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."