The title of this post is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word “exoneration”. I used “exoneration” in the post announcing the completed investigation of Dr. Ergun Caner. In this post I would like to explain to our readers the thought process that went into that announcement.
First, I placed the announcement there without any consultation of the other managers here at SBC Today. That post was my doing and I accept full responsibility. I know that Brothers Wes, Scott, and David have taken some serious attacks on their characters and for this I am sorry. It was never my intention to place them in such a position as to have to defend their integrity as others have hammered away.
Two, the response of some to my use of the word “exoneration” has been less than stellar. Many have castigated SBC Today for the use of that word. I find the use of the word has provided fodder for the grist mill of the blog world that looks for any opportunity it can take to attack us here at SBC Today. One person went as far as to call Brother Scott out to separate himself from our group. In his statement he also expressed that he “loved Scott Gordon” thus, he implies that the doesn’t “love” the rest of us. I find that person’s actions appalling in his attempt to separate friends. Another person went as far as to compare us to “Baghdad Bob“ One would find it interesting that the one comparing us to Baghdad Bob is the same person that said he was praying for Dr. Caner. However, he then posts two more posts slamming Dr. Caner. One in a veiled attempt to call attention to celebrity preachers and the other in a veiled attempt to apply Liberty University’s honor code to Dr. Caner. He then acknowledges his penchant to tie everything to Dr. Patterson, as his comment is in response to another person who points to Dr. Patterson’s leadership in Dr. Caner’s life.
Three, allow me to inform you of my thought process in using this term. I checked the definition before I used the term. If one looks at the definition and then looks at the statement released from Liberty University, one has to admit that exoneration is not a stretch. Why? Notice what the statement says; “the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager…” This was the initial charge leveled at Dr. Caner, but was later changed to Dr. Caner was not a devout Muslim. Dr. Caner’s not being a Muslim is something that has been challenged from the very beginning, and is still being challenged. Dr. Caner, after the committee has exonerated him, is still being charged with this by the very one who caused all of this hoopla in the first place. Also, the committee said; “…that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory.” The committee did not find that Dr. Caner “lied”, they found that he made statements of fact but sometimes had wrong dates, times and places. These are the same as “mis-statements”, of which Dr. Caner apologized publicly and we ran that statement here on SBC Today. Thus, I used the term “exoneration” because according to the statement released by the committee from Liberty University they cleared him from accusation or blame.
Fourth, the committee’s words and actions do not mesh. The issue that everyone points to is that Dr. Caner was “demoted” from President to Professor. One blogger even claims to have insight that Dr. Jerry Falwell Jr. insisted on Dr. Caner being retained as professor. If that blogger is correct, and has that kind of behind the scenes access at Liberty University, then LU needs to seriously examine their staff. When an egalitarian has that kind of connections in a complimentarian university there will be serious troubles in the future for Liberty. Whether Dr. Jerry Falwell Jr. insisted or not is not the issue. Liberty has taken an action that appears to be tied to their investigation. However, that action does not express the words of the statement. How can one be found to have apologized for mis-statements that were not lies, and found to be factual about one’s background, but does not get a renewal of a contract? And the contract that one does get is a contract to continue on in the position of teaching these young minds? The statement and actions are dichotomous at the least.
Conclusion
Allow me to close by saying that I am finished commenting on this issue. I will allow the comments to be open for you to question me and call me to task for my use of the word exoneration. These comments are not going to venture down the road of Dr. Caner’s mis-statements. For that reason I will remove statements about Dr. Caner and his mis-statements. I will only allow comments that address my use of the term and my thoughts posted in this post.
I want to thank Brothers Wes, David, and Scott for their patience with me and their graciousness in expressing their differences with me. I love these men and appreciate their hearts as we continue together to expand the Kingdom of God.
Tim,
I wouldn’t worry about WB if I were you. He has forever revealed his lack of integrity by publishing my private email to another person without my permission. While I continue to consider my legal options to stop such outrageous behavior, I find it laughable that such a person would dare to use the word integrity in a serious conversation.
The vitriol of the Caner attack squads also reveals a lack of grace which, while not surprising, is unChristian and sinful. If I were a non-believer, the behavior of these attack squads would communicate to me that Christians are not forgiving people.
The blogs of which you reference, who so mercilessly villified Dr. Caner, remind me of the crowd who cried “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!.” Dr. Caner is no Jesus Christ, but the hatred of the crowd sounds very similar.
Les
How can we have a discussion on your use of exoneration if we cannot discuss what Dr. Caner was exonerated of?
How can you say that Ergun Caner was cleared of accusation or blame, when the Liberty statement says that he made contradictory statements(aka, lies).
Tim:
So … what should these “Christian attack squads” have done instead? How would you have handled the situation? It seems that you are being every bit as “hateful” towards those who wanted Dr. Caner and Liberty University to be held accountable for the “mis-statements.” If it were not for the “hateful Christian attack squads”, no one would have known that they were “mis-statements.” Would it have been better for Liberty University, Dr. Caner and everyone had these facts remained hidden? If so, how?
And what exactly was supposed to be forgiven here? Or more precisely, what is the definition of forgiveness? Would failing to challenge “mis-statements” and hold accountable the people who make them and the institutions who employ them be “forgiveness”? If so, does this “forgiveness” only apply to Christians? Are non-Christians and the institutions that they represent also allowed to make “mis-statements” without having them challenged? Do we want doctors, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers etc. indulging in this type of behavior?
So I suppose it circles back around to the question of how you personally would have handled this situation without either A) being a Christian attack squad member or B) remaining silent and sweeping it under the rug in the name of “forgiveness”.
Tim Rogers,
First, let me apologize. As I look back at the comment I wrote, the one which thought Scott Gordon should separate himself from SBC Today, I realize that it was harsh and unnecessary. I apologize. When I said I love Scott Gordon, I was not meaning to imply I don’t love others at this blog, but merely that I greatly appreciate Scott, as I have had more interactions with him than anyone else. I am sorry for not making that more clear.
While I still think “exoneration” was a bad word to use, I do agree that on ONE claim he was ‘exonerated.’ He was in fact a Muslim that converted to Christianity, which is something that I have said all along. I can not fathom why Debbie Kaufman can’t see this. But it is obvious that he wasn’t totally exonerated. If he was completely exonerated, which your post seemed to imply, then there would be no reason to not let him continue as Dean. The fact is they did say that Ergun lied(said contradictory statements) about his testimony.
I do hope you receive my sincere apology for my harshness. In my over-zealousness I often seem to forget that we are purchased by the same blood and while we disagree on things you and all of SBC Today are brothers in Christ.
I am ready for this issue to be done. Unless there is more that comes out there will no longer be posts at SBC Voices on the issue. I think Liberty did a proper investigation and acted how they felt they should. That is all one can really ask for. I love Ergun and Liberty. I am a student at Liberty University and I promise you I am very grateful for both Ergun and Liberty. While there are some that seem to be driven by anger or hatred, I am not one of them. I did want to see Ergun held accountable, as I want for all of our leaders, but it was not out of bad motives or a “political agenda.” Those who seem to be driven by anything less than love for a brother in Christ need to shut it down. We will know who those are by their continued blogging on the issue even as it has been settled. They dont have to like how it was settled, but to continue barking is of no good.
Again, even though I disagree with you all, I apologize for addressing you and SBC Today in a less than honorable way.
Matt
Job, makes a good point. Many, myself included, who were merely trying to get an answer for the “mis-statements” and who were seeking accountability for our leaders got pretty harshly attacked as we were labeled “Christian attack squads.”
As, Job, points out- there really isnt another way to handle it. We see contradictions, we write a blog pointing out the contradictions and ask for answers. That is all there was too it and yet we were labeled as “attacking” another Christian and that just wasnt the case. While some were attacking, myself and others were not.
So, those who opposed the “attackers” for merely asking questions- how would you have handled it?
“When an egalitarian has that kind of connections in a complimentarian (sic) university there will be serious troubles in the future for Liberty.”
Tim:
Can you flesh out this statement for me? It seems to be coming in from left field (or right field, if you prefer). If in fact Falwell did have a part in retaining Caner and it was meant to be a secret, then LU does have a problem with confidentiality, but what does egalitarianism have to do with it? If it wasn’t meant to be a secret, what does egalitarianism have to do with it? You seem to be suggesting that complementarians should have no friendships or communications with egalitarians.
Second, a clarification if you would: Are you saying that LU’s decision to remove Caner as Dean and President is inconsistent with their statement of (what you believe to be) exoneration or are you saying the two statements are non-related and that we cannot infer something about the former from the latter, or vice versa? They just happen to be issued together?
Thanks
Brother Les,
Good point. Have you seen our sweet, irenic Brother’s latest post? It seems that Dr. Norman Geisler has agreed with me. That is an independent source. I feel I am in good company with Dr. Norman Geisler, one of the top apologist in the Evangelical world, in agreement with me. :)
Brother Job,
Re: Comment #2. It seems you are doing a great job, Job with your comment #4.
Re: Comment #4. You have used quotes to reference me and attached me to the use of “Christian attack squads”. I am certain you will not find me using that term at any place concerning this situation. Could you please show me where you have gotten that statement?
Brother BaptistThinker,
Think about what you are saying. The statement does not say that Dr. Caner made “contradictory statements (aka, lies)” The statement says he made “Factual Statements that were self-contradicting”. Huge difference.
Brother Matt,
I seriously have much ministry work to do. However, I will answer you when I am back in the office. I have gotten tied up at home for too long and must run. I promise I will interact with you. Also, thanks for the apology. I understand what you are trying to say.
Blessings,
Tim
Bro Tim,
If I say “I was born in Delaware in 1981, and raised there as a Fundamental Baptist”, and later say “I was born in Delaware in 1981, and raised in Pennsylvania most of my life as a Southern Baptist”, those are both factual statements in that they both make a true claim. But both of them are contradictory, are they not? One must be false. If one is false, then it is a lie. A statement of fact that contradicts another statement of fact is a lie. Both statements of fact cannot be true of they are contradictory.
Perhaps someone could clarify something for me. I was under the impression that when Dr. Caner apologized for misspeaking and getting names wrong or dates that he was talking about folks he claimed he debated but had not. Am I understanding right that the apology for misspeaking also included his statements about when he came to the country, for instance? For some reason, I thought that was a separate issue and that he claimed there was no discrepancy. I’ve been confused before, however.
When an egalitarian has that kind of connections in a complimentarian university there will be serious troubles in the future for Liberty.
Slightly off topic, but how in the world did he get appointed to be a trustee? I mean, how was he able to go so long being a closet moderate without being outed? Head scratcher.
I’m sorry, but if you think that the Liberty press release was meant to communicate that they think Ergun Caner has done hardly anything wrong, then it has got to be the worst press I think I have ever seen.
Tim:
I am sorry. In my second comment, my remarks were directed at Les Puryear’s comment above mine, not at you. I apologize for the confusion that I may have caused.
My original statement, however, I do wish to discuss. How can we have a discourse on whether it was appropriate to say that Dr. Caner was exonerated if we cannot discuss what he was exonerated of? For instance, I have always felt that Dr. Caner is a former Muslim. I have also always felt that Dr. Caner’s educational credentials are legitimate. So, since those things were never subjects of disputes with me in the first place, he was not “exonerated” concerning them in my eyes.
Basically, I will go ahead and state that I have no interest in Mohammed Khan’s claims against Dr. Caner. After all, Liberty University themselves stated that they didn’t feel the need to respond to the accusations of bloggers. Instead, my concerns are whether it can be said that Dr. Caner was exonerated regarding other issues, issues that were raised by Christians with excellent reputations that have no agendas or axes to grind, and issues that were raised by Christianity Today and the secular media.
So, what constitutes exoneration on the mis-statements, the factual statements that were contradictory? For that matter, what constitutes a factual statement? Were the statements that were made factual in the first place?
It is not my intention to conjecture regarding the intent behind the statements, but rather whether the statements themselves were factual. Liberty University declaring them to be factual does not close the matter, because we certainly have the right to hold a difference of opinion from Liberty University, especially when one considers that Liberty University initially badly mishandled the issue. Please recall: “Elmer Towns, co-founder of Liberty University and dean of the School of Religion, says there will be no official reprimand or demotion of Ergun Caner. Towns, who had a hand in hiring Caner, says the Liberty board has held an inquiry and directors are satisfied that Caner has done nothing theologically inappropriate.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/mayweb-only/28-11.0.html
So since Liberty University was forced to recant their earlier and wholly inappropriate “exoneration” of Caner, why cannot this “exoneration” be adequately discussed? Because as Liberty University did find that Dr. Caner was originally a Muslim (again, a belief which almost no one in evangelical Christianity other than Ms. Kaufman ever disputed) that certainly is the reason why he is no longer president of Liberty’s seminary.
I am sorry, that should have been “that certainly IS NOT the reason why he is no longer president of Liberty’s seminary.”
Brother Matt,
Thanks for your understanding and desire to move forward. Also, I am sure we are not in agreement on my use of “exoneration” but as I told Brother Les, I am in good company. See this Facebook wall post by Dr. Norman Geisler. Also, as you said in your statement Dr. Caner was exonerated as being a former Muslim. Will you now call on Dr. Ascoll to recant for you spreading the following false information on his Twitter account?
Re: Comment #6
Did you go to your administration? You are a student at Liberty, should you have not started there?
Brother Bill,
First for your question concerning the egalitarian insider. The person that made the statement that Dr. Falwell Jr. insisted he be retained as professor is an avowed egalitarian. Now, he will tell you he isn’t, but he has certainly received the egalitarian of the year award from an egalitarian organization. My point is the leak of confidentiality is not just a well organized media leak it is much more serious than that. I see a day, if Liberty doesn’t shore up her borders, that the greatest Christian University will become another Harvard.
As for the clarification of LU “removing” Dr. Caner from his Dean position. Did the statement say they were “removing” Dr. Caner from his position? No! They said they were not going to renew his contract for that position, but made available a contract for a professorial position. Huge difference. Dr. Caner has not been “removed”. Let’s look at the political facts. This thing was started by a Muslim. It was picked up by some Christians that still are saying he was never a Muslim. The news media picked it up. Politically speaking those false accusers decided they were going to “lay seige” to LU until something was done. They began this investigation and concluded that nothing Dr. Caner had done or said was false. While making some statements of fact, he mis-spoke with dates, times and places. After this decision to “lay seige” against LU was determined by the committee they knew “politically speaking” they were going to have to give the “false accusers” something to hold onto. Thus, the decision to not extend the current contract for the official spokesman of the seminary. However, they certainly did not want to lose one of the most brilliant minds of the young evangelicals thus, the insistence to retain him as professor. It is political plain and simple. LU could not keep him on as President and Dean once they acquiesced to this investigation.
Brother BaptistThinker,
Certainly looks as if you are thinking. However, you have not thought well enough. Being a “fundamentalist Baptist and saying you are a Southern Baptist is not incompatible. Ask anyone out of the CBF. :) Seriously, there is nothing “false” about your statement.
Brother Joe,
Re; Comment #10
In the link I provide in this post to Dr. Caner’s statement in February, all of this was out there. You are correct to the debates, but if you will remember the timelines of his being in the US were also out there being questioned. That was the basis some used to say he was not a former Muslim. See here, because your friend Ms. Kaufman is still pushing that issue.
Re; Comment #11
My head itches also. :) However, I believe it was his placing 99 reasons the CBF should be booted out of the SBC, on the door of the CBF offices in Ok.City had something to do with it.
Sister Erlene,
I am not by myself. It seems the leading apologist in the Evangelical world is also arguing this point.
Brother Job,
Here is your problem and it is the same problem Brother Matt had from the time he entered the discussion back in April. While you may believe that Dr. Caner was a former Muslim, that was not the basis for the things you call into question. All of the items that you and others have questioned about the seemingly inconsistencies are based on him not being a former Muslim. For example, his coming to the US when he was 2 says he was not a former Muslim that is why he tells people he came when he was a teenager. That is what his detractors say. What you and Brother Matt pick up on is when he came to the US? There must be something he is trying to hide if he did not tell us that he came to the US when he was 2. Thus, you grab the mud and leave behind the straw. Therefore you are left with trying to make straw bricks and you end up making straw men. What I am trying to point out is all of the arguments build on Dr. Caner being a “fake” former Muslim.
Here you have gone astray again. I have quoted to Brother Matt a Twitter quote by Dr. Ascoll, dr. White also accused him of not being a former Muslim, our friends out of Enid also accused him of not being a former Muslim, the article in Christianity Today carried that line also. When LU began their investigation, they stated clearly what they were investigating and his position as a Former Muslim was right there. So to say that almost no one in the evangelical world accused him of not being a former Muslim is a err, mis-statement?
Look, if you do not agree, fine. However, according to the statement released by Liberty University, the wording of it exonerates him. Their actions speak differently but that is the political world we live in.
Blessings,
Tim
If Dr. Caner was exonerated, then what did he apologize for and why was he demoted. Your logic is very Clintonian, as is the statement made by Liberty, saying that Caner made “factual statements that were self-contradictory”. Let me break that down for you: He lied.
Brother Joseph,
Sorry you feel that way. That is not what the statement out of Liberty said. If you have problems with the statement I suggest you contact LU as “Statements of Fact that are self-contradictory” is their wording. Words mean things and these words do not say he lied.
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Tim,
It was more precisely, your logic, which is very Clintonian. It reminds me of Hillary longing for abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare”. It is so ridiculous that it is not worthy of consideration. Liberty’s statement is very Clintonian in that it is nothing but double speak. It is very clear that the phrase “factual statements that are self-contradictory” really is just a nice way of saying he lied. For you to say that Caner was exonerated of all the charges while at the same time, he is apologizing and is demoted, is illogical and laughable. It really diminishes your credibility to continue to try and defend this idea that he was exonerated. If that is what you wish to do, then by all means, continue.
Hi TIM ROGERS,
“I see a day, if Liberty doesn’t shore up her borders, that the greatest Christian University will become another Harvard.”
Just a thought,
Liberty advertises itself as the ‘largest Christian university’ but not as the ‘greatest Christian university’.
Anything known about Liberty’s ‘tier’ ranking among Christian universities?
Bro Tom,
I was raised a Fundamental Baptist(I’m now a Southern Baptist). To call me a Southern Baptist was a worst kind of insult, and in my youth I would have slugged somebody for that. The two statements, to a Fundamental Baptist or somebody who understand Fundamentalists, are most certainly incompatible.
Tim,
You know my position on the use of the word exoneration. You also know my position as to the true motives of those who have and continue to shamefully attack Ergun even after he has been gravely wounded.
And I think you to be wise to publish the Burleson’s true motivation for what they have done. But look out, if pattern means anything, you will become the victim of another of Wade’s infamous vendetta blog attacks wherein he feeds you up to the Wild Geese who gobble up his every word as if they were chocolate drops kissed by angels.
There is one thing I do think you should consider though. I think you should take Matt Svoboda’s apology at face value.
Remember one thing that has caused much of this is the fact that when Ergun did apologize, his apology was sifted through word-by word by heartless people who obviously will deny him any grace and mercy no matter what he says or does at this point.
Brother Joseph,
Once again, if you have problems with the wording of the statement, it is Liberty University you should be contacting. I am merely using the words they generated. Also, comparing me to Hillary is nothing more than a straw man to try and accuse me of promoting abortion. That will not stick but go ahead and give your best shot. And again, if you have problems with me using “exonerated” as my choice of words then you have problems with one of the greatest and most respected apologist in the Evangelical world–Dr. Norman Geisler–he has used the same word.
Brother CB,
You need to see Dr. Norman Geisler for the choice of the word “exoneration”. I believe he gives a great basis for his argument.
As to Brother Matt’s apology, I am not sure if I have indicated anything other than full acceptance of his apology. However, he did say that if someone had said that Dr. Caner wasn’t a Muslim they would be wrong. I am just calling on him to call into account those who would say such.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, you DO KNOW that Geisler is the head of Veritas Seminary where Caner is a part-time staff member?
That important connection, of course, may not explain Geisler’s comments, but it IS something that should be mentioned openly, as Caner IS a member of Geisler’s faculty.
BTW, ‘Veritas’, from the Latin.
It means ‘truth’.
Tim,
In responding to “Job” at 4:35 PM, you made an interesting series of statements. “All of the items that you and others have questioned about the seemingly inconsistencies are based on him not being a former Muslim. For example, his coming to the US when he was 2 says he was not a former Muslim that is why he tells people he came when he was a teenager. That is what his detractors say. What you and Brother Matt pick up on is when he came to the US? There must be something he is trying to hide if he did not tell us that he came to the US when he was 2. Thus, you grab the mud and leave behind the straw. Therefore you are left with trying to make straw bricks and you end up making straw men. What I am trying to point out is all of the arguments build on Dr. Caner being a ‘fake’ former Muslim.”
I’m sorry, but I cannot follow your logic here. Apparently, there is a contradiction about when Dr. Caner came to the US, between his own statements and various court documents which have been quoted on the web. But lying–or “altering,” whatever term you prefer–the age at which he came to the US does nothing to give credibility to his Muslim “credentials.” Many people who came to America at a young age, or for that matter, who were born in America, are Muslim, and some of them are even radical Muslims (viz., the kid from California, I think it was, who was captured fighting with the Taliban in the early days of the war, or Major Hasan, the terrorist behind the Fort Hood atrocities). Saying you came to America as a teenager if you have been here since you were a toddler–whether age 2 or 3 or 4, whatever–is not a shortcut to helping people understand that you were thoroghly indoctrinated as a Muslim and/or a Muslim terrorist, nor is it a slight “misspeak”; one or the other must be a lie.
Speaking for myself, I don’t believe I have ever said that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim. Questions about when he came to America, how he learned English, whether he spent his formative years in New Yorn, Ohio, Sweden, or Turkey, do not hinge on whether or not he is a “genuine ex-Muslim,” but rather on whether or not he is honest about these matters in and of themselves. If he came to live in Ohio as a toddler, but at some point recognized his father’s heritage and consequently “became” a Muslim before meeting the Truth who is Jesus Christ, that does not make him any less a Muslim (if perchance that is how it came about). The truth is always a stronger testimony than anything else.
Back in 1972, my father was a small-town police chief in Alabama. One night, two of his officers came to him and reported that their police car had run out of gas, so my father opened up the city gas pumps and let them get a gallon or so of gas. They were not out of gas at all, but took it and set the mayor’s car on fire in an insurance scam in collusion with the mayor. Within a year or so, the mayor, the two officers, and my father had all be indicted for arson. The mayor and the two officers were convicted in pretty short order, but they kept delaying Daddy’s trial at the request of the district attorney’s office. Finally, the county appointed a special prosecutor from the other end of the state (so there could be no political interference) to investigate Daddy’s part in the whole mess. His trial finally began on Labor Day I think in 1975, when the Court House was officially closed (we had to find an unlocked side door to even get in, and the handful in our courtroom were the only ones present in the court’s end of the building; a few deputy sheriffs were present in their office at the opposite end of the building, but did not even know a court was supposed to hold session–I know because we asked them, and none of the usual court house personnel were there beside the judge and a court stenographer). When the judge asked the Special Prosectuor if the state was ready to proceed, he stood, and said that having completed an extensive investigation, he was satisfied that Mr. Fariss had no knowledge of the arson (either before or after the fact, until the state’s investigation revealed it to him), was innocent of all possible charges related to it, and recommended that the single charge of third degree arson against him be dropped. The judge so pronounced the charge dropped. Although he was not reinstated as chief, the city paid his back retirement and I think his back pay from the date of his firing (immediately after his indictment) until the court date. That Tim, is an exoneration.
John Fariss
dr. White also accused him of not being a former Muslim
Where. First, I have read every single article. by Dr. White since this started. Without exception. Second, I have listened to every Dividing Line, interview, or what have you on this subject, from Dr. White. Third, I have read if not *every* single blog, news story, or forum post mentioning this issue, I’m pretty close. Over 90%, at least.
To back this up, you’d better have a *few* quotations of Dr. White saying this – and I doubt you have even *one* instance – I’d have heard it, and mentioned it to him. I have personally heard Dr. White say, at *least* one dozen times on the Dividing Line, once in person, a couple dozen times on his website, and COUNTLESS times in his chat channel that he does not think, and never has thought, that Dr. Caner was never a Muslim. I’d like to see your documentation for this, and I’m sure the rest of your readers would like to see it as well.
Perhaps you’re okay with Dr. Caner’s serial prevarication; but on this particular point, I’m well-prepared to say you are not only wrong, but dead wrong. I’m sick and tired of the falsehoods being tossed around on this. Produce the documentation or retract, please. We’ve bent over backwards to provide solid, documentary evidence of the information we’ve presented about Dr. Caner. If you’re going to make a statement like that, *directly* contradictory to what the man has said, at LEAST 2 dozen times that you’d have easy access to, please be prepared to back it up.
~Joshua Whipps,
Perkinston, MS
(Just to short circuit any claims of “pseudonymous comments”)
Tim Rogers wrote: “dr. White also accused him of not being a former Muslim”
Please document this falsehood, or publicly retract it. Thank you.
Anyone—anyone with a fair mind, anyway—who has listened to me at all, or read me at all, knows exactly what I have said, exactly what I have argued, exactly what I have argued. The statement is false. End of story.
James White
Mr. Scott (C.B.),
I often do not agree with Wade Burleson. In fact, I disagreed with him strongly when he visited Jimmy Carter a few years ago. In fact, I told him that he was swimming in a big boy’s club that even Ben Cole could not fathom. In his picture with former President Carter you are standing along him as a colleague. May I ask what happened?
It seems that many who aligned themselves with Burleson and Ben Cole have dropped to the side and are silent or have begun to challenge him (Les Puryear is another example). However, no one ever explains what happened to cause this change?
Many are upset with Burleson (and probably with just cause) but no one tells why. As long as you guys remain silent, his message will be the primary one heard.
Tim
Here are the simple facts:
1. Dr. Caner is a former Muslim who converted to Christianity.
2. Dr. Caner was exonerated concerning charges of not being a former Muslim after an investigation was performed.
3. Dr. Caner did misspeak concerning dates and places concerning his testimony.
4. Dr. Caner confessed this and has since repented. (Feb 2010)
5. Since February of 2010 no charges have been given of any further misspeaks since that date.
6. Actions of certain people fail Biblical teachings concerning restoring an erring brother especially after he has already confessed and repented of those actions. (Galatians 6:1-5)
This has all been sad, very sad. I pray that Dr. Caner and his family will heal over this abuse and he can get on to what God has called him.
Brother James White,
What part of this quote taken directly from you article here, has you affirming that Dr. Caner was a Muslim? Oh, this article was just last month, a cursory search revealed that quote.
Now, have you presented a falsehood about your position of Dr. Caner’s former life as a Muslim, or did you mis-speak?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother John,
First the logic is simple. This entire issue began because Dr. Caner was being accused of not being a former Muslim. Those charges moved to he was not a devout former Muslim. Anything that is argued on top of this has for its basis the original charge.
Using the example of you Dad, where did Dr Caner’s salary get cut?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim
Now would be a good time for James White to confess he has not doubted Dr. Caners claim to be an ex Muslim.
“Brother Joseph,
Once again, if you have problems with the wording of the statement, it is Liberty University you should be contacting. I am merely using the words they generated.”
It is those very words which you have misinterpreted to mean that he did anything but lie. That is your issue, not Liberty’s, since they even seem to acknowledge this much by demoting him and having him to apologize.
“Also, comparing me to Hillary is nothing more than a straw man to try and accuse me of promoting abortion.”
Nope. That is also not true. It is merely, and correctly, pointing out that your Clintonian doublespeak is similar to such nonsense that Hillary would spew. I have no idea what your views are on abortion as I hardly know you. I do know that you seem to be willfully ignorant in your interpretation of the situation at Liberty. Again, if Caner was exonerated, then why did he apologize and why was he demoted?.
” That will not stick but go ahead and give your best shot. And again, if you have problems with me using “exonerated” as my choice of words then you have problems with one of the greatest and most respected apologist in the Evangelical world–Dr. Norman Geisler–he has used the same word.”
Geisler is okay, but I have no problem disagreeing with him. He is not the Pope, you know. He is not infallible, and neither are you.
Brother Razorkiss,
I said from the start we were going to deal with the statement from Liberty not the various issues you try to bring in this comment stream.
Brother Joseph,
It seems that you are reading more into that statement than is intended. Nothing in that statement points to “having him to apologize”. The statement points to the fact that he has already apologized for the mis-statements.
Blessings,
Tim
Perhaps. I will grant you that point. You have not, however, explained how a person can be exonerated and demoted at the same time. Please explain.
dr. James White,
If you will read my comment to razorkiss you will understand why I placed yours in moderation. Also, our commenting policies do not allow for such slanderous and ungodly language to be used concerning a Brother in Christ. If you desire to use that kind of language feel free to do so on your own blog.
Also, you asked me to produce and I did so. Thus you need to recant that I have given a falsehood concerning you.
Brother Joseph,
If you will review the comment #15 that I responded to Brother Bill, I have answered that question.
Blessings,
Tim
Yet, you brought up a twisted misreading of what “past” referred to. Correcting your misapprehensions required a mention. I did keep it brief. I have a quite lengthy post with over a hundred such examples – which I could add to quite significantly since it’s posting, if it mattered at this point. The point is – it’s rather obvious to anyone who has done more than a *cursory* search on his blog, what he is referring to. His usage of “past” in that post has a context which is easily found. That is what it refers to – his frequent, endemic biographical prevarications. Not his status as a former Muslim. No one but Debbie Kaufman and Mohammed Kahn assert that, period. In fact, if you’d have listened to the Dividing Line today, you would have heard Dr. White specifically say that very thing – and it’s consistent with what he has said about Mr. Khan’s claims all along. It’s easily verifiable – just read his blog, listen to his programs. it’s quite obvious, frequent, and clear.
Bro. Tim,
The fact is, he was demoted. You can use any flowery language you want. It doesn’t change the fact that he was removed as dean, and demoted to professor. Go live in your fantasy land all you want. Talking with you is fruitless since you seem to worship Caner more than you do the truth.
Tim,
I would advise you in the following way. Do not respond to White or any of the other Caner attackers. They are now attacking NORMAN GEISLER! A notorized letter from Christ himself wouldn’t stop their bloodlust.
Paul exhorts us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers and I am going to apply that even as far as correspondence. They are too cowardly to open commentary on their attack blogs (James White) and they have shown the cowardice to post private emails publicly (James White). John tells us “By this will all men know that you are my disciples if you love each other”. There has not been love shown whatsoever in this attack on Caner…and now his wife and children. His WIFE and CHILDREN! (FBC Jax Watchdog)Where I grew up, the local men on the block would have paid an unkind visit to someone who would do that.
These people are beneath you and I and those others who considered ourselves friends of Ergun Caner and who felt differently about these matters than these attack dogs did. I am convinced now more than ever that this is a mere facade. Caner was never the real target. These people want to destroy Liberty University. I have already seen the beginnings of attack clouds forming regarding Jerry Jr. and I fear Jonathan will be next. Dr. Falwell’s family and his legacy are their real desire. Liberty is a crown jewel and being the second rate theologians these people are, and lacking even a whiff of the charisma that Dr.Falwell possessed, these people could never build such a resource on their own so I believe their goal is to hijack this one. Ergun Caner was the first step. In future days you may see the fraudulent “dr.” White cutting and pasting old clips from “The Old Time Gospel Hour” and voice dubbing it to show Jerry misquoting something. (much in the way Mo Khan doctored his videos)
Tim…you are above these pathetic heretics. My advice is not to respond anymore. I’ve already had one of them calling me under the guise of a blocked telephone number and saying something hurtful about my little girl. If I catch them I will hurt them…period.
I stepped back and looked at this entire issue this weekend and I became very fearful for the future of my beloved alma mater if these people execute their plan. They aren’t SBC members so let them whine.
I know God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but right now if one of these unsaved charlatans died I’d have to force myself to remember what I believe about hell and make myself be sorrowful for the fate of their souls.
Best to you my friend,
How great they art, How great they art!
Here is something I think many of you are missing: In criminal law, mens rea is generally what any prosecutor must prove in order to obtain a conviction. It means intent. A prosecutor in most cases must prove not only that an act occurred that was a crime but that the accused committed that act with criminal intent or mens rea in Latin. I am no lawyer but I think I have this right. My point is that it is possible to make statements that are self-contradictory without intentionally deceiving. By definition, a lie must include this element of intent. Maybe, LU could not find evidence of intentional deception in this case but rather recklessness that called for some measure of discipline.
Brother Razorkiss,
As for James White expressing on the DL that Dr. Caner was a former Muslim today, that is nebulous to the statements he made just last month.
Brother Joseph,
How do you know he was “removed” as Dean? How do you know that he didn’t request to step down from that position? I do not know either happened, I just know that the statement said his contract was ending on June 30 and all agreed it would not be renewed. It also stated that he was retained as professor. Someone who was found in any violation as you and others want to say, would not be retained as the water boy for the football team let alone professor.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers,
Thank you for accepting my apology and your gracious and loving response to my email (I will be emailing you back tomorrow).
You are right, as a student, I should have first started by talking to the administration. In reality, I dont think that would have gotten anywhere, at all, but I should have at least tried it.
Yes, I call on everyone who ever claimed that Ergun was not a Muslim to apologize just as I called Ergun to apologize for his contradictory testimonies. I truly think I have been fair in all of this. Everyone who made a false claim about Ergun, in my mind, is no less guilty than what I feel Ergun is. False claims need to be recanted and apologized for.
Once again – your inability to read does not a contradiction make.
The context, and the quite literally dozens of clear, unequivocal statements to the contrary of your position from the man himself make that plain. As does your deletion of his statement concerning… his own words… previously.
Brother Matt,
Thanks for your kind response. I will say that you are being very fair. You believe that Dr. Caner with intention spoke things he knew were not true, and I disagree. That is okay because we are Brothers in Christ. The issue for me now is that we move this thing forward and allow Dr. Caner’s employer, the ones God has placed over him, take the actions they believe is best. I believe they exonerated him and I have tried to clearly and succinctly express the reason I say he was exonerated.
Blessings,
Tim
Razorkiss,
Once again, if my position is so out of touch, pray tell why the leading apologist in the Evangelical world is in agreement with me? You say I have an inability to read. Your reasoning for that statement is due to our disagreement. If I agreed with you, you would say that I can read pretty well. Let me say it again. No less than Dr. Norman Geisler agrees that he was exonerated. Go argue with him.
Blessings,
Tim
To All,
I am heading off to bed. If you have a comment please hold it for tomorrow when I turn back on the comments.
Tim
Tim: In your comment #29, the White article you cite, the entire quote is:
” It had not entered my thinking back then that Caner was making things up about his past. In fact, I assumed his rabid Arminianism was due to a misplaced connection between the Islamic concept of qadr and Reformed theology arising from his Muslim background.”
Which seems to indicate that White acknowledged Caner’s Muslim background, rather than the reverse. Nor does “making up things about his past” suggest that White doubted Caner’s muslim-ness, since a lot of us who acknowledge that Caner was a muslim also believe he made up things about his past.
In your response to me in #15, you say that LU has a confidentiality problem which, if the matter was meant to be secret, I agree. I just don’t know why Burleson’s alleged egalitarianism has anything to do with it.
Regarding Caner’s demotion, you say that perhaps he stepped down voluntarily. While that certainly could be the case, but I doubt it proves much. General McChrystal just recently voluntarily “stepped down”. Regardless, I think it may be unwise to read much into Caner’s one year contract as a professor. I have been in academia for many years and one seldom sees an outright dismissal. One year terminal contracts are very common in these cases. The one year professorship doesn’t prove my argument, that he was demoted for embellishing his background, but nor does it prove exoneration. We always have to account for lawyers.
Thanks
Tim you said, “*The committee did not find that Dr. Caner “lied”, they found that he made statements of fact but sometimes had wrong dates, times and places.”
And you said to Matt, “You believe that Dr. Caner with intention spoke things he knew were not true, and I disagree.” Tim when do you believe Ergun came to America? He said that he came to America in 1978 on many (6+) occasions yet Emir was born in Ohio in 1970, family bought a house in the early 70’s etc… Are you saying that you believe he came in 1978 or that he misspoke about coming in 1978?
Tim
I am trying to figure out what people do not get about confess and repent. Dr Caner confessed his misspeaks, apologized for them, and has since repented. The continual attacks fail biblical standards of practice for those who confess Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
You know, when someone confesses that they exaggerated and mis spoke, and they tell us that they’re repenting of it; then maybe the Lord Jesus would want us to forgive and move on. Yet, some people apparently arent really interested in grace, even though they claim to be champions of grace.
David
David
Excellent thoughts.
Brother Bill,
In the full response that you quoted it does appear that James White has taken the position that Dr. Caner was certainly a former Muslim. However on his video blog link here (around the 7 minute mark) he says “A man who would claim to have said the daily prayers since he was eight would confuse…”. That, quote itself is enough to suggest that James White does not believe Dr. Caner was a former Muslim.
Also, you can’t just begin saying he made things up about his past, but this part of his past I believe. Everything called into question about Dr. Caner’s past rests on the foundation of the original charge–he was not a Muslim–and that is what he was exonerated of from the investigation.
Brother Kendall,
I will let your comment stand but caution you to be careful in future comments. Do I believe he came to the US in 1978? Yes! Do I believe he came in 1970? Yes! Do I believe he came in 1972? Yes! I mean, your question is not relevant. Your question should be; when did Dr. Caner come to the US to resided full time? I would say 1978.
Brother John Jordan,
You nearly made it through. But, pointing to someone else’s blog and asking their question that do not pertain to the statement from Liberty is not going to make the grade.
Razorkiss,
Coming into my house and calling me a liar will get you hurt in real life. However, coming to my house in cyber world and calling me a liar will only get your comment removed and have you placed on a moderation list. Sorry.
I tell you what. Until your last statement you have always seemed to be one that would debate the issues. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Questioning my ministerial call and telling me you are surprised that I am a preacher of the Gospel is something I will turn the other cheek on. However, one more time and I will have no choice but to place you on that list.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You responded, “First the logic is simple. This entire issue began because Dr. Caner was being accused of not being a former Muslim. Those charges moved to he was not a devout former Muslim. Anything that is argued on top of this has for its basis the original charge.”
You’re right about one thing: it is simple. Your logic is wrong, IMHO. You can always find some previous incident, which had that not taken place, would have altered future incidents. Had an accident victim turned left instead of right, had they been five minutes earlier or five minutes later, they would not have been in the accident, those may be true statements. However, neither are causal statements. In law, I believe the phrase is “proximate cause,” meaning those earlier events, even if they include speeding, running a red light, or reckless driving, are not what caused the wreck; rather something else, something very immediate, caused it; maybe faulty equipment, often inattention, perhaps some immediate violation, but not what the driver did five minutes or an hour earlier. Another example: had I remembered to lock my front door, my TV would not have been stolen. Perhaps it is true, as theives tend to select the easiest targets, and failure to lock my door made me a more inviting targhet than my neighbor’s house. But failing to lock my door was not what caused my TV to be stolen; a thief stole my TV! Whether or not some (and it seems to have been a rather small number) did not believe Dr. Caner had even been a Muslim is not the proximate cause of his statements about where he was born, when he came to the US, etc. They stand or fall on their own merits. Tim, are you sure you are not so intent on defending Dr. Caner that you cannot see the failure of this line of reasoning–in other words, that perhaps you are too close to the trees to see the forest? I ask this in Christian love, because the world is watching, and whether or not we agree on theological matters, I know we both want the world to see Christians (you, me, Dr. Caner, etc.) as people of honesty and integrity.
John
Mr. Rogers -
In post #29, you ask the following question:
“What part of this quote taken directly from you article here, has you affirming that Dr. Caner was a Muslim? Oh, this article was just last month, a cursory search revealed that quote.”
Here’s the entire quote from Dr. White’s blog post:
“It had not entered my thinking back then that Caner was making things up about his past. In fact, I assumed his rabid Arminianism was due to a misplaced connection between the Islamic concept of qadr and Reformed theology arising from his Muslim background.”
It was in the following sentence. See it? I do. “his Muslim backgound”.
You owe Dr. White an apology.
Brother John,
Thanks for the call out on my logic. If it rises of falls I will allow it to rise or fall based on others understanding. First, Liberty did not remove Dr. Caner from the premises. He was not terminated and he was not asked to never teach again. Second, Dr. Caner has classes already scheduled to teach in the fall. If I were chancellor of a university and the investigation resulted in the way some of you are reading the report, Dr. Caner would be fired in a NY minute. He would have been escorted with armed personnel to his office and given 10 minutes to remove his personal belongings and he would leave. The administration would then hire a moving company to pack all of his books and other items and send them to his home along with the inventory list. Liberty did not do anything close to that. What did they do? They allowed him to continue as professor. Three, you say my logic is too simple. You even go as far as to say; “it is wrong”. You will need to also tell Dr. Norman Geisler his logic is wrong. Brother, I am not sure about you, but when I tell the leading apologist in the Evangelical world that his logic is wrong , I am being pretty arrogant. What am I saying? This is the same logic used by Dr. Geisler. I don’t think I am off on my assessment. If you do, fine. I will argue on the side of Geisler, you argue on the side of MoKhan.
Blessings,
Tim
Mr. Michael,
Welcome to my neighborhood. :) Seriously, I have given enough evidence that James White, while he says his words, does not mean them. Look at the links to his own videos. Also, just to give the benefit of the doubt, the quote below proves his disciple commenting on facebook insinuates James White doesn’t believe Dr. Caner was a Muslim.
Brother Lucas,
Your slice/whoosh will not work here. The charges against Dr. Caner are all based on his not being a former Muslim. The reason your comment was removed has to do with your desire to rehash the charges. Liberty University is where you need to post that. I am dealing with their statement. The statement that exonerated Dr. Caner.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, why do you believe he was removed from being dean of the seminary? Was it for misstatements then? What misstatements did he make?
Tim,
You said, “Brother, I am not sure about you, but when I tell the leading apologist in the Evangelical world that his logic is wrong , I am being pretty arrogant.” Regardless of Dr. Geisler’s reputation, intellect, or abilities, he is still human. He puts his pants on one leg at the time, just like I do. I suspect he would not make the claim that he has never been wrong. And with all due respect, if his position in this matter is the same as yours, I believe he also is incorrect, and further that it is not arrogance to state such when one cannot follow the logic.
You also said, “I will argue on the side of Geisler, you argue on the side of MoKhan.” That is an attempt to influence an argument based on the “bandwagon” approach, as in “I am on the side of the most influencial, brilliant thinker in the world, while you are arguing with someone who is different, suspect, maybe even a liar, certainly one who does not recognize the ultimate truth.” I remember learning the falacy of this back in civics class in the 9th grade. Truth is truth, regardless of its immediate source; and it is neither validated nor refuted by the character of those who accept it as truth.
THanks for the exchange.
John
Kendall,
We all know the mis statements. We all have heard 1,001 times about the mis statements. If you havent heard about them, just do some googling.
Kendall, have you also heard that Dr. Caner also confessed his errors? He confessed to the students at Liberty? I have heard him confess personally. I also know that his family and he have been severely hurt…beyond what you can possibly know…from all the viscious, relentless attacks on him.
Dont you think it’s time to forgive and put this behind us? Would not the Lord Jesus want us to accept his confession, and love Dr. Caner, and pray for healing for him and his family?
Also, Dr. Caner not being kept on as Dean of the Liberty Seminary should be seen as an action that Liberty U. felt was the right thing to do under these circumstances. Dont you think that was very hurtful to Dr. Caner?
So, Kendall, will you and others be willing to forgive and move on? Or, will you do like some others in the blog world, who continue to blast away at Dr. Caner, and at Tim Rogers, and Peter Lumpkins, and others? Will you join the bloggers out there, who apparently love being viscious and mean spirited, in their all out, viscious, mean, attacks on anything Dr. Caner and his friends? Will you join with these people, who claim to be defenders of truth and grace, as they attack and mischaracterize and slander Dr. Caner and all of his friends?
Or, Kendall, will you truly be gracious?
David
“The charges against Dr. Caner are all based on his not being a former Muslim.”
This is pure assertion on your part. It is not necessary for me to agree 100% with MoKhan or Debbie Kaufmann in order to point out the glaring inconsistencies in Ergun Caner’s public statements. That is logical fallacy even by Dr. Geisler’s standards.
There was no exhoneration of Dr. Caner from these inconsistencies in Liberty’s statement. You are simply choosing to brush them to the side and replace them in your mind with one accusation made only by two people. Further, there has been no specific retraction or modification of these inconsistencies by Dr. Caner. He still stands behind them.
“The statement that exonerated Dr. Caner.”
Again, exhonerated of what? And if he was exhonerated of the things I pointed out and you censored, then of what is
Dr. Caner “apologizing”?
If you are interested in the truth, you will post my previous comment as it is not only RELEVENT to this discussion, it is THE VERY HEART of the discussion. If you are interested in contining to pursue and beat straw men, you will censor me. These comments are saved and will be posted elsewhere very shortly (and not on Debbie’s or Wade’s blogs). The choice is yours.
Lucas,
See my comment just above yours.
David
Brother John,
I did not mean to point to a bandwagon approach. Sorry for that analogy it should not have been used.
Allow me to state it another way. Nothing we have done here at SBC Today is good enough for the blogging world concerning this issue. Dr. Caner was not removed from his position his contract was not renewed. Why they happened is anyone’s guess. We have tried to honor our word and accept what the committee presented and move on. However, because I used the word “exoneration” instead of “acquitted” or some other word SBC Today has now been labeled “Fundamentalist”. So I guess we are not Fundamentalist Baptist Identity. Even Dr. Barber, being out of the country, has not been spared from this label and he had nothing to do with the article.
Those still arguing over this issue that the committee did not answer all of the questions and that Dr. Caner should have gotten more are the same ones who partnered with MoKhan from the beginning. I used the word “exoneration” and two days after that Dr. Norman Geisler uses the same word. I am not stupid or naive enough to think the leading Evangelical apologist reads my blogs. Thus, he came to this term upon reading the same statement that I read. That was all I was trying to say and certainly did not mean to place a bandwagon idea out there.
Blessings,
Tim
Why does Dr. Caner only owe an apology to the students at Liberty? Why doesn’t he also owe and apology to all the churches where he made the false statements about his past? Why doesn’t he owe an apology to the YouTube viewers where he made the false statements about his past? Why doesn’t he owe an apology to his students at Criswell and Southeastern where he also made false statements about his past?
Tim,
If you really want to be fair then you need to delete Craig Daliessio’s comment. If you have any reason to delete a comment based on “slanderous and ungodly language” that is a key example of both. You are intitled to you oppinion on the definition of exhoneration and whether or not factual self-contradictory statements are just slippery language for lieing (which I think that they most definetly are.) but at least lets be fair on the reason for deleting comments.
And for what it is worth. Dr. White’s questioning the validity of statement about the extent of his Muslim faith (i.e his praying as many times as he did etc.) and the validity of his Muslim faith are different things. He can question whether he was a devout Muslim without questioning whether he was a Muslim or not. That is fair game and what I believe is extremely apparent that Dr. White is doing.
In Christ
Joe Hussung
My anti-spam word is “peace.”
Forgive the guy and move on. Or, those of you who are without sin, continue to cast your stones.
Tim,
I’m sorry, but Normon Geisler is not God, that his agreeing with your statement somehow grants it infallibility. You should answer for yourself, not expect people to bow to a specious argument from authority.
Robin, David:
You should go back and re-read that statement, and its context. It was in reference to a handful of specific things, and not (primarily, or completely) the issues in question here. Further, it was not repentance or confession of the actual sin in question.
Let me describe it this way. Lets say I walk into a room in time to see one of my sons maliciously tackle his brother, sit on him and start smacking him around. I think you’d say it would be right for me to call him up on it.
Lets say this same son then says Ok, and turns to his brother and says “I’m sorry I tripped and accidentally fell on you, and that you overreacted and made me slap you around.”
I really doubt anyone here would accept that as an apology, and what Caner did doesn’t really rise above that. Caner did not forget where he was born, or where he grew up. He didn’t get “confused” about his religious upbringing. He didn’t have a “blonde moment” and get some weird thought out of nowhere that he was trained as a jihadist.
He lied. He knows he lied. And what he confessed was to “misstatements”, to mistakes that he may have made about dates and times that he clearly thinks don’t really matter, but will cop to in order to make people happy.
But Caner committed a grievous sin, and has never publicly repented of it.
It’s amazing to me that God loved Caner enough to hold him accountable, and bring his lies to light – but y’all hate him so much that you’ll do whatever it takes to avoid giving him that same accountability, in the hopes for godly sorrow that will lead to true God glorifying repentance and reconciliation.
Brother Louis,
Your questions are for the committee that issued the statement. I believe they dealt with those questions of asking forgiveness in their statement.
Brother Joe,
I will take your suggestion under consideration.
Brother Jake,
Amen and Amen!!!
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Wow. The YRR are hungry for blood these days. Where’s that grace they talk so much about?
Les
Tim,
Can you define “factual statement”? Am I correct that it seems you think it means that such a statement is true?
One ethics paper from Texas A&M gives a good understanding of such statements –
A factual statement is a type of statement that can be true or false. I believe they are most often used in moral philosophy and law. Some factual statements in this case were found to be contradictory which means they were false. Even the use of the term “discrepancies” shows that there were claims that contradicted each other. This is why I believe your statement quoted below is an incorrect conclusion.
First, it is interesting that you would make this claim. As I understand it, the legal records essentially make a “yes” answer to all of the above impossible.
Second, Liberty has worded their statement in such a way so as to not call Caner’s intent into play. They did not say he lied, yet did not say he did not lie. They said he made contradictory claims without publicly offering an opinion on his intent. Liberty also did not say he was fully exonerated. They found the one charge of not being a Muslim to be false. They also did not renew his contract as Dean, a position for which Dr. Caner has gotten accolades over the years.
Most people do some form of editing for their writing and prepare in some manner for public speaking, TV presentations, etc. Am I to understand that for ~9 years Dr. Caner went around speaking in different venues never having prepared or thought through what he was going to say, write, etc.?
Bro Tim,
I would urge you to greater caution when deleting someone’s comments and then responding to them. Your statement to Dr White above, saying that he “used slanderous and ungodly language” is inappropriate I believe. It would be better to have asked him to say what he said differently, rather than to cause your readers to think that Dr White used perhaps foul language, or that he was stepping across lines of decency.
In Christ,
Brother Mark Bainter,
You tried, but it is not making it through. Your comments are not on the Liberty statement but is a veiled attempt to try Dr. Caner on your presupposition of his statements.
Brother Mark,
So you believe my statement is an incorrect conclusion. Ok. Sorry we do not agree.
Brother BaptistThinker,
To say someone is an “inveterate, unrepentant, and consistent liar” is slanderous and to say that of a Brother in Christ is ungodly. Now, if you would like to think James White would use “foul” language, be my guest. However, I do not believe such and have not posted anything that would suggest such.
Blessings,
Tim
Hi Tim,
Would you please define “factual statement” as used by Liberty?
Tim said:
You tried, but it is not making it through. Your comments are not on the Liberty statement but is a veiled attempt to try Dr. Caner on your presupposition of his statements.
Tim,
I’m not sure I understand. (Probably because I’m not sure which post it is you’re responding to.) I also haven’t tried to do anything veiled. Everything I’ve had to say I’ve said outright. Nor do I feel a need to try Dr Caner – all of that has already been done. I do think it’s appropriate and within the bounds of discussion to respond to accusations and claims made within this thread that you’ve allowed to stand.
If it’s on-topic for people to make accusations, then it should be on topic to defend against those accusations.
Brother Mark,
I think you will have to get Liberty to define that term for you. It was their statement. If you look at it in the context of what they are saying, I would believe they would say “factual statements” mean statements he has said in the past there were truthful. But, that is my guess, I was not the one who wrote the statement.
Brother Mark Bainter,
It was your last sentence that got you blocked. I am not discussing the claims the committee reviewed, I am discussing the statement made by the committee.
Blessings,
Tim
Well Tim, if you had an answer for me – about Dr. Caner’s behavior, or yours, that would be one thing. You have an answer for neither. Your solution, instead, is to misrepresent people, and to delete comments that question your integrity in relation to those topics. Unfortunately, sir, you have placed yourself in that position due to your uncritical defense of the indefensible, the fact that you ignore incontrovertible evidence, and the incredibly plain fact that you are, as it seems to everyone who has looked at your assertions regarding Dr. White, willing to grossly misconstrue the English language in order to justify what I cannot call anything save prevarication on your part.
If you had given us the remotest justification for doing so, I might understand why you behave in such a fashion, but for *anyone* who has paid attention to *anything* we’ve said, it’s utterly plain that your assertions are just plain untrue. Dr. White has repeatedly qualified his criticism to specifically counter the claim you are making. Even a quick search of his website, had you bothered to do that, would have demonstrated that you simply have not a leg to to stand upon in this claim you are making. Since you have demonstrated that you *have* visited his site, it’s perfectly obvious that you are misrepresenting him intentionally.
What else are we supposed to believe, since you are quoting statements divorced of context, and grossly incapable of supporting your allegations?
I find it interesting that the same people who are demanding that everyone accept Dr. Caner’s apology for his transgressions, are some of the SAME people who condemn Pastor Mark Driscoll for his sins and errors in the past, including those of which he has apologized for and sought mentoring to overcome. Why is it that one can forgive Dr. Caner, and yet use the “cussing pastor” title as reason why the SBC should have no contact with Mark Driscoll and Acts29. Or are people here willing to condemn the motions that were made at last years (2009) SBC national Convention (ie “Investigate SEBTS, Akin, Stetzer, ect for their relationships with Mark Driscol and Acts 29). If one can forgive Dr. Caner, why not forgive Pastor Driscoll? Or is there other reasons behind the reason(s) to forgive or not forgive?
As it stands I am willing to forgive Dr. Caner. I know that I am no better than him as we ALL are sinners, both before and after we accepted Christ Jesus into our hearts. The question is, are others willing to forgive Pastor Driscoll?
SMuschany,
I do believe that Mark Driscoll is sorry for cussing in the pulpit. Good for him. I’m glad that he has stopped that. Amen.
Does he still have fellowships where people are told to bring their ID’s because liquor will be served; and women are told to dress red hot? Does he still joke about masturbation from the pulpit, and talk explicitly about sex with his wife, and encourage sodomy? And, I’m not talking about homosexuality here. I’m talking about sodomy between a man and his wife. Does he still promote Elder ruled churches? That’s what had so many people in the SBC not caring too much for Acts 29….that, plus a lot do not care for their reformed theology.
SMuschany, maybe you dont understand that it was not just the cussing that upset so many people about Driscoll, and about SEBTS and Stetzer and others buddying up with him?
Also, I want to go on record by saying that I consider Driscoll a Brother in Christ. I love him, as such. And, I appreciate all the good that he does for the Kingdom of God. I dont agree with him on some things…but, I do look upon him as a Brother in Christ.
David
SMuschany,
I believe I have made a clear statement on Mark Driscoll, which would echo the desired sentiments you would have wished us to express…
“Thank You, My Brother”
You’re welcome. Next time read up before you come in with gun firing.
Sola Gratia.
I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge that Pastor Driscoll has asked for forgiveness.
And yes I do know a lot about the Driscoll debate in the SBC. I am a resident of Missouri. Maybe you have not heard of the MBLA (Missouri Baptist Layman Association) and the “paper” they put out for the 2009 SBC National Convention. Here at MBTS, i have heard students say “How can you listen/respect/support/ect Mark Driscoll, isnt he the ‘cussing pastor’?”
My main point with bringing up Pastor Driscoll, is that YEARS after his “cussing” from the puplit, YEARS after asking for forgiveness, people still bring that event up as “a” (not the only) reason why those in the SBC should avoid Mark Driscoll and Acts 29. (On this very sight, in the thread “Acts29 and SBC polity” several posters bring up the “cussing” as “a” reason why SBC churches should not associate with Acts29). Why should we give blanket forgiveness to Dr. Caner for his transgressions and never bring them up again, or use them as points against him or his ministry; when the same courtesy is not given to Pastor Driscoll? As a Calvinist, I have lots of disagreements with Dr. Caner. But I would not go to the point of using this event of “misstatements” as fodder for any critiques against his stance on Calvinism. Yet, at least to my eyes, that is exactly what people are doing with their disagreements with Pastor Driscoll. “Yea sure there is the alcohol issue, yea sure there is the polity issue, yea sure we dont like his interpretation of Song of Songs, but he also is the “cussing pastor”.” That is where my contention comes from.
“I shall not participate in this anymore.
This is absolutely of no interest to me.”
Quote from EC “apology” from Feb 2010.
Pastor Gordon,
By no means am I referring to you or anything you said in my concern for the seemingly “contradictory” stances taken towards Dr Caner and Pastor Driscoll. I actually posted on that thread of yours regarding Pastor Driscoll (though I used StephenM as opposed to SMuschany…thus my “secret” identity has now been fully revealed).
More regarding Dr Caner, despite my reservations, I attended the Chapel at MBTS in which he spoke this past year. And I had to admit that when he stayed on the topic of missions work and outreach to Muslims, he was really good. Since that point, I have taken the stance that so long as he avoids speaking on Calvinism, I can generally tolerate and support Dr. Caner. I trully do hope that this past series of events does not harm Dr. Caner’s apologetic and missions to reach out to those trapped in the evil that is Islam. In the fight to save as many as we can, we need all the help we can get.
Razorkiss,
That is your perspective. I have not misrepresented anyone. This entire issue began with the charge that Dr. Caner was not a former Muslim. James White was on that bandwagon from the start and he found out he could not make the “fake former Muslim” charge stick so he changed to a “devout” former Muslim. Either way he is denying Dr. Caner’s Muslim upbringing. This is something the statement exonerated Dr. Caner of.
Blessings,
Tim
Sirr, not only is that false, but it is demonstrably so. Please inform us where Dr. White used “fake ex-muslim” unqualified by 1) “not a” or 2) “devout”? You do understand the distinction between “nominal” and “devout”, do you not?
That has been our primary bone of contention with Mr. Khan and Ms. Kaufman from the start. Once again, back up your allegations. You have yet to do so – and I point out yet again that not a single defender of Dr. Caner has even attempted to answer even one of Dr. White’s list of contradictions, let alone mine. TurretinFan has been a better defender of Caner than any of you – should that not speak volumes?
We don’t believe in a Star Wars truth, sir – where it depends on a certain point of view. You do understand that by continuing to insist on your misreadings, you are calling Dr. White liar, don’t you? He flatly told you that you are incorrect. You insist, like a deconstructionist, that your reading is correct, but the author’s is wrong. If you’re going to state something as fact, understand that mutually exclusive “facts” are impossible. You seem to be offended that I call what you are doing a “lie” – yet have no apparent problem dishing it out. Only one version is correct – as with Dr. Caner – and since I not only have fairly exhaustive knowledge of what Dr. White has said, and written, when the *author* tells you you’re wrong, that looks a lot like a brazen, intentional misrepresentation. If you don’t want comments like this, *think* before you type. It will save you time, reputation, and your witness – which, quite honestly is a shambles right now to anyone at all that has access to Dr. White’s website.
To put it bluntly, persisting in this vein is quite frankly disgraceful. If you don’t want to listen to my counsel or reproof, so be it – but I’m far from the only one to notice, or comment on it. I’ve said my piece and I hope you learn from it – you *cannot* say just any old thing, regardless of it’s factuality.
Razorkiss,
I am going to say this one more time. I will not recant what I said about James White’s belief that Dr. Ergun Caner was not a former Muslim. You are using the same double speak that he uses in trying to set the ground rules of someone to speak. I will not fall into your ground rules as it is apparent that James White will say whatever he needs to say in order to gain the upper ground in an argument. You have come here and began the same tactic. You have one of your main supporters saying the same thing.
Now the author thought twice about that statement then had to cover your leader and followed up that statement with the following nonsensical statement;
I think you will agree that those two statement contradict each other. James White cannot agree that MoKhan is right “in everything” and then also say that Mokhan is wrong. Thus, White agreed with MoKhan from the start. From the very beginning this debate began over the question was Dr. Ergun Caner a former Muslim or not? MoKhan and his ilk said he was not. We said he was. James White saw where that would not hold up so he said he was not a “devout” Muslim.
This is over. If you would like to debate the Liberty Statement be my guest, but we are finished with this stream.
Blessings,
Tim
To All,
Well it seems that Dr. John Ankerberg has weighed in on Dr. Ergun Caner.
Thanks Dr. Ankerberg!! God bless your ministry.
“Dont you think it’s time to forgive and put this behind us? Would not the Lord Jesus want us to accept his confession, and love Dr. Caner, and pray for healing for him and his family?”
David, I have one question for you or anyone else who cares to answer: Would you think the same way if Dr. Caner had been caught in the same sin as Ted Haggard?
Wasn’t Bro Ergun’s public apology specifically concerning who he debated? That’s what I seem to remember…
What about all the other stuff? The jihad statement, the Islamic garb and prayers in the bathroom, etc? Were these things true?
Personally, I never had any reason to doubt he was telling the truth. I always expect brothers and sisters in Christ to be honorable and tell the truth. (of course, I have been disappointed quite a bit, too!)
What I have most disappointed about is the disrespect so many people seem to be displaying toward fellow heirs of Christ in relating to this unfortunate mess. So much arrogance. So much guile. So much name-calling. So much blind allegiance. So much hatred. Neither “side” is innocent; I’ll bet it makes Satan smile.
There are those who wouldn’t believe Bro Ergun is innocent if there was an angel from Heaven who delivered the news. There are those who wouldn’t believe Bro Ergun is guilty even if that same angel spoke to them.
There are a great deal of us somewhere in the middle.
Some of us think he isn’t nearly as “guilty” as some have made him out to be. Some of us think he isn’t nearly as “innocent” as some have made him out to be.
I think it is taking it too far to say that he was never Muslim. I also think it is taking it too far to say that he was exonerated.
There is a WHOLE LOT that statement from LU said and there is A WHOLE LOT MORE that it didn’t say.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. But that’s what it has degenerated into: a dog fight.
And brothers, make no mistake – the world is watching, too.
Let’s call this argument the “Muslim Immunity Clause”.
I have hesitated to comment on this subject, as I have not followed it closely from the beginning. But, I wanted to share my thoughts as a former attorney and now pastor for fourteen years. Without rehashing all of the allegations against Dr. Caner, this issue comes down to one of credibility. Dr. Caner has not been accused of a crime. He is not a defendant on trial. Rather, the allegations leveled against Dr. Caner seek to challenge his credibility. Is Dr. Caner a credible witness (both generally and in his testimony for Christ)? In other words, is he trustworthy? Can you believe what he says?
In court, whether a witness is considered credible is subjective. One juror may hear something in the testimony of a witness that leads them to believe that the witness is not to be believed. Another juror, hearing the same testimony, does not even question the credibility of that particular witness. A third juror may initially conclude that a witness has no credibility because, on cross-examination, the answers to particular questions may have revealed some issues directly affecting a witness’ credibility. However, on re-direct (by friendly counsel), the witness’ credibility is rehabilitated. Ultimately, it is up to each individual juror to make a conclusion of credibility. That conclusion will often be influenced by the juror’s background, including family history, education, experience, training, etc.
From reading this blog and others, including comments, it is quite evident that there is a divergence of opinion regarding Dr. Caner’s credibility based on the circumstances surrounding this rather unfortunate episode. If you look at this case in the light most favorable to Dr. Caner (which is the standard that should be used), you could come to the conclusion that Dr. Caner’s misstatements – of which he has acknowledged and apologized for – have not significantly, if at all, damaged his credibility. I do not think that you must come to that conclusion and, personally, I probably would not come to that conclusion. However, I think it is reasonable that Tim, Dr. Geisler, John Ankerberg, and others, especially those who have a personal relationship with Dr. Caner, arrived at the conclusion that they have.
In light of the allegations made against Dr. Caner and including the LU committee’s own conclusion “ that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory. However, the committee found no evidence to suggest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence,” I think that it is extremely difficult to argue that Dr. Caner’s credibility has not been damaged at all. “Factual statements that are self-contradictory” go to the issue of Dr. Caner’s credibility. The very wording of this statement indicates that it was Dr. Caner himself who was responsible for issuing self-contradictory statements. Regardless of who originally brought those statements to light, the LU committee found that Dr. Caner was the one who made the statements. Of course, everyone, including pastors, make misstatements from time to time. We get dates wrong and names wrong and places wrong. The question is not whether this happens. Rather, it is the reason or intent behind the misstatements or discrepancies. For example, when people ask me where I’m from, I usually tell them that I was born and raised in Lake Placid, FL. However, technically speaking, I was born in Avon Park, FL because the town where my parents were residing did not have a hospital. Instead of getting complicated, I usually do not state my literal place of birth when asked. Could I be more precise? Yes. Am I trying to deceive? I don’t think so. Context and intent matter.
In the case of Dr. Caner, were the misstatements and discrepancies found by the LU committee of such a nature that his credibility was damaged sufficient to warrant his not continuing as Dean? The committee’s brief statement did not elaborate, so we can only speculate whether or not this was the case. In writing the statement as they did, my opinion is that the committee and the leadership at LU believed that Dr. Caner’s “factual statements that are self-contradictory” and the “found discrepancies” were serious enough to not renew his contract as Dean (leader) of the Seminary, but not serious enough to immediately sever all ties to him. Some would have had LU sever all ties immediately. I do believe, whatever Dr. Caner’s ultimate status with LU, that LU did what it had to do regarding Dr. Caner’s leadership of the Seminary, but at the same time extended grace to Dr. Caner in what must be a very difficult situation. Surely that is what any of us would want if we were in a similar situation.
Based upon the conclusions set forth in the statement and the recommendations regarding Dr. Caner, I personally would not have used the word “exonerated” in relation to this set of facts. Exoneration is generally used in legal settings when someone who was accused of a crime (whether or not actually found guilty in a court of law) is later found to have been innocent of the crimes alleged (i.e., DNA testing confirms that the accused could not have committed the crime and is in fact innocent). Just because someone was acquitted of a crime in a court of law does not mean that they were exonerated – it simply means that the state did not meet its burden to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (O.J. Simpson, for example).
In Dr. Caner’s case, to be exonerated would have meant that the LU committee found no evidence that called his credibility into question. Even if you believe that the original allegations made against Dr. Caner are unfounded and that his apology for misstatements satisfied any questions you had about his credibility, the simple fact that the LU committee “found discrepancies” and “factual statements that are self-contradictory” would make it difficult to argue that Dr. Caner was exonerated in the customary and ordinary sense of the word.
Tim, while I do not personally know you or anyone else associated with SBCToday, allow me to give you a word of encouragement. You obviously have strong feelings about this issue (and others) and have expressed them in a very direct way. I would assume that you or any of the other bloggers at SBCToday or any pastor would want to establish as much credibility with their audience as possible. In presenting your arguments in support of Dr. Caner, you (and others) have some strong points to make. However, one of your weakest points deals with the idea of exoneration. You simply did not need to argue for exoneration when that is an almost impossible case to make (regardless if other well-known figures are trying to make the case and in light of LU’s own statement). You certainly have the right and freedom to continue to argue that Dr. Caner was exonerated by the LU committee, but I believe that you will be much more persuasive in the present case and in future cases if you acknowledge that your use of the term exoneration, however well intended, was misplaced. Sorry for the length of this comment. I do appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you and others on this matter. God bless,
Howell Scott
Pingback: DanielSpratlin.com » Detached From Reality: The Ergun Caner Saga
Pingback: Credible Witnesses | From Law to Grace
Pingback: Ergun Caner Defenders: Failure to Communicate | From Law to Grace
Pingback: Jesus Saves By Daryl Coley: Why I Love This Song « Jesus Christ Is Lord