Sunday, March 27, 2011

James White Compared to Adjunct Faculty Members at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary Who Are Not Teaching in the Present Semester


For background information, see:

In a nutshell, Bishop White and his large fan club are stating now that he is still teaching (present tense) at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, when in fact he hasn't done so since January 2010 (a three-day seminar), and wasn't listed on the adjunct faculty for that school on 12 December 2008, nor on 2 February 2009. Using the GGBTS listing of adjunct faculty and Course Syllabi (by Professor), I have listed a comparison of listed adjunct faculty who are not teaching a class in the present semester, and when they last taught a course, in comparison to Bishop "Dr." White.

James White (not listed: last course taught: January 13-15, 2010):
Listed:

*Mike Baird Spring 2009

Randy Bennett Spring 2010

*Eric Bryant Fall 2009

*Kelly Campbell Fall 2009

Michael Crane January 2010

Darlene R. Gautsch Fall 2010

Steven Goodwin Summer 2010

Gerald Green Fall 2010

*Ron Ornecker Fall 2009

*Norm Langston Fall 2009

Larry Laxton Spring 2010

Kei An Lee Spring 2010

*Tim Levert Summer 2009

*Hector Llanes Fall 2008

*Joshua Mathews Fall 2009

*Raymond Meyer Spring 2009

*Mark Mucklow Fall 2009

*Michael Nolen January 2009

W. Berry Norwood Fall 2010

Don G. Overstreet Fall 2010

*Edward Pearson Summer 2009

*Richard Porter Spring 2009

J. T. Reed Spring 2010

Steve Saccone Spring 2010

*Stuart Sheehan January 2009

Del Straub [no courses listed]

*Andrea Taylor Spring 2009

David Tetrault Fall 2010

*Mark Wagner Spring 2009

Adella Washington Fall 2010


Grand totals: 30 faculty were listed who are not teaching at GGBTS this semester; 16 of the 30 last taught a course prior to the date that White did (while one additional person has no listed courses at all); yet they are among the roster of adjunct faculty, along with the other 14, while White is not. Why? Is it not reasonable, then, to safely assume that White is no longer a member of the adjunct faculty of GGBTS? One would think so. Why, then, does White keep asserting that he is?

His bio sheet for his publisher, Bethany House, states that he is "an adjunct professor with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary." His bio sheet for his diploma mill alma mater, Columbia Evangelical Seminary asserts that "White, an ordained Baptist minister, is Adjunct Professor teaching New Testament Greek, Systematic Theology, Christology, and Hebrew for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary at their Arizona Campus." The blurb for ReformedCast: episode #26: "The Importance of Apologetics (Pt. 1), 3-21-11, states that "White . . . teaches Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary."

[Later April Fool's Day note from 4-1-11: Bethany House has modified its blurb and it now reads: "[White] has taught courses for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary."]

But according to the GGBTS syllabi, White taught about apologetics (secularism, atheism, and Islam) in Summer 2009, and Islam in Spring 2008. In order to date courses taught on these other mentioned subjects, we have to consult White's own bio page at his website, "aomin". There we learn that he hasn't taught anything with "Greek" in the title of the course since 2001 (hardly current). He hasn't taught systematic theology there since 2004. His last (and only course) in Christology was way back in the previous century and millennium: 1997. And for Hebrew, we have to go back to 2000.

I guess 7-14 years ago is considered "present tense" and "current" by the good folks at Columbia Evangelical Seminary and the ReformedCast. White, so we are told, is "teaching" these things now. We all regard time in different fashions, I reckon. Einstein's relativity and what-not . . . "Current" is in the eye of the beholder? In James White's thought-world, and that of his rabid followers, apparently this is the case. I guess I "currently" am not the father of a daughter, since my only daughter was born in 2001. But since 2000 and even 1997 are present now, I am simultaneously her father and not at the same time.

This is how ridiculous it gets: Orwellian doublespeak and doublethink . . . Unfortunately for White, GGBTS doesn't play these word games. They don't have him listed as adjunct faculty. He'll have to accept that cold, hard, cruel fact sooner or later. I suggest it be sooner, if he is concerned about his credibility, which has suffered enough through the years as it is, with all of his endless personal attacks on others and myriad other silly shenanigans.

* * *

Scott Oakland, who was connected with the posting about white on ReformedCast, is on record as refusing to alter it:

I’m having a go-round with him here. He wanted me to remove James White’s reference to his teaching at Golden Gate on reformedcast.com podcast. When I wouldn’t, he went on the attack. He melted down pretty good as you can see from the comment string.

(comment of 3-26-11 in the combox for "Internet Stalker’s Bitterness And Vindictive Self-absorption Rots His Soul: The Sad Little Non-World Of Peter Lumpkins," by Thomas Twitchell)

There you have it! Circle the wagons and dig in, trying to defend what appears thus far to be indefensible. Now, maybe if new information comes out (a clarification from GGBTS or something), it would be different, but given what we know thus far, it looks like world-famous Mackinac Island Fudge to me.

Thomas Twitchell himself chimes in, with this classic of obscurantism (on 3-26-11):

Peter won’t give a specific person because there isn’t one. The context of the no current contract claims are not current. And it doesn’t really matter, for JW did teach there as the President admitted. Which is really the question. Is he an adjunct professor? Yes, when contracted. It is a rediculous reductionism to say that changes with the beginning of every new contract and then ends with it. You can see the self-absorption oozing out. Peter doesn’t care whether or not there is any irony, irony is what he imagines it to be. What an egotistical slob! It is as if he and his minions are sitting around drinking swill and laughing at each others gaseous releases, as if it was funny. Cute for teens, but the only reason Lumpy’s boys are laughing is that they are drunk, and can’t tell the difference between humor and vile talk and action. Everyone else sees them for what are. There isn’t any commonality between JW demanding an answer and Peter asking who TF is. Peter made an accusation, JW hasn’t. TF isn’t a material figure. The official who supposedly informed Peter is. Reasonable people think the JW teaches as an adjunct professor. And that he may or may not be under contract currently. Peter requires that an adjunct is on contract currently to be considered a teaching professor. He is wrong. And reasonable people understand that a full or part-time teacher are just that and an adjunct is something else. But no reasonable person thinks that they are not teachers. Until White is formally told that he will not be considered as any longer being employable by GSBT, a reasonable person will continue to consider him a teacher there as an adjunct professor. And White is fully justified in claim to be a teacher there. As I said, Peter is insane. He needs to apologize. But, his reality is so fractured that when he throws a rock he thinks the window he shattered needs to throw his rock back as if the window stole it.
By the way, there are no private e-mails if you are in possession of them, legally. Unless you have given your word that you will not disclose them, Peter is just a fool to send them if what he wants is anonymity. And why the secrecy, anyway? What is to hide? You know, Peter ought to rewrite his book and drink plenty of wine in the process. It would do him some good.
* * *
Comments I made on Peter Lumpkins' site:

Hi Adam [Parker],
You (and others) can play the "Caner card" all you like, but in the end, White has to explain himself. I couldn't care less, myself, about the Caner dispute, and I have been involved in the present dispute also. If anything, I would be inclined to agree with White, with what I have read about Caner. I've been writing about White and his dubious educational credentials since 2004. To me, his behavior now is all of a piece.
To the extent that Caner must keep being mentioned, it does reveal that there is a certain double standard: what White requires of others in terms of utter truthfulness, he excuses himself from. There are many aspects of White's ethics in general that are quite dubious as well: how he presents and systematically distorts the views of others who differ from him; the constant personal attacks and pettiness, his treatment of people on his webcast, violation of personal confidences (I was a victim of that in 1996, and I have seen others mention this tactic of his), his abominable public treatment of his own sister, etc.
There is much in his conduct and arguments that is highly questionable. This is just one of a long series of such things. It started long before Ergun Caner and, sadly, it looks like it will continue on for some time to come unless White repents of these things. With a rabid fan club that apparently sees nothing in the least questionable about anything he ever does, it probably won't change anytime soon. This is why accountability is so important.
If no on in White's own circle and admirers will hold him accountable, then others will have to do the task. If God could use a donkey and Nebuchadnezzar to help accomplish His will, surely He can occasionally use even detested "Romanists" and Arminians to get Baptist bishops back into line . . . :-)
* * *

Of course, it's also patently obvious that White is using the Caner issue to deflect and change the topic: a ridiculous, childish example of the "your dad's uglier than mine" canard. There are lots and lots of sins and lots of hypocrisy in the world. None of them, however, have directly to do with the question of whether White fudged and whether he got his "doctorate" from sending in Cheerios boxtops.
It reminds me of Democrats today who can't bring themselves to fault Obama for anything. What do they do? Well, they immediately blame Bush for the deficit. Everything is Bush's fault . . . So if anyone dares criticize Blessed Bishop White (who has never done anything wrong in his life, much less admit it), then they are informed that Ergun Caner is Satan incarnate, and his supporters a pack of demons, as if that has the slightest relevance to the matter at hand . . .
The only constructive thing that comes from such games is a verification that White has absolutely no defense; therefore, he and his lapdogs switch topics and obfuscate, just as the lawyer who has no case will attempt to do . . . ***

38 comments:

Scott said...

Dave, With all due respect, you are twisting the facts to suit your ad-hominem argumentation. You are omitting facts - facts that do not simply go away by ignoring them.

Fact 1: There is NO official at GGBTS that has stated that Dr. White has been "cut off" from the institution. To actually insist that Dr. White provide proof that he has been "cut off" (which Peter Lumpkins is doing at his blog) is laughable. The burden lies squarely on the shoulder of those asserting that he has been "cut off" to provide the evidence. I guess that's why you provided this post in an attempt to do just that. However, it fails to do so because....

Fact 2: The inference you are trying to draw with your chart is inconclusive. Not only does it not prove that he is "cut off", it doesn't even prove that his status has changed. It's all just speculation on your part.

Fact 3: Dr. White is listed as having taught, most recently, three courses on the GG website as you have undoubtedly found from your research. If Dr. White had been "cut off" as Peter and you say, don't you think that there would be a public statement of that somewhere? If that institution was so interested in banning Dr. White, (presumably due to theological differences) it would certainly want SOMEONE in the SBC community to know - not just Peter Lumpkins.

Fact 4: It is impossible to determine anything conclusive about any adjunct's status from any university, seminary or college just by their website. Notwithstanding the fact that websites are not always updated as they ought, attempting to discern who has been fired or in good standing using this method is highly presumptuous at best, and unfair and scandalous at worse. This approach would lead us to conclude that an adjunct who is out of the country on assignnment, for example, and not listed as currently teaching there, should be considered "cut off"

I have asked Peter Lumpkins to come on my podcast ReformedCast to discuss his assertion, so that we can get to the bottom of it. If he accepts, we'll schedule it asap.

Dave Armstrong said...

Thanks for your thoughts. The fact remains that he is not listed as adjunct faculty: has not been, apparently, since Dec. 2008. That would seem to settle it, but not in the minds of White's fan club, because then he would be seen to have been fudging the facts of the matter.

Scott said...

Dave, Does it need to be? This is easily explainable: he's not teaching a current course. And a lack of listing his name on their website does NOT force one to the conclusion that, and these are Peter's words, he has been "cut off" from any future teaching. Nor does it prove that GG doesn't consider Dr. White as presently employed. So proving that he has been "cut off" or "not current" cannot be accomplished using this approach. The only reliable way is to verify it by either the institution itself or Dr. White himself. He has denied it. So your only option is to get someone at GG to go on the record that he is history. And if that were the case, it would have already been done by now, seeing that this controversy has gone on nearly a year. Again, Peter is asking Dr White to prove something when it is Peter who carries the burden of proof. I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but that's what it comes down to: logic and the abuse of deductive reason.

Dave Armstrong said...

Not teaching a present course didn't stop 30 adjunct faculty members from being listed, but White is not. That was the whole point of my looking that up.

I haven't argued that White has been necessarily "cut off" or that he will never teach there again (those were Lumpkins arguments): only that he is not now, and not listed, so the reasonable response is to conclude that he is not now on that faculty.

It's also obvious that courses taught 7-14 years ago (literally) are not being taught now.

It's an insult to everyone's intelligence. I appreciate your loyalty to him (loyalty is a trait I highly admire) but it's a hopeless battle on this one: the charge of the light brigade.

Strong Tower said...

"I haven't argued that White has been necessarily "cut off" or that he will never teach there again (those were Lumpkins arguments): only that he is not now, and not listed, so the reasonable response is to conclude that he is not now on that faculty."

I haven't followed all your dialogues around the blogosphere, and could care less, and what I personally think about JW's current status at GG is irrelevant. Whether he is currently teaching, which he claims not to be, or that he has been employed as a teaching professor there, which he has, or currently is until notice still a candidate for being an adjunct teaching professor there, is a moot point. Actually, I agree that the absence of the name in the roster appears to confirm that he is no longer viable there. However, that proves nothing. It may imply it, or not. What was claimed by PL is what is pertinent. Supposing he is correct, how does his behavior differ from anything he as accused others of doing? And here is the case, he hasn't been able to substantiate any of his claims. Indeed, in nearly every case that I am aware of, he has bee shown to be dishonest. It follows, then, just as your list, that his insider information may just as well be feloniously fallacious. And by the way, the bios don't make any claims that JW is currently teaching. Check your usage: ing endings can be a verbal form that functions as a verbal noun, as in pisteuwn. In English, a gerund has the same spelling as a present participle, but functions differently. In the phrase "teaching is good work, teaching is a gerund. As in "teaching" means "something a teacher does." Or, if we want to use the Scripture to look at this, John 3:16 contains form of a verbal noun, ho pisteuwn "the believing." The Greek spellings for these "gerunds" are not the same as the verb forms. In anycase, gerunds, or verbal nouns, function differently than present tense participial verbs. They don't state an action, rather the condition, or status, or if you prefer, the name of an object. In the case of the bio, teaching means "a teacher of."

Steven Buehler said...

Dave, be careful about shooting the messenger and let's defend our faith "with gentleness and reverence" as St. Peter calls us to. Institution faculty lists online and biological summaries are rarely up-to-date, and adjunct faculty pass in and out of institutions all the time with great frequency. For the majority of adjunct faculty it's a temporary or part-time position alongside their "regular day jobs" like pastoring, writing books, or leading full-time ministries.

As far as accreditation, there are a lot of Christian/religious institutions that elect to pass on seeking accreditation because they don't want to be perceived as allowing "man-made" secular organizations dictating their religious curriculum or other aspects of their moral or spiritual atmosphere or dictating what kinds of faculty they can or can't retain based on what post-secondary degrees they have when their faculty are retained more for practical ministry experience than their book knowledge (the smarter schools that recognize the benefits of having accreditation know better and seem to have been able to obtain the recognition without compromising their values).

It's possible to address the merits of a position without stooping oneself down to question the credentials or sincerity of the messenger. To do the latter just tends to leave a bad taste in a lot of person's mouths and devalue the merits of *is* the truth.

Scott said...

Steven has a point. I graduated from a church-based four-year "Bible institute" and it was good enough to secure a pastorate for me. It existed, and still does, for men who work full-time and can't afford to pull up stakes and attend seminary. I would also concede, however, that is not the ideal it is often held out to be. There is a good argument for accreditation. That said, I still can't fault Dr White for his doctorate and have no compunctions calling him "Dr. White" as I did on the ReformedCast when I interviewed him recently. Peter, sadly, mocks him by calling him "Doktor" because his creds don't measure up to his own standard. I don't imagine he'd appreciate it much if his degrees were questioned in the same manner, granting the fact that Dr. White may have a higher standard because of his higher profile.

Dave Armstrong said...

As I have stated many times and reiterated recently, I have no problem whatever with either White's rationale for why he "attended" CES, or his motivation, or the work he did to get the supposed "doctorate."

My only beef is in calling the degree a "doctorate" and using the title "Dr." That's fundamentally dishonest because it molds words into whatever we want them to mean, rather than utilizing universally understood definitions.

It's obvious that Lumpkins and myself have hit a nerve because of all the frantic reactions to it. If there were nothing at all to the objection, the controversy would never have happened, or would have long since disappeared by now. Instead, folks are engaging in excruciatingly complex spinning, rationalizing explanations for why White's non-listing on the adjunct faculty of GGBTS doesn't mean what it obviously means: that he is no longer adjunct faculty!

The response proves that the objection indeed has force and is troublesome. The fan club feels that it must "kill a flea with a sledgehammer," so to speak. They think there is nothing at all to the charge, yet all this energy is devoted to refuting what we are told is nothing at all in the first place.

Thus it sure appears as a Shakespearian occasion of "methinks thou dost protest too much."

Scott said...

Dave, If we all followed your approach to dealing with false accusations or conclusions, we'd all be in deep trouble. Even a hack politician knows that a false accusation must be answered and not ignored. When the credibility of a time-tested, God-fearing Christian apologist is attacked, don't you think it is incumbent upon someone to call them on it? While I agree there comes a time to be silent when the other cannot be convinced against their will, that doesn't mean that defending the character, integrity, and reputation of someone as well-known as Dr. White equates to "me protesteth too much". Your argumentation of "they deny it so it must be true" would be laughed out of any court in the land and would never make it to the prelim stages. It really is this simple: the conclusion that you and Lumpkins draw from the available data is merely one of dozens of possibilities, as I have already explained in an earlier post. Not only is it inconclusive, it is unlikely at best. Until your theory is confirmed by more facts, it remains just that - a theory yet unproven.

Dave Armstrong said...

Scott, please answer me this, if nothing else. White is not now listed on the adjunct faculty. No one disputes that (not even he himself). You say that is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Okay fine. Granting that for the sake of argument, let's say that he is not listed five years from now. Would it still sensible to say he is currently GGBTS adjunct staff in 2016, if he hadn't been listed since Dec. 2008 and hadn't taught a course since Jan 2010?

At what point does non-listing and non-teaching indicate what it seems utterly obvious to me that they indicate: that he is no longer considered to be presently adjunct faculty? When does "unlisted" become "not faculty"? And if it never does, how is this to be explained rationally? If the past is always still the present, then I'm still a Protestant, ain't I? (I became a Catholic in 1990).

If five years isn't enough, how about ten? So we're now in 2021 and you're still arguing that he is GGBTS adjunct faculty because he taught classes there from 1995-2010? If ten isn't enough, how about 20?

At what point does "current" end and you recognize that it is a past thing?

Scott said...

Dave, OK, let's take your scenario and use it. When I last checked the GG site, the last curriculum for Dr. White listed was dated January 2010 - which I take to mean that a course occurred that (second) semester 2009-2010. Unless I am missing something, so do correct my data if I am incorrect. Now, Dave, it is now March 2011. Based on my findings, at least, this shows that he didn't teach the immediate semester that followed (Sept 2010-Jan 2011) and the current semester (Jan 2011-May 2011). Granted that these are two-week courses. Why should one conclude that he is "no longer an adjunct" based on this data - two semesters of not teaching? Especially given the fluid nature of adjuncts that even you admitted earlier. In your hypothetical, if you came back five years from now and make the claim that he is not adjunct, it would carry a lot more weight than doing so now, a mere two semesters after his last assignment. And that, after all, is what we are dealing with - what we know now.

Jordanes551 said...

Clearly the best that can be said is that James White has not been served as adjunct faculty for more than a year. He is past adjunct faculty, not current adjunct faculty. If he says or implies that he is current adjunct faculty, then he is misleading people.

Dave Armstrong said...

Scott,

Good. So you do say that if this were 2016, it would be a point in time where "current" is no longer in force. Good.

My reply to your comment is not to simply say he hasn't taught for over a year, but to note (as I believe I did in the post above this combox) that there was some reason why he stopped being LISTED as adjunct faculty. This is the consideration that no one on your side is willing to grapple with.

If he stopped being listed in Dec. 2008 (as I have shown), and if 16 other faculty taught classes further back than he did, yet are still listed, then it is quite reasonable to make the conclusion that he is no longer considered faculty, since those folks who taught courses further back in time are still listed, yet he is not. This is the additional argument that the present post added to the discussion.

Whether it has been determined by someone over there that he will no longer, or ever, teach with GGBTS is a separate question: one that I haven't pursued (that was Lumpkins' reasoning).

I'm simply saying that, based on the reasoning I have given, summarized again here, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to assume that he is not on that faculty; therefore it is reasonably suspect that he keeps saying that he is, as if not being listed anymore is completely beside the point.

I'm not making these arguments because I don't care what is used to pummel White with. I truly believe it is a legitimate concern, and I think there is a perfectly reasonable and defensible question and suspicion here that ought to be seriously grappled with.

If Dr. White had been "cut off" as Peter and you say, don't you think that there would be a public statement of that somewhere?

Why would there necessarily have to be. I can relate to these scenarios myself. I'm an author (six "officially" published books). Now, say a publisher has decided it no longer wants to publish my books (which is a contractual scenario just as this situation was). do they necessarily inform me of that decision? No; sometimes they just stop being interested, but the author is not informed of that.

People and organizations decided things at times without informing everyone of their decision. They just cease asking a person anymore.

Now, again, I would say that his not being listed is sending that message to him. His name was on there and now no longer is. Your side has to ask yourself why that is? Why would the name be removed BUT to indicate that he was no longer considered adjunct faculty. Why are 30 others still listed who aren't currently teaching a course?

You may sincerely find that to be absurd and irrelevant (I don't question your motivation, as you do mine: "you are twisting the facts to suit your ad-hominem argumentation"); I do not think it is absurd and irrelevant at all. I think it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from the hard facts, without needing to speculate on whether it has been decided he will never teach there again, and all that.

Scott said...

Dave, Thanks for the reply. You and those who conclude that the discrepancy in the listing must mean that he is no longer consider an adjunct professor is called "climbing the ladder of inference." It's a common thing outlined here:

http://gwynteatro.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/climbing-the-ladder-of-inference/

As I stated previously, the cold cruel facts are that there is no way from the Golden Gate website that you can accurately and definitively state that Dr. White no longer teaches there. One is not on safe grounds doing so, and is instead simply engaged in speculation. I've differentiated what you are saying with what Peter Lumpkins is saying,and recognize that he i saying that he is "cut off" for good, and you are not. Frankly, you make a somewhat better argument than him, but it still falls short of the necessary evidence to come to the conclusion you do. From the very same data, we could conclude many different things, such as; 1) Dr White has been too busy with debates and other engagements to schedule a course since Jan. 2010. 2) Golden Gate has no specific need at this moment - or available slot, maybe due to the economy - for his services. 3) The website may not be updated as we'd all like, and may explain the inconsistencies between the data on the adjuncts that you point out. 4) That Dr White has been told he is no longer adjunct.

Now, one might think that is the case when one views the June 2010 "smoking gun" video that Lumpkins proudly displays on his blog as proof. But time has elapsed since that video, and anything could have happened. But to choose Door # 4, which you seem to be pushing here, is one out of at least three possibilities (and, likely, many others as well.

Dave Armstrong said...

#3 is your only answer that is any sort of reply to my points, and an exceedingly weak argument it is.

I will probably write to GGBTS and get to the bottom of this once and for all. If they confirm that he is not now an adjunct and/or will not be anytime, the choice will be yours and White's: to accept reality (if that is the case) and modify claims made, or deny it.

But at least with definite answers we'll be past all of this logical nitpicking, and standing on solid factual ground that no one (hopefully) would dispute.

Dave Armstrong said...

Someone saved me the trouble, as to writing to GGBTS:

They wrote:

"Dear Sir/Madam, I've been studying a particular topic floating about the internet blogosphere as to whether James White is currently a professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. I would like to help clear up speculation on either side. Can you confirm or deny that James White is currently a professor at any campus in any capacity? Thank you."

The reply (from "the GGBTS Communications email"):

"James White has never been a trustee-elected faculty member at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and is not under consideration for such appointment. He has taught in the past as an adjunct, but not currently scheduled to do so again. Thanks for your inquiry."

Source:

Lumpkins thread

Let the "Whiteheads" spin that . . .

Scott said...

Dave, I'm sure that someone of your caliber is not going to settle for that email? I, for one, was hoping that you would provide some real evidence, and that you were going to actually write GG and get a letter, on their stationery, of their reply. As you know, the fact is, that anyone can type anything on a computer, in quotations. Especially given the propensity of wild accusation to come from Lumpkins' blog, to allow that to be a fair standard as to verification that Dr. White is not an adjunct is problematic on so many fronts. So I must reiterate: to prove the case, whoever wants to prove that Dr. White is "history" at GG will need to provide the required confirmation. Or some other kind of evidence. You were correct when you stated you should seek it out by writing a letter. It's really that simple. Until that time, it is wild speculation from bloggers with an axe to grind.

Respectfully,

Scott

Jordanes551 said...

Scott, why don't YOU just email GGBTS and find out the facts for yourself? Surely you're not afraid to find out what they'd tell you?

Scott said...

Jordan, because 1) It's not my responsbility to "prove" the case of the other party and 2)I don't have any issues with Dr. White or his adjunct status. There isn't like this big mystery that we are all trying to solve equally, like "is there a Loch Ness monster? Let's all get our clues and find out." Keep in mind that tt was Peter Lumpkins and his certain cohorts within the SBC who initiated this. Let him and his followers prove their case. So far they fail miserably.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi Dave and all, I posted this over at Rev. Lumpkins site as well since there is a legal issue lurking under all of this particularly since Mr. Oakland is insisting on imposing a yoke on others that he is not willing to carry himself. I wrote"

"Mr. Oakland, From reading Dave Armstrong's article and the information here, I would suggest that the burden of persuasion has now shifted over to your side to rebut the quite reasonable inference that can be made from the evidence adduced thus far. Personally, I think you have made a reasoned defense of James White's credentials but no amount of argument is going to change a fact or a proper inference drawn therefrom. Rather than continuing to rely on the same impassioned plea, it would behoove you to now obtain some evidence to support your case.

"In regards to your objection to the manner in which GGBTS replied to Sam's email, I would state that such is not unusual these days. Many employers will now use emails to communicate rather than use official letterhead to reply to inquiries. However, to be frank, I was surprised that GGBTS answered the email in the detail they did. When potential employers or lenders make similar inquiries of my clients, I advise them to verify dates of employment and nothing more to avoid any potential claims of defamation or discrimination unless the inquirer provides a release signed by the individual about whom the information is sought. To protect James White's reputation and as a bit of CYA, they probably could not or would not provide more information as to his employment status even if they wanted to do so without receiving a release signed by James White.

"Again, that puts things in your court as Mr. White controls whether the information is released or not.

"Grace and blessings to you and yours.

And again here, I offer grace and blessings.

Dave Armstrong said...

I saw a video of the president of GGBTS saying White wasn't gonna be hired. That's good enough for me. I'm bored with this nonsense now. "Back to your regularly scheduled program . . ."

Scott said...

Dave, I'm afraid you didn't listen carefully to the President's carefully-worded statement. He said that 1- adjuncts are under contract, 2- he is not currently scheduled to be under contract. He was referring to at that moment. It is not relevant to what he is considered at the present time, now, in March 2011. You may be bored because you claim victory based on that video now, but again I ask that you listen carefully to what the Pres. of the seminary said, how he said it, and what that has to do with NOW. I hope you get that letter you were talking about. Without it, the argument cannot be made. On an added note, a seminary student sent this along. Since he is a seminary student at Golden Gate and is an apologetics student, he of all people would know if Dr. White has been "cut off", or whether he is considered presently teaching at GG:

http://eyeonapologetics.com/blog/2011/03/29/reply-to-peter-lumpkins-james-white-is-an-adjunct-professor-at-ggbts/

..Um, that letter looks more and more necessary, doesn't it?

Jordanes551 said...

1) It's not my responsbility to "prove" the case of the other party

True. However, now that the other party has marshalled so many cogent evidences and arguments, it is now your responsibility to prove that the evidence doesn't mean what it sure looks like it means.

and 2)I don't have any issues with Dr. White or his adjunct status.

But you should.

And all it takes is for you to email GGBTS.

But, having reviewed your performance at the Lumpkins website, I think I can confidently predict that you won't.

Scott said...

Jordan, Thanks for the entry. You mention "cogent evidences and arguments". Maybe you're reading a different blog, but I count three; 1- the video from last June, of someone asking a question "out of the blue" to somehow solicit a response that they want, with a carefully-worded statement of him not being current with no current plans, has no bearing on TODAY 3/29/11, 9 mos. later. Keep in mind that they have been at this for 9 mos. 2 - the copy & pasted email(s) provided are honestly a joke. 3 - people have said "someone told me...". 4 - using what amounts to divination to try and discern the intent of a website entry which is NOT intended to be used for that purpose of figuring out who is gone from GG. If you look at it all honestly, it's a pile of air. If that is considered to be persuadable evidence, I suggest you look a lot closer. Alas, though, after all, here we sit, with still no proof-positive of their assertion - assertions that THEY have made on Peter Lumpkins' blog and in the SBC community. Doesn't that tell you that their arguments are just smoke and mirrors? I suggest that it does.

Dave Armstrong said...

And of course Scott blithely dismisses all of the deductive evidence from White's not being listed as adjunct faculty any longer, while others are, who taught courses further back in time than his, and his removal from said list.

Scott's proposed explanation for that was that the listing was in error or not updated. Very flimsy . . .

Scott said...

Dave, Did you happen to have a look at the video link I put up?

Dave Armstrong said...

No; I'm done with this nonsense. I have to get back to my real work. I'm sure you have far more important things to do than the ridiculous spinning you've been engaged in, too.

williamthegreat said...

This is all very amusing, honestly; and I have read it towards that end, videlicet, my own amusement. Any impartial bystander however would, I feel, draw the same conclusion from this back-and-forth discussion: that James White is fudging on his academic standing. As for myself, I have no intention of actively participating in this little fracas, other than to say...who cares? If you dress a dog in boy's clothes he won't cease to be a canine; similarly, if White were to hold a chair at Oxford, his views would hardly thereby be of more worth than they already are objectively. As someone who, for a considerable time, engaged in Apologetics on a daily basis, may I suggest that we all take a step back at the moment, for the purpose of consideration. Does anyone honestly think...well, scratch that, I'm sure some do... that James White is someone to be taken seriously outside the realm of the Protestant vs Catholic blogosphere? The man fancies himself somewhat of an intellectual, or an educated person at the very least. A thorough reading of his articles or viewing of his debates however, lead one to the obvious conclusion that the man holds, without rational basis, views which he feels he must justify over and against those of others, or else his world-view falls apart; that being the case, any form of sophistic convulsion or "spinning" is justified. It's what I ofttimes referred to as the Lutheran-Complex (the import of which, I'm sure anyone familiar with Luther's biography will immediately recognise). What I should like to see, though it will never happen, is for White to have an actual debate with someone such as, let's say, Richard Dawkins. While I disagree with Dawkins in his criticisms of religion, and think them very feeble minded (as any argument will be when its proponent stretches himself outside his sphere of competency - Dawkins is a biologist, not a theologian or a philosopher), I would very much enjoy sipping a pint, and watching Richard rip the man apart. That would be a real debate. These skirmishes he has with an odd Catholic apologist now and again, and of which he is so proud, are meaningless in the grand picture.

Dave Armstrong said...

This is a great comment: equal parts insightful and funny, from Protestant (real) scholar Dr. Paul Owen, writing to Peter Lumpkins on the latter's site, about White's shenanigans:

*****

Peter,

I'm sure you noticed that the groundwork has already been laid for an explanation. If James White never teaches at GGBTS again, it will be because you and your followers raised a stink and managed to keep him from being given another teaching contract. It is also your fault Peter, that White's name is not on the list of adjunct faculty associated with the seminary on their website. And it is also your fault that the President of the seminary said last summer, when asked about White's association with GGBTS, that though White has taught in the "past" for the seminary, he does not currently have a teaching contract, and that there are no plans for him to be given a teaching contract in the future. All of this is down to you, Peter.

While we are at it, it is your fault Peter, that White calls you "Lumpy" whenever he makes reference to you. It is also your fault that White's theological "doctorate" comes from an unaccredited seminary with no campus (other than a rented office in a rundown building). It is also your fault that Bart Erhman did not take White seriously as a scholar when they debated, and failed to acknowledge to the audience that The King James Only Contoversy was actually the first book to explain textual criticism to the masses (still a sore spot). And it is your fault that, after doing everything he could to get Ergun Caner fired, White has chosen to inflate his own credentials by using the title "Dr." and by continuing to list himself as teaching at an accredited Baptist seminary where he no longer teaches. It is also your fault that White keeps telling the public how many miles he has logged riding his bike, how much of a resemblence he bears to Lance Armstrong, how many hours he spends learning Arabic from his Arabic tutor who is teaching him Arabic (did I mention that?), and how everyone who is not a Reformed Baptist is so frightened by him that that refuse to "face" him, because they know if they stood before him in cross-examination, they would be crushed and wither like the flowers of the field before the blazing sun. Thanks Lumpy, thanks a lot. (3-31-11)

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/03/james-whites-challengepeter-lumpkins-response-by-peter-lumpkins.html#comment-6a00d83451a37369e2014e8725190d970d

williamthegreat said...

Haha, delightful. A truly enjoyable read.

Scott said...

Dave, So the end justifies the means? I wish Peter would "come clean" with what happened behind the scenes to get Bethany to do this. No one thinks that Bethany just ran into Peter's blog and decided to change it on their own. He originally emailed me to get me to change. But no one thinks he'll tell us. How is interfering with someone else's bio - on a book publishing site that has nothing to do with him - ever justified by the Scripture? It's sinful meddling, pure and simple. Something's rotten in Denmark. Or, in this case, Georgia.

Dave Armstrong said...

What (nefarious) means? I was the first one to mention the Bethany House bio. I initiated that (along with the comparison with listed adjunct faculty and the comparison with White's own resume-bio). Those things were my particular contributions. All I did was write this paper and the one before this. I didn't contact Bethany House. Someone over there ran across this and saw that it was right to change the blurb. Good for them.

They just decided to be honest about this stuff and call a spade a spade. You would do well to follow their example. Truth and admitting you are wrong where it is called for is more important than defending a person one admires or follows, even at the expense of truth.

We mustn't fall into that. This could happen to anyone on any side of any given debate, because it is a human shortcoming.

williamthegreat said...

In the way of sideshow, I've found this particular contribution from Jimmy to be especially amusing for the past couple years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5ts_B-VdM

Do I ascribe to the arguments Christopher Hitchens puts forth against the existence of God? No. But beyond that, do I respect or consider valuable the argumentation of Jimmy White and his ilk against Hitchens' postion? - Absolutely not. It's vital, I think, when considering Jimmy's competency as an Apologist, to recognise that he never actually engages the positions put forth by his opponents. Rather, he states his position in an authoritative manner, and leaves it at that. This is the tactic he precisely demonstrated in his debate with Robert Sungenis (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3862152619473964920#); and although Bob has gone off the deep end with respect to scientific realities, he did, without a doubt, trounce Jimmy in this debate, and thereby exemplify the flaws in his approach to rational dialogue.

Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse on this one, but my point is that I really can't see why Jimmy is given such a place of importance within the sphere of Catholic apologetic. The man is an incompetent of the most ridiculous fashion.

Scott said...

Dave -

Forgive me for posting this on your blog, but because I was unable to because Peter locked me out of his....

You say "This could happen to anyone on any side of any given debate, because it is a human shortcoming." So I suppose that anything Dr White mentioned about your "shortcomings", you considered and repented of? Or are you perfect sir? Don't you see the hypocrisy Peter & Co. is engaged in (sorry to say, you included). They are all straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel in this quest to destroy Dr. White's credibility. The fact remains, however, that none of you could prove that Dr. White is no longer an adjunct. Therefore, defeated in their arguments, Peter & Co then attempted to make this about me (lol !), locked me out of his blog so that I was unable to place the final damning evidence against their precious 'Rogers' video, and pretended like they won the argument. Then, someone went to Bethany House crying the blues about a so-called "inaccuracy" in his bio. He is an adjunct, and until GG states that he isn't, his bio on the ReformedCast web site has been changed from "currently teaching at GGBTS.." to "is an adjunct professor at GGBTS" as of yesterday. Peter & Co.'s arbitrary redefinition of "adjunct", and refusal to give Dr. White the benefit of the doubt, is highly inappropriate. See, this whole thing is about the Ergun Caner incident - everyone knows it. When Dr. White exposed his lies, Caner's henchmen came out of the woodwork and vowed to ruin Dr White.

If you would allow me to post the final nail, as stated above, in Peter & Co's coffin, that would be greatly appreciated.

Dave Armstrong said...

Post away, Scott. The more you write, the better it is for the position we are arguing.

Williamthegreat: I agree that White is vastly overrated. I have said for years that no Catholic should engage him in oral debate.

I think he does do some good work, though. The main area where he is deficient and inadequate lies in his treatment of Catholicism.

Scott said...

Here is the good seminarian's video / website I was mentioning, who attends Golden Gate.

http://eyeonapologetics.com/blog/2011/03/29/reply-to-peter-lumpkins-james-white-is-an-adjunct-professor-at-ggbts/

Well, everyone may be doing handstands here, because I’m gonna shock everyone and say “I agree that you cannot prove that Dr White is an adjunct from this video" Now, once you are done picking yourself up from the floor, you’ll want to hear about this good news I’ve just sprung on everyone. Why would Scott Oakland suddenly agree with Peter & Co. Follow the bouncing ball....

Because the good seminarian’s video is set in the past, not in the present. You see, our seminary friend’s video, as nicely done and all that it was, does nothing in proving the fundamental point: that Dr. White is an adjunct professor at GG, and CURRENTLY. Good news for your side, right? Yes. But with all good news, there is always some bad news.

While it is true that I cannot prove anything from that video, it is equally true of Peter & Co. and the Rogers video. Why so? This is due to the time frames involved. That “smoking gun” video of Tim Rogers and the seminary president on June 2010 on the SBC floor is every bit as “set in the past” as the good seminarian’s video. And that’s the rub. And there’s even WORSE news....

Your objection to the seminarian’s video as being legitimate, current proof that he IS an adjunct, while being 100% right, is the very thing that has taken the "Rogers" video out of the “evidence locker” and into the trash can. Because it also demonstrates your inherent bias...and that is:

You present a video set in the past in order to prove something is true in the present (that Dr White is NOT an adjunct at GG). And when I attempt to use a video set in the past, to prove that he IS an adjunct in the present, you would object. But that’s horribly inconsistent. If you reject the seminarian's video on the basis of it being too old, you also have to reject the Rogers video on the same grounds. Bias is a strange thing.... I seem to remember something in Scripture about a “false balance.".....

Also, to not admit this fact, you would also need to invent some kind of narrative that took place between January and June 2010, some terrible thing that happened, which caused Dr White to be given the boot. But I could equally invent a narrative between June 2010 and now March 2011, that he HASN'T been given the boot, because of the info that I have from various sources. No, I'm not naming them. If Peter can claim source anonymity, I can as well. When the seminary pres. said "no plans have been made", that doesn't mean they WON'T be made, as that is the world adjunct's live in - it's an intermittent part-time existence. The good seminarian DID outline this fact in his video. Keep in mind, Dr White has been teaching or in an adjunct capacity for some 15 years now.

The bottom line - we don't have any hard evidence saying he's been "cut off" from GG.

And now that you don’t have the Rogers video in your corner, what will you folks now hopelessly cling to in order to prove that Dr White is NOT an adjunct professor at GG? You can’t prove that anymore than I can prove that he is. But I don’t have to prove that he is, since it is you making the assertion that he ISN'T. And, if any real evidence existed, such as a letter from GG it would already have been presented on Peter & Co's blog. The fact that someone hoodwinked a webmaster at Bethany House to change Dr White's bio proves nothing....except the power of persuasion. The idea that Bethany House read Peter's blog and made the change is pretty far-fetched. Dave.... I think we REALLY need that letter now.

Scott said...

...You and yours better write CBD next...

http://www.christianbook.com/scripture-alone-james-white/9780764220487/pd/220489

Dave Armstrong said...

Thanks for the tip!