No, you could check it out of the library. If the price of the book is problematic, take it up with the publisher. Surely you don't think I had anything to do with that.

 

What I'm not willing to do is reprise a rather complex socio-historical argument that takes an entire book to make for the sake of each and every person who feels slighted in some way. You have one quotation, obtained at second hand, and want me to substantiate that outside the context of the argument I make (which, at its most basic level, is that in the countercult considered as a social movement there is a difference in degree between people like Hunt, Marrs, Chick, Groothuis, White, and others, but not an essential difference in kind). That is the not-insignificant point that has been utterly lost on people like Jeff Downs, who admits that he is unequipped to appreciate the sociological argument I am presenting. As a most basic point, however, I regard your characterization of Roman Catholicism as "not in possession of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and cannot, therefore, be considered a Christian church" (1990: 19) as an "egregious distortion." However, that said, there are a number of salient points. (1) Are you entitled to this opinion? Absolutely. (2) Am I in any doubt about the logical and theological processes and arguments you used to arrive at it? Nope. (3) Am I entitled to my considered opinion about your claim? Yup. (4) Are you entitled to disagree with me? See (3). And, (5) are we ever likely to agree? Doubt it.

 

Douglas E. Cowan

---

No, you could check it out of the library. If the price of the book is problematic, take it up with the publisher. Surely you don't think I had anything to do with that.

Sir:

No, you didn't.  I've written many books, and I do not set the price.  However, your reply to my request for documentation included the phrase "buy my book."

What I'm not willing to do is reprise a rather complex socio-historical argument that takes an entire book to make for the sake of each and every person who feels slighted in some way.

Of course, no one is asking you to.  I am truly not overly interested in your particular viewpoint on the subject of Christian apologetics ministries, approaches, etc.  I am interested in the fact that you mention me by name and accuse me of presenting "egregious distortions" of Roman Catholic teaching.

You have one quotation, obtained at second hand, and want me to substantiate that outside the context of the argument I make (which, at its most basic level, is that in the countercult considered as a social movement there is a difference in degree between people like Hunt, Marrs, Chick, Groothuis, White, and others, but not an essential difference in kind).

I see.  May I ask you, sir, how many of my books you have examined?  And how many debates have you listened to or watched, so as to determine, on a scholarly level, the differences in "degree" so as to be able to say there is no difference in "kind"?  I am sure you value doing solid scholarship in published works, hence, I'm sure you have done extensive study and availed yourself of the available resources.

However, even here, the issue is not relevant: you said I present "egregious distortions" of Roman Catholicism.  You did so by linking my name to two men who are notorious for their utter lack of serious research and scholarship.  Hence, I am asking you to present an example of an "egregious distortion" of Roman Catholicism.  I have addressed the issue many, many times, in writing and in debate.  Surely you realize that in debating someone like Mitchell Pacwa, or Patrick Madrid, or Timothy Staples, that if I were, in fact, to present "egregious distortions" that they would pounce upon this immediately.  Hence, documenting your charge should be almost simplistic, if it is true.

That is the not-insignificant point that has been utterly lost on people like Jeff Downs, who admits that he is unequipped to appreciate the sociological argument I am presenting.

There is no sociological argument in publicly accusing someone whose work involves writing on the subject of Roman Catholicism of presenting "egregious distortions" of their subject matter, sir.  If I published a book in which I wrote, "Douglas Cowan presents egregious distortions in his works regarding the methods and goals of Christian apologetics organizations," I would not respond to a request for documentation with, "Well, buy my book, read it, and realize that Jeff Downs cannot understand the sociological argument I am presenting."  No, it is a direct accusation requiring direct documentation in support of it.  Scholars do not make those statements in print without the ability, and willingness, to provide a meaningful, researched defense.

As a most basic point, however, I regard your characterization of Roman Catholicism as "not in possession of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and cannot, therefore, be considered a Christian church" (1990: 19) as an "egregious distortion."

Sir, I am simply amazed that you would make such a statement.  Perhaps a small amount of definition is required here?

distort:

1       to twist out of shape; change the usual or normal shape, form, or appearance of
 

2       to misrepresent; misstate; pervert !to distort the facts"

It is not a "distortion" to state, as a conclusion of my study, that Roman Catholicism is not in possession of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  If such is a "distortion" then the vast majority of Protestant ministers from the Reformation until the past century likewise were guilty of "distortion."  But such an observation is actually irrelevant, for in the citation you give, I am not presenting Roman Catholic teaching, but my own conclusions from having studied Roman Catholic teaching. 
        In any meaningful use of the language, a distortion would involve the presentation of a Roman Catholic belief, such as, say, Papal Infallibility, and then a misrepresentation or twisting of that belief, so as to say, "Roman Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in everything he says, and as a result, is worshipped by Roman Catholics."  That kind of "egregious distortion" is indeed the hallmark of a Jack Chick when speaking on Roman Catholicism, church history, Bible translations, etc.  But you cannot even *begin* to make a case that *my* writings contain such "egregious distortions."
        Hence, sir, you have failed to provide any meaningful substantiation of your allegation.  Unless you can do so, I do hope you will retract your statement publicly.

However, that said, there are a number of salient points. (1) Are you entitled to this opinion? Absolutely.

Of course.  But it is irrelevant to the published charge you have made against me and my writings.

(2) Am I in any doubt about the logical and theological processes and arguments you used to arrive at it? Nope.

Which is again irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase "egregious distortions."  If I were to write, "Douglas Cowan's book says that anyone who believes in absolute truth is mentally ill," such would be an "egregious distortion" of your writings.  Surely I do not need to be demonstrating these basic issues to you.

(3) Am I entitled to my considered opinion about your claim? Yup.

You did not say, "It is my opinion that James White's conclusions concerning the gospel of Roman Catholicism are inaccurate."  You said I am guilty of promoting egregious distortions of Roman Catholic teaching.  Those are not, obviously, the same things.

(4) Are you entitled to disagree with me? See (3).

Accusations of "egregious distortion" are matters of mere opinion, then, sir?  Is this representative of the kind of research you suggest to your students?  I know that my students would not be allowed to present this kind of argumentation, without documentation, in *my* classes. 

And, (5) are we ever likely to agree? Doubt it.

Sir, this is not a matter of disagreement.  It is a matter of you making a public, published accusation of FACT against me, and, when challenged to provide documentation, all you have provided in response is your personal opinion about conclusions drawn on a theological issue.  There is no logical or rational means to leap from "I disagree with James White's conclusions regarding the gospel and Roman Catholicism" to "James White, along with Jack Chick and Dave Hunt, presents egregious distortions of Roman Catholic teaching."  I am fully confident that you are well aware of the difference between statements of opinion and statements of fact. 

Unless you can provide documentation that would be acceptable by standard scholarly definitions, I will have to conclude that you have no basis for your statements, and I will document this, publicly, along with a continued call for you to retract your false accusation and make public note thereof. 

I trust you will do the right thing.

James>>>

---

It is not a "distortion" to state, as a conclusion of my study, that Roman Catholicism is not in possession of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  If such is a "distortion" then the vast majority of Protestant ministers from the Reformation until the past century likewise were guilty of "distortion."  But such an observation is actually irrelevant, for in the citation you give, I am not presenting Roman Catholic teaching, but my own conclusions from having studied Roman Catholic teaching. 

No one said you were presenting the teaching (y'see this is the kind of literalist hair-splitting that is problematic in so much of the Christian countercult; the notion of nuance is lost a lot of the time), and, I know it's the conclusion of your study. It is your considered opinion that "the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on the work of Jesus Christ (specifically, His atonement) is anti-Biblical and false." It is my considered opinion that that is an "egregious distortion," which I present "as a conclusion of my study," and in the context of the larger argument that is being made about evangelical anti-catholicism (cue the sound of broken record skipping). Not to mention the fact that I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate empirically that "the vast majority of Protestant ministers from the Reformation until the past century likewise were guilty of "distortion."---I assume you mean the 20th century here. I worked as a Protestant minister for 11 years in the largest Protestant denomination in Canada. Your claim would be manifestly inaccurate in that milieu. But, then, since the United Church of Canada was the first Protestant church in that country to welcome gay men and lesbians into both the church and ministry, perhaps we would stand outside the pale as well.

           Hence, sir, you have failed to provide any meaningful substantiation of your allegation.  Unless you can do so, I do hope you will retract your statement publicly.

Nope... you don't agree. You don't have to. Review the book, READ THE ARGUMENT IN CONTEXT, say harsh and critical things about it. Please.

However, that said, there are a number of salient points. (1) Are you entitled to this opinion? Absolutely.

Of course.  But it is irrelevant to the published charge you have made against me and my writings.

Nope. That's part of the argument.

(2) Am I in any doubt about the logical and theological processes and arguments you used to arrive at it? Nope.

Which is again irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase "egregious distortions."  If I were to write, "Douglas Cowan's book says that anyone who believes in absolute truth is mentally ill," such would be an "egregious distortion" of your writings.  Surely I do not need to be demonstrating these basic issues to you.

 

No, you don't, but we're talking at crossed purposes. And, by the way, how do you know I haven't said that? You haven't read etc. etc. etc.

(3) Am I entitled to my considered opinion about your claim? Yup.

You did not say, "It is my opinion that James White's conclusions concerning the gospel of Roman Catholicism are inaccurate."  You said I am guilty of promoting egregious distortions of Roman Catholic teaching.  Those are not, obviously, the same things.

 

How do you know? You haven't seen... what was that? Oh, yeah, the argument in context. I believe that you are "guilty of promoting egregious distortions of Roman Catholic teaching."  And y'know what, I bet I'm not the only one. You seem to have no shortage of folks lining up to debate you...

Accusations of "egregious distortion" are matters of mere opinion, then, sir?  Is this representative of the kind of research you suggest to your students?  I know that my students would not be allowed to present this kind of argumentation, without documentation, in *my* classes. 

No, they're a matter of reasoned argument... you may not agree with the argument or the reasoning or the data that supports it, and that's your right. But wait, you have no idea what the argument is, because you haven't read it.

Sir, this is not a matter of disagreement. 

 Of course it is. How could it not be?

It is a matter of you making a public, published accusation of FACT against me, and, when challenged to provide documentation, all you have provided in response is your personal opinion about conclusions drawn on a theological issue.  There is no logical or rational means to leap from "I disagree with James White's conclusions regarding the gospel and Roman Catholicism" to "James White, along with Jack Chick and Dave Hunt, presents egregious distortions of Roman Catholic teaching."  I am fully confident that you are well aware of the difference between statements of opinion and statements of fact. 

Yup.

Unless you can provide documentation that would be acceptable by standard scholarly definitions, I will have to conclude that you have no basis for your statements, and I will document this, publicly, along with a continued call for you to retract your false accusation and make public note thereof. 

 Actually, I suspect that you would conclude that no matter what I presented... which, by the way, is why I don't enter into theological debates with people when they think eternal destiny is on the line. You want to "document" this, put it on your Web site, call for a public retraction, knock yourself out. You can join Anton Hein, Matt Slick... hmmm, I haven't heard from Jack Chick yet.

I trust you will do the right thing.

 Nah, probably not. Look, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but after as many years in the apologetic arena as you have under your belt, surely you've realized by now that you're not going to win everyone over. You think this is about substantiation of one comment to which you take exception; for me, this discussion actually substantiates a number of points I make in the overall argument in the book.

But, you are 100% correct about one thing. I am very busy. You may have the time to answer and debate online with everyone who disagrees with you (including the 40 people on Amazon who gave Mary--Another Redeemer? or The Roman Catholic Controversy 2 stars or less---comments that will undoubtedly be read by thousands more people than my [I agree with you] outrageously priced book), I don't. I'm afraid that, from this end, this conversation is over.

 

Doug

---

I have, which if you read the book and saw the quote in context you would know. You wouldn't agree, I expect, but you would have an idea how I came to my conclusions. I have a library of Christian countercult material that extends into the hundreds of books (half-a-dozen of yours) and thousands of magazine articles, tapes, etc.

I'm sorry, I did not ask about your study of others, I asked about *me.*  I've written or contributed to more than twenty books, hence, "half a dozen" would be a fairly small representation; you cited from my very first book in your first e-mail, not my most recent on the subject; and I take it from the above that you have not observed, or listened to, any of the formal, moderated debates we have been pursuing for the past decade and a half now.  This would help to explain the error in your book: if you had, you would know that putting my name together with Jack Chick is more than just a little detrimental to the credibility you seek to bring to the subject.

There is no sociological argument in publicly accusing someone whose work involves writing on the subject of Roman Catholicism of presenting "egregious distortions" of their subject matter, sir.  If I published a book in which I wrote, "Douglas Cowan presents egregious distortions in his works regarding the methods and goals of Christian apologetics organizations," I would not respond to a request for documentation with, "Well, buy my book, read it, and realize that Jeff Downs cannot understand the sociological argument I am presenting."  No, it is a direct accusation requiring direct documentation in support of it.  Scholars do not make those statements in print without the ability, and willingness, to provide a meaningful, researched defense.

Once again, context is everything... read the book and dismiss the argument... I don't care. But at least know the argument you're dismissing. As far as I can recall from the research I did into your academic background, you have no training in sociology, so how would you know if a sociological argument can contain that kind of material or not? Once again, you may not think it relevant, but I believe the entirety of the argument is essential. Obviously, we don't agree on this. By the way, plenty of countercult apologists are accusing me of precisely what your example says. Anton Hein in particular has some choice comments.

Excuse me, but placing false statements in a sociological context does not change the falseness of the statement, sir.  I am not talking about your over-all argument, I am talking about a single statement, the assertion that I present "egregious distortions" of Roman Catholic teaching in the same manner as Jack Chick.  It is utterly amazing to me that you could seek to assert that there is some "sociological context" that is beyond me that I could not possibly understand that would change a sentence with truth value 0 to one with a truth value of 1.  That may work in sociology studies, but in good ol' Logic 101, it fails the most basic test.

It is not a "distortion" to state, as a conclusion of my study, that Roman Catholicism is not in possession of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  If such is a "distortion" then the vast majority of Protestant ministers from the Reformation until the past century likewise were guilty of "distortion."  But such an observation is actually irrelevant, for in the citation you give, I am not presenting Roman Catholic teaching, but my own conclusions from having studied Roman Catholic teaching.

No one said you were presenting the teaching (y'see this is the kind of literalist hair-splitting that is problematic in so much of the Christian countercult; the notion of nuance is lost a lot of the time),

Excuse me, but you put no "nuance" on the phrase "egregious distortions," and the phrase has a meaning that, given the other names associated with it, is very clear and, I might add, very false, when applied to my work.  Do forgive me for allowing words to have their meaning in the context in which they were written!  Seriously, it is very hard to take this kind of gamesmanship with language seriously.

and, I know it's the conclusion of your study. It is your considered opinion that "the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on the work of Jesus Christ (specifically, His atonement) is anti-Biblical and false." It is my considered opinion that that is an "egregious distortion," which I present "as a conclusion of my study," and in the context of the larger argument that is being made about evangelical anti-catholicism (cue the sound of broken record skipping).

OK, the only conclusion I can come to, then, is that you believe that you, as a highly trained sociologist, can alter the meaning of words as you see fit without any reference to any external standard.  You either do not wish to accept the meaning of the verb "to distort," or, you feel you can alter it as you desire, so that you can accuse me of promoting "egregious distortions" when in fact all you were really saying was that you disagree with my conclusions.  The rest of us, who do not have graduate training in sociology, are left thinking you are actually using the word in its normal English meaning, and that hence I, like Jack Chick, egregiously distort the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, that is, I twist them and create a false representation of them.  This must be one of the problems of being an exegete: I do attempt to read a text in the context in which it was written.  Your words, grammatically, lexically, and syntactically, carry a meaning.  You may wish to alter that by appeal to some extra-textual issues, but since the readers of your book will not have access to such a context, they will still read a *falsehood* in your words.

Not to mention the fact that I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate empirically that "the vast majority of Protestant ministers from the Reformation until the past century likewise were guilty of "distortion."---I assume you mean the 20th century here. I worked as a Protestant minister for 11 years in the largest Protestant denomination in Canada. Your claim would be manifestly inaccurate in that milieu. But, then, since the United Church of Canada was the first Protestant church in that country to welcome gay men and lesbians into both the church and ministry, perhaps we would stand outside the pale as well.

No question about it.  Evidently your denomination uses the same kind of "exegesis" on the text of Scripture that you are employing in your false statements concerning me.  :-)

Hence, sir, you have failed to provide any meaningful substantiation of your allegation.  Unless you can do so, I do hope you will retract your statement publicly.

Nope... you don't agree. You don't have to. Review the book, READ THE ARGUMENT IN CONTEXT, say harsh and critical things about it. Please.

It is not an argument.  It is a false statement.  But, if you can read the text of the Bible and think it allows for homosexuals in ministry, I can understand your problem in seeing the truth here. 

However, that said, there are a number of salient points. (1) Are you entitled to this opinion? Absolutely.

Of course.  But it is irrelevant to the published charge you have made against me and my writings.

Nope. That's part of the argument.

There is no argument in "James White presents egregious distortions of Roman Catholic teaching."  The statement is a factual assertion.  It is not an argument.  It presents no facts, and you have presented none in support of it.  You have abandoned the rational use of language to avoid substantiating your own words. 

(2) Am I in any doubt about the logical and theological processes and arguments you used to arrive at it? Nope.

Which is again irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase "egregious distortions."  If I were to write, "Douglas Cowan's book says that anyone who believes in absolute truth is mentally ill," such would be an "egregious distortion" of your writings.  Surely I do not need to be demonstrating these basic issues to you.

No, you don't, but we're talking at crossed purposes. And, by the way, how do you know I haven't said that? You haven't read etc. etc. etc.

Puerile gamesmanship.  Abandonment of rationality at the linguistic level.

(3) Am I entitled to my considered opinion about your claim? Yup.

You did not say, "It is my opinion that James White's conclusions concerning the gospel of Roman Catholicism are inaccurate."  You said I am guilty of promoting egregious distortions of Roman Catholic teaching.  Those are not, obviously, the same things.

How do you know? You haven't seen... what was that? Oh, yeah, the argument in context. I believe that you are "guilty of promoting egregious distortions of Roman Catholic teaching."  And y'know what, I bet I'm not the only one. You seem to have no shortage of folks lining up to debate you...

I am simply shocked at the cavalier fashion in which you flaunt meaning and rational discourse.  You refuse to allow "distortion" to mean what it means; you confuse the fact that we engage in debate with the idea that those I debate would then assert that I am presenting "egregious distortions" of their beliefs.  But it has now become quite clear that logic and rationality are lost upon you. 

Thank you for permission to post this.  It saves me the time of having to try to explain to folks how someone in your position can accuse someone else, in writing, of action X, but, when challenged, not only provide no logical or rational response, but go so far as to say, "Oh, I didn't accuse you of action X, I made argument Y."  I leave it to the readers to determine who has egregiously distorted what.

James>>>