"...When He [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Matt 9:36

"Do not rob the poor, because he is poor... for the Lord will take up their case and plunder those who plunder them." Proverbs 22:22-23

Friday, June 11, 2010

If Ankerberg Were a Clinton Democrat

How sad to read John Ankerberg's statement of support for Ergun Caner, with absolutely no caveats, no acknowledgment whatsoever of lies or embellishments on the part of Caner.

Read Ankerberg's last two sentences of his statement:

"For someone to attack Ergun's selfless sacrifice, especially since they malign his character without any substantiation, is both unchristian and unbiblical. Count me among the many who will stand with Ergun Caner, knowing he stands for the Lord Jesus Christ."

No one is attacking his "selfless sacrifice", and there is plenty of "substantiation".

But this just goes to show you the depths we have sunk to in this day of celebrity-driven evangelicalism - the celebrity status of Ergun Caner must be protected, even at the sacrifice of truth and right.

I used to wonder how in the world Democrats could defend Bill Clinton during the days of the Lewinsky scandal. I thought that the big difference between liberals and conservatives was that conservatives stood on principle, and the principles of truth and justice and right took priority over the personalities espousing those principles.

If Ankerberg worked for the Democratic Party around the time of the Lewinsky scandal and the stained blue dress proving Clinton's infidelity, he could have written this:

"I have known Bill Clinton for nearly a decade. I am disheartened by the recent attacks upon his integrity and character as a philanderer. I have interviewed Bill for more than a dozen television shows and believe him to be faithfully married and monogomous with his wife Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, I would not have lent my credibility to him by associating with him. Bill Clinton, and his wife Hillary, are wonderful Americans who have taken a valiant stand for the poor and downtrodden, even costing them and their families their own comfort. For someone to attack Bill's selfless sacrifice, by maligning his fidelity without any substantiation except a stained blue dress, is both unAmerican and unlawful. Count me among the many who will stand with Bill Clinton, knowing he stands for all that is American."

29 comments:

debbiekaufman said...

It's like being in the Twilight Zone isn't it?

Mike DeLong said...

This is pretty much what I expect to be the statement issued after the Godwin committee reports. The basic outline would be something like this:

1. I am the authority here.
2. I stand by Ergun Caner.
3. The people taking shots at him are bad people or worse.

You could hope for an authoritative response here, but you're going to get an authoritarian response.

Anonymous said...

We should start calling these the "Blue Dress Defense"

Bennett Willis said...

Mike, I read your comment and want to go get under the bed. It may turn out that way, but surely it will not.

This is a part of a comment I left at Debbie's blog: "My problem is that he had a good story by any standards. It was just not an “over the top” story like the revised one. However, he made the changes (apparently) rather abruptly when the events of 9/11 made the advantage of the revisions obvious. This is opportunism at its finest, character at its lowest and deserves neither sympathy nor understanding."

I suppose that if LU says that it does not matter, then I know more about LU than I did before. I already know way too much about EC.

Anonymous said...

Can't help feeling that Ankerberg will wish he hadn't written this before too long as public opinion, even in Christian circles, turns.

Anonymous said...

In his defense of Caner, Mr. Ankerberg writes:

"I have interviewed Ergun for more than a dozen television shows and believe his personal testimony to be completely true."

Of course Caner's personal testimony is true. It is his fake testimonies that trouble me.

FBC Choir Member said...

I go to FBC and I'm a Democrat and I think what Bill Clinton did was wrong.

Anonymous said...

The wagons have been circled. End of story.

Anonymous said...

does anybody really think if this guy lied in the pulpit for years that no matter what Liberty and all decides to do that that will be the END OF STORY? Doesn't anybody count God in this for anything? End of the day, its not the bloggers Liberty or anyone else who will decide about Ergun Caner. Its God.

Anonymous said...

The wagons have been circled. End of story.

June 12, 2010 8:56 AM

Ergun Caner has his wagons circled with his buddies but do believe many believers have joined hands with another type of wagon train which has another kind of ending! END OF MONEY!

Fredericka said...

He's protecting his investment. Dr. Ankerberg has got time, money and credibility tied up in EC. He says, "I have interviewed Ergun for more than a dozen television shows..." Those archived videos will lose value if Ergun crashes and burns. But that's money in the bank, who wants to flush it away? It's like somebody who owns 100,000 shares in BP saying, 'Oh, that little oil spill? No biggie.'

Anonymous said...

John Ankerberg is a valid Christian spokesman unlike the Dog and Delong and Kaufman and Willis and the "Choir Member" and the others here who spread rumors and bile.

John Ankerberg has a lifetime of research and integrity...unlike the minions on this Blog.

John Ankerberg is speaking truth....the problem is...

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:28 . . .geez, you even hit up the poor "choir member" with your verbage nonsense!

Suppose you also believe the MEDIA is likewise spreading bile and rumors!

I believe most all of us who give our personal opinions on this blog could also validate we have been witnesses to facts presented - the truth has not been stretched on any these subjects. Believe we are handling the truth much better than you are!

Schools out, here comes the kiddies! :>)

Jay Van Til said...

Please, God help us. How far back will the ministry to Muslims be put, if the leading "Christians" let this go?

Anonymous said...

John Ankerberg is a valid Christian spokesman unlike the Dog and Delong and Kaufman and Willis and the "Choir Member" and the others here who spread rumors and bile.

John Ankerberg has a lifetime of research and integrity...unlike the minions on this Blog.

John Ankerberg is speaking truth....the problem is...

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

June 12, 2010 10:28 AM

So, what is truth? Was Caner born in Sweden or Turkey? Was he raised in Turkey or brought to the US at the age of 3? Where was he trained in Jihad? Can you link us to his 'debates' with all the Muslim scholars he mentions? Who DID he debate in Nebraska since we know it was not the Muslim he mentioned?

Which of the many versions of Caner's background using his own words in public speaking engagements, are actual truth? There are so many versions we cannot keep up.

Please, enlighten us.

Anonymous said...

Ankerberg makes his living from ministry. What more do we need to know?

Junkster said...

I seriously doubt that Ankerberg has read or watched any of the evidence presented regarding Caner's "embellishments". Ankerberg knows and trusts Caner, and that's good enough for him. People tend to support their friends and like-minded colleagues and take their word when they claim they are being falsely maligned. If it all blows up on Caner at some point, Ankerberg can always claim, He sure had me fooled."

If somehow Liberty does do the right thing and there are serious consequences for Caner, will it hurt his speaking gigs lined up at mega churches this summer? I doubt it.

Bennett Willis said...

Anonymous 10:20. This is the first time in my several years of commenting experience that I have been lumped in with the villans. Thank you. :)

I too have a lifetime of research experience. It just happens to have been in the physical science arena. When the data are clear, the conclusions are easy--and boy was this an easy one.

The only things hard are "does it matter" and if it matters, "what should be done."

What would Ankerberg say if you proposed a "hypothetic" situation like EC's--and he did not see it coming? Do you think "repent" would be one of the words that would be mentioned? How about "confess the lies?" Apologize? "Time off/out?"

If he has a lifetime of research, why did he not do 5 minutes of work on this one before writing his letter? Maybe he did. Does he expect LU to say that it is not a problem and wants to be able to say when he introduces EC to his viewers that he supported him all the time?

A good researcher always has a plan. What is John's?

BibleWheel said...

Anonymous wrote: "John Ankerberg has a lifetime of research and integrity..."

I think a rewrite is in order:

John Ankerberg HAD a lifetime of research and integrity... until he tossed it all in the mud when he publicly supported Ergun Caner without any reference to, let alone refutation of, the MOUNTAIN of video, audio, and documentary evidence that he is a serial liar.

Anonymous said...

John Ankerberg is a valid Christian spokesman unlike the Dog and Delong and Kaufman and Willis and the "Choir Member" and the others here who spread rumors and bile.

John Ankerberg has a lifetime of research and integrity...unlike the minions on this Blog.

John Ankerberg is speaking truth....the problem is...

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

June 12, 2010 10:28 AM

What you all are witnessing with this comment is the anti intellectualism of Evangelicalism.

You can show these types proof out of Caner's own mouth of his lies and they still look to leaders to know what to think.

Check your brains at the door. We follow men. Not Christ.

BibleWheel said...

Debbie Kaufman said: "It's like being in the Twilight Zone isn't it?"

Yes indeed Debbie, it certainly is like the Twilight Zone, and it becomes more so with every empty assertion in support of Caner, such as this ultimate disconnect from Reality: a Canerite who will not touch truth with a ten foot pole screaming "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

I feel like I'm looking into an abyss of madness masquerading as Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Right you are. A Christian "leader" with a degree from a diploma mill is "valid," while someone speaking truth is not. I go to Anerbergs site and though there is a link on how to become a Christian, what hits me most, what I can't help but notice, is the materialistic emphasis: Donate now, view cart, Order current offer, for credit card orders only, donation information, add to cart, make a donation, DVD -$149.00
The trouble with accepting honest criticism of Ergun Caner is that some of the criticism might hit too close to home.

Thy Peace said...

Grace and Truth to You [Wade Burleson] > The Theater of the Absurd: Southern Baptists Desiring Leaders With No Integrity.

What is astonishing to me is how a few Southern Baptists, people like Mr. Peter Lumpkins, propose that James White should no longer teach at Golden Gate Seminary, but Ergun Caner should keep his job. The professor who actually debates Muslims and speaks of himself with integrity should be fired, but the one who lies to others about his background and his "debates" with Muslims should stay.

Jim said...

One would think that any man who had engaged in a "lifetime of research" would have earned at least one academic doctoral degree, such as a Ph.D. or a Th.D. I see nothing resembling that level of achievement in Ankerberg's resume. He may be a fine man and a sincere clergyman, but I doubt he is a thorough researcher. His lack of objective attention to Caner's
story is proof of that. He is simply another cheerleader for all that is wrong with evangelicalism in America.

Anonymous said...

I heard dr. brunson on TV this morning too, talking about how he welcomes questions. Then he put in his two cents worth about people who have never had a voice who become criticizers and busybodies and how they are to be "dealt with".
But I read a lot more about how leaders who are blind guides are to be "dealt with".
They are the ones who need to worry, if you really read the Bible in its entirety. Maybe ergun caner and dr. brunson should add a little coda to their "book" about all the wrong types of people in the church being why churches die. There's one more reason. Preachers who lie.

Anonymous said...

"I heard dr. brunson on TV this morning too, talking about how he welcomes questions. Then he put in his two cents worth about people who have never had a voice who become criticizers and busybodies and how they are to be "dealt with"."

People would be amazed at how many sermon quotes are aimed at actual people who have insulted the pastor in some way. Perhaps this was aimed at Tom because of the lawsuit


"But I read a lot more about how leaders who are blind guides are to be "dealt with"."

Absolutely. Many modern day pastors resemble the Pharisees. We have been warned. Wonder why so few see it?

"They are the ones who need to worry, if you really read the Bible in its entirety."

But they read it with their special "authority" glasses on. They do not realize they are a sheep, too. Well, some are. Many are simply Pharisees.

starrstruck said...

Ankerberg's defense of Caner raises issues of credibility with regard to The John Ankerberg Show. I wonder what other guests he has had on his show that spoke falsehoods.

Thy Peace said...

Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog [James White] > Caner Scandal Hits Tehran Times.

When you combine myth-making, exaggeration, and simple falsehood, with truth, this is the result. Not only are true converts maligned inappropriately, but when Caner says true things about Islam, for example, the truth of those statements is automatically tainted and diminished by its consistent conjunction with falsehoods. There is a strong element of truth in the observation that conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism is rife with a desire to hear the "worst" about Islam. And surely there is much to report about the evil perpetrated by the Taliban, for example. But it has long been my theme that the Christian's first concern should be an accurate knowledge of the fundamentals of Islam so that a clear, compelling gospel witness can be made. Islam is not a monolith, and just as we are offended when people tar and feather us for the sins of, say, Rome, we have to be consistent and allow Muslims to define their own faith without broad-brushing them in a way that would offend us (and obscure the truth).

Anonymous said...

Ankerberg claims that Caner's testimony is completely true.
Ankerberg claims that Caner's character has been maligned without any substantiation.
Ankerberg claims that Caner's selfless sacrifice is being attacked.
Ankerberg claims that those who are attacking Caner are unchristian and unbiblical.

Does Ankerberg's statement call into question his own integrity?

Caner's testimony is mostly lies, but Ankerberg thinks it is completely true. What does this say about other topics and guests Ankerberg has had on his show? Can we trust the veracity of anything that Ankerberg presents if he can state that Caner's testimony is completely true?

The evidence from Caner himself, that he has lied about who he is and what he knows, is overwhelming. Using only Caner's words, videos, books, and recordings, it is beyond doubt that Caner has a problem with telling the truth. Caner contradicts Caner. The evidence is substantiated. He has convicted himself. How can any one trust Ankerberg's judgment on any other issue if he thinks that Caner has been maligned without any substantiation when the substantiation comes from Caner himself?

Ankerberg's ability to analyze the facts and use logic and reason are also called into question. He claims that Caner's self sacrifice is being attacked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Caner's self sacrifice is not being attacked. In fact, Caner is not being attacked at all. His contradictory statements about his background and his mistakes about basic Islam are being revealed and he is being asked to explain the discrepancies and mistakes. This hardly constitutes an attack. But those who point out the discrepancies are themselves being attacked. Ankerberg calls them unchristian and unbiblical. What does this say about Ankerberg's discernment and wisdom? What does it say about Ankerberg's desire for truth and justice? How can he label those who are calling for explanations, unchristian and unbiblical?

What are we to make of this? It would seem to me that John Ankerberg has seriously damaged his credibility.