created to prevent. Accreditation is a stamp of approval on a school that it has met the academic standards of the accrediting body and is qualified to issue degrees of the types for which it has received accreditation.

If a school–or a degree program within a school–is not accredited by a competent body then it has not met the academic standards needed and there can be no confidence in the merits of the "degrees" it issues.

The fact that an institution does not have accreditation automatically creates a cloud of suspicion as the vast majority of non-accredited "colleges" and "universities" are diploma mills or little better.

There is, in particular, little reason for confidence in the institution from which White claims a doctorate–Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Theological Seminary–"Faraston" being a word that was made up by the seminary’s founder, who explains it as follows: "In the late ’80s, after years of God’s faithful watering and cultivating the seed and preparing me, He sent someone to encourage me to take the necessary legal steps to begin the school. The name Faraston is a combination of the name of that individual and my name. Thus, the name Faraston does not glorify any man, but it is a hybrid which is a memorial to God’s continued faithfulness. Therefore, ‘With the name Faraston, we make known God’s faithfulness.’ Faraston = God’s Faithfulness" [SOURCE]).

There are also serious problems with academic incest at the school, which is run out of a hole-in-the-wall.

Now, White has complained before that the photos at the previous link were taken by Mormons and has criticized me for linking them. In doing so, White committed the genetic fallacy, because Mormonism is not generally an indicator of one’s ability to operate a camera. Unless he wishes to maintain that the photos were reutered (which he has not), then I assume that they are genuine, and they speak ill of the resources that the school has at its disposal. It is difficult to see how any serious doctoral-level academic program could be administered from an institution with such meager resources.

The fact is that White has not made the sacrifices needed to attend an accredited school and thus there can be no confidence whatsoever that his "doctorate" is comparable to those issued by accredited institutions (say, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School). White therefore should not be referred to by the title "Dr." He should not hold himself forth to the public as a doctor, and it cheapens all doctorates everywhere to concede social recognition to unaccredited degrees and thus the diploma mill industry that pumps them out.

I therefore follow the practice of simply referring to James White as just "James White."

BTW, I should also issue

THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post faults distance learning. I have no problem at all with distance learning as long as it meets academic standards equivalent to those of traditional study programs. I’m sure that, in time, more doctorates will be available from accredited institutions via distance programs, but accreditation is the key to establishing a baseline level of confidence in these programs. Without accreditation, "distance doctorates" must be regarded in the same light as other unaccredited degrees.

Yesterday, Michelle wrote THIS POST about James White’s attitude problem, as manifested in THIS POST, following which White responded with THIS THIRD POST.

In his reply, White complains that "Michelle does not respond to the foundational platform of the argument: Rome’s teachings about worship."

Previously, I have pointed out the difficulty that White’s excessively snotty writing style poses for getting people to respond to the substance of his aruments. He enmeshes the substance in such a matrix of yuck that it is a tedious and frustrating process to extract them.

His latest response was a case in point.

I won’t respond to White’s arguments in this post (that’s not the point of this post; I’ll respond in a different one), but let’s look at just how much junk has to be filtered out in order to get at the arguments. In the below-the-fold section of this post, I’ll reproduce James White’s post with all the material that is not related to his arguments against "Rome’s teachings about worship" crossed out (e.g., complaints about others’ attitudes, complaints that others are not sufficiently familiar with White’s own works, defenses of the attitude he has taken).

One word leaps to mind to describe the amount of junk in the post that has to waded through.

Amazing.

Continue reading “”

Rhetorical question: When an anti-Catholic Evangelical Christian apologist sees a story about Catholic bishops in southern Africa telling their priests to stop moonlighting as witch doctors for native peoples, does he sigh with relief that the Catholic bishops are defending Christianity or does he immediately start to wonder why the Catholic bishops are complaining?

"Rome is having [a problem] with its priests in Africa "moonlight[ing] as witch doctors" (to use CNN’s language), or, more specifically, engaging in prayers to ancestors and in general developing a syncretism between Roman Catholicism and native tribal and regional religions. While one’s first thought was, ‘Goodness, if a minister in our church were found to be engaging in such idolatry, they would not be "exhorted" to cease, they would be removed forthwith,’ another thought followed quickly. Given Rome’s violation of biblical teaching regarding prayers to saints and angels, and in particular, given Rome’s exaltation of the humble handmaid of the Lord to the Queen of Heaven, isn’t this rather understandable?

"I mean, put yourself in the sandals of the person attending the Roman Church in the bush of Africa somewhere. All you’ve known has been tribal religion, but you also hear about this religion called Catholicism. And so you go to the services and they are sacrificing their god upon an altar and praying to this exalted woman named Mary (could you differentiate between her and one of your tribal deities? Could you? You really think pleading the meaning of ‘hyperdulia’ is going to work here?) and to spirits like Michael and they are lighting candles and bowing and praying toward a box with something the priest consecrated and put in their and toward images and statues — just what should we expect folks are going to think? And put yourself in the position of the priest in that rural location. Is he going to really be in a position to attempt to engage in the kind of double-speak Rome’s apologists have to use to get around the Bible’s prohibition against the very kind of spiritism that is part and parcel of the surrounding culture?"

GET THE POST. (Slight formatting added.)

Stuff like this can really offer insight into the stumbling blocks to conversion facing some anti-Catholic Evangelical Christian apologists. Not only is there a distinct lack of charity toward the bishops who are addressing the problem, but there is a boatload of snobbery toward people of other cultures who this apologist presumes do not have the intelligence to know the difference between the Blessed Virgin Mary and "tribal deities" or between hyperdulia and idolatry, and snobbery even toward a "rural priest" presumed not to know how to teach the Christian faith in third-world cultures.

A reader called my attention to the fact that James White has posted another piece involving me.

YOU CAN READ IT HERE.

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.

James White has written two more posts in the continuing discussion.

YOU CAN READ THE FIRST ONE HERE.

AND THE SECOND ONE HERE.

My response is in the below-the-fold section for those who are interested.

(Frankly, I’m sick of this myself, though I feel a fiduciary responsibility to have one more post on this aspect of the discussion.)

(Also, in view of my lengthy response below, this was the only post I had the chance to write last night.)

Continue reading “James White Responds Again–Twice”

James White has responded to my response.

YOU CAN READ HIS RESPONSE HERE.

Unfortunately, Mr. White wrote his response without having seen the first of the two posts I wrote yesterday.

This is evident from two facts:

1) He makes no effort to modify his ad hominem/insult/jab style of apologetics.

For example, he writes:

How amazing! Does Mr. Akin truly believe his audience will either 1) completely trust him so that they will not even consider what I have written, or 2) blindly ignore the glaring misrepresentation he presents, which flies in the face once again of all my published works wherein I have discussed the relationship between Scripture and lesser authorities, again for over a decade? I am left wondering just who it is Mr. Akin is writing for. Surely it is not for anyone who is listening to both sides!

2) He repeatedly indicates that he is under the impression that the post that occasioned this exchange was responding to him.

For example, he writes:

Akin chose to attempt to address a question about my view of the Corban rule.

He also says that he is perplexed by things that he would have understood if he had seen the first post.

So he simply didn’t see it. I’d assumed he would, but he didn’t.

Now, I’m not going to kick a man when he’s down. This isn’t a situation of soldiers in mortal combat, where your duty is to exploit your opponent’s weaknesses in order to win. This is meant to be an intellectual exchange designed to get at the truth. It’s about truth, not winning.

So I’m not going to try to exploit the fact that White is missing some important information here and that partly shapes his response.

Instead, I want to do the most gentlemanly thing I can, which is to point out the existence of the first post and then give James a chance to modify his response before I interact with it.

He may wish to edit his existing post or he may wish to compose a new, supplementary post, or he may wish to do nothing. If he does the latter, though, I’d ask that he e-mail me so that I’ll know that he’d like to let his existing reply stand.

White also indicated–if I read him right–that he was perplexed by the structure of my argument, so I’ll provide a brief summary here in case that helps him reformulate his response. It’s in the below-the-fold section of this post.

One thing I want to ask is that the readers don’t make snarky comments in the combox about the fact that James missed the first post. No "James White hasn’t done his homework. Haw-haw," stuff, please. He simply didn’t see it. Let’s let him have a chance to read it and then reformulate his response in a dignified manner.

Thanks.

Continue reading “James White Responds”

James White has now supplied a current description of his thought on the korban passage and sola scriptura, so let’s look at what he says.

His basic assertion seems clear. Referring to the korban passage, Mr. White refers to

Jesus’ plain teaching that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of God’s Word, even those that claim to be divine in origin.

By "God’s Word," Mr. White means "Scripture," and "even those that claim to be divine in origin" is subsumed by "all," so his claim is that

Jesus’ plain teaching [is] that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture].

If Mr. White’s claim is not that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of Scripture, I am open to correction on this point.

Now, claiming that the above principle is Jesus’ "plain teaching" is a pretty strong claim. In order for a teaching to be plain, there must be (a) an act of teaching and (b) this act must have the quality of plainness–meaning that its meaning is easily ascertained.

A common way that teaching a principle is done is by stating a principle forthrightly. When Jesus gives the great commission he states forthrightly that the apostles are to baptize the nations (Matt. 28:19).

This is not the only way that teaching can occur. One can, for example, teach by stating a principle in a veiled manner. Jesus did this when he used parables, such as the Parable of the Sower and the other kingdom parables (Matt. 13).

By stating matters in a veiled manner, however, the teaching no longer enjoys the quality of plainness, since the veiled nature of the teaching prevents its meaning from being so easily ascertained.

It is also possible to teach without stating a principle at all. This happens when one "teaches by example," as when Jesus himself is baptized even though he has no intrinsic need of it himself (Matt. 3:13-14).

A difficulty for obtaining "plain teachings" from situations that involve "teaching by example" is that there is no explicit statement of principle, meaning that–while it is possible to determine something from the example, the precise extent to which the example is to be followed (or avoided) is often unclear.

This constitutes a difficulty for Mr. White since in Mark 7’s passage on the korban custom, Jesus does not state forthrightly that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of Scripture. Neither does he state this in a veiled manner such as with a parable. Instead, the most that can be said is that he is teaching a principle without a statement of principle, simply by his example.

Since it is very difficult to obtain "plain teaching" from instances of teaching by example, Mr. White will have a difficult time establishing the idea that "we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture]" from this passage.

So what kind of argument does he use to support his claim?

Continue reading “White On Korban & Sola Scriptura”

James White has periodically complained about certain Catholic apologists not wanting to interact with him, and this week I was reminded of why.

AS ILLUSTRATED BY THIS POST,

he just can’t resist ad
hominems, insults, and little jabs, and he has a constant assumption that he is of such
unique importance that people in the field must be intimately
familiar with whatever he writes or says or they reveal their own
inadequacy.

This makes it difficult to interact with his arguments because of the obnoxious way he presents them.

So here’s what I’m going to do.

First–in this post–I’m simply going to document how the way that James conducts himself makes it hard for others to interact with him and then–in a second post–I’ll lift the arguments he makes out of the matrix of snottiness in which he embeds them and interact with them directly.

The reason I’m taking this two-post approach is that James’s ungentlemanly style has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments he makes, and I don’t want the two subjects to be entangled.

Since the manner in which White conducts himself toward other apologists is more of a matter between apologists, you may not be as interested in this subject.

Fair enough. If this isn’t your cup of
tea, I totally understand.

So I’ll place it below the fold in this post
so that it doesn’t take up further home page real estate.

Continue reading “You’re So Vain; I Bet You Thought That Post Was About You”

If you’re ever in doubt over whether someone who insists that he is not anti-Catholic really is anti-Catholic, drop in on his blog when a story that highlights the foibles of some Catholic is making the rounds of the blogosphere. Does he carefully note that such a story may be silly but reflects poorly only on the Catholic in question and not the Church as a whole? Or does he snatch up this handy stick and start using it to beat the Church while ignoring those Catholic bloggers who are decrying the silliness?

Case in point: When a Polish Dominican friar, not a monk as the press claimed, sought a recording of John Paul II’s heartbeat for playback at a Christmas Mass, Catholic bloggers rolled their eyes and duly noted that this was a Bad Idea. It wouldn’t have taken an Evangelical blogger much research to find the posts by Mark Shea, Amy Welborn, and JimmyAkin.org (written by yours truly). You would expect an Evangelical apologist who vigorously denies charges of anti-Catholicism to report on such posts in his coverage of the subject. At the very least you would expect him to refrain from giving the impression that all Catholics or the Church as an institution approve of such goings-on.

In the case of Evangelical apologist James White that just ain’t the case.

White not only reaches for the stick and starts swinging; but, in his eagerness to make the Church look bad, he repeats a basic error in the media report:

"Monk [sic] Seeks Recording of JPII’s Heartbeat: OK, this is just plain creepy, but then again, the listing of what Frederick had at the castle church at Wittenberg is just as creepy, just not high-tech. There is something so very non-Christian about this kind of thing you wonder how anyone with a scintilla of respect for biblical teaching could possibly find it attractive."

GET THE POST.  (The quote is current as of my visit on 12/20 at 12:40 PM Pacific Time.)

Had White bothered poke around some of the major Catholic blogs, of which he has demonstrated in the past that he is a reader, he would have found out that Dominicans are friars, not monks. (Yes, Mr. White, there is a difference.) But then he would have seen that this particular news story was of an anomaly in the Catholic world, not representative of Catholicism in general, and wouldn’t have had nearly as much fun giving his own readers the impression that Catholics do not have "a scintilla of respect for biblical teaching."

Although the particular "relic" in this case — JPII’s heartbeat — is of questionable taste, authentic relics are not "creepy." Catholics appreciate them because they have much more than "a scintilla of respect for biblical teaching."

READ ABOUT THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR RELICS.