White's Frustration

James White wrote today in his blog:

"I will continue my response to David Allen on Tuesday of next week. I must admit I am grieved by this whole situation. I know there are some who live for "blog conflict" and the like. I am not one of them. When I engage in controversy I try to do it for the sake of the furtherance of the truth of the gospel and the edification of God's people. I must admit, I am sick and tired of those who seem utterly intent upon promoting a narrow agenda, one-string banjo players who seem to have little else to do in life but to pluck their very limited number of notes."

see here for his article

First, I see the "pot calling the kettle black" as far as White's use of such a style of journalistic writing. White has consistently attacked the type of writing that Brother Bob Ross does and yet, it seems to me, White uses the same type of journalism! Had Ross written about "one string banjo players" who can only "pluck their very limited number of notes," White would have ridiculed it!

What is White frustrated about? He dislikes the debate going on in the blogosphere among Christians, among Calvinists and Arminians? Why? I thought he liked and promoted debates and theological discussions? Or, is he decrying a certain kind of blog discussion?

Could it be that he favors brethren calling for him to debate the thing for them as their champion? Could it be that he would actually love to take all this interest in the blogosphere and turn it into a real debate where he takes center stage? He wants to debate Caner and Allen and any other "professor" at one of the seminaries, but not Bob Ross, nor myself, nor anyone else who will challenge him on the things I have mentioned relative to Hyper Calvinism. He wants the debate to stop among the ordinary church members and pastors in the blogosphere, but he wants to debate the "greats" in the seminaries! Something is "rotten in Denmark" here.

He doesn't like this "blog conflict"! Yet, he loves the "conflict" he has with the Muslims, Atheists, JWs, etc.!

Some "live for" blog conflict? Is James not guilty here? Is he any better than others in this regard? Besides, what does he mean by this statement? What is he insinuating? Maybe he is falsely judging his brothers? If one regularly follows the ongoing debate in the SBC relative to Calvinism and other Baptist issues, does that mean they "live for" conflict?

How can a man who spends most of his time in debate and conflict say that he does not "live for" it? Oh, yes, he is "not one of them"!

I have debated several times in my life and will probably, the Lord willing, do it again. In fact, I am supposed to be having two debates in the future with two "Church of Christ" preachers. But, I cannot say that I "live for" it, for I have probably averaged one debate for every three years I have been a teacher of the bible.

His judgment seems harsh on others in their blog debating, but seems very soft in regard to himself. He says "I am not one of them." Is that so, James? Can you say that with good conscience?

What does he mean by "and the like"? One can only guess! Could the "like" be some of White's own behavior on the internet? What about the videos and diatribes he has made against Bob Ross? Could that not be part of the "like" conflict about which he is talking?

He says - "When I engage in controversy I try to do it for the sake of the furtherance of the truth of the gospel and the edification of God's people."

Oh, he is so pure in his motives! Oh how we all need to emulate the humility of brother White! Oh how soft and gentle he is in his internet comments about others! Did he not gently condemn debate in the blogosphere? In the manner of a "left-handed compliment"?

He "insinuates" or implies that others who "engage in controversy" (which expression defines what he means by "blog conflict") do it with an evil motive, that it is NOT for the purpose of edifying others and for the furtherance of the truth! How does he know the heart and mind of all these people?

Now, surely, he had some specific bloggers in mind. Why did he not name them? What was his criteria for judging this kind of thing? Will the criteria he uses condemn himself?

Why does White not allow comments on his blog? Is he "not one of them" who does, like Johnson and Ascol? Does White think that his method is better than theirs?

White said:

"I am sick and tired of those who seem utterly intent upon promoting a narrow agenda."

What does he mean by this? Why does he not speak plainly? What is he implying and insinuating? Does he believe he is not doing the same, in some respect? What does James promote? Some might reasonably argue that he promotes himself. He seems to love those who love him and despise those who don't "take a likin" to him.

Besides, what more "narrow agenda" can you get then to spend all one's time seeking debates with Baptist professors and cult leaders?

Frankly, in summation, I found White's recent comments ironic, if not hypocritical.