Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
An Open Letter to Dr. Lee Carter
09/21/2007 - James WhiteDear Dr. Carter:
I have had the privilege of teaching for the past sixteen years, and am thankful for every opportunity I have to stand before a class of students. It is an honor, but it is truly a privilege as well, one to be taken very seriously.
It is my understanding that during your philosophy class at Glendale Community College on Thursday, September 20th, you had a number of exchanges involving the raising of your voice, interruptions, and very strong and emotional assertions on your part, with my daughter, Summer White. It is my understanding that during these exchanges you not only repeatedly interrupted Summer, but you likewise made claims regarding her being "deceived" and "lied to" by none other than myself. These are, of course, serious breaches of professional decorum. But more than this, the entire context of the encounters, and the claims made therein, have caused me to write this open letter.
Over the weeks as my daughter has been listening to your lectures (I have even listened as well via mp3 recorder) she has noted that you have spent a very large portion of your time criticizing President Bush, the war in Iraq, Republicans, etc. To say that your viewpoints would be aligned with "moveon.org" would be to put it mildly. It seems that there are two topics that come up all the time in your lectures: your dislike of George W. Bush and your dislike of Christianity. These elements appear at some of the oddest junctures in your lectures.
Evidently, the lecture on September 20th was supposed to be on Nietzsche. In fact, it seems that this was supposed to be the topic for a number of classes, but that the actual class time devoted to Nietzsche has been much less than that dedicated to political indoctrination in leftist ideologies. Personally, I wonder why there is such a need for the constant and repetitious proclamation of your leftist political agenda in a philosophy class, especially when this results in significant diminishment in actual instruction on the subjects at hand? While there is always room for application, it seems in this situation that you have gone far beyond application to simple indoctrination. Is this fair to the students who might actually wish to learn about philosophy, and may have need for such basic information in future classes, where your leftist ideals will not be of any use to them? I have often found keeping the future studies of my students in mind a useful check to my personal desires to "ride a hobby horse" thereby failing to give them what they need and what I have claimed I will provide in the course itself.
Moving to the actual events that took place during class, I have been informed that you frequently make negative, and often unfounded, comments about the Christian faith, the Bible, etc., in your lectures. Summer has reported a number of them to me and as a Christian academic I confess that I find it troubling that so often these comments show a very minimal familiarity with the subject at hand. But these came to a much fuller fruition in the encounter in class. I truly wish I had a full recording of the class (a problem I will surely alleviate in all future situations), but Summer's recollection includes assertions regarding the text of Deuteronomy and allegations that to "really believe" the Bible one would have to hold to some form of radical theonomic reconstructionism involving the use of stoning for prostitutes; assertions about the Bible's teaching of the relationship of male and female that involve absolute "rulership" by the man, along with a challenge to Summer to provide "any" text indicating any form of equality whatsoever between male and female (ouvk e;ni a;rsen kai. qh/lu\ pa,ntej ga.r u`mei/j ei-j evste evn Cristw/| VIhsou/ given its ancient context would seem to fit the bill, would you not say?); and the odd challenge, repeated more than once, for Summer to "Google Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" so as to ascertain their authorship. This last challenge, I have been told, included a "$100 challenge" to Summer to provide you with the specific authors of these books.
Along with these was the troubling assertion that Summer had been deceived and, in fact, lied to by me. Her recollection is that you seemed to be incredulous that an 18 year old freshman in college could have knowledge of the original languages of the biblical text, their translation, relationship, issues relating to canonicity, etc. She informed you that she had grown up around the Bible. She has. Some of her earliest memories are related to her father writing books, speaking, teaching, and debating. Want photographic evidence? Here is a clip from a debate I did on Long Island with an Islamic apologist in 1999. At the very beginning of the clip you will see a young girl turning around to see the person who is asking the question in the audience (I have posted a screen capture from the clip above). That young girl, aged ten, is Summer, attending a debate, and listening carefully to the dialogue, on the topic of the deity of Christ in the New Testament. A few years later she attended this debate with ACLU board member and head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn. (I wish she had been able to attend the debates with John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong, but she was not able to). I have notes Summer took in kindergarten or first grade in a church history class I was teaching while Scholar in Residence at Grand Canyon University--in colored marker. I actually took the time to find these notes, and had to chuckle when I read this page (see graphic). See what I see? Evidently, I had discussed Augustine's use of the biblical phrase "compel them to come in" with reference to the Donatist Controversy; then I mentioned the Inquisition ("incosishen"), and the ex opere operato theory of sacramentalism. Likewise B.B. Warfield. But then note Summer heard me speaking of Jerome and Origen, two of the only early writers who knew both Greek and Hebrew, and she noted this, "study hebrew," along with Jerome's date, AD 400. This was one page of three over the course of a more than hour long class. She listened to the entirety of it at age six. My recollection is that you could not believe she would make reference to Hebrew, and accused her of making things up. Ironic how even these old notes prove you wrong, Dr. Carter. I likewise provide here a picture of her and her brother at a Christology class I was teaching for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary a few years later. She has, therefore, been exposed, constantly, over the course of her life, to discussions related to the biblical languages, canonicity, and theology. As I am a critical consultant on a major Bible translation, she has likewise been around critical Greek and Hebrew texts, and has heard me discuss translational and textual issues many times.
Given this information, I am sure you now regret accusing her of "making things up" in class. While she has not learned the biblical languages personally, she has more than a passing familiarity with the subject.
Which brings me to the subject of the authorship of the gospels, and my allegedly deceiving her, or lying to her. I cannot begin to imagine ever speaking to one of my students in this fashion, to be honest with you, sir. But that breach of professional decorum aside, I have to ask you: how do you know what I have said to my daughter about the authorship of the gospels? For your information, she is now old enough to attend my Sunday morning Bible Studies at our church, where I am in the midst of what has been, so far, a four-year long Synoptic Gospels study. We have been working through the Aland Synopsis, tackling every "synoptic problem" as it has arisen in our studies. In the course of said study I have addressed the topic of the authorship of the gospels. It is painfully obvious you do not have any idea what I have said, in any of my more than twenty published books, and many dozens of articles, on this, or any other, topic. It is likewise just as obvious that you are assuming a naïve view of the issue both on my part and Summer's. Possibly you are used to shocking poor Christian students with your erudite observation that, in fact, Matthew, Mark, and John are anonymous works. Luke is known through Acts and Paul's epistles. It is hard to say, but to actually direct a student to "Google" the topic is enough to convince me that you were making the worst, most disrespectful assumptions concerning Summer and, by extension, myself. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
Dr. Carter Responds
09/25/2007 - James WhiteMany have been asking about any developments in the situation my daughter Summer encountered in having a philosophy professor who accused her parents of "lying" to her regarding the authorship of the gospels (though, of course, he hasn't a clue what she was taught on the subject to begin with: Carter assumes everyone who believes God can speak with clarity to His own creation goes to Oral Roberts University or the like). Today was her first class since I posted my open letter. I will have more to say later, but in light of the fact that Dr. Carter began his lecture with a discussion of how "open" and "transparent" he is (in contrast, for some odd reason, to the Bush administration), and how he invites folks to read everything he posts on his website, etc., I provide here the only portion of his lecture that I can consider a "reply."
I get e-mails all the time from religious people all the time who say, "I want to come to your class and talk. I want to come debate you." I'm not going to have anything to do with those people, because I don't want to give them any kind of academic legitimacy. Do we understand this? All the time I get those things. And they are always trying to sell their particular brand of truth. Yes? And the whole idea is to keep them out of the academy. If they want to have their churches, fundamentalist or otherwise, I have no problem with that, but as far as coming into the academy, I got a big problem with that, for all the reasons I just enumerated.
Dr. Carter then goes on to claim he loves the "free exchange of ideas," but, it is painfully obvious, that does not include the ideas of anyone who can demonstrate that he has but a surface level knowledge of the claims he makes regarding Christianity. And since he has refused to even acknowledge my e-mail, evidently, he believes that he is within his rights as a professor in a publicly-funded school to say to Christian students, without the slightest basis, using nothing more than freshman level knowledge of Christian history, theology, or biblical matters, that they have been lied to by their parents, and more so, he cannot be challenged on those claims and actions. The irony is, Carter is as fundamentalist in his hatred of Christianity (and his ignorance of it) as the worst fundamentalist is in his hatred of secularism or "worldly learning." He is a walking contradiction, claiming first that we should have open debate, but then, when challenged, dismissing those who would challenge him as being unworthy to enter the academy. Of course, the fact that I have been teaching in related fields for fifteen years seems to have missed his notice, or, more likely, since it doesn't fit his paradigm, he ignores the facts that stand before him.
So we have yet another example of what is happening in Western culture today. While the culture once gave honor to those who lived consistently in light of their profession of faith in the Creator who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, today those same people are denigrated, their beliefs mocked, not by knowledgeable men with insight and knowledge, but by those who pass off pitifully simplistic arguments as if they are the final conclusions of solid scholarship. And if you challenge them, you are not refuted by argument, fact, or logic, but you are shouted down as unworthy of response. Those who actually love truth do not behave this way, which is why folks like myself take the time to listen to men like Carter, read Pagels (one of Carter's primary sources), Ehrman, and Dawkins, while those on the other side refuse to even acknowledge that anyone on the other side has anything worth saying.
I will make one quick note: Carter says in this lecture that he believes in the "Gnostic Jesus." I.e., the Jesus of Gnosticism, found in the Gospel of Thomas, etc., is amenable to his worldview. Now, any fair-minded person can see that an encounter before his class, or in a formal setting, centered on the thesis, "Which Jesus is Historically Tenable: the Jesus of the Canonical Gospels or the Gnostic Jesus?", would be useful. I am fully confident that I could demonstrate that anyone who thinks that second century Gnostic texts like Thomas provides a more accurate view of the teachings of Jesus than the canonical gospels is engaging in utterly wishful thinking that cannot withstand historical and logical examination. But while the students would be benefited by this, Carter would never allow it, because, of course, to engage in such a debate would be to give credence to a view other than his own. Of course, if he could substantiate his views, and refute mine, wouldn't that accomplish his goal much more forcefully? Yes, but clearly, he supports the "silence the opposition within the academy" viewpoint. This is the way of the person who knows he or she does not possess the truth.
A Second Open Letter to Dr. Lee Carter
09/28/2007 - James WhiteDear Dr. Carter:
On September 21 I posted an Open Letter to you and informed you of its appearance by e-mail. On September 25thyou made reference to people who e-mail you and challenge you to debate in your class, and hence I assume you received the previous e-mails. You have chosen to not so much as acknowledge my letters, let alone reply to any of the substantive issues raised therein. I understand now why: by definition, you preclude believing Christians not only from the academy, but evidently preclude them from deserving your respect as well. This speaks volumes, especially in light of the fact that on the very issue you challenged Summer on last Thursday (the authorship of the gospels) you have been silent in the face of a logical, meaningful response.
Evidently, sir, you feel a call to be a "gatekeeper" for the "academy," and feel that it is your calling to "keep out" of the academy a particular view of the world. To quote you directly from 9/25/07:
So what I want to keep out of the academy, because it has no scientific evidence to support it, reason doesn't support it, and common sense doesn't support it: the view that the Bible is inerrant.This was followed by your assertion that the Bible contains thousands of errors, perhaps tens of thousands. I must admit, you sound very much like one Dennis McKinsey, founder of the atheist publication Biblical Errancy, a man I have encountered many times. The difference is that McKinsey is at least familiar with the responses Christians offer to his criticisms, while you clearly do not feel any need to bother yourself with studying such material, lest you grant "legitimacy" tothe position you detest so strongly.
You listed two positions that you feel disqualify anyone from participation in the academy: a belief in intelligent design, and a belief in an inerrant Scripture. You asserted that these views 1) have no scientific evidence, 2) are unreasonable, and 3) lack common sense. I would like to demonstrate, to those who are not dogmatic anti-Christians, that your assertion is untrue. The fact that you will say on the one hand that you welcome open dialogue and debate, while on the other saying you will have nothing to do with anyone who holds these viewpoints, demonstrates the incoherence of your position and your worldview as a whole.
Let's examine the assertion that a belief in an inerrant Bible (or any inerrant Scripture) disqualifies one from participation in the academy and, evidently--given your refusal to even acknowledge e-mails, and given your willingness to tell Christian students that their parents have "lied" to them about the Bible, even if you haven't a clue what those parents have actually said--from simple common courtesy and respect. You assert that inerrancy lacks scientific evidence. Given the nature of the claim, that is hardly a weighty observation. The claim of inerrancy is not a scientific claim, hence, it hardly needs scientific evidence in support of it. To say otherwise demonstrates an epistemological confusion of massive proportions. But let us go beyond the simple observation that not all truth claims are answered in the same fashion. Let's address the assertion that science debunks the inerrancy claim. This would require an examination of relevant texts, which would likewise require some knowledge of the original languages of the Bible (for the claim of inerrancy speaks to the Bible as written, not to the activities of, say, a scribe in Macedonia in the 1200s and his understanding of the world), history, and other basic principles of historical examination of ancient documents. I have reviewed the materials you have posted on your website, including lists of alleged "problems" in the Bible, and all I can conclude from these lists is that you have a very simplistic view not only of the Bible, but of historical examination of such materials as well. For example, you write,
There are 2 different creation stories and the timelines concerning when man was created relative to the other creatures contradict one another.Do you truly think that Christian scholars are not aware of the issues raised by Genesis 1 and 2? What amazes me, Dr. Carter, is that you do not show the first bit of awareness of what Christian scholars have written on the subject for literally hundreds of years. You show no awareness of any believing Christian literature beyond what you mockingly refer to as coming from Oral Roberts University, or the like. This purposeful ignorance on your part, combined with a wide-eyed gullibility in accepting anything the likes of Pagels or Ehrman produces, is very telling to those of us who actually do read both sides. You use the term "contradiction" in a simplistic fashion, without taking into consideration the purposes of the accounts, their inherent differences, etc., seemingly assuming that the author, or, as you would undoubtedly prefer, later redactors, possessed significantly less common sense and literary ability than anyone living today. In any case, he who alleges must do more than merely assert, and without any assertion, there is little that can be said in response outside of, "No, Genesis 1 and 2 address different aspects of the creation, and hence are not contradictory to one another when seen to be addressing the subjects they address." Or another example of the lack of depth of your materials is found here:
In Misquoting Jesus, Professor Bart Ehrman, the former believer in the inerrancy of the Bible tells how he requires his students to see what each of the Gospels says concerning the birth and death of Jesus. In fact, they contradict each other in their differing accounts.I have not only read Ehrman, I've read his more scholarly work that preceded this one---have you? And I have listened to Ehrman make this very allegation in the context of debate against William Lane Craig. Have you? And I can provide sound, contextual, fair answers to every accusation he makes on that level. But, amazingly, you preclude even the possibilityof such replies, and that on the basis of your own ipse dixit! It is an example of rationality or "common sense" to dismiss an entire spectrum of replies by definition like this? I think not.
Moving to the next criterion, that of reason, allow me to lay this out:
- Given God exists and is personal and the Creator of all things;
- Mankind, as the creature of God, possesses the ability to communicate;
- God must possess the power of communication to be the source thereof in His creatures;
- If God can communicate, He has the power to do so perfectly, in oral or written form.
Is there an error so far, Dr. Carter? Unless you presuppositionally remove the existence of God as a personal being, you cannot say itis unreasonable to believe a personal God who creates creatures with the capacity to communicate can Himself communicate in a fashion understandable to His creatures. Upon what principle of reason, then, would you say it is impossible for the God who created men in His image to use them then as a means by which to communicate Himself, using their language, even their historical setting and context, in such a fashion that the resultant revelation accurately and inerrantly communicates His will to them? The belief in an inerrant revelation does not require the suspension of reason at all; it is not internally incoherent or contradictory. You may reject, presuppositionally, any number of the foundational elements of the argument, but your rejection does not make the argument irrational. We would have to first address the presuppositions of our worldviews before addressing the issue of whether God can communicate with His creatures in a written form, and perfectly. But once again we see that your assertion that to believe in an inerrant revelation is unreasonable is itself unreasonable.
As to common sense, I find the separation of this category out from reason or rationality rather artificial. But since it is a vague category, I can simply say that it is common sense that if God has, in fact, revealed Himself, He could surely do so in such a fashion as to provide clarity to His revelation. Simplistic "common sense" arguments are easy to construct: " It is common sense that all written books contain errors" is easy enough; "It is common sense that God can reveal Himself without error" is just as easy.
You likewise seem to harbor, Dr. Carter, an all-too-common prejudice regarding the holy grail of secularism, the heart and the soul of the Western free thinker, the matter of the religious dogma of Darwinism. Once again the criteria you offer only argue against your conclusions. The scientific evidence is overwhelming in reference to the existence of purposeful design in nature, and no amount of circular reasoning has yet provided the Darwinist with a meaningful way of explaining how random chemical reactions can create even the most basic elements of life, let alone the fantastically complex and purposeful mechanisms we see at the biochemical level. And I speak as one who completed a major in biology with academic honors and was Department Fellow in Anatomy and Physiology as well---in a context where none of my professors were creationists, I note. The order and complexity of life that has been discovered at the biochemical level is beyond argument, and for you, or Richard Dawkins, to dismiss as unworthy of entrance into the "academy" all those who have written on this subject is to do nothing more than demonstrate your inability to engage the topic and fulfill your own words, that truth becomes clear through conflict.
In the same way, it is anything but reasonable or rational to look at the complexity of the DNA/RNA transcription and replication complex that exists in the cellsof the human body and to insist that this complex arose randomly. I would go so far as to say that it is the Neo-Darwinian micro-mutational evolutionist who must defend himself on the "rational" and "common sense" level when it comes to dogmatically giving non-teleological, random forces the credit for the creation of DNA, the blood clotting mechanism, the allosteric enzyme system, glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, electron chain transport (cellular respiration), and the biochemical mechanism in the eye that allows for the recognition of light and hence for sight (the complex including rhodopsin, one of the most amazing molecules in nature). No one with common sense can look at this complex mechanism and say, "Oh, yes, well, of course, random actions over millions of years created this mechanism." The reality of irreducible complexity eviscerates the micro-mutational model at this point, a fact I recognized when I first read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmakershortly after it came out (note how my reading consistently includes the works of those with whom I have fundamental disagreements). This was before the terminology of "intelligent design" became popular.
In few areas has your own attitude of "win the argument by defining your opponents out of existence" come into play with more force than in the field of intelligent design. I regularly read of the leaders in this field encountering the most closed-minded, dogmatic attitudes on the part of their opponents, very similar to the attitudes displayed toward Galileo long ago by a different set of power-hungry priests. I, for one, am looking forward to the upcoming film documenting the modern incarnation of the Inquisition, this time manned by secularists and Gnostics, titled Expelled.
One thing is for certain: when one side has to try to silence the other side, just as you, Dr. Carter, seek to silence the expression of the other side in your own classes, there can only be one reason: you know you cannot refute those positions logically and factually in the presence of a knowledgeable advocate.
And so we see that even using your own criteria, your reasons for "barring the door" so as to pretend that you are protecting "the academy" from the intellectual terrorists known as those who believe creation has a Creator and that He does not stutter, fail. And while you may well succeed in keeping a small classroom of students from hearing the other side, at what cost? And to what end, I wonder? I stand ready not only to engage the topics you raised initially, but those raised in this letter, along with those related to your promotion of a "Gnostic Jesus" vs. the Jesus of the historical, canonical gospels.
In closing, sir, there is indeed one thing upon which we agree: you said recently in one of your lectures, "Truth comes out in the conflict of ideas." We agree. Your ideas have been challenged. What will you do?
---in the defense and confirmation of the gospel
The Monthly Explosion of Anti-Christian Bigotry: This Time with Profanity for Impact!
10/26/2007 - James WhiteWARNING: This blog post contains profanities and vulgarities. I am warning you up front. No, I have not joined the emergent movement. I am quoting a professor directly, from a digital audio recording this time, and it is important to know what is being said in classrooms today by those who detest Christianity and who behave in simply outrageous fashion.
Back on September 20th of this year Dr. Lee Carter of Arizona State University and Glendale Community College accused me of lying to my daughter about the authorship of the gospels in his philosophy class. I wrote an open letter to him about the situation here, and a follow up here. He chose not to respond to these letters. It is clear that Dr. Carter does not believe that anyone who believes as I is a rational person worthy of discourse or even the courtesy of response, let alone common respect.
Yesterday my daughter texted me a quote from Carter's class that left me staring at my Blackberry in disbelief. I texted back, "Too bad that's not on mp3." She replied, "It is." I listened to the entirety of the class this morning while riding, as I did not want anyone to be able to accuse me of isolating things from context. Dr. Carter was going over "Sufi stories," parable-like stories common in Sufism. He errantly indicated that Jesus told parables to help his listeners understand his message (according to the text, the exact opposite is the case), but in any case, he was going over these stories for some reason or another. As normal, Dr. Carter could not avoid going off on various trails, promoting socialism, decrying capitalism, blasting the United States, etc. At one point he paralleled Ronald Reagan to Hitler and somehow made a connection to the killing of Jews. Later he preached loudly about how people do not think rationally, and as evidence he pointed to the election of...George Bush. Evidently, to be rational is to be a leftist socialist. Every time I listen to this man I am left aghast. But never so much as today.
He came to a Sufi story that had something to do with power temptations. At one point (47 minutes into the lecture) he opines, regarding followers of Jesus when he returns, "We don't give a crap about your ideas, don't give us this idea stuff, we can't understand that shit anyway! It's the power we want, man, and you've got miracles...good enough for me!" Then he speaks about how people would not recognize Jesus were he to come back. "They wouldn't know who the hell he was." He speaks of how you might marry someone when you are young and then one day wake up and say, "Son of a bitch! Who is that person I married?" "You were looking through a lot of illusions." In this context then he made the following statement that became the main element of the text my daughter sent to me after class:
And in fact, if Jesus did come back, the most likely people to put him back on the cross would be Christians, and the most likely people to nail him to the cross would be fundamentalist Christians. They would be the ones who would be nailing that son of a bitch back to the cross, because he'd be the one who'd be refuting what they believe, and they wouldn't want that. Fair enough? So the most likely guys to be hammering in the nails, they are the guys who elected George Bush, and believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and don't believe in evolution, because they don't want to use reason, and they don't want to think, they'd rather stick to their illusions that hopefully may convince them that they don't have to be afraid at night when they are all alone, and the devil may whisper in their ears.This quotation comes 49:40 into the lecture.
Later in the lecture Carter referred to someone who was a "shithead" and asked who that might be like, but stopped himself before stating the obvious: he was referring to the President.
I am not writing this post about how grossly unprofessional and offensive a man Dr. Lee Carter is. That really is not even a question, as I cannot possibly imagine any professional acting the way he does during his lectures.
I am not writing this post about the fact that Dr. Carter gives new meaning to the very properly styled psychological problem "Bush Derangement Syndrome." I do find his connection of Bush and conservative Christianity shallow, fallacious, and just plain silly, but again, that's not why I'm writing.
I am not writing this post about Carter's obvious, deep, imbalanced hatred of Christianity. He is surely not alone in that malady in the academy either.
I am not writing this post as a complaint that my daughter's ears have been sullied by Carter's salty language. My daughter works out in the world. She takes drive-thru orders at Starbucks. You would be absolutely amazed at how people talk to her.
I am not writing this post about the language, per se, either. I think it is grossly unprofessional and indicative of a teacher completely out of control, but sadly, things have changed a lot since I was in school, and though I would be summarily dismissed were I to ever use such language, evidently, this is par for the course for Carter. Customer beware. Of course, I have always said, and will always say, "Profanity is for those who lack the intelligence to express themselves in any other manner."
I am writing this post about the prejudiced, bigoted mistreatment and, yes, I will use the term, persecution, of Christians in a public institution in the United States. It is painfully obvious to everyone that this kind of outrageous rhetoric would never, ever be allowed were the object to be Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, homosexuals, or any particular ethnic group. Carter would have been dismissed long ago but for the fact that his vitriol, his prejudice, his bigotry, is aimed at the sole "allowable" object of such things in decaying Western culture today: conservative, truth-believing, life-changing Christianity. No, Carter knows little about Christianity. He creates a straw man caricature of it in ever single lecture I've heard. But the above outrageous, offensive, ridiculous statement, combined with his willingness to accuse Christian parents of lying to their children about the authorship of the gospels without the slightest evidence and in fact against the facts themselves, demonstrates once again the truth of words written long ago, "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:19).
The world wants Christians to believe that if you will just avoid being "radical" (i.e., if you will live like the world rather than being transformed into the image of Christ) then some sort of peace can exist. But the fact is, it is the world that is radical. Think of it: pots in rebellion against the Potter. Creatures denying their Creator. Those who know God exists, recognize Him when looking outward upon the creation, or looking inward as well, and yet unwilling to confess Him, worship Him, or obey Him. That is radical. That is suppression of the truth. And when the world encounters those of us who have given up our rebellion and bow the knee to the Creator they are so intent upon denying, their anger toward us for reminding them of what they are so desperate to forget knows no bounds.
Just a note for those who will respond to this with, "Just have your daughter go elsewhere!" This is the only class where this kind of thing is taking place. As she has pointed out, she has learned more about philosophy in her modern fiction class than in her philosophy class, and is involved with honors classes, and so she is not complaining. If anything, just as I grew from being the only special creationist in the biology department in college (and that in a Christian school!) and from taking an ethics class in seminary from a pro-abortionist (at least back then he let me debate him in front of the other students---and guess who won?), so too Summer has seen the inherent contradictions in the anti-Christian worldview of Dr. Carter, and has grown as a result. In fact, it has made her appreciate the professionalism of her other professors.
Gary DeMar of American Vision Interviews My Daughter Summer
11/05/2007 - James WhiteGary DeMar wanted to hear about Summer's encounters with Dr. Lee Carter, so we did an interview this past week. Summer surely proves "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree." In the second half of the program Gary and I discussed Islam. Gary and I met for the first time in June while we were both speaking for Coral Ridge Ministries in Hawaii. Enjoy the program!
Appearance on apologetics.com Radio
01/30/2008 - James WhiteThis coming Friday night/Saturday morning I will be the guest on the apologetics.com radio program on KKLA with Lindsay Brooks. My daughter, Summer, joined us for the first half hour to talk about her experience last semester with Dr. Carter. Then we pretty well wandered about the apologetic landscape! We pre-recorded the program since...it airs between midnight and 2am! Maybe twenty years ago, but now, I do not guarantee my orthodoxy past 11pm at night. Anyway, as I mentioned the program airs at midnight, and then it will be available on the web at www.apologetics.com.
Team Apologian: Two New Additions!
06/18/2008 - James White
A few months ago I decided I could use some more help with the blog, so I began pondering who to invite to join Team Apologian. Right around that time I started noticing the amount of time, and effort, going into posts here. I had come to know Tur8infan (his nick in our channel) over the preceding months, as he had become a regular in our chat channel. The consistency of his work, the depth of his understanding of the issues, and his ability to provide a God-honoring, biblical apologetic, led me to invite him to join our team. Tur8infan adds to our Presbyterian presence on the team, and is likewise our first pseudonymous team member (lest anyone think he is claiming to channel THE Francis Turretin!). I am excited to have Tur8infan with us, and I will be posting his first article tomorrow. Tur8infan joins our famous graphic on the far left, the writing on his jacket indicating his Presbyterian predilections.
On the right side of our graphic I am justifiably proud to introduce my second-born, she who in my own opinion is a better writer than her dad, my 19-year old daughter, Summer. Many of you have found encouragement in my reporting Summer's encounters with the world of academia, first her letter to President Bush back in her sophomore year in high school, and second her encounters with her philosophy professor in her first year of college. Of course, Summer's presence on the team completely messes up the "really bad looking Calvinist guy" image we were working on, but we will survive. We left the Pyromaniacs in the dust a long time ago as far as having Angelz doing our graphics (thanks again, Angelz! Now let's see a Nadir Ahmed toon!), but now, adding a brilliant young lady like Summer---well, what can I say? We have moved into a whole new realm!
So I welcome our two new team members, and hope their contributions will add to the value of this blog in the years to come. I begin with Summer's first contribution.