Friday, October 30, 2009

And the “stalking” continues (I just can’t keep up)


James White’s “stalking” of Dr. Francis Beckwith continues on steady pace at AOMIN. During the month of October, five blog posts, and at least one Dividing Line program, reference Dr. Beckwith in a negative light:

19th; 22nd; 25th; 27th; 28th; 29th.

And back in September, James devoted four Dividing Line programs to “the Timothy George/Frank Beckwith dialogue from Wheaton”:

14th; 15th; 17th; 22nd; 24th (link posted 10/06).

[As usual, link not provided by James, so I shall do so: Exploring Christian Identity.]


Pretty impressive James; I just can’t keep up! As such, I am officially demoting myself from “neophyte stalker” to “poor impersonation of a stalker” status.


Grace and peace,

David

5 comments:

Paul Hoffer said...

Professor White's obsession with Francis Beckwith has truly been fascinating to watch. In domestic relations matters, one usually does not find one acting like a Captain Ahab or a Javier absent a deep sense of personal animus or betrayal. Dr. Beckwith's reversion really sticks in White's craw for some reason. Maybe someday, White will grace us with an explanation.

God bless!

Nick Norelli said...

I think the difference is that when White "stalks" someone it's in "defense of the gospel" so it's not supposed to be considered "stalking." ;-)

David Waltz said...

Hi Paul,

You posted:

>>Dr. Beckwith's reversion really sticks in White's craw for some reason. Maybe someday, White will grace us with an explanation.>>

Me: In lieu of an explanation by James (which I seriously doubt will be forthcoming anytime soon, if ever), I suspect that James is attempting ‘damage control’—it is not everyday that a high profile, conservative, Evangelical figure (former president of the Evangelical Theological Society) enters the Catholic Church.

That James keeps up a steady stream of attacks leveled at Catholic apologists (e.g. Armstrong, Madrid, Shea, Staples - and now Beckwith) is not an issue of contention with me; what I find troublesome is the fact that he cries ‘foul’ when Catholic apologists return the favor.

Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Nick,

You wrote:

>> I think the difference is that when White "stalks" someone it's in "defense of the gospel" so it's not supposed to be considered "stalking.">>

Me: As I said to Paul in my earlier post, that James sees fit to defend his version of “the gospel” is not an issue with me; once again, what I find problematic is his apparent unwillingness to extend the same allowance to those who disagree with him.

Sincerely hope you can understand my position on this matter…


Grace and peace,

David

Nick Norelli said...

David: My comment was tongue-in-cheek. In White's eyes he can do no wrong, yet when others whom White disagrees with do exactly what White does they're wrong for doing so. I was highlighting the inherent double-standard that lies beneath everything that White does.

To be honest, I've always found White's invective against the Catholic Church to be annoying, all the more so because his lackeys jump on the bandwagon and perpetuate the same 'they have a false gospel and are part of a false church so who cares if Catholics worship the Triune God, confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, promote substitutionary atonement, and take the authority of Scripture seriously' attitude that White has.

Also, I think you're correct about White's problem with Beckwith. But that of course is why White has to claim that Beckwith was never truly Protestant to begin with, because any Protestant who knew why he was Protestant could never return to Rome in White's mind. Of course it happens more often than one would think, but not usually with figures so well known in the evangelical world as Beckwith.