|
You've got to give them credit.
They broke new ground, bringing Roman Catholic apologetics
(something most Protestants didn't even think existed!) to the
average Roman Catholic in the pew. And they did it, quite often,
by focusing upon the tremendous weaknesses of modern Protestant
apologetics. It's not an overly difficult task to point out the
gaping holes in the arguments of many opponents of Rome these
days. Jack Chick, Tony Alamo, Texe Marrs, Peter Ruckman, and
others of their ilk, have made it pretty easy to create long
lists of "bad arguments" used by Protestants. And Karl
Keating, the President of Catholic Answers, has been busy
pounding those errors into the ground for many years now.
At first it was hard to argue with the basic
premise: Protestants, Keating argued, use bad arguments,
arguments that require the use of a double standard. People like
Jack Chick will quote anything as long as it makes Rome
look "bad." It doesn't matter if there's another side
to the story, it doesn't matter if someone is being unfair, or
even twisting the facts. Many Protestants actually think they are
serving God by promoting shallow, or even untrue, arguments
against Rome. Keating and his fellows at Catholic Answers
have built up quite an organization pointing out the flaws in
such thinking and behavior.
Catholic Answers also opened the door to
Protestant/Catholic debates. In fact, one of their earlier tracts
speaks about challenging "anti-Catholics" to open,
public debates. They advertised themselves as being on the
"frontlines" of Catholic apologetics, taking on the
"anti-Catholics" and showing them up in public forums.
One of the things that has been attractive
about Catholic Answers publications has been their use of
humor. Of course, as anyone knows, you run risks when you try
using "funnies," and one can argue that even early on Catholic
Answers went "beyond the line" at times. But most
often the attempts at humor were in good taste.
Changing Times
But times change, and so has Catholic
Answers. At first it was the dynamic duo of Karl Keating and
Patrick Madrid. I met both in August of 1990 in Long Beach when I
first debated Catholic Answers. Soon I got to know Mark
Brumley as well. And back then, the "darling" of Catholic
Answers was a man who they don't even mention anymore as
having been on their staff: Gerry Matatics. It seems Matatics
made the fatal mistake of "going out on his own." The
controversy, and rancor, that exists between Keating and Matatics
is beyond the scope of this article, though I think it speaks to
the development, even years ago, of an attitude we see rather
clearly today.
With the departure of Matatics in January of
1991, Catholic Answers began looking for someone to take
his post. James Akin, a recent convert to the Church, was hired.
Mark Brumley left the staff, leaving Keating, Madrid, and Akin as
the key players for quite some time. Then, in 1995, Patrick
Madrid left his long-time position as Vice President of the
organization, and moved out on his own, starting Envoy
Magazine. Madrid is now advertising his publication (which
bears remarkable similarities to This Rock) as the
"next generation" in Catholic apologetics. It's hard
not to read such a slogan without asking, "What was the
previous generation?" And one can only answer, "Catholic
Answers."
Which brings us up to date. Karl Keating and
James Akin are the principal players in Catholic Answers
as I write in October of 1996. Certainly they are about the only
people we can look to as responsible for what appears in the
pages of This Rock magazine. And hence it falls to them to
explain the actions and attitudes portrayed in that publication.
Me and This Rock
Over the years I have found my name mentioned
in This Rock fairly regularly. Such is hardly surprising,
as I have taken a leading role in responding to the claims of
Rome and especially those of Catholic Answers. I have had
the opportunity of engaging in nineteen public debates against
the leading Roman Catholic apologists (not including radio
debates), and have had a number of books published on the
subject. I would expect that a magazine dedicated to Roman
Catholic apologetics would take note of someone who is publishing
books that specifically mention Catholic Answers and who
is providing a Protestant response to their claims. However, the kinds
of responses I've received have been most disappointing.
I sent copies of my first books on Roman
Catholicism to Catholic Answers as soon as they were
published. Hence, Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid have had those
books for more than six years now. James Akin has had access to
them almost as long. When my newest book on Roman Catholicism
came out, The Roman Catholic Controversy, I sent copies to
Keating, Akin, and Madrid, free of charge. This work is published
by Bethany House Publishers, one of the largest Christian
publishing houses in the United States. One would think
that This Rock would have a review and response on its
front cover in short order.
All of this assumes, of course, that the
intention of Catholic Answers is to do what they chide
others for not doing: provide a meaningful, scholarly,
fair, correct review and response to those arguments presented
against their position. That is, anyway, what they say
they are about. The problem is, as history shows, they operate
upon a glaring double standard at this point. While insisting
that Protestants should eschew the unfair and inaccurate
representations of Jack Chick or Alberto Rivera or Tony Alamo,
they themselves are willing to engage in just as unfair and
inaccurate representations of Protestant apologists and
positions. I can address this fact directly, for I, more than
almost anyone else, have been so misrepresented by Catholic
Answers.
The Mirror Image Effect
One of the greatest blessings from the hand of
the Lord in my own ministry is that He has pressed me to work in
more than one area. I began working with Mormons, and continue in
that area to this day. I have led a team of volunteers in
witnessing to Mormons at the General Conference of the LDS Church
in Salt Lake City consistently for the past twelve and a half
years (25 consecutive Conferences). But it was not long before we
were responding to the claims of the Watchtower Society as well.
And then the opportunities to respond to Rome's claims began to
arise as well. And years later, the entire King James Only issue
fell into my lap (I was not looking for such an
opportunity, I assure you!). I have had the opportunity of
teaching, on both the undergraduate and graduate levels, in
Greek, Church History, and Systematic Theology. Each of these
challenges has had a very beneficial effect: it has allowed me to
avoid the "mirror image" effect.
What is the "mirror image" effect?
Quite simply, we tend to become the mirror image of the group or
groups we "fight" against. We often sink to their
level, and having done it once, it is easier to do it a second
time. Eventually, unless the Lord intervenes through the wise
counsel of others, we end up using the same tactics, and engaging
in the same kind of false argumentation, as those we oppose.
The temptation toward such a stance is great. I
have often encountered people, for example, that I knew
could not hold me to any particularly high standard of
truthfulness regarding the subjects we were discussing. Young LDS
people, for example, are "easy pickings" for someone
who has studied LDS theology as much as I have. It would be easy
to use arguments with them that I would never use with a
better-read Mormon person. It would be easy to appeal to
emotions, use arguments that engage in sensationalism, and the
like, in such situations. And yet I ask God to keep me from doing
that. Why? Because I believe that more than anything else, I have
to honor God by speaking the truth in love. Anything less is
dishonoring to Him, and dishonoring to the ministry to which I
have been called.
The fact that the Lord has led me to respond to
numerous viewpoints, rather than just one, has been most
helpful in resisting the "mirror image" effect. You
can't over-react to one group, without exposing yourself to
attack by one of the others with which you work. You must be
balanced in all areas, including biblical exegesis, forms of
argumentation, etc. While your unwillingness to use
"bad" arguments may get you in trouble with some on
your side of the fence who do use them, the end result
(the glory of God) is well worth it.
Mirror Image and Catholic Answers
A fair analysis of past trends, and recent
publications, from Catholic Answers reveals that the
mirror image effect is alive and well, and Catholic Answers
has succumbed-deeply-to its grasp. It didn't happen overnight. It
took time. But it's happened, sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.
It can be seen in many ways. Let's look at just a few of them.
One thing we immediately note is that while Catholic
Answers takes as evidence of inability on the part of their
opponents the paucity of response to Roman claims, and has often
touted the refusals of individuals to debate them as
evidence of the rightness of their position (see the June,
1996 This Rock for an article by Robert Sungenis doing
this very thing), how good, really, is the Catholic Answers
track record? Karl Keating has had a standing challenge from me
to debate since August of 1990. He refuses to do so. When I
invited Catholic Answers to debate the Papacy during the
Papal visit to Denver in 1993, they declined, saying they didn't
think it was a proper time to do debates. However, once they
learned that I then arranged debates with Gerry Matatics during
the same period, they arranged a debate with Bill Jackson and Ron
Nemic on sola scriptura, which took place on the same
night as the second half of my debate with Gerry (precluding my
attendance). I finally got Patrick Madrid to debate sola
scriptura a few months later in San Diego. That lead to even
more evidence of the decline of the organization, and I will note
this in a moment.
None of the current staff members of Catholic
Answers have, in fact, debated me in public. James Akin and I
appeared on CRI's Bible Answer Man Broadcast, but as
anyone knows, call-in radio programs are not debates. [Though, I
note that did not stop Catholic Answers from sending out a
fund-raising letter, in which they identified the program as a
"debate" and, of course, declared James Akin the
"winner," calling it a "slam dunk" that you
could obtain as a premium for a mere $100 donation, or for $18.00
if you simply ordered the tapes. I note, with some irony, that we
make the same radio discussion available for $8.00.] Gerry
Matatics is not only no longer with Catholic Answers, but
it seems that they wish he never had been on their staff (when
Keating wrote an article responding to Gerry's involvement in
traditionalistic movements, he skipped right over the period of
time during which Gerry worked for him); Madrid likewise is gone,
and is publishing a magazine that, for all intents and purposes,
is in direct competition with This Rock. Hence, Catholic
Answers cannot claim, as they have so often in the past,
"We've already debated you," since none of their
current staff, in point of fact, has.
Some Examples
But does Catholic Answers engage in the
same kind of behavior they decry in others? The simple fact is,
yes, they do. While they've managed exactly one meaningful
article in response to all the books I have written (James Akin's
early reply, based upon a letter he had written to me, to my very
first book, The Fatal Flaw), the rest of
their uses of my name have been little more than personal (and
often, false) attacks. I should note that they often attempt to
provide short replies to my arguments in their "Question
from Readers" section, many times simply making up the
question as they go along, though they often neglect to mention
the source of the "question." The first example of this
is found in Patrick Madrid's article, written, ostensibly, as a
review of our San Diego debate on sola scriptura, titled,
not surprisingly, The White Man's Burden. I will not enter
into the many errors and misrepresentations (and snide remarks)
found in this article here, for I have done so fully in my
rebuttal, which will be found on our web page. For our purposes, we
can pass over such lines as "cocky Fundamentalist" and
focus upon one particular example of the mirror image effect
manifesting itself in the very highest echelons of Catholic
Answers.
Shortly after the debate I pointed out to Karl
Keating in the Catholic Information Network echoes
(prior to the explosion of involvement in the Internet) that
Patrick had not only misrepresented the doctrine of sola
scriptura (a fact I have documented over and over again), but
that he had completely failed to respond to the definition of the
doctrine I had presented in the debate. Since I was the
Protestant, defending and defining the position, it would
be incumbent upon Patrick to respond to my
position, or no debate is taking place. It was pointed out to
Karl that if someone were to debate him on the Immaculate
Conception, common sense and common courtesy would demand that
the real doctrine of the Immaculate Conception be debated.
The Protestant would have no right to say, "Well, most Roman
Catholics don't know what the real doctrine is, so I'll
respond to what most Roman Catholics think the doctrine
is." Such a person would have no right to redefine the
parameters of the debate, or the doctrine. And surely, Karl, or
any other Roman apologist, would object strenuously to such a
move on the part of their opponent.
Karl Keating's response was most telling. He
indicated that he felt it was a perfectly proper debate tactic to
do what Madrid had done. He didn't feel Patrick was under any
obligation at all to respond to what I said at all. Those
in the echo were rather amazed at such a response, and pointed
out the double-standard, but no apology was forthcoming. I note
in passing that this is a common attitude among Roman
Catholic apologists in general, as I have experienced their
arguments. For example, when I flew to Toledo, Ohio, to
debate Dr. Art Sippo on justification, a debate moderated by
Patrick Madrid, my opponent felt free to leave the stage while I
was presenting my position. He saw no reason to even hear what I
had to say, and hence, as a consequence, never responded to my
position at all. I guess he figured he knew it better than I did
anyway. Mr. Madrid seemingly had no problem as moderator with Dr.
Sippo's behavior (which included going back to "chat"
with Madrid, and sitting upon his desk at one point, swinging his
legs, and making gestures to the audience). Mr. Madrid had
likewise allowed Mr. Matatics to spend 14 of his 20 minute
opening statement in our Long Beach debate doing nothing but
engaging in character assassination that, to be fair, Matatics
apologized for weeks later. In like fashion, when debating Robert
Sungenis and Scott Butler at Boston College in 1995, both Roman
Catholics got up and left while I and my partner, Rob Zins, were
presenting our materials. Later Sungenis claimed he simply needed
to go to the bathroom. Why both debaters would have such a sudden
attack of "small bladder syndrome" is a bit beyond me.
They could have, at the very least, done what Patrick Madrid did
in our debate on sola scriptura: he asked for a brief
intermission prior to the closing statements. In any case, it is
pretty hard to engage in a meaningful debate if you don't hear
what your opponents are saying. If you don't listen to their
position, you are reduced to doing nothing but presenting your
own-preaching your views, so to speak, and no real interaction
takes place.
The Dragnet Example
I had not been given a greater, more glowing
example of the steady decline of Catholic Answers toward
the very patterns of behavior they decry in others until the
September, 1996 issue of This Rock magazine. It was then
that I found that the transformation is complete: Catholic
Answers has become, quite literally, the Jack Chick of
Catholic apologetics. A little background is necessary.
In the spring of 1995 Bethany House Publishers
released my book, The King James Only Controversy. Those
familiar with this issue know that many of those who
present the KJV Only viewpoint are tremendously volatile
in their expressions, and are want to use insults and epithets
with great frequency toward those they see as "the
enemy." For example, just this morning I was forwarded a
post written by a KJV advocate. As a regular part of this
person's "sig file," which is normally attached at the
bottom of the message, we find the following words:
JAMES WHITE AND GANG AND ALL
HERETICKS:
"...the dumb ass speaking
with man's voice..."
(2 Pet. 2:16)
This kind of vitriolic attitude is the norm,
mainly because the leaders of this movement, men like Peter
Ruckman and Texe Marrs, use such language themselves. Others just
follow their example. Ruckman's writings are filled with insults,
right along with the most wild-eyed, conspiracy-driven
speculations and craziness you'd ever want to read. In like
manner, Austin-based Texe Marrs fills his publications with the
latest theory as to how the world is going to be taken over. Both
Ruckman and Marrs are true "anti-Catholics," defining
the term for most folks. They aren't sure who they hate more: the
Pope or me. I think I normally win out, however, since I'm a
Baptist, and that makes me "closer" than the Pope. A
few years back Marrs wrote to me and described me as the devil
and a servant of Satan. He's only gotten warmer with age.
What does any of this have to do with Catholic
Answers? Well, both Ruckman and Marrs have appeared in the
pages of This Rock many times. Keating even debated Ruckman. Catholic Answers has taken lots of shots at
Ruckman. See, for example, the Dragnet of February, 1990, with
the lead title, "Saved from Ruckmanism!" And likewise
they have often noted the shenanigans of Texe Marrs. The
February, 1993 Dragnet starts with the lead title, "A
message from Marrs," and goes on to document some of the
wild and silly prognostications found in Marrs' writings. It is
most important to note that at one point we read,
Okay, okay. You're saying to yourself that
Marrs seems to be a fruitcake, and why is This Rock
devoting precious column inches to this man? Because the
principles he works from infect many people, including some
Catholics.
We don't know Marrs and can't judge from
personal acquaintance his sincerity, but we see no reason to
rush to a presumption of good faith. His argument is so
outlandish that the more natural, the more reasonable,
working hypothesis is that the man is just out for a buck and
that he knows where to get it: from people who lust after
conspiracy theories - the more arcane or implausible, the
better.
This Rock goes on to make an impassioned
plea to watch out for such people, and to reject the silly
conspiracy theories they promote, noting that even Roman
Catholics fall for such things. Why is this important? Because it
shows us that as of February, 1993, Catholic Answers well
realized that Texe Marrs was not a reliable source of
information. In fact, a few months later they took some more
shots at him in This Rock (April, 1993, p. 6). They rightly
recognized that Marrs is a conspiracy-theory seller, a man who
makes his living scaring other people by presenting as facts
things that are anything but.
Now, follow the bouncing ball. Earlier this
year Texe took another of his shots at me. He wrote an article
that appeared in the pages of that wonderfully trustworthy
publication, The Bible Believer's Bulletin, published by
none other than Peter Ruckman himself. So that the reader can get
the full flavor of this article, we reproduce it here in its
fullness, including the introductory shots by Ruckman (or his
staff):
James White: Scholar in Residence
By Texe Marrs
Taken from the August 1996 Bible Believers'
Bulletin
[The following is a very interesting and
accurate analysis of one of the biggest two-faced, lying
fakirs in the Body of Christ: Mr. James White. We recently
documented him to have lied seventy nine times in 271 pages
of text (The King James Only Controversy), and here we see
the facade under which Jimmy operates. This excellent article
is by Texe Marrs, who publishes some excellent material on
the King James Bible and present world conditions as they
head up to an International Police State with global control
and Genocide for Christians and Jews. - BBB]
James White, a boastful King James Bible
opponent, continues on his baseless crusade to bash King
James only believers. It makes for a rather sad spectacle to
observe critics of the King James Bible like Mr. White
humiliate themselves and show disrespect for servants of God.
I am praying he will be given a repentant heart and know the
grave damage he is doing to the kingdom of our Saviour.
Before they are sucked into this man's
flawed arguments, Christians should carefully consider the
downside of Mr. White's seamy attacks on the King James
Bible. Mr. White calls his organization "Alpha and Omega
Ministries." It must be very embarrassing to White when
people ask him about Revelation 1:11. You see, most of the
satanic and confused new "Bible" translations Mr.
White so avidly supports have butchered Revelation 1:11 and
stripped the correct wording as found in the King James
Bible. In the King James, we read Jesus Christ's glorious
declaration, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last..." But -get this!- the false new versions
shamelessly delete the very words "Alpha and
Omega."
Now, since Mr. White's organization is,
strangely enough, named" Alpha and Omega," you can
see what a royal problem that is for him to try to explain
away. I'm sure he'll desperately attempt to claim that the
words "Alpha and Omega" are also found elsewhere,
in Revelation 22:13. Fine, Mr. White, for now. But what are
you going to do when the apostate Bible scholars remove these
holy words from that passage as well?
Just give them time, and they will, too.
Nothing is sacrosanct with the new translation scholars. If
they can so callously omit thousands of other holy and
majestic words from the King James Bible, even converting God
into "Our Father-Mother," these wicked scribes
might do anything.
I also note that Mr. White has signed
correspondence with the pompous and arrogant title,
"Scholar in Residence, School of Christian I Studies,
Grand Canyon University." Scholar in Residence? We
checked to see . if such an institution as Grand Canyon
University, which I'd never heard of before, even exists. It
does. But, we discovered that its teeny-tiny and just begun
"School of Christian Studies" I has only "2,
3, or 4 instructors on staff." And Mr. White? Well, yes,
the school confided, he is listed as a . "Scholar in
Residence." But the official we talked to couldn't
explain why. The school told us flat out that James White is
not "in residence," has no office on campus, and
has never taught a single course there, though he's expected
to do so starting this spring - in an adjunct status. (How
curious - to claim to be a lofty "Scholar in
Residence" when one is not even in residence!)
Mr. White has written a confusing and
sleazy book knocking the King James Bible. It's no doubt
popular with the growing flock of so called
"scholars" who promote the satanic, new
"Bible" versions; but apparently, White's book has
otherwise met with indifference since its release and has
flopped in the Christian marketplace. Notable, the book was
published by Bethany House, a press that, until the advent of
Mr. White's "scholarly" tome, had mostly gained a
measure of fame for publishing a series of romance-type,
feminine, western novelettes.
Mr. White's book is pitifully flawed. In
fact, it is so bad that, in his newsletter, Dr. Peter Ruckman, a well-known proponent of the King James Bible, has
actually been encouraging his readers to buy Mr. White's
twisted and distorted book and read it. According to Brother Ruckman, once you've read and digested White's book, you'll
know for sure why the King James is God's only preserved
Bible available today in English. White's error-filled
propaganda book is his own worst enemy.
I believe that if it had not been for Dr.
Ruckman supporting the sales of the book in this way, Mr.
White's unscholarly volume would really have been a
marketplace bomb.
Interestingly, Mr. White's book attacking
the King James Bible is endorsed by a Mr. Norm Geisler -his
name is right on the cover. Now, Geisler also just happens to
be a strong promoter of the ungodly Catholics and
Evangelicals Together, the unity document put together by
Chuck Colson and apostate Catholic priest Richard Neuhaus.
That's the papal approved treatise which warns Protestants
not to evangelize Catholics, among other atrocities. It is
telling that White uses the pro Catholic, ecumenical Norman
Geisler to publicly endorse his book.
Let's put two and two together. First, we
know that the Vatican has for centuries detested and
assaulted the King James Bible. Understandably so, for it is
the Holy Bible used by dedicated missionaries who over the
years have won so many lost Catholics to Christ. We also know
that the papacy loves and endorses the new, false
"Bible" versions -just like the ones promoted by
Mr. White and Mr. Geisler. Anyone see a connection there?
Mr. White, unknown at the time, first
gained notoriety when he began to slam Mrs. Gail Riplinger's bestselling, heavily documented book, New Age Bible Versions.
He became a hero of the Bible bashers by authoring a
"report" attacking the Riplinger book. However, Mr.
White's report quickly had to be redone because, as it turned
out, in the report the brilliant "Scholar in
Residence" had repeatedly misspelled Mrs. Riplinger's
first name. He had it as "Gayle," rather than
correctly as "Gail."
Mr. White reportedly lays claim to being a
"Reformed Baptist." Now, the very liberal Dr.
Robert Schuller is a proud member of the "Reformed
Church." l also know I of Reformed ministers who wear
fancy robes and who practice Catholic-style sacraments,
including infant baptism. Some of the Reformed are into
hyper-Calvinistic doctrines and are theocratic. They utterly
reject the Bible's teaching of the rapture of the church and
other prophetic teachings. I don't know if Mr. White is of
this theological bent. Who knows his true doctrines other
than that he definitely seems to abhor God's pure Word, the
King James Bible?
Recently, Mr. White was invited to debate
the King James only issue. Dr. Ruckman, president of
Florida's Pensacola Bible Institute, tendered the invitation
after White bragged he wanted to take Ruckman on. But
apparently, the brave Mr. White suddenly got cold feet. He
declined to go and debate. Doesn't it seem that a
"Scholar in Residence" like Mr. White would jump at
the chance to show off all his worldly-gained knowledge?
What's he afraid of? Dr. Ruckman, of course, is one of the
planet's top Bible scholars: A real one. He doesn't have to
cavort around pretending to be a "Scholar in
Residence." Dr. Ruckman, for example, has an earned
doctorate, and Mr. White does not. He's authored countless
books defending the King James Bible. Could this be a factor
in Mr. White's embarrassingreluctance to debate?
This, then, has been a brief look at Bible
critic, Mr. James White, who rejects the Truth but prides
himself on being a "Scholar in Residence." How
pitiful and tragic is the man who trusts in worldly scholarliness, who deceitfully hides behind a vain title. How
blessed, in contrast, is that man whose identity comes not
from college degrees or earthly distinctions but from Jesus
Christ our Lord. In Him we are all equals. The blood of Jesus
alone is our banner of strength and wisdom.
When I received a copy of this article
(forwarded to me electronically), I wrote a brief response and posted it on our web page. Anyone interested may
obtain it there. Suffice it to say that Mr. Marrs' position did
not fare the examination well, as one can imagine. I thought
little more of it, since, quite honestly, I don't put much stock
in anything Texe Marrs has to say. He's been shown to be
untruthful so often that eventually you just ignore him.
But someone else didn't ignore him. Imagine my
surprise when a friend contacted me electronically and quoted
from an article in This Rock magazine quoting the
above article by Texe Marrs as if it were a factual piece!
At first I thought he was kidding me, since I could not possibly
imagine the level of hypocrisy it would require for Catholic
Answers to quote Texe Marrs as a reliable source of
information! But he confirmed the article and provided me with
the text. Here's what we find in the September, 1996 issue of This
Rock:
Texe Marrs and James White are individuals
known to long-time readers of This
Rock. They are anti-Catholic writers who have found mention
in these pages before. Lately, though, they've been having a tussle between
themselves.
Texe Marrs is a "King James
Onlyite" (a person who believes that only the King James Version of the Bible should be used), and
James White recently published a book
attacking this view.
To give Marrs credit where credit is due,
he unearthed an interesting piece of
information about White. White had been
signing his e-mail (including e-mail to Catholic Answers staffers) with tag lines like: "James
White, B.A., M.A.; Scholar in Residence,
College of Christian Studies, Grand Canyon University;
Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries;
Faraston Theological Seminary." Around
the office we've wondered about the propriety of piling up such titles after one's name (besides, who
bothers using the initials "B.A." to credit himself with having a bachelor of arts
degree?). We've wondered about Grand
Canyon University ("the school where you ride the burro
down to class"), but Texe Marrs
actually bothered to look up the place!
In the August 1996 Bible Believers'
Bulletin, Marrs wrote a piece called
"JAMES WHITE: SCHOLAR IN RESIDENCE" and stated,
"I also note that Mr. White has
signed correspondence with the pompous and arrogant title, 'Scholar in Residence, School of Christian
Studies, Grand Canyon University.'
Scholar in Residence? "We checked
to see if such an institution as Grand Canyon University, which I'd never heard of before, even
exists. It does. But, we discovered
that its teeny-tiny and just begun 'School of Christian
Studies' I has only '2, 3, or 4
instructors on staff.'
"And Mr. White? Well, yes, the school
confided, he is listed as a 'Scholar in
Residence.' But the official we talked to couldn't explain
why. The school told us flat out that
James White is not 'in residence,' has no office on campus, and has never taught a single
course there, though he's expected to
do so starting this spring in an adjunct status. (How curious
to claim to be a lofty 'Scholar in
Residence' when one is not even in residence!)" Now we just need to find Faraston Theological
Seminary.
One will note immediately that Catholic
Answers makes no mention of verifying Marrs' facts, nor of
the source of the article (Ruckman's name is never mentioned).
Instead, Marrs' statements are presented as an "interesting
piece of information," and their factuality is assumed.
Utterly amazed that Catholic Answers
would stoop to such vilification of an opponent by pure ad-hominem argumentation, I wrote a post to James Akin and Karl
Keating. Since Akin later claimed that the post contained bits of
"juicy libel," I posted it openly to the sola-l mailing
list, allowing the readers of that list to see if, in fact, there
was anything even remotely "libelous" about what I had
written. What ensued in this list is most interesting, and
informative. Since these posts were sent to a public list, I
simply provide them below, for they speak, quite honestly,
volumes:
Mr. Akin and Mr. Keating:
Upon returning from teaching my Church
History class this afternoon (12:40 to 1:30PM MWF in Fleming
Classroom Building, 103, if you'd like to drop by the GCU
campus sometime this semester, 3300 W. Camelback Road in
Phoenix), I received a note from a friend of mine who is
lucky enough to get This Rock. At first I thought he was
pulling my leg, combining elements of a recent Texe Marrs
article that appeared in Peter Ruckman's "Bible
Believer's Bulletin" and something about Catholic
Answers. But upon calling him, I discovered that he
wasn't kidding at all.
One of the great dangers in apologetics
work is that we often become the mirror image of the very
groups we are fighting. I've seen this happen to many people.
One of the reasons the Tanners, for example, stand out so
strongly in the field of apologetics work amongst Mormons is
that they have successfully resisted, for a long period of
time, the temptation to use the same kinds of tactics as the
Mormons themselves. They remain consistent, and hold to high
standards of research and behavior. Because of this, they are
often the objects of attack by *Christian* ministries who,
unlike them, use less honorable standards of research and
writing.
In _Catholicism and Fundamentalism_, Karl
Keating took shots at people like Jimmy Swaggart and Tony
Alamo, and for obvious reasons: they deserve such shots. Mr.
Keating was quite right to point out the use of
double-standards and poor research in the writings that are
often presented to Roman Catholics. These people don't check
their citations, their sources, or anything else. "As
long as it reflects badly on Rome, we'll use it" seems
to be their motto. It doesn't seem to bother them that what
they are doing is unfair and unkind. It doesn't matter that
the resultant arguments are a mish-mash of disjointed
"facts" that evaporate upon close examination, and
only confirm some in their choice for Rome. As long as it
works for *some,* all is well. And, of course, it doesn't
seem to matter to them that someone could, if they were so
inclined, use the same tactics on *them* that they use on
*others.*
What an amazing thing it is, then, to find Catholic
Answers acting like the very people they decry in their
own publications! I refer, of course, to the use of an
article out of Peter Ruckman's BBB, written by Texe Marrs,
that purports to "expose" me (This Rock, September,
1996, pp. 6-7)! It is amazing for so many reasons that it's
hard to know where to begin.1) The article in This Rock makes
no attempt to differentiate (as past articles have done)
between what is said by someone such as myself and someone
such as Texe Marrs. If someone treated Mr. Keating the same
way by connecting him with Vin Lewis or some other such wacky
Roman Catholic, the resultant (rightfully) indignant response
would be many, many pages in length.2) There is no mention of
the actual source of this information: Peter Ruckman. Surely
there are many in the audience of This Rock who would realize
how unreliable a source of information Ruckman's publications
are, and how he himself is as wide-eyed a fanatic as exists
on the planet.3) There is no evidence that anyone at Catholic
Answers bothered to check Marrs' facts. This is the most
amazing part. Here we have Catholic Answers accepting
as factual, *and presenting as factual,* the words of Texe Marrs, without so much as a single e-mail or phone call to
me, or to Grand Canyon, to check on things. If someone
treated Mr. Akin or Mr. Keating like this, they would be
understandably indignant. But, we see here how the
"mirror" phenomena has taken place: just as Marrs
could care less about whether his "facts" are true
or not, neither does Mr. Akin. The issue is accomplishing the
goal, which for both Marrs and Akin are the same: personal
attack upon the reputation of James White. Mr. Marrs cannot
deal with what is contained in _The King James Only
Controversy_. And, seemingly, Mr. Akin can't deal with the
follow-up book, either. Hence, both use the same lies to
accomplish the same goal. Rather than dealing with the
issues, both attack the man, hoping to keep their respective
(and vastly different) audiences from ever considering the
words or writings of White that they might encounter.
Since I wrote _The King James Only
Controversy_, I've received many messages from KJV Only
advocates who accept, without question, anything that is said
by people like Pete Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, or Texe Marrs.
They not only believe me to be a secret Vatican plant, but
they likewise believe every single conspiracy theory ever
propounded by these folks, including every single one that
implicates Rome in every evil deed accomplished on earth in
the past thousand years or more. Their implicit trust is
invincible: no amount of factual argument can change their
thinking. Catholic Answers would, of course, ridicule
the foolish theories and claims put forward by these people
against Roman Catholicism. Catholic Answers would, of
course, exhort people to check out the facts presented by
Ruckman or Marrs and see for themselves how unreliable they
are. Catholic Answers would encourage people to
dismiss these men as raving nuts on the basis of their own
words and the errors they promulgate. But, there's one case
where Catholic Answers won't say any of those things:
and that's when it serves the purposes of Catholic Answers.
Sure Marrs is unreliable in almost everything he says about
Rome. But, since he hates James White----well, you know the
old saying, "The friend of my enemy."
The funny thing is, I sat at a table with
James Akin, the *obvious* author of the Dragnet article, and
listened as he decried the very behavior that consistently
comes out of Catholic Answers these days. I was hardly
the only one amazed at the boisterous, arrogant attitude of
the fund raising letter sent out shortly after our Bible
Answer Man Show appearance, using such language as "slam
dunk" while asking for financial support. The sheer
hypocrisy of this Dragnet article is almost beyond belief.
Mr. Akin well knows why Marrs has written his article. Mr.
Akin, if he were forced to do so, would have to confess that
the book that prompted Marrs' attack has gained the respect
of not only Protestant scholars but Roman Catholic ones as
well. And he knows that my most recent book on Roman
Catholicism is so far removed from anything that Marrs would,
or could, ever write as to be funny. But none of these things
matter. Fairness is not the issue. Ad hominem attack upon a
person's reputation is all that matters here. Consistency be
hanged. We have a job to do! Just as This Rock showed Hank
Hanegraaff on its cover with a demon behind him, so the folks
at Catholic Answers wish to demonize their opposition.
But, again, isn't that what Texe Marrs has to do? Yes, it is.
God knows, and James Akin knows, that my
writings do not contain any kind of material like that
produced regularly by Catholic Answers. Every mention
of Karl Keating, James Akin, Patrick Madrid, or other Roman
Catholic apologists, in my newest book, is based upon
*issues,* not personalities. Oh, it would be easy to get into
*that* game. But I continue to strive for a higher standard.
I don't want to become like my opposition, whether they be
hatefilled Fundamentalist KJV Only advocates, or hatefilled
Roman Catholic apologists. In either case, I pray God will
allow me to not become like them.
There is a full response to Texe Marrs on
our web page (aomin.org). It includes rebuttal of lies that you printed in
your magazine. Should you ever visit Phoenix, you might be a
little embarrassed to drop by the campus of GCU, especially
in light of the article you have now published. You see, Mr.
Marrs doens't know much about higher education. He didn't
understand why the College of Christian Studies is
"new." It's "new" because it only
recently became its own college. GCU became a university
about six years ago or so, and as anyone knows, each
department in the old College needs to become organized to
become its own College under the University system. Grand
Canyon has been in existence since the 1940s, is nationally
recognized for its graduates in nursing, education, and
business. Enrollment is a little under 2000 at the moment. I
believe tuition is sitting at $268/credit hour at the
moment---about average for a private liberal arts college in
the US today.
And, if you have the integrity to do so,
you might discover that the person with whom Marrs spoke---a
secretary---had only worked there for a short time prior to
his call. She was not aware that I had taught at Grand Canyon
in 1990 and 1991, teaching Church History. And of course,
Marrs didn't bother to inquire and get his facts straight, so
he simply repeated her error. And, of course, Catholic
Answers seemingly functions on the same basis as does
Texe Marrs. Just as many people run around repeating lies
about Rome and Roman history, so it seems Catholic Answers
has fallen into the same pit. It's a vicious circle.
I am proud of the opportunity that has been
given me to teach at Grand Canyon. I am pleased to have been
named Scholar in Residence for the 1995-1996, and 1996-1997
school years. I love to teach, and my students enjoy the
courses. If you had bothered to care, I could have put you in
touch with students who are active in the Internet.
While you are visiting the campus, you
might wish to stop in and chat with the folks who run the
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary's AZ Campus, located
at GCU. Golden Gate's main campus is in San Francisco. GGBTS
is one of the Southern Baptist Seminaries. I am currently
teaching their Systematic Theology core classes. We are
working on the nature of God, if you'd like to stop in
Thursday evenings from 6 to 9PM this Fall, Fleming 106 is the
room number. Last year I taught their beginning Greek course
as well.
Now as to Columbia
Evangelical Seminary: Columbia is a new seminary utilizing the mentoring system,
based in Longview, Washington. It is an answer to prayer for
many people, as it allows them to study theology and related
subjects without having to quit their jobs and move somewhere
else. As a new seminary, it is not yet governmentally
accredited (unlike both GCU and GGBTS). I have students in
Arizona, California, and Illinois, with whom I am working on
various classes and projects. I have found the experience
most rewarding. If you would like to contact Columbia, you
can do so by e-mail: ces@tdn.com.
Two last items. Mr. Akin has taken umbrage
to some of the sig files---files I have developed for use in
writing back to electronic correspondents. Of course, Mr.
Akin has taken umbrage to just about everything about me,
including the fact that I refer to him as a "Roman
Catholic" (insisting that even this term is unkind---I
should simply call him a Catholic). Mr. Akin likewise calls
me an "anti-Catholic" despite the fact that I, in
referring to him, call him a Roman Catholic apologist. It is
hardly surprising, then, that he would dislike some of my sig
files. The fact that I often *need* to identify myself, my
positions, *and* my educational background, to certain
correspondents, is obviously missed in Mr. Akin's rush to
find something "bad" about me. Back when Gerry
Matatics was involved with Catholic Answers, every
debate began with a recitation of Mr. Matatics' degrees,
background in Protestantism, etc. The double standard is
striking.
In conclusion, I note that this letter will
be made available to any person who inquires concerning this
matter. It will also be posted on our web page. People need to know about the behavior of Catholic
Answers and its representatives. One thing is painfully
clear to anyone who thinks fairly and clearly: Catholic
Answers fears what we are doing at Alpha and Omega
Ministries. As much as Catholic Answers has tried to
marginalize us (and, I note, even Roman Catholics who go out
on their own having once been a part of CA), reminding
readers that we are a "small" group, and as much as
CA has revelled in engaging in constant ad-hominem attacks
upon me as a person (as in Patrick Madrid's "The White
Man's Burden"), one rather obvious fact remains: CA has
provided exactly ONE meaningful article, a number of years
ago now, in response to what we have written. One article,
period. Meanwhile, I continue, by God's grace, to write,
lecture, and debate. I don't have to play the game Catholic
Answers is now playing. I don't have to waste my time
trying to make Karl Keating or James Akin look
"bad" or "mean" or anything else. You
see, the people I am trying to reach, those who are seriously
interested in the FACTS of the issues between Rome and the
Bible, are not impressed by such behavior. They can see
through mud-slinging. They want the truth, and every moment
wasted in attacking *people* is a moment you haven't spent
satisfying *their* needs. And that is why Catholic Answers
fears Alpha and Omega Ministries and must engage in this kind
of behavior: when we respond to claims made by Catholic
Answers, we respond with TRUTH, whether through biblical
exegesis or historical refutation. I will gladly allow the
honest hearted to decide why Catholic Answers can't,
or won't, do that in return.
+-------<<<<<
NA27@aol.com >>>>>-------+
+ +
+ James White +
+ College of Christian Studies, GCU +
+ Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries +
+ aomin.org+
+ +
+-------<<<<<<< Sola Scriptura!
>>>>>>-------+
"Never lose heart in the power of the
gospel. Do not believe that there exists any man, much less
any race of men, for whom the gospel is not fitted." ---C.H. Spurgeon
[To James on 09-25-96]
To this date (10-1-96), I have received no
reply to this post, outside of Akin's public assertions that it
contained "libelous" accusations.
The next day I wrote another post about the
situation, and posted it to sola-l. Here's what I wrote:
Folks:
Just a quick note, realizing that many on
this list would find this interesting---and, I hope for most,
rather sad. Catholic Answers, the largest Roman
Catholic apologetics organization in the US, has made a
living (and a good one) off of the apologetics field. Karl
Keating, the president of CA, wrote a book that has found
quite an audience: _Catholicism and Fundamentalism_ Keating
took on people like Jimmy Swaggart and Tony Alamo in his
book, pointing out, rightly, of course, that such folks are
unfair, they use lousy information, and they are generally
untrustworthy. Over the years they have likewise pointed out
how others fit into those categories, including people like
Peter Ruckman and Texe Marrs, two folks who are not only
rabidly "anti-Catholic" in the true sense of that
phrase, but who are likewise KJV Only advocates.
Since my book, _The King James Only
Controversy_, was published, I have received a tremendous
amount of "heat" from the likes of Ruckman and Marrs. You need only drop by our web page to see a few of my
responses. Ruckman and Marrs use the same kind of irrational
argumentation against me that they use against Roman
Catholicism (these types of guys wouldn't know a decent
Protestant argument if it walked up and introduced itself).
They are equal-opportunity insulters.
So what happens when Catholic Answers
encounters KJV Only attacks upon me? Well, if they were
consistent, they'd follow their own advice. They know Ruckman
and Marrs are not reliable sources of information, they've
said so a million times themselves. They know both men will
"edit" the facts to fit their conclusions, and
hence it would seem, if there is an ounce of integrity in the
organization, that they would not sully their reputation and
engage in rank hypocrisy by repeating the sleeze of Ruckman
and Marrs. Well, that's what you'd *think.*
The reality, however, is found in the
September, 1996 issue of This Rock magazine. In a small
article written, I have little reason to doubt, by James
Akin, we find the quotation---with approval---of an article
by none other than Texe Marrs, found in no other publication
than Peter Ruckman's "Bible Believer's Bulletin,"
in which Marrs attacks my position as Scholar in Residence at
Grand Canyon University. In an amazing display of "the
enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if I tell everyone else
he's a nutcase," Catholic Answers presents as
*fact* the lies and ramblings of Marrs concerning GCU. Of
course, they didn't bother to mention the notice from Ruckman
that preceded the article. It read:
[The following is a very interesting and
accurate analysis of one of the biggest two-faced, lying
fakirs in the Body of Christ: Mr. James White. We recently
documented him to have lied seventy nine times in 271 pages
of text (The King James Only Controversy), and here we see
the facade under which Jimmy operates. This excellent article
is by Texe Marrs, who publishes some excellent material on
the King James Bible and present world conditions as they
head up to an International Police State with global control
and Genocide for Christians and Jews. - BBB]
Of course, CA didn't bother to mention
Ruckman's role at all---how could they? They've debated Ruckman, have castigated him a million times, and they'd also
have to admit that on every single issue upon which Ruckman
attacks me, they would have to agree with *me*! That wouldn't
work, so they conveniently ignore the issue.
Seemingly blowing a mental gasket, the
folks at CA seem to forget that Marrs knows little, if
anything at all, about higher education, and hence blunders
into error after error in his article. Yet, CA, seemingly
also unaware of such issues, and unconcerned about honesty or
integrity, repeats Marrs' words as *facts*, without once
checking with anyone who could correct their error.
Specifically, they repeat solely the recollection of Marrs'
about his conversation with a young *secretary* at the
College of Christian Studies. Ignorant of the backgrounds,
they repeat Marrs' error in making GCU a new, small school
(it's been around since the 1940s, and has nearly 2000 students)---Marrs doesn't understand how a
"college" can be "new" within a
university setting. They also repeat Marrs' error in saying I
had never taught at the school----the secretary was new, and
wasn't aware of my past teaching at the school as early as
1990.
The only reason why Catholic Answers
has done this is obvious: pure, unadulterated ad-hominem
attack upon the character of an individual. And most rational
folks know why people use such types of arguments: they can't
deal with the actual teachings/research/publications of a
person, so, they resort to personal attacks. I am constantly
reminded that Catholic Answers has had in their
possession books I have written as early as 1990---books on
justification, salvation, the Reformed position, Mormonism,
and of course Roman Catholicism. They also have enough debate
tapes against their own representatives, and many others, to
keep one busy for quite some time. And yet in six years
they've produced a grand total of ONE meaningful article in
response---ONE, a brief response to my *first* book, _The
Fatal Flaw_. Since that time they've resorted to the low road
with consistency---taking potshots in alleged "questions
from readers," publishing Madrid's hit-piece that was
filled with errors and lies, and little paragraph-long
insults (such as the recent article by Bob Sungenis). Nothing
more. So it actually makes *sense* that they would start
quoting, with approval, people like Texe Marrs. They don't
have anything more meaningful to say in response to me than
Texe Marrs does. And that should bother *anyone* who is
interested in truthfulness in the area of apologetics.
Others on the list began to pick up on the
issue, and before long, James Akin attempted a defense of the
blurb:
>I trust this note will find its way to Catholic
Answers.
Yes, I got not only this note via
sola-l,
but the previous evening I got one *twice* as long directly
from him. The one he posted here is an abridged version of
one he emailed to me and Karl the previous evening, from
which he edited out some of the more hysterical claims (like
the part about how we at Catholic Answers are afraid
of him).
The longer, unexpurgated version of the
letter contains a number of very juicy libelous remarks,
though the one he posted to sola-l contains a good number of
libelous remarks itself, and he has now posted these remarks
to a public forum.
Further, Mr. White is simply in error. His
whole tirade is based upon the premise that we did not
attempt to check out Texe Marrs's statements. That is false.
Even though we were under a deadline, we attempted to verify
them both by trying to reach Grand Canyon University and by
calling Mr. White's secret home number that he doesn't let
anybody have.
The only thing that was inaccurate was
Marrs's statement that he had not taught in the College of
Christian Studies, which we quoted without realizing it was
inaccurate. (Had we reached James at his secret home number
or found the piece on his web page, we wouldn't have quoted
Marrs's comment. In fact, we wouldn't have run the piece at
all.)
White was apparently in too much a fit of
pique to read what we printed carefully (either that or he is
using misdirection in an attempt to make his case appear
stronger), as he states that we quoted Marrs as saying that
GCU was a new, small school. We did nothing of the kind. We
quoted Marrs as saying that the College of Christian Studies
*within* GCU is new and small, which it is.
This is is part of what White is referring
to when he speaks of Marrs not knowing about higher
education. At Catholic Answers we do know something
about higher education and never assumed, as Mr. White
appears to suggest, that the CCS was created *ex nihilo*
within GCU. I know I, for one, *assumed* it was a college
which had spun off from being a department at another college
within the university.
The CCS is, by any standards, new and
small, as it was started in 1995 and has only 5 faculty
members. The fact that GCU may date from 1948 and has 2,000
students (which is tiny by university standards, anyway) is
irrelevant to the question of how new and small a college
within that university is. White is beating a straw man of
his own creation concerning the size and age of GCU. Neither
we nor Marrs made such a statement about GCU.
White did not teach in the College of
Christian Studies until the 1995-96 term; he couldn't have,
we now know, because it wasn't started until then. In his
rebuttal to Marrs, which I have now read, White (misdirectingly) states that he taught Church History at GCU
in 1990-91, five years before the College of Christian
Studies *existed,* and that he did some substitute teaching
in their Greek classes.
(For that matter, I did some guest
lecturing in the Greek class at the University of Arkansas,
but I wouldn't put it on my resume as proof that I had
"taught a course at the U of A." I especially
wouldn't cite substitute teaching as evidence that I had
taught a course in the U of A College of Arts and Sciences,
if that college didn't even exist yet, as Mr. White does with
the CCS. Who's slanting the facts to support his conclusions
there?)
Even without the single inaccurate
statement, the item would have been an interesting bit: a
"scholar in residence" who is not in residence
(because it's true that James White has no office on campus).
And it would still have its hook--the fact
a tussle going on between two anti-Catholics readers of This
Rock would have known--White and Marrs. (In fact, that is the
setup for the piece: "Texe Marrs and James White are
individuals known to long-time readers of This Rock. They are
anti-Catholic writers who have found mention in these pages
before. Lately, though, they've been having a tussle between
themselves....")
All we would have had to change in the
piece was for the back half of one sentence to go away:
"...and has never taught a single course there, though
he's expected to do so starting this spring in an adjunct
status." That was the only place in the piece where that
is mentioned.
Hope that clarifies matters.
Sincerely in Christ,
--James Akin
My response:
With apologies to the list as a whole, I would
like to take the time to expose the
attitudes and double standards of the organization called
Catholic Answers. It's been a long time
coming.
But first, Mr. Akin makes it sound as if my
e-mail to he and Karl Keating is some kind
of wild-eyed tirade, and that it's "libelous." In
contrast to the regular offerings found in
This Rock, my response was milk toast. The veiled threat of "libel" I find ludicrous. And to
demonstrate that, I provide here the text, in full, of what I
sent to Mr. Akin and Mr. Keating (btw, what I posted here was a completely different post, written the
next day, not an "expurgated"
version of the following):
[ As this text has already been provided, it is
deleted here ]
> The longer, unexpurgated version of
the letter contains a number of very
> juicy libelous remarks, though the one he posted to sola-l contains a good
> number of libelous remarks itself, and he has now posted
these remarks to a
> public forum.
I will allow the participants in this forum
to judge for themselves: read my post from yesterday, read
the message I sent Mr. Keating and Mr. Akin, and then ask
yourself, "Why is James Akin talking about libel?"
I only point out that this also follows the pattern of
behavior that I have emphasized: Gail Riplinger threatened to
sue Bethany House Publishers three times before they
published my work exposing her and the rest of the KJV Only
movement. *I* certainly have never attempted to censor what Catholic
Answers says by even veiled threat of legal action, even
when they continue to print personal attacks upon me with
regularity. So why does Mr. Akin make up this ridiculous
allegation? I will allow the reader to decide.
> Further, Mr. White is simply in error.
His whole tirade is based upon the
> premise that we did not attempt to check out Texe
Marrs's statements. That
> is false. Even though we were under a deadline, we
attempted to verify them
> both by trying to reach Grand Canyon University and by
calling Mr. White's
> secret home number that he doesn't let anybody have.
My secret home number? To what does this
refer, Mr. Akin? My home number is not listed---why should it
be? Do you think I should advertise it so that people like
the KJV Only advocate I made mention of this morning can call
me up at 3AM to tell me I'm going to hell? Such is silly.
> The only thing that was inaccurate was
Marrs's statement that he had not
> taught in the College of Christian Studies, which we
quoted without
> realizing it was inaccurate. (Had we reached James at
his secret home number
> or found the piece on his web page, we wouldn't have
quoted Marrs's comment.
> In fact, we wouldn't have run the piece at all.)
Most interesting! I didn't mention it
(because I wanted to see if you'd admit to it first), but a
while back the same secretary who talked to Marrs last year
informed me that she had gotten a "strange" phone
call. A man had called and asked about me. Knowing, now, what
had happened the last time, she was very careful to answer
each question clearly. She also attempted to get a name, or
in some way find out who was calling. She offered to send
literature about the University, a catalog, whatever, but the
person refused to be pinned down, and eventually ended the
conversation without providing any means of contacting him.
Now, please tell us, James: was that you? Are you folks at Catholic
Answers now spending your time making long distance phone
calls to the places of people's employment to ask questions
without being up-front about who you are and what you are
after? Are you folks not doing EXACTLY what Texe Marrs did,
and for the SAME reasons? If not, please explain the
difference between Marrs' call, and your own. I'd like to see
what the difference is.
> White was apparently in too much a fit
of pique to read what we printed
> carefully (either that or he is using misdirection in an
attempt to make his
> case appear stronger), as he states that we quoted Marrs
as saying that GCU
> was a new, small school. We did nothing of the kind. We
quoted Marrs as
> saying that the College of Christian Studies *within*
GCU is new and small,
> which it is.
< chuckle > Nice try, James, but you
aren't going to escape that easily. Here's the article as it
appears in This Rock:
[ Again, as this text appears above, it is deleted here ]
Now, James, it seems you'd like to give Mr.
Marrs a great deal of credit---far more, it seems, than
you've ever been willing to give him before, that's for sure!
It's painfully obvious that *if* you were reviewing something
Marrs said about Roman Catholicism, you would make the same
point that I did. The idea that Marrs is aware of the
university setting, the existence of colleges within a
university, and the like, is stretching things a good bit.
And, of course, it's utterly irrelevant as well: how long the
individual *college* has existed means nothing. The
department from which it developed has existed since 1948, to
be exact. The only thing that changed in 1995 was the *name.*
I taught for the same department, with pretty much the same
staff people, in 90-91 as I did in 95 or now. It is pure
sophistry to attempt to get around your joint error with
Marrs by blowing smoke across the obvious reason you wrote,
and published, the piece, which was, as I said, a glowing
example of pure ad-hominem attack upon a person's integrity.
> This is is part of what White is
referring to when he speaks of Marrs not
> knowing about higher education. At Catholic Answers
we do know something
> about higher education and never assumed, as Mr. White
appears to suggest,
> that the CCS was created *ex nihilo* within GCU. I know
I, for one,
> *assumed* it was a college which had spun off from being
a department at
> another college within the university.
Assume what you wish, James: you published
*Marrs' article,* or, I should say, a *part* of it. In fact,
I must remember to post *all* of Marrs' article here. I think
the readers would like to see what the entire article is
really like. You excised the only section you *could*
use---the rest is so silly even *you folks* wouldn't get any
mileage out of it. And what's more, when the entire article
is seen, those who think logically and rationally will
realize that your attempt to paint myself and Marrs with the
same brush (as you do at the beginning of your piece) is
simply ridiculous and without merit. It's another example of Catholic
Answers becoming a mirror image of the
ultra-fundamentalist, Jack Chickian-type groups that you
battle so often.
> The CCS is, by any standards, new and
small, as it was started in 1995 and
> has only 5 faculty members. The fact that GCU may date
from 1948 and has
> 2,000 students (which is tiny by university standards,
anyway) is irrelevant
> to the question of how new and small a college within
that university is.
> White is beating a straw man of his own creation
concerning the size and age
> of GCU. Neither we nor Marrs made such a statement about GCU.
< chuckle > I will gladly allow the
readers to judge why the statements were made by Marrs
(especially in the context he made them), and what motivated Catholic
Answers to stoop to reproducing them as a
"fact" in This Rock.
> White did not teach in the College of
Christian Studies until the 1995-96
> term; he couldn't have, we now know, because it wasn't
started until then.
> In his rebuttal to Marrs, which I have now read, White (misdirectingly)
> states that he taught Church History at GCU in 1990-91,
five years before
> the College of Christian Studies *existed,* and that he
did some substitute
> teaching in their Greek classes.
This only gets richer the harder you
struggle to extricate yourself from an obvious faux pas.
Given your thinking now, *no one,* including Dr. Mike Baird
or Dr. Clark Youngblood (who were teaching there when *I* was
a student at Grand Canyon) has taught in the College of
Christian Studies---even though they have taught the *same*
classes since the early 1980s. Just because the department
became a college means, of course, nothing. I taught
Christian History beginning in the Fall of 1990---I am
teaching the same class at this very time. Marrs' reason for
making the (false) statement he makes is plain: he's trying
to attack my credibility. YOUR reason for repeating his error
is just as plain, James. Trying to blow smoke across the
clear exposure of your *motivations* will accomplish nothing.
> Even without the single inaccurate
statement, the item would have been an
> interesting bit: a "scholar in residence" who
is not in residence (because
> it's true that James White has no office on campus).
Yes, it's true! My my, I don't have an
office! What a shame! Of course, my office is within 10
minutes of the campus, so I haven't even *requested* one, but
so what! I guess Mr. Akin is not familiar with the phrase
"Scholar in Residence." It was suggested so as to
provide me with a means of teaching *while at the same time*
writing and researching. It was specifically designed for
someone who would *not* be on campus all the time, but who
could provide his expertise in particular areas while
maintaining his writing and publishing work. That writing and
publishing work, then, would also reflect well upon the
University. Now, I happen to be doing *exactly* that. In
fact, I have sent copies of my most recent book, _The Roman
Catholic Controversy_, to yourself and Karl Keating, have I
not? I would *think* that your time would be better spent
providing a meaningful, issues-oriented response to a
nationally published work that *specifically* criticizes the
conclusions and teachings of Catholic Answers (and
many others) than it would be to be promoting the silly
personal attacks of a KJV Only advocate like Texe Marrs.
> And it would still have its hook--the
fact a tussle going on between two
> anti-Catholics readers of This Rock would have
known--White and Marrs. (In
> fact, that is the setup for the piece: "Texe Marrs
and James White are
> individuals known to long-time readers of This Rock.
They are anti-Catholic
> writers who have found mention in these pages before.
Lately, though,
> they've been having a tussle between
themselves....")
And I point out again the dishonesty of
even this: how can anyone take you seriously, James, when you
don't even make the necessary attempt to differentiate (as CA
*used* to do!) between the positions I take and those taken
by Marrs? Such shallow, knee-jerk reactions, replete with
emotionally-laden terms like "anti-Catholic," are
marked by their *absence* from my published comments about Catholic
Answers, and speak only to the truth of what I've said:
you are becoming just like the groups you decry. Quite
simply, James, it seems, in light of recent articles (like Sungenis' blatant and personal attacks upon
R.C. Sproul and
John MacArthur, as well as this current blurb), that Catholic
Answers is becoming the Jack Chick of Roman Catholic
apologetics.
> Hope that clarifies matters.
Oh yes, it clarifies matters a great deal.
It makes it very plain WHY Catholic Answers does what
it does. Do you have so little of substance to put in This
Rock that you have to waste your time in making personal
attacks upon your opponents, James? If I filled publications
with innuendo and ad-hominem about yourself or Karl, I'd
expect you to stoop so low. But I DARE you to take my most
recent book and find *anything* even *remotely* like what you
have done in this article. You can't, and you know it. So
tell us, James---is this the type of "apologetics"
we can expect to continue coming out of Catholic Answers?
James>>>
Others on the list began calling for an apology
from Catholic Answers. Participants began pointing out the
obvious holes in the attempted defense of the article. One
rightly pointed out how Akin was attempting to make me the
offender by bringing up the issue of the unlisted number, as if
that somehow excused their error! When Akin was pressed on the
issue of the apology, he provided the following post. My response
will comprise the conclusion of our examination, for what more
can be said in documenting the fall of Catholic Answers
into the very same kind of activities as those they decry? Let
the reader decide:
Dear James:
You write:
>I didn't mention it (because I wanted
to see if you'd
>admit to it first), but a while back the same secretary
who talked to Marrs
>last year informed me that she had gotten a
"strange" phone call. A man had
>called and asked about me. Knowing, now, what had
happened the last time,
>she was very careful to answer each question clearly. She
also attempted to
>get a name, or in some way find out who was calling. She
offered to send
>literature about the University, a catalog, whatever, but
the person refused
>to be pinned down, and eventually ended the conversation
without providing
>any means of contacting him. Now, please tell us, James:
was that you?
No. It was not me, nor any person from Catholic
Answers, nor do I have any idea who that might have been.
He certainly had nothing to do with the piece that appeared
in This Rock.
Let me state things plainly: At no time
have I or Catholic Answers knowingly told any
falsehood concerning you. I attempted to contact both you and
GCU but was unable to do so due to a deadline, and so the
piece went into This Rock's miscellaneous odds and ends
column.
You accuse Catholic Answers of using
the piece exclusively to make you look bad; may I suggest
that this is the only reason you posted your accusations
here, on a list which is *supposed* to be about the subject
of sola scriptura. Instead, you have turned sola-l into a
forum for attempting to settle your personal grievances.
In posting your charges here in an attempt
to make Catholic Answers look bad, you have done
*exactly* what you accuse us of. As your original letter to
me says:
>One of the great dangers in apologetics
work is that we often become the
>mirror image of the very groups we are fighting.
May I suggest you look in the mirror,
James?
This incident is one example in a series
which has led the Catholics and Orthodox from the list with
whom I have talked to conclude that the list is being managed
in a self-serving and one-sided manner, in which you feel
free to introduce whatever suits you, whether it is on the
subject of sola scriptura or not, and to introduce discussion
topics in a manner which almost always attempts to put the non-sola scriptura position on trial without subjecting the
sola scriptura position to the same scrutiny. Thus it has
earned the monicker "The Tradition-Bashing List."
--James Akin
My response:
> You accuse Catholic Answers of
using the piece exclusively to make you look
> bad; may I suggest that this is the only reason you
posted your accusations
> here, on a list which is *supposed* to be about the
subject of sola
> scriptura. Instead, you have turned sola-l into a forum
for attempting to
> settle your personal grievances.
And so on and so forth. James, I understand
why you must ignore all the posts that have appeared in this
forum. There is no defense for the action you took, no
defense for the attitude it displays. The facts are plain,
the results just as clear. No amount of trying to bully me,
or accuse me of misdeeds, will cloak the simple fact that you
won't admit the error, won't admit the problem, and seemingly
won't apologize for it, either. This speaks volumes, but it
does so without my helping it along. In fact, anything more
I'd have to say would only detract from the volume your own
words produce. Hence, I have the luxury of sitting back and
allowing the facts to speak for themselves, and they are
doing a truly eloquent job.
James>>>
|
