Well, actually you should read it because Jeff Downs posts there once in a while and Jeff is the consumate data miner. If there’s something worth looking at–be it a new book, an online lecture, or a journal article–then Jeff has the skinny on it. He’s also a good guy, even if an ardent defender of White. ;-) But apparently unless one has read White’s books, listened to his debates, or researched his teaching and/or ministry over the last 20 years then they can’t truly understand the context in which he says anything. I’ve seen him complain about such things more times than I can count*, the most recent being in his post today:
2) Do not expect the Golden Rule to be applied to you if you are an evangelical. If you are going to address someone like Ehrman, you better do your homework. Read his works, listen to his lectures, study his articles. If you do not, you have nothing to say. However, anyone can comment on what you say as an evangelical without worrying about anything you have ever written or taught over twenty or more years. Just remember, the context of the evangelical is irrelevant; the context of the star-level scholar is all important. Also, it is fair to assume the evangelical believer is ignorant of anything you wish to attribute to them, even if you have no idea whether they are in fact ignorant of those subjects or not.
I suppose that what he writes on his blog is insufficient to make his point because to hear him tell it, others have to have a lot of foundational knowledge to understand what he says in any given post. I’m sorry, but this is just too much work. Why should we have to read The Potter’s Freedom or The King James Only Controversy to understand what White writes on his blog? Does anyone else complain in the same manner about being misunderstood and misrepresented because others don’t have the necessary background info to properly interpret their blog musings? I can understand if the post was specifically on a book that he has written, but just because he’s written books on the various subjects he discusses doesn’t make them necessary reading to comment on the content of said discussions. I think Joel McDurmon did a fine job pointing this in both his American Vision article and his radio dialogue with White.
*For other examples see his 11/3/08 announcment of the Dividing Line in which he says:
William Albrecht has promised to call in, so, we will see if he has bothered to read any of our books, listen to any of our debates, and if he understands the very foundation of our assertion that there is no DIVINE distinction between latria and dulia.
Or an email exchange with a Mormon named Gary Novak dated 12/10/98 in which White says:
I’m sorry, genuine dialogue? I’m sorry, but while I have often bent over backwards to attempt to believe such offers, given your past correspondence, do you really think I have any logical reason to believe you wish to engage in “genuine dialogue”?
If, upon reading _The Forgotten Trinity_, and, say, _Is the Mormon My Brother?_, and maybe something really challenging, like, _Grieving: Our Path Back to Peace_, you wish to engage in “genuine dialogue,” please let me know.
Such examples could be multiplied many times over.