Watchdog's Response to Geisler: Listen to the FBC Jax November 2001 Sermon Again

Norman Geisler seems intent on bailing water out of a sinking boat. He has posted a lengthy response to the "Muslim" charges and "misstatements" made by Ergun Caner, but he apparently hasn't listened to the Caner FBC Jax sermon preached on November 20, 2001.

Geisler needs to let it go. The Liberty University investigation was completed, they found him to have lied, and they demoted him. Every time he tries to justify the "decade of deceit" by Caner, I will roll out the November 2001 Ergun Caner sermon at FBC Jax. And I roll it out again.

Ergun Caner at FBC Jax November 2001 from FBCJax Watchdog on Vimeo.

In Geisler's "defense" of Caner he does not deal with the FBC Jax November 2001 sermon.

I was there when he preached it, I've spoken to many others that were there, and we all had the same impression from his sermon: this man whom we never heard before was a terrorist, a "Jihadist" trained in Europe, who came to America to commit 9/11 style attacks but was saved just in the nick of time. Caner purposely led us to that conclusion. He cleverly deceived 10,000 worshippers with his story that day, while our pastor Jerry Vines sat right behind him nodding and amening, affirming his story.

That day we were duped by Ergun Caner.

Boy, were we were gullible.

We trusted our pastor to not allow a man to deceive us behind the "sacred desk", yet that is exactly what happened.

We believed Gilyard's story in 1987 about being homeless, living under a bridge, but it was a lie.

We believed Caner's story in 2001 about being raised in Europe as a Jihadist trained to "do that which was done on 11 September". Actually, he was trained to be an average midwestern boy like I was.

But it was a lie. His sermon that day started with a lie of his name, telling us: "My name is Ergun Mi'kael Mehmet Giovani Janel". He claimed to have spoken a "different language" than English as a high schooler. He claimed to speak poor English as a high schooler. Geisler does not deal with that.

He fooled us with his fake Middle Eastern accent when he pronounced "Europe" and "America."

Geisler needs to write a post explaining the entire farce of a sermon at FBC Jax, if he is to provide a complete defense of Ergun Caner.

So keep on defending him, Geisler. Or just let it rest, and let's see if Caner asks for forgiveness from those he has fooled.

Chris Rosebrough: Caner Kept on Staff at LU to Not Give Victory to Calvinists and Bloggers

One of my favorite Christian bloggers and commenters is Chris Rosebrough, the founder of Fighting for the Faith radio broadcast and Pirate Christian Radio. He broadcasts several times a week from Fishers, Indiana, and is a one-man show who is supported by mostly small donors who listen to his broadcast on I-Tunes and read his blogs and various other websites. His motto is "Comparing what people are saying in the name of God to the Word of God." Much better than the SBC Motto: "Listening to God by listening to and obeying what the preacher says." More on Chris at the end of this article if you're interested.

But Rosebrough weighed in on the LU Caner decision during his 6/28/10 broadcast, and made some very interesting comments I want to share with my readers. He laughed and chuckled at the ridiculousness of the Liberty statement, calling it "corporate speak" and "political spin" and a statement which means very little - but to make sense of what the committee's findings were you have to look only at the ACTIONS Liberty took. They are what matters, not their goofy statement. No matter what they SAY, their actions speak loudly: the committee found that Caner lied, he had lied to Liberty University, and they had to get rid of him.

But here is Rosebrough's analysis of why they did not totally can Caner.

The story was rooted in and pushed by people Liberty viewed as adversaries, said Rosebrough, and they couldn't stand to give any victory to their opponents for fear that it would embolden them. A total dismissal of Caner would be seen as a victory for their opponents: Calvinists and bloggers.

Here are Rosebrough's comments on the "bloggers" who were instrumental in "pushing" the story until it eventually made its way to what Liberty considered "credible news agencies":

"They [Liberty] couldn't give the bloggers a win, you don't want to give the bloggers a win because all that does is give them credibility and embolden them. You can't let bloggers look like they have any credibility at all. And remember, whenever somebody talks about bloggers - and by the way I'm one of them - they don't ever address the content of the bloggers' points, they always instead go to an ad hominem argument where they basically say 'Listen, these bloggers, they're a bunch of people in their 40's who live in their mom's basement and probably sit on bean bag chairs in their underwear eating Cheatos all day...these are people who are malcontents and really mentally unstable.'

They never deal with the content of the arguments brought up by bloggers, instead they always go with the ad hominem....If they canned Caner that would have been seen as a big, big win for bloggers and people who are supposed to be non-credible."

I agree completely - notice he said critics of bloggers paint them as "mentally unstable"...oh how true, and I would add also as "sociopaths" and "cowards". Can't give those recalcitrant bloggers credibility at all.

Funny thing is, while I believe Rosebrough's assessment is correct, we do know one of the LU investigating committee members who is very credible, had enough sense to reach out to bloggers to get their assistance in gathering source documentation to complete their investigation. That must REALLY chap the hineys of Caner and his staunch defenders - the committee sought the help of bloggers, but apparently didn't call Tim Rogers or Peter Lumpkins. Ouch.

But we all know that the Caner decision is a victory for TRUTH - its not about bloggers or Calvinists or Muslims - it's about a decade of deceit perpetuated by Ergun Caner that has done great harm to the cause of Christ, that has finally been exposed and hopefully stopped. While many don't think Liberty went far enough, and their statement is certainly embarrasing - they took the right action, and Caner will be gone about the time a new seminary president is named, in my opinion.

Now, excuse me while I get up out of my bean bag chair and fetch some more Cheetohs...."Hey Mom, I'm out of Cheetohs!!!!"

------------------------------

Some additional thoughts on Rosebrough: Rosebrough is theologically very sound - he is gospel-centered and he is dedicated to exposing false doctrine wherever he sees it no matter if it is in the SBC, or non-denominational churches. He regularly exposes error at Saddleback and in Rick Warren's sermons and other "purpose driven" and "emergent" churches. He has been a harsh critic of Perry Noble's NewSpring Church in South Carolina, and he pulled no punches in his criticism of Ed Young's jet and lavish lifestyle - and he gave expert analysis of Young's "dog and pony show" when Young brought in John Cross and Mac Richard (prounounced re-SHARD) to tell everyone how wonderful Young is, and to explain why private jet travel is needed for Young.

His broadcasts are quite humorous - he has parody/lampoon segments poking fun at false doctrine. He does sermon reviews (egads!), and pulls no punches when preachers get out of line. I believe he is reformed in his theology, he is a Lutheran, but no question he is a solid Christian believer.

His goal is very simple: he wants people to be discerners in their churches. He wants people to compare what their preachers are saying in the name of God, to what the word of God actually says. He has an undergrad in religious studies, has an MBA from Pepperdine, and has political and corporate work experience. He ain't a professional religious man, if you get my drift.

And very important: he is independent in that his financial support is very much grass roots. He is not entrenched in a denominational power structure and beholden to church leaders. No CP dollars going to Chris! He encourages his listeners to become "Crew Members" for a monthly $6.95 donation.

He would not be a favorite of the SBC'ers, because of his more reformed views, and worst of all, he might drink an adult beverage from time to time.

You can subscribe to his radio broadcast via I-Tunes here.

Caner/Liberty Aftermath: What They're Saying

It looks like the first news/blog cycle on the Liberty University/Ergun Caner scandal has run its course.

All reporters and bloggers, with the exception of the SBC Today Bunch and Tim Guthrie, are viewing the Liberty action as punishment against Caner for being untruthful. Some agree with the LU decision, many think it didn't go far enough.

But no where, anywhere on the Internet will you find a claim of "exoneration" except at the SBC Today Bunch website and Tim Guthrie's blog. "Delusional" is how Chantry characterizes Guthrie's position. Not surprising, the Baptist Press has been silent so far (Correction: Baptist Press did have an article on Monday 6/28 here), as has Peter Lumpkins. In fact we're all eagerly awaiting Peter's next "vlog" - donning his cap and sleeveless shirt - to tell us of Caner's victory, just as much as we are anticipating the fake Ergun Caner's next episode at YouTube - both with be very entertaining I'm sure.

Tim Guthrie's blog posts are embarrassingly painful to read as he first declares total exoneration for Caner, then posts a total of four blog posts in three days, with the last one yesterday backtracking a bit in a confusing post in which he is so flustered he wasn't able to number his points correctly (1, 2, 4, 5).

When sampling the various news accounts and blog writings of the Caner scandal, I think we see very pointedly the value of Christian blogging. Sadly Liberty was only interested in the truthfulness of their seminary president if the secular media was interested. The secular media acknowledges that it was the Christian bloggers who kept the pressure on this story, posting video and audio evidence of Caner's deception which finally resulted in the media paying attention and then LU was suddenly concerned. Do real universities behave in that manner concerning their presidents - they're concerned only when the media is concerned?

Gone are the days when lay people get spoon fed from their pastors or from "Baptist Press" what is going on in their convention. Information and insightful and controversial analysis abounds, and this is a good thing as we have seen here.

--------------------

On a side note: one quote that caught my attention was in the Associated Press article that I don't think had been confirmed before: AP reported: "...[Caner] asked friendly organizations to remove damning clips from their websites." We all suspected that he did, but the AP confirmed it.

I know the Ohio Free Will Baptists eventually did remove from their website the four very damning sermons from a 2007 men's retreat where Caner was in absolute rare form, prior to the completion of the LU investigation, but they told me they were not asked by Caner or Liberty to do it. I archived copies of the four sermons before their removal, and provided copies to one of the LU committee members during the investigation. After I blogged about those Caner sermons in April, an Ohio Free Will Baptist staff member contacted me and demanded I remove the audio excerpts I posted, and that I remove their logo from my blog post. I did remove their logo, but kept the audio excerpt clip which is still here, claiming it was allowable under the Fair Use doctrine.

A compilation of news and blogger accounts in the past few days that are worth reading:

Associated Baptist Press: Liberty Demotes Caner

Associated Press: Muslim-Turned Preacher Out as Dean

BeliefNet: Caner Sacked as Dean

Examiner: Liberty Removes Caner as Dean

Christianity Today: Liberty Cuts Caner as Dean

News and Advance: LU Won't Renew Caner Contract

NEW: Christian Post: LU Demotes Caner

[Lots of "demotes", "cuts", "sacked", but I couldn't find any news reports stating Caner is "exonerated", but I'm still looking!]

Some of the best blogs giving analysis of what the Caner decision means to evangelicalism:

Tom Chantry: Declaration from Liberty (most insightful and balanced, a must read)

Wade Burleson: Caner and the Liberty Honor Code (pointing out LU hypocrisy in Caner decision)

Wade Burleson: Celebrity = Integrity in SBC

Wade Burleson: SBC Today = "Bagdad Bob" (painfully hilarious)

James White: The Full Liberty Statement (White not impressed with LU statement)

Gene Clyatt: Lynchburg, We Have a Problem (Most hard-hitting, critical analysis of LU's actions)

R.A. McGough: A Christian University? Liberty is Neither (Just as hard-hitting as Clyatt)

Ergun Caner Removed as Head of Liberty University Seminary

Ray Reed of the Lynchburg "News & Advance" has just reported the following:

"Liberty University announced today that Ergun Caner will no longer be dean of the university’s Baptist Theological Seminary.

After an investigation conducted by four members of Liberty’s Board of Trustees, the university said it found that Caner has made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” concerning “dates, names and places of residence.“ The statements included his description of being raised as a Muslim in Turkey, when documents indicate he moved to the United States at the age of 4.

His contract as dean of the seminary expires on June 30 and will not be renewed, according to a statement from LU. Caner will continue to serve on the seminary’s faculty, as a professor."

This is sad news, but it is about what I expected, and the best that could have been hoped for by Caner in this circumstance. Although Reed doesn't report on this, my hunch is that Caner may have expressed remorse and actually repented over his decade of deceit, and thus they justified keeping him on as a professor, but determined that his exaggerations and other statements made during his speaking tours prevented him from being able to remain as president of the seminary.

This is exactly what I had predicted would happen when I wrote the following on my blog May 18th, when I gave a Christian defense of Ergun Caner. It was then that I said:

"I don't see how at this point he can stay as president of the Liberty seminary even if he truly repents, if for no other reason than for the academic credibility of the university. But if he truly repents for the decade of deceit as the "Preaching-Circuit Ergun" and seeks forgiveness, my hope is that he will stay as a professor at Liberty, and even as a preacher at the Campus Church, and continue his ministry to students. So that is my hope for Ergun.

I will pray for him, that he will do the right thing."

Perhaps he did do the right thing, and repented, and this allowed him to stay on staff at Liberty University.

All in all I am pleased that Liberty has taken this action. It will help to salvage their reputation, and it shows the world that a high-profile preacher who speaks lies from the pulpit will eventually be held accountable by his peers. As one that was present at FBC Jacksonville in November 2001 when Caner first came on the scene claiming to be a Jihadist trained in 9/11 style terrorism, I am pleased that my blog nine years later in 2010 contributed to the gathering of the evidence needed to confront Caner with his deception.

Sadly, the University will never be able to erase the disgrace that it took Internet bloggers like myself and a host of others, including Mohammad Khan, to finally get action out of Liberty University on this important issue.

Caner Not Only Ex-Muslim With Dubious Past: An "Industry" To Make Money on Christians?

There is an interesting article by Omar Sacirbey at the website BeliefNet, entitled "Critics Say Caner Isn't Only Ex-Muslim with Dubious Past".

Perhaps there are other supposed self-proclaimed "ex-terrorist Mulsims" who have written books about Islam and been on the speaking cirucuit, seeking a market for their testimony and books amongst the vast sea of gullible Christians.

Sacirbey points out that Ergun Caner himself claims to have a terrorist past - he provides a quote from Caner's November 2001 sermon at FBC Jax where Caner claimed to have been in "Islamic Youth Jihad", and "trained to do that which was done on 11 September." As I have maintained since releasing the Caner FBC Jax 2001 sermon on this blog earlier this year, these quotes are the most damning for Caner - showing him, in my opinion, to be an opportunist going so far as to falsely portray himself as an ex-terrorist right after 9/11 as his mentor Jerry Vines sat right behind him.

But he might not be the only one, as Sacirbey points out. The other supposed ex-terrorists are:

- Walid Shoebat - author of "Why We Want to Kill You", claims he was recruited by the PLO as a teenager. According to Sacirbey, Shoebat describes a bomb-throwing incident he was involved in, but turns out there is no proof of it according to Sacirbey's article. Here is a link to Shoebat's website.

- Kamal Saleem - claims to have carried out terrorist attacks in Israel, and to have moved to America to wage Jihad against America (sound familiar?). Here is a link to his website with his story.

Says Sacirbey in his article:

"Skeptics point out that Shoebat and Saleem claim to have carried out their terrorist activities in the 1960s and 1970s, long before modern Islamic radicalism emerged in the 1980s. They also question why, if their terror claims are true, they've been able to retain their U.S. citizenship."

Exactly. If Ergun Caner was "trained to do that which was done on 11 September" did the U.S. government fully investigate his supposed terrorist background after he made these remarks in November 2001 at FBC Jax? Was he really trained in terrorism? Is he an expert in Jihad? If not, why was he invited to speak to the U.S. troops on such a topic? Are Shoebat and Saleem really ex-terrorists? If Shoebat and Saleem and Caner are trained ex-terrorists, why are they U.S. citizens? Can any ex-terrorist "accept Jesus" and then they are deemed non-threats?

Read this quote from Sacirbey's article:

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Caner, Shoebat, Saleem and others like them belong to an "industry" that is often perpetuated by fundamentalist Christians. "The people that are doing this do it to make money, or get converts, or to get some personal benefit," Hooper said.

And then this quote:

"Despite the evidence against them, Hooper believes these people will continue to be welcomed by some institutions because they preach what some audiences want to hear. 'As long as you attack Islam and demonize Muslims, you're going to get a platform,' he said. 'It doesn't matter if your facts and background are wrong.' "

Oh how true. While I don't agree with much of what Ibrahim Hooper has ever said, he certainly knows us Christians well. With all that has been revealed on Caner, it is amazing his speeches are still in high demand in the Southern Baptist churches and in bible conferences attended by pastors. How sad.