Critique of James White & Wretched TV #1326

[Robert Truelove]

I finally got around to doing this critique of James White & Wretched TV #1326.

If you're familiar with the textual issues at all, there isn't going to be anything new here. I just wanted to put a response out there because I found this episode to be very misleading for people who aren't familiar with this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU8V3N7U2EA

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Excellent job Robert. I wish that Critical Text proponents would stop using these specious arguments because they have misled so many people.

 

[MW]

"Think of it this way. Take John Stewart, remove the potty language and change all of the worldly topics to Christian. That is Wretched."

Personally I wouldn't take it seriously. True theology does not flourish within that type of environment. It is staged for the benefit of those who are going to judge by the presentation rather than the facts. But a helpful response nonetheless, especially the appeal to professional text-critical scholars.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Here is what James White posted to his Facebook wall this morning in response to this...

"A few weeks ago I had a brief exchange with Robert Truelove, who identifies himself as a "Traditional Text" advocate (he's specifically a Byzantine text advocate, but is not overly accurate in how he identifies his position). It has been my experience that when challenged to provide specific, necessary textual answers to the questions that simply must be answered in the field of textual criticism, those who hold to traditions that cannot provide (consistent) answers normally end up becoming more and more aggressive as a cover for the failure of their system. A few weeks ago brother Truelove apologized for his initial statements, especially the highly offensive assertion that the only reason I am invited to debate in mosques is due to, evidently, some textual compromise on my part (is that why he is NOT thusly invited?). And now a few weeks later we have this video, in which he speaks of "The James White Reality Distortion Field." Then we get to the heart of the matter---the "spirit" in which I speak is as "inflammatory and offensive" as the King James only guys. I am presenting "Critical Text Onlyism" that is "rude, divisive, critical, unloving, uncharitable," and I am the "source" for this kind of spirit and attitude (and that was based upon my simply *starting* to respond to Friel's question---I honestly had not yet said a full sentence). All of this video is based upon ignoring the fact that the video he is addressing was put together from portions of my full Wretched presentation on the reliability of the NT text, and draws solely from the Q&A at the end.

The number of category errors and simple ignorance of context in brother Truelove's comments is astounding. But I am more concerned to point to the fact that it didn't take long to move to the aggressive attack mode on the part of someone who claims to see the errors of KJVOism, and yet, holds to a position that, like KJVOism, enshrines a traditional position within an envelope of theological reasoning. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone can view my presentation on the reliability of the NT text and then, on that basis, turn around and say that my presentations are as "rude, divisive, critical, unloving and uncharitable" as the kind of rhetoric one finds flowing forth from the mouths and keyboards of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Steven Anderson, Will Kinney, and the rest of the KJVO movement. I leave it to the reader to evaluate the fairness of Truelove's accusation.

But as you continue on, it only gets worse. After I mention the problems Erasmus had with the text of Revelation and the haste of the printing of the first edition of Erasmus' text, Truelove cuts away and says, "So the general message, so far, is that the Textus Receptus is really a load of festering c**p." Seriously? This is supposed to be taken seriously, coming from a minister of the gospel? Talk about destroying your credibility in one fell swoop! I am sorry, but how can such absurdity be taken seriously? Truly makes one wonder.

So my brief point this morning is just because someone recognizes the absurdity of the KJV Only movement it does not follow that they will not become aggressive in the promotion of their own particular tradition that they use to separate themselves from the "majority" view of the day."

The careful listener in all of these will listen carefully for 1) What points are actually being made and 2) Are those points being answered?

The comments in my video are rather tame compared to the stuff James White has been saying in many of his videos. Perhaps I should put a string of videos together of James doing his rants so people can see first hand what I'm talking about but if you follow him, you already know what I'm talking about.

I listened to Jeff Riddle's (another Reformed Baptist Pastor) critique of this same Wretched TV edition this morning and he draws very many of the same conclusions I drew in my video and provides a lot more information. It's interesting I made my comments before I ever heard Riddle on this. You can hear his take here...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=823142034515

Finally, I made a very clear argument in my video that the Critical Text is not based upon the 5700 extant Greek manuscripts but primarily reflects the minority Alexandrian readings and this was being misrepresented. That was the issue addressed over and over again. Why aren't we getting a reply on that? Rather he takes issue with my "load of festering c**p" comment and essentially dismisses the whole argument. I used strong language because that is exactly how he continually presents the Textus Receptus and translations based upon it. Instead of addressing the issues, we get an ad hominem, "we can't take a guy like this seriously". Well fine...he's not going to answer the issues.

 

[Username3000]

Pastor Truelove,

Have you read James White's The King James Only Movement in its entirety? The reason I ask is because the book seems to contain his position on many of these issues. But, having not read it myself, I don't know what is and is not included in the book.

 

[rickclayfan]

I used to be part of those whom you call Critical Text only-ists. I viewed the TR with contempt and viewed it as an inferior text in the shadow of the CT. I viewed the matter just as White portrays it. Then, I read Owen's volumes on Hebrews. Resources and manuscripts on the original text were not so scant back in the day as I had supposed.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Pastor Truelove,

Have you read James White's The King James Only Movement in its entirety? The reason I ask is because the book seems to contain his position on many of these issues. But, having not read it myself, I don't know what is and is not included in the book.

Yes. I've got both the 1995 edition (read it when it first came out) and then have reread it in the 2009 edition.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If your goal was to ensure that you and James will simply dismiss one another's arguments out of hand, then you've succeeded. I think James wrote and said some things he ought not have in response to you but going for the jugular will ensure that's the end of any kind of irenic engagement.

You might think that's unfair because, after all, you know how careful you were and how you try to make your points plain but I'm certain James feels the same way about his own arguments. As much as you despise the man's arguments in the video you review (summarizing some of his statements as simply saying "the TR is ****"), it is interesting that you demand careful consideration of your own view by him.

The party lines are now clearly drawn.

 

[Captain Picard]

I am still following all of this stuff. None of this is likely to stop my holding the Dividing Line in high regard.

I am grieved that these conversations veer rapidly into what I would view as "sowing dissension among brothers" territory.

 

[JimmyH]

I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.

I think the argument is that the Byzantine
texts continued to be used and reproduced while the Alexandrian texts fell out of use very early and were buried in Egypt.

 

[Captain Picard]

I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.

I think the argument is that the Byzantine
texts continued to be used and reproduced while the Alexandrian texts fell out of use very early and were buried in Egypt.

It would sort of set my mind at ease for there to be a middle ground between "the Alexandrian text-type is a conspiracy to obfuscate the Word"and "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are definitive proof that the Byzantine text-type is secondary". I feel like in my search for truth in this field I'm navigating between Scylla and Charybdis.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.

I think the argument is that the Byzantine
texts continued to be used and reproduced while the Alexandrian texts fell out of use very early and were buried in Egypt.

Which is the question Robert asked in the video. This is why i theologically struggle with the CT.

 

[Robert Truelove]

If your goal was to ensure that you and James will simply dismiss one another's arguments out of hand, then you've succeeded. I think James wrote and said some things he ought not have in response to you but going for the jugular will ensure that's the end of any kind of irenic engagement.

You might think that's unfair because, after all, you know how careful you were and how you try to make your points plain but I'm certain James feels the same way about his own arguments. As much as you despise the man's arguments in the video you review (summarizing some of his statements as simply saying "the TR is ****"), it is interesting that you demand careful consideration of your own view by him.

The party lines are now clearly drawn.

The difference is...I made a bunch of careful points AND the main one, over and over again (that the CT is not based upon the 5700 manuscripts and it is the TR that claims the broader manuscript support). In White's reply we get ad hominem. I don't mind if he wants to call me a low down scoundrel...just address the issues if you're going to respond.

Regarding the summarizing of White's presentation of the TR as, "the TR is c**p"...He was tame in the Wicked TV presentation compared to other places I've seen him do this. I simply don't know a way to sugar coat it...that's exactly what he communicates about the TR and it is intentional because ultimately he is presenting a case for why we shouldn't use it. The ironic thing is, on this point I don't totally fault him. As a CT guy, I understand that he would think the TR is lousy. My point in the video was simply to make clear what was trying to be communicated by the story. The problem with it...was it was supposed to be a piece against King James Onlyism, but was a case against the Traditional Text. THAT was the issue.

This conflation of the Traditional Text position with King James Onlyism is my primary beef with James White. Well, not only me...there are a lot of us out here who think this way.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This conflation of the Traditional Text position with King James Onlyism is my primary beef with James White.

I think the main problem is that you conflate criticism of the KJVO (and arguments appropriate to it) to criticisms of the Ecclesiastical Text position.

How do I know this?

Because his arguments are only effectively targeted at the KJVO crowd. It's like a JW arguing about the kinds of arguments James uses to demonstrate the Deity of Christ to Muslims. Some of the arguments might touch on the same areas but he'll approach them differently knowing the manner in which that material is argued.

For the KJVO crowd, James only has to demonstrate a single place where the historical validity of a certain reading may be called into question. KJVO stands or falls on the idea that every single word is accurate and its defenders will defend the manner that this came about to the death (including Erasmus work). This is why the manner in which Revelation comes into play from Erasmus' work is germane. He doesn't state that Erasmus' work is altogether horrible (this is a childish representation) but there are the superstitious that assign some sort of infallible work of Erasmus to recover the Greek and this leads to a platform that eventually is translated into English.

That's just one example where you conflate Jemes' criticism of the KJVO with your own position. I think the very first thing James would rightly point out is who the argument was directed toward and that it's not worth responding to for that very reason. If I was, for example, arguing against a dispensationalist anti-paedobaptist I would not give your offense the time of day if I argued for Covenant Theology in my defense of the baptism of infants. You migh angrily say that I consider your Covenant Theology "****" in the way I don't acknowledge your arguments about the nature of the New Covenant as I argue with this dispensationalist. I would simply tell you that I wasn't arguing the case for infant baptism with a Reformed Baptism and to get offended only when I actually take up an argument against your case. Of course, if you simply ravaged my arguments repeatedly in a certain way, I might conclude that I don't really ever want to engage you in lengthy dialog.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

This conflation of the Traditional Text position with King James Onlyism is my primary beef with James White.

I think the main problem is that you conflate criticism of the KJVO (and arguments appropriate to it) to criticisms of the Ecclesiastical Text position.

How do I know this?

Because his arguments are only effectively targeted at the KJVO crowd. It's like a JW arguing about the kinds of arguments James uses to demonstrate the Deity of Christ to Muslims. Some of the arguments might touch on the same areas but he'll approach them differently knowing the manner in which that material is argued.

For the KJVO crowd, James only has to demonstrate a single place where the historical validity of a certain reading may be called into question. KJVO stands or falls on the idea that every single word is accurate and its defenders will defend the manner that this came about to the death (including Erasmus work). This is why the manner in which Revelation comes into play from Erasmus' work is germane. He doesn't state that Erasmus' work is altogether horrible (this is a childish representation) but there are the superstitious that assign some sort of infallible work of Erasmus to recover the Greek and this leads to a platform that eventually is translated into English.

That's just one example where you conflate Jemes' criticism of the KJVO with your own position. I think the very first thing James would rightly point out is who the argument was directed toward and that it's not worth responding to for that very reason. If I was, for example, arguing against a dispensationalist anti-paedobaptist I would not give your offense the time of day if I argued for Covenant Theology in my defense of the baptism of infants. You migh angrily say that I consider your Covenant Theology "****" in the way I don't acknowledge your arguments about the nature of the New Covenant as I argue with this dispensationalist. I would simply tell you that I wasn't arguing the case for infant baptism with a Reformed Baptism and to get offended only when I actually take up an argument against your case. Of course, if you simply ravaged my arguments repeatedly in a certain way, I might conclude that I don't really ever want to engage you in lengthy dialog.

I would agree that many of the arguments used against the KJVO crowd will naturally overlap into other views and positions, even of that is not necessarily the intention. I would also agree that perhaps Robert's characterization of Dr. White's view of the TR was unfair and overstated. That being said, I would also agree with Robert that Dr. White failed to meaningfully engage the core of his argument. Arguing for the superiority of the CT on the basis of superior manuscript support on a purely numerical basis is misleading at best and patently false at worst. Even if it is technically true that the CT is based on many more manuscripts than the TR, the practical result is that the TR is largely in agreement with the vast majority of these texts while the CT is in much more significant disagreement with the same.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I agree that my characterization of Dr. White's view of the TR was overstated. Obviously, he sees it as better than a load of festering c**p. When I said "that's exactly what he communicates" I certainly don't mean literally. It's simply that he presents it in the worst possible light when he gives this sort of presentation and clearly communicates that he thinks it is severely defective and should not be used.

Regardless, this was a subpoint of a subpoint in the context of my critique.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I've always been intrigued by the argument that God's providential care extended to the one textual family, and not the other. Particularly when the CT based English translations attained dominance in the larger Christian community decades ago, and remain dominant.

I think the argument is that the Byzantine
texts continued to be used and reproduced while the Alexandrian texts fell out of use very early and were buried in Egypt.

It would sort of set my mind at ease for there to be a middle ground between "the Alexandrian text-type is a conspiracy to obfuscate the Word"and "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are definitive proof that the Byzantine text-type is secondary". I feel like in my search for truth in this field I'm navigating between Scylla and Charybdis.

James,

I totally reject the idea that "the Alexandrian text-type is a conspiracy to obfuscate the Word". It is the early text form of upper Egypt, and despite it's faults, remains orthodox. I reject also the idea that Bibles are "perversions" just because they are based upon the Critical Text.

Furthermore, I affirm that the CT and faithful translations based upon it are the word of God.

The distinction is, I would also affirm the Textus Receptus (our present edition of the Traditional Text in use) is a better source based upon better manuscripts so faithful translations based upon it are better than those from the Critical Text.

I think the arguments stating the "Satanic perversions of the Alexandrian Text" are both overstated and unnecessary.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That being said, I would also agree with Robert that Dr. White failed to meaningfully engage the core of his argument. Arguing for the superiority of the CT on the basis of superior manuscript support on a purely numerical basis is misleading at best and patently false at worst.

Again, however, James is not interacting with an Ecclesiastical Text person at this point. He's not even arguing with a TR per se but a KJVO in the segment. How can it be said that James is being unfair to Robert in the video when that's not whom he is addressing? The number of manuscripts is mainly germane in the issue of the KJVO crowd because the number of Greek MSS found by that point when the KJV was authored was limited. Again, the target is limited to KJVO which rejects even the notion of textual variants.

I don't even know that I would fairly characterize James as "CT only". I would see him more as someone who questions the idea of an Ecclesiastical text from the standpoint that the "used Scripture in the Churches" provides the surest way of determining what was providentially preserved. I was reflecting upon this today and realized that it's actually pretty consistent with James being a Baptist that he would be more suspicious of an Ecclesiastical Text since there is really no such thing as Church authority beyond local assembly in his Ecclessiology.

As I noted in another thread, I do find some apologetic and theological value in the parallels that can be drawn to Kruger's arguments in The Heresy of Orthodoxy that demonstrates how the early Church used the Scriptures. The fact that Christians used "books" centuries before they were cool and the collections they put in these codices (and those they left out) makes for some strong argumentation. Of course, everyone gets a little choosy about Church belief and practice at some point. The Roman Catholic Church might point to Jerome's translation of the Greek word for justification in Romans changing the meaning from "declared righteous" to "made righteous". The same Ecclesiastical text arguments could (and had) been made by the RCC to argue against theological reform. Further, no Baptist is going to accept the settled theological tradition of the baptism of infants as an Ecclesiastical tradition.

Thus, I think James may not be perfect in all his arguments but he seems pretty consistent in mostly being suspicious of the idea that an Ecclesiastical text was settled by THE Church when he doesn't really think of Erasmus or Geneva or the Anglicans as THE Church. I think he probably thinks that, if they had the same number of manuscripts that we have access to then they might have made different textual decisions.

That all said, these are broader discussions that are not really addressed when dealing with the KJVO crowd so, again, I just don't think the video reviewed is the best place to bring them out and wonder why he doesn't deal with them.

Finally, I tend to agree with Dr. Maurice Robinson that the NA and UBS apparati (or is it apparatuses) are too selective in their use of the Byzantine text. There are readings within that MSS family that are not included and I appreciate the work he does. I'm also more inclined to agree with his basic approach to the matter:

Byzantine-priority differs from other theories and methods within New Testament textual criticism: the object is not the reconstruction of an “original” text that lacks demonstrable continuity or widespread existence among the extant manuscript base; nor is the object the restoration or recovery of an “original” text long presumed to have been “lost.” Neither should the concept of an archetypal autograph be abandoned as hopeless. Rather, Byzantine-priority presents as canonical the Greek New Testament text as it has been attested, preserved, and maintained by scribes throughout the centuries. This transmissional basis characterizes the Byzantine-priority theory.

The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. (2006). (p. vii). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Again, however, James is not interacting with an Ecclesiastical Text person at this point. He's not even arguing with a TR per se but a KJVO in the segment. How can it be said that James is being unfair to Robert in the video when that's not whom he is addressing? The number of manuscripts is mainly germane in the issue of the KJVO crowd because the number of Greek MSS found by that point when the KJV was authored was limited. Again, the target is limited to KJVO which rejects even the notion of textual variants.

I was not referring to the Wretched video, but rather to Dr. White's Facebook response to Robert's video that is posted above. Dr. White went to great lengths to protest Robert's characterization of his presentation, but failed to address his core argument in any fashion whatsoever.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was not referring to the Wretched video, but rather to Dr. White's Facebook response to Robert's video that is posted above. Dr. White went to great lengths to protest Robert's characterization of his presentation, but failed to address his core argument in any fashion whatsoever.

Gotcha. I didn't really read that in-depth. It sort of distills issues when two issues are brought together. Critiquing James about what he says to KJVO advocates in a video distracts from how James might have responded better to a purely ET position. This is my point. Now that Robert has conflated criticism of the ET in this video, it makes it much more difficult that James will respond to the original issue. It's moved away from how James might have responded to Robert's original video and a whole host of additional distractions are now present.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I was not referring to the Wretched video, but rather to Dr. White's Facebook response to Robert's video that is posted above. Dr. White went to great lengths to protest Robert's characterization of his presentation, but failed to address his core argument in any fashion whatsoever.

Gotcha. I didn't really read that in-depth. It sort of distills issues when two issues are brought together. Critiquing James about what he says to KJVO advocates in a video distracts from how James might have responded better to a purely ET position. This is my point. Now that Robert has conflated criticism of the ET in this video, it makes it much more difficult that James will respond to the original issue. It's moved away from how James might have responded to Robert's original video and a whole host of additional distractions are now present.

Indeed one of the things that is difficult for most of us to imagine is the sheer amount of ridiculousness, hatred, and vitriol that Dr. White has to deal with on a daily basis from multiple fronts. Obviously I wouldn't consider Robert's presentation to fall into that category, but when that is what you mostly have to deal with, eventually it becomes difficult to even distinguish between the two any more. While I am in agreement with Robert on this issue, I can also understand how Dr. White would be wiry of even addressing this issue anymore after having dealt with so many KJVO nut cases for so many years.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

 

[Robert Truelove]

If you didn't see it, this is the response I received from the first video (note: I am responding to the content of the Dividing Line in the OP on Facebook)...

https://www.facebook.com/aomin.org/posts/1032853633405905?comment_id=1033067926717809&offset=0&total_comments=4&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D

Note my last comment to which there is no reply (as of this post it's over two weeks old). So that's pretty much how it ended up.

From my view of things, I do think Dr. White uses the KJVO critique to criticize all anti-Critical Text views. It's laced throughout his vocabulary within the very terms he uses and the emphasis he chooses to make. I can tell you that quite a few people who hold to similar views on the text issue have communicated this same thing to me about the way they perceive Dr. White and his dealing with this subject. I'm not the only one out here somewhat frustrated with the effect Dr. White is having on some of his followers. I refer to the divisive Critical Text Only kinds of folks.

 

[MW]

From my view of things, I do think Dr. White uses the KJVO critique to criticize all anti-Critical Text views.

Yes, the arguments are doing double-duty in his apologetic for the so-called critical text. Basically any position which gives weight to the Byzantine witness is bound to dissent from his presentation of what he considers to be the "facts" of the case.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

For those who are interested, Dr. White just indicated on his Facebook page that he will be addressing Robert's questions on tomorrow's edition of the Dividing Line beginning at 4 pm EDT.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

f you didn't see it, this is the response I received from the first video (note: I am responding to the content of the Dividing Line in the OP on Facebook)...

https://www.facebook.com/aomin.org/p...:"R2"}

I find this exchange very interesting. I had not seen this interaction and precisely what I surmised above is exactly the case.

James even wonder why you would think you're in his cross-hairs and is actually pretty kind to you in his reply giving you some reasons why he doesn't find the Byzantine priority position very compelling. He then went silent on the thread (for whatever reasons he might have) and you responded 2-3 times including a question as to why he says some things that seem to lump a bunch of people together in his criticism.

What's his answer?

We don't have one because you didn't wait for a reply.

Instead, you made the video that we're responding to in this thread that deals (once again) with somebody (not yourself) that James is criticizing.

I'm honestly kind of bewildered at your impatience when you had a line of communication open with him. There are a number of issues that I find irksome that James says about Baptism but I'm biding my time on those for the opportunity to get a hearing realizing that his aperture is only so wide given the amount of correspondence he gets. The last thing he needs is any reason to view me as "ignorable" on an issue.

 

[alexandermsmith]

"Think of it this way. Take John Stewart, remove the potty language and change all of the worldly topics to Christian. That is Wretched."

Personally I wouldn't take it seriously. True theology does not flourish within that type of environment. It is staged for the benefit of those who are going to judge by the presentation rather than the facts. But a helpful response nonetheless, especially the appeal to professional text-critical scholars.

Absolutely. Any "Christian" discussion show which calls itself "Wretched" in this blithe, trendy manner is to be treated with suspicion. Indeed man is wretched by nature: to turn this reality into a fashion statement is woeful.

To follow the reasoning of people like White is to doubt the Bible you hold in your hands. These men are saying whole portions of Scripture shouldn't even be there and every time a different translation comes out they're preaching verses which don't say the same thing they said the last time they preached on them. I think this is connected with a movement to always go to the original langauges, which you see with a lot of Reformed people. Of course knowledge of the original languages is valuable and important, but if one has to refer to the original language to "really" know what Scripture is saying then you're effectively saying the vast majority of Christians can't truly know what God is saying to them in Scripture: they need a small group of learned men to tell them. That's why the divine preservation of the text of Scripture is an essential element of the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. We have a faithful translation, based on a text which was divinely preserved. We can trust what we're reading, if reading the KJV.

Mr. Truelove, if I could just say: I appreciate your video and I think it's really important to be saying these things today, but I do find the use of a certain word not only unnecessary but not worthy of a Christian. People like White are inflammatory and their tone is objectionable: we must be better.

 

[Logan]

We can trust what we're reading, if reading the KJV.

And for languages other than English...?

 

[Robert Truelove]

Mr. Truelove, if I could just say: I appreciate your video and I think it's really important to be saying these things today, but I do find the use of a certain word not only unnecessary but not worthy of a Christian. People like White are inflammatory and their tone is objectionable: we must be better.

Point taken. I think some of this is where I live in the South, "c**p" is generally no more offensive here then saying "dung" or "poop" (<which aren't offensive words here either). At worst it is seen as an very mild crude-ish word.

I was initially taken a little aback that some people saw that as a cuss word. That's my problem though as I am not only responsible for what I say, but how the things I say are received. I do not want to offend with language and I have never been one to applaud the "cussing preachers" so I will retire the use of the "c" word in future videos.

EDIT: I just added an annotation to the first time I used the "c" word in the video...