What you win them with is what you win them to. Is it about truth for you?

Yeah! I know the last one was meant  to be the finale and conclusion but the hit piece by some  goes on and on.


I want  to preface this with a text from the Gospel of John  because it highlights the human condition and how we often handle truth: Joh_18:37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
Joh_18:38 Pilate *said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and *said to them, “I find no guilt in Him. Here we have Pilate essentially dismissing  the whole idea  of truth to the face  of the person  who is both creator of the everything and saviour of the elect. I can only imagine the look on Pilate’s face as he stood before the throne of judgement  only to see Christ at the Fathers right hand.

In essence this whole theme is about truth and how we get  to the truth. Is truth subjective or objective? How we  do that, and what we  do with truth is the all important question. Our problem as fallen humans is we treat truth preferentially; we take the truth that appeals  to us  and dismiss any truth that offends us.

In what I have written so far  there is at least one thing  that might have offended some people; calling humanity fallen! Pilate is a case in point. Jesus states His reasons  for  why He has come and Pilate summarily dismisses Jesus’ claims. Jesus statement that He has come into  the world to testify  to the truth and that  those  who are of the truth hear His voice… Did Pilate hear the truth? Yes! Did Pilate listen  to the truth  or consider Jesus’ words? No! The very next thing Pilate does is  go out  to the Jews and state that he found no guilt in Jesus.

On the surface what Pilate said is true, Jesus was not guilty of any crime. The preceding statement however reveals the level of mockery and dismissal of Jesus’ claim by Pilate. Pilate wasn’t interested in knowing Jesus or why Jesus had come. Pilates question about who Jesus was loaded with mockery, “Soooo you’re a King? If you were  to read  this in its context by following  through what occurred just prior  to Jesus’s meeting  with Pilate  you get a sense of what is really going on. The Jews had conspired  to murder Jesus at any expense. Ironically Jesus confirms that He is the King of  the Jews after which He states his purpose that exposes  the guilt of those conspiring against Him. It is in every sense a tragic comedy. It is not a passion play as some Liberals  would like  to describe it; It is  an actual serious event  or drama with a happy ending. The Ending being the resurrection of Christ from the dead and  the redemption all of those predestined  to eternal life.

So what parallel  am I drawing between  the hit piece on James White and Jesus’ accusers? The comparison is clear. Those accusing James White are making slanderous accusations  that if one were to review  the evidence objectively would find James innocent of compromising  the gospel or sidling up  to the Muslims as a sympathiser so that  they can infiltrate the church.

It must be embarrassing  to have  to  go  to such an extent to explain your actions and intentions to the public when  they could simply look at the dialogue  that took place  to know that all  the accusations against James White are false; but it seems  that not even this is enough. Sadly  though James White’s accusers are not even bright enough  to actually view the dialogue with Yasir Qadhi view the original dialogues here

This will give  you the true sense of what was said  and why. Further  to this  if  you copy and paste  the first link  at  my introduction; you discover  that now James White is apparently part of  some grand conspiracy  to undermine the church with Islamism. If it wasn’t  so sad and ludicrous it would be funny.

What  does this say about the accusers and their handle on truth? How did  they get  to where they are? They in one instant claim a version of truth but in the very next moment deny the actual practice of truth in their own actions or in this case words! Just an observation: If you talk  to someone who suffers from partial deafness, such as myself, we try very hard  to understand what people are saying  so we may respond appropriately. Here we have people including investigative reporters and Christians who claim  to  know the truth not even bothering  to investigate  the truth  and then only selectively hearing what they want  to hear. I suspect they haven’t listened  to one word of the actual dialogue and blatantly lied that  they did! If you have listened  to both sides what other conclusion can  you draw? Can  you put aside  your own biases long enough  to hear and see what was actually said? Apparently a lot of people  who claim  the truth can’t hear the truth due  to their own biases and traditions.

Once more this comes  back  to what version of truth the person was won with and what  they were won to; the question that needs  to be asked is is there is more than one version of truth? Not if there is more  than one version; IS there more than one version?In my mind there isn’t more than one version of truth although more often  than  not we as fallen sinful human beings only hear the truth selectively. If there was more than one version of truth then truth is only ever relative. If there is only one version of truth then our options are far more limited

Those of us who at least  attempt  to be consistent with the truth will admit that our handling of the truth is at times less than honest because we ourselves have  had our posteriors nailed  to the wall by it.

If we analyse the exchange between Pilate and Jesus we can see that everything Jesus did and said was consistent with His ministry and message. On the other hand everything  the Jews, the high priest and Pilate did was consistent with not hearing  or knowing the truth nor were they interested! It wasn’t a case of not understanding what Jesus was saying; it was a clear case of rejecting the truth!

In the same way this whole hoopla with James White is not about misunderstanding, it is one of clear deception. I get it that Brannon Howse and others  don’t want egg on their face  for getting it wrong but if it was only that we could say it was an innocent mistake. This is not an innocent mistake. James white has challenged  them  to listen  to the full discussion. The other side either lied in saying that that they have or  they deliberately cherry picked the discussion and only talk about those pieces  that support  what they are accusing James White of… They have both lied about doing in depth research and have cherry picked James White and Yasir Qadhi’s dialogue. Sadly many Christians are too lazy  to  do the leg work for themselves and think that because some Christian celebrity with an internet webcast talks about current affairs and theology they are suddenly an expert who can be trusted  to tell  the whole truth… Many times it takes   no longer than five minutes for most of these celebrities  to expose both  their theological and denominational positions. That is an observation not a criticism. I listen  to people from a wide variety of backgrounds but I don’t simply just take their every word  as gospel truth; I investigate what they say and discern  the truth by giving who they’re talking about a fair hearing.

Some would accuse me of being lead into  deception by false doctrine and the lies of the world but my common response  is not everything the world says is a lie, such as the sky is blue and not every word  that comes out of an Arminian’s mouth is wrong such as Jesus is Lord and Saviour God. When people start saying  you shouldn’t listen  to this  or that person and warn  you that  you will be lead astray by false doctrine I hear fear and ignorance talking. Most times the fear is of someone actually knowing something we don’t and losing control of that person or it is fear of the embarrassment  that someone much younger or less experienced and knowledgeable than ourselves might  prove us wrong thereby exposing our own ignorance.

It isn’t uncommon  for church members  to become dependent on their Pastors and Elders, I am not implying this is a bad thing. In most cases your local Pastor and church Elders are trustworthy men who are called by God and gifted  to lead and teach the scriptures faithfully or guide  the church into holiness. Even  so there is no excuse  for church members not  to research the bible and grow in knowledge themselves. This includes this situation where a person or group create a hit piece  that does nothing  to advance  the gospel but only detracts  from it.

Clearly these people have an agenda. On one side  they have shown  their fear and ignorance of Islam having fallen  for all  the common misconception  that all Muslims are terrorists where the only solution is  to extradite them or jail  them. Next they ignore all  the statistical data  that shows  that Islamic terrorists primary targets have been moderate Muslims in the Middle East. Moderates are as much infidels as non-Muslims are in the West. It is undeniable that there are terrorists acts committed in Western countries by Islamic extremists but lets be honest; Terrorism aims  to disrupt society and its sense of security not over run it. Islamophobia in the West thinks  that Islam will suddenly emerge as  the dominant religion so  that it changes both culture and Politics. They argue that if this occurs all  the rights  and freedom’s we know in the west will suddenly disappear; this is especially true of the Christian Community. it thinks  that it is a primary target.

In a sense all  of this is true but how realistic are those fears? Fear is not always irrational I can’t say those fears are entirely unfounded but I can say  that fear is often fuelled by ignorance and misinformation. This hit piece is definitely fuelled by misinformation on the part of those producing and promoting it although it isn’t ignorance driving it. On the part of most of those viewing  these hit pieces ignorance is the main factor although if I was  the one concocting these misconceptions I would be hoping that those following are caught up in the whole emotion of the moment. I would use  some character assassinating tactics  to undermine or raise doubt about the person I was  doing the hit piece on and then insert unfounded accusations that  they were in league  with the devil or something. By this  time  most would have been taken in and switched off  their critical faculties they would be running  on emotions by now… Ever tried  to reason with someone  who is sad or angry  to the point where their whole focus is on that one thing  that made them feel  that way? Doing a hit piece on someone is much the same for the presenter when they can manipulate  the audience away from reasoning to feeling.

So  you would get the sense  that I am favouring James White over against  the wall of accusations; and  you would be correct! Mine is not motivated by emotion. If I had the discussion with Yasir Qadhi that James White did in fact have, I would expect the same kind of hit piece by Brannon Howse in a very short period of time. In fact I  think James White expected the same… So did I. The reason  this isn’t driven by emotion is because I have had a lot of  time  to digest  the situation. Sure I could be outraged but I know the facts and facts  don’t lie. It goes without saying  that at some point someone will read my blog and and misquote me. I’m a bit surprised  it hasn’t happened already.

There was one attempt by someone  not long after I began  this blog  who interacted  with me in an attempt  to trap me but I knew  who they were and it was personal I could have raged on at them but it wasn’t worth my time  or effort… I also happen  to be the Moderator of this blog. That wasn’t about truth that was simply attempted revenge.

This  segue’s into where I began. So is this hit piece about truth? No! it is about a very misconstrued misunderstood area of discussion that  two men from very different backgrounds and beliefs  tried  to make clear  to their audience. If one had bothered  to give their dialogue a fair hearing one would never have said a negative word about it… Oddly enough it isn’t Muslims claiming James white misconstrued  Yasir Qadhi’s meaning or that James white  was  trying  to infiltrate Islam. It is all coming from Christian fundamentalism! At some point someone has  to ask  the question as  to whether the enemy is from the outside or the inside. (note  the order that I stated that and it’s implication)

Notice  all the actions  of those in John chapter 18 who were conspiring against Jesus and compare  them  to James white’s accusers you decide what is really  going on here.

I just found  an interesting response posted by a group called C.H. (Changing Hats) entitled Public statement on James R. White I think it is a great addendum to my blog article. Please read it.


And another response by Christian News Network







One thought on “What you win them with is what you win them to. Is it about truth for you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s