Then, just a few weeks after Caner resigned in disgrace at Brewton Parker over the allegations of using racist language, and allegations of "sexting" at the campus, Caner pops up at the New River Fellowship Church. Butch wasn't there to receive the terms of his church discipline for his moral failings in Georgia, but instead was able to go spend a weekend preaching to the young skulls of mush at a New River youth retreat.
Yes, just a few weeks after being accused of saying he was "n**ger f****d" by the Brewton Parker trustees, and allegedly engaging in sexual text messaging, Ergun the Warrior was called by God and New River pastor Scott Crenshaw, to tell the kiddos about Jesus.
I wonder if Scott Crenshaw informed the parents at his church about the allegations against Caner at Brewton Parker. My guess is that Pastor Scott told the parents at New River - much like Bucky Kennedy in Georgia - that Ergun was chosen as the youth retreat speaker not in spite of the allegations, but exactly BECAUSE of the allegations of racism and sexual text messages. That is how things go nowadays in the circles Caner travels.
Ergun is now "Ergun 4.0". Version 1.0 was Mike Caner, the George Castanza-looking nerdy preacher from Ohio. Ergun version 2.0 was released after 9/11, as Mike Caner became Ergun Mehmet Giovani Caner, the terrorist who was "trained to do that which was done on 11 September". Version 3.0 was released after Ergun was busted for his tall tales - he became Ergun the Warrior who has attacked by bloggers and evil judges who required him to pay for his frivolous lawsuits to quiet his critics.
Now Ergun is Ergun Version 4.0 - the conquering hero who rescued Brewton Parker from extinction, and who "quit" his job to become more like Jesus. Said Caner to the New River faithful on Sunday:
"I quit my job - at the age of 50. I got Brewton Parker out of accreditation problems, off of 'double death penalty' - and to celebrate it, I quit. I want to come home....I want to heal, and I can't heal, if my title is more important than my heart."
So Caner didn't resign over his racist slurs, or because of allegations of inappropriate behavior, he did it out of his most noble intentions that he didn't want his title to be more important than his heart; whatever that means. And in Caner's view, it was himself who saved Brewton Parker.
Sadly, Ergun still can't quit telling tales about himself. And he won't as long as there is a market for his stories to be told.
50 comments:
Someone please.....find this man a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a counselor.
For the people who hire him to preach, someone please find them a psychiatrist. They're as sick as he is.
For the parents who subject their children to his teaching, find them a psychiatrist.
For the bloggers who continue to defend him (like Peter Lumpkins), find them a psychiatrist.
Something is seriously, mentally wrong with Caner. He's actually dangerous.
WHAT IS WRONG with the Southern Baptist Convention????? It's time to dig deeper - there is something very ugly being hid from public view.
WHAT are these men really into? Seriously. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. It is not normal to continue to support a bonafide outlaw.
AGAIN, he defrauded the U.S. Military. Come 'on people. He defrauded the military. THINK ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!
If anyone else had defrauded the U.S. Military, Republicans, Conservatives and all types and stripes of church folks would be crying "FOUL". He's an outlaw.
Think about people like Caner and all of these "celebrity" mega church preachers. Think about what you can hide with a 501 (c)(3). I'm beginning to believe that these men are into some serious illegal activity.
No TRUE CHRISTIAN would uphold such foolishness. Notice that I said TRUE CHRISTIAN, not today's version of Christian.
The Windy Warrior Revision 4.0. That's great. Had to be. Is anyone shocked?
If Caner will peddle the line that BPC, under his masterful hand, "was the first school in the history of Southern Association of Schools and Colleges to ever come from the brink of losing accreditation to being fully accredited...." - which is a line you will also find being repeated by the Interim President, you will try to peddle anything.
By the way, BPC was the first school --- in the last ten years--- not history---to come from the brink of losing its accreditation to full reaffirmation.
The first in the last ten years, not history.
Dr. Bass, fact-checking is really easy to do. Just call SACS and ask. Your Academic V.P. should have done it for you. But, I'm sure he is still reeling from his "The school will grow exponentially...." statement he made following the arrival of Caner.
So why have all the reports that the "inappropriate behavior " was sexting been so vague and lacking in detail? Is it because the only ones who know the details refuse to talk? I do recall that those bozos on the board at bpc said that once he resigned, they dropped it because, they posited, it became a non-issue once he resigned. Wow, if a nationally prominent Christian figure has engaged in inappropriate behavior, there's no duty to the larger Christian community to investigate and expose the issue?
It looks like the contemporary evangelical establishment has adopted the same playbook the Catholic Church used to try and cover up the priest molestation cases.
Anyone else noticed that the cat seems to have gotten Peter Lumpkins' tongue? I'm guessing (and hoping) that his new boss at bpc has told him to cut the ergun caner Baghdad Bob crap and start acting like something remotely approaching a professional.
What we are seeing today are not people who are "called" into the ministry, but rather people who are using religion and church as a way to become wealthy and attain power. It's called Pragmatic Materialism. They are no different from the sharks on Wall Street who will cut a dirty deal to make a dollar, no matter how many people it hurts or forces into the unemployment line.
Call them pagan or hedonist or secular....or don't call them anything at all, but we will call them con artists. In Caner's case, I wouldn't call him a clever con artist because he doesn't hide his deception very well. It's rather obvious to those who are paying attention.
Today's "Christian" celebrities make people believe that they are professing Christians while they live a hedonist lifestyle.
They don't follow the teachings of the Bible as most traditional New Testament Christians would do, but they appear to follow the teachings of Aleister Crowley and the philosophy of Thelema.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
Think about it. Caner and all of his supporters and mega church celebrities DO what they wilt.....
No matter how much it damages the message of the Gospel, they do what they want to do, when they want to do it and with no apology. That's exactly what Caner does, and with gusto, I might add.
Another belief system and thought pattern that seems to be rampant among Caner and his supporters could come from the teachings of Anton Szandor LaVey, the author of The Satanic Bible.
“It has been said, 'the truth will make men free.' The truth alone has never made anyone free. It is only doubt which will bring mental emancipation.”
― Anton Szandor LaVey
But maybe, the true philosophy of Caner and the modern and ultra-materialistic mega church is this......
“Satan has certainly been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.”
― Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible
Anonymous 4:55
Re: Lumpkins
With his Twitter account gone and his blog silent, he is clearly trying to stay off the radar. Why?
He knows BPC can't afford a PR Director on a vice-president's salary. He is doing his best to protect that income. That job in a school no larger than BPC is a Director slot, not a V.P.
When he is described by the students, this is what you hear, "Yeah, he took the pictures for Caner."
He knows.
By the way, one has to wonder why the TRACS accreditation process was and still is "announced" on his private blog in the context of his Caner lamentation and not in an official BPC communication.
Could it be that the reports of "inappropriate behavior" and "sexting" are vague and lacking in detail because they are last minute add-ins to give the stories of racism a little extra spice?
With very little investigation you will find that the staff member who publicly stated to have heard from Caner directly not only the "N" word but also the "F" bomb TEN months prior to reporting it actually had just a week before being "convicted" to tell the tale had actually heard rumors that he was about to lose his job because of theft and incompetence.
And the male student who heard these racist remarks by Caner on an overheard phone call that took place 7 rooms away...had only a few months before beaten a BPC African-American student to the point where he had to go to the ER. Because he was black.
So you see these extra allegations were required, a Hollywood move, it was to ensure this story was a box office hit.
There are no details because it.never.happened.
"
So you see these extra allegations were required, a Hollywood move, it was to ensure this story was a box office hit.
There are no details because it.never.happened."
You cannot be serious. Caner the victim lives on, and you are perpetuation it, Anonymous!
Ergun Caner gets accused of sexting, NO WAY does he not loudly proclaim his innocence if, in fact, he is innocent. For crying out loud, he loudly proclaimed his innocence on the whole "former jihadist" stuff when there were MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE against him. To me his silence on this sexting issue is deafening. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
My C.B. Scott approval meter went up a few notches when he left BPC rather than sign a non-disclosure agreement and basically agree to lie under oath if ever called upon to testify against EC in a court of law.
The needle just flopped back to the lower end of the yellow zone (barely out of the red) when he agreed to go back to that den of vipers. This is speculation on my part, but my B.S. meter is pretty accurate. How much you wanna bet if/when he "retires" this time that he will willingly sign on the dotted line on that non-disclosure agreement?
He probably got a raise to agree to come back and play nice, and while it's been stated he needed the health insurance offered by BPC (I wish my employer provided health insurance coverage... I've always had to buy my own and NOT on the Obamacare exchanges), how some people can look at their reflections in the mirror every morning is a mystery.
Re the very first comment above:
Well put. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I've thought for years there has to be something much deeper going on in the SBC than meets the eye. Apparently I'm not alone. Either that or I've gone completely nuts. Not sure when it first hit me. Maybe it began the first time I set foot inside Bellevue, when it struck me that something was off; however, in looking back there were signs earlier than that. This was years before I'd even heard of Steve Gaines who, as I've always said, is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem. Boss Patterson is another symptom.
So I guess Caner was fired for taking too long lunch breaks. Right?
Is Emir Caner moving to Louisiana Baptist College?
Really?!? You think he stepped down because of family issues? C'mon do us a favor and continue to pull the naivety cover over your eyes,
As litigious as Caner is they would have not released the information about the alleged behavior if there wasn't any basis to it. I was honestly surprised they released anything at all.
I don't consider impartial review of ALL facts to be naïveté. I do, however, consider bias to be a sign of ignorance. Facts people:
1. As reported by Campbell: Scott was fired for insubordination and breach of confidentiality. It is unproven speculation that he was "fired for spilling the beans."
2. As reported by McKissic: Bynum waited TEN months before the burden of Caner's racist remarks were suddenly too heavy to bear. If this man, a self-purported preacher, but known gossip, had REALLY been told those statements he wouldn't have waited almost a full year to tell someone about it.
3. As reported by McKissic: The students stated "Drake went to the back where we could here Dr. Caner talking on the phone...
...we waited in the dining room area that is across from the front door"
Anyone who was closely affiliated with BPC under Smith or Simoneaux's administration has been in the Presidents home. There is NO WAY those students overheard a phone conversation if they were in the dining area across from the front door while Caner was in the back. That is 7 rooms and 14 walls!!
4. As reported by McKissic: Pittman stated "... The comments made about Dr. C.B. Scott were obviously unprofessional, but were also erroneous."
I've conversed with this student; and he could not pronounce erroneous much less spell it. But Scott, this wrestler's get-out-of-jail-free card, can.
5. As reported by McKissic: Pittman stated "Above all, the racist remark by Caner really upset me. If our student population would have heard the things I heard, especially the African-American population, they would no longer want to attend a school under the realm of Dr. Caner."
I will not address the use of verbiage, as I made that case in #4. This white male student beat an African-American student to the point he had to go to the ER, only a few months prior to hearing this "upsetting" conversation. Why did this fight occur? According to witness on the scene of the fight: Pittman was tired of all the "Ns" at BPC. That doesn't sound like a person who would truly be offended by a racial slur - had one really been heard. For the record: Pittman didn't get into any trouble, not a single day of suspension or one minute of bench time. His pal Scott made the issue go away.
Do I really think Caner stepped down for family issues?
6. Christian Post: Braxton Caner committed suicide on July 29, 2014.
7. BPC article Aug. 4, 2014: Drake Caner stated "I miss you Braxton..."
8. Braxton Memorial Program: The Caner family stated "As you can imagine, this has been a shock and heartache worse than anything we have ever experienced..."
YES! I believe that this man resigned to heal with his family.
Too many assumptions. A few trustees led the mostly uninvolved trustee board (typical of these boards) to hire EC. Faculty and admn staff are good, decent people who work hard, do the right thing, and recognize wrongdoing. The interim prez' rehire of the VP who had resigned did the right thing. I would want the guy who refused to sit still when he saw wrong on my team.
This is a school with enough probems already that it scarcely needs self-manufactured ones. The key here are active, engaged trustees who aren't content to let a couple of well-connected trustee leaders run the show.
Anon 10:09,
You make a decent point about Thomas's accusation. The details were at least delayed. According to BPC, Ergun denied it, so it became a he said-he said. The greatest strength to the anecdote would be how contemporaneously he related the events to CB in relation to Feb 2014.
However, your analysis on Maria and Zak's anecdotes seem off. One, does it matter if it was "seven rooms away". By all accounts, Ergun conceded that he made the statement. BPC confirmed it. The only quibble is over what was meant by the comment. There are three sources, including Ergun himself confirming the anecdote.
Having some experience with Ergun and his defenders, you are going to have to provide more evidence that Zak put someone in the ER, because of race. The what and the why are two separate accusations.
As to whether allegation 4 was extra spice; allegations 3&4 were both released first by BPC. If 4 was sexting, that should be the easiest one of the four to prove. Sexts leave a paper trail.
I know what it is liked to be falsely accused. Personally, Ergun and his friends have made up so much about me. They have falsely accused me of: working for Ergun, not producing the video in Count II, being fired by Ergun, filing suit against Ergun, and Ergun never having any prior knowledge of me. Given the plethora of false accusations over the last year about me alone, you need more evidence.
I don't consider impartial review of ALL facts to be naïveté. I do, however, consider bias to be a sign of ignorance. Facts people:
1. As reported by Campbell: Scott was fired for insubordination and breach of confidentiality. It is unproven speculation that he was "fired for spilling the beans."
2. As reported by McKissic: Bynum waited TEN months before the burden of Caner's racist remarks were suddenly too heavy to bear. If this man, a self-purported preacher, but known gossip, had REALLY been told those statements he wouldn't have waited almost a full year to tell someone about it.
3. As reported by McKissic: The students stated "Drake went to the back where we could here Dr. Caner talking on the phone...
...we waited in the dining room area that is across from the front door"
Anyone who was closely affiliated with BPC under Smith or Simoneaux's administration has been in the Presidents home. There is NO WAY those students overheard a phone conversation if they were in the dining area across from the front door while Caner was in the back. That is 7 rooms and 14 walls!!
4. As reported by McKissic: Pittman stated "... The comments made about Dr. C.B. Scott were obviously unprofessional, but were also erroneous."
I've conversed with this student; and he could not pronounce erroneous much less spell it. But Scott, this wrestler's get-out-of-jail-free card, can.
5. As reported by McKissic: Pittman stated "Above all, the racist remark by Caner really upset me. If our student population would have heard the things I heard, especially the African-American population, they would no longer want to attend a school under the realm of Dr. Caner."
I will not address the use of verbiage, as I made that case in #4. This white male student beat an African-American student to the point he had to go to the ER, only a few months prior to hearing this "upsetting" conversation. Why did this fight occur? According to witness on the scene of the fight: Pittman was tired of all the "Ns" at BPC. That doesn't sound like a person who would truly be offended by a racial slur - had one really been heard. For the record: Pittman didn't get into any trouble, not a single day of suspension or one minute of bench time. His pal Scott made the issue go away.
Do I really think Caner stepped down for family issues?
6. Christian Post: Braxton Caner committed suicide on July 29, 2014.
7. BPC article Aug. 4, 2014: Drake Caner stated "I miss you Braxton..."
8. Braxton Memorial Program: The Caner family stated "As you can imagine, this has been a shock and heartache worse than anything we have ever experienced..."
YES! I believe that this man resigned to heal with his family.
Anon who has posted the exact same comment three times: try posting your details of how Caner is innocent over on Peter Lumpkins blog. Not here, unless you identify yourself. LOL. I'll employ Peter's policy on this one: identify yourself please!!
"Maybe it began the first time I set foot inside Bellevue, when it struck me that something was off; however, in looking back there were signs earlier than that. This was years before I'd even heard of Steve Gaines who, as I've always said, is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem. Boss Patterson is another symptom."
And where does Adrian Rogers fit into this comment? Since you did not list him does this mean he was the problem, not the symptom?
Brewton Parker has now hired a great man and christian in hiring Charles Bass. He was the head of the Christian school here in my town where my granddaughter attends. Good luck Mr.Bass they are lucky to have you.
In all fairness to the public your statement:
"Anonymous comments are allowed, but troll-type comments, responses to trolls, and grossly off-topic comments will be subject to denial by the Watchdog."
Should include an additional caveat that states:
"Additionally, any Anonymous comment that provides a more two demential, factual account of an on-topic issue will be denied by the Watchdog. Only comments that share like-minded views are allowed to be posted under anonymity."
Nice try, Anon. I rarely, very RARELY keep people who disagree with me from posting here on this blog. I am doing it HERE on this post, however, as I suspect I know who the coward is that is posting anonymously giving defenses of Caner. Post your defense comments over at Peter Lumpkins' site. He rarely EVER lets anon comments that disagree with him. But if you defend Caner, he surely will allow you to post them there.
Does this particular Anon maybe have an IP address for Southeast Georgia? Maybe he already knows about Peter Lumpkins blog because, well.... Maybe he has to be anon because his employer has told him no more Baghdad Bobbing for Caner or you're outta here? Just a wild speculation on my part.
Regarding one of your tweets today...I noticed a long time ago that Caner's church had women pastors. I had kind of wondered if his wife picked out the church since Caner wasn't around much anyways. It doesn't seem to be the kind of church one would go to while they were at Arlington Bible College.
Is Caner related to this guy? He "inaccurately misstated" that he served in Special Forces:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/va-secretary-robert-mcdonald-apologizes-misstating-served-special/story?id=29174559&ts=true
Re the mis-statement: He was trained as a Ranger but never deployed as one! So he had military service as a Ranger, just not deployment.
He had no Ranger service. There is Ranger School, which all infantry officers attend. Then there is the 75th Ranger Regiment. He went to the school and never came close to a Range Batt. which means he had 0 service as a Ranger and never was a Ranger. He knows this. It was a lie, not a misunderstanding. Not to mention that in the Ranger Batts nobody refers to themselves as Special Forces. That is only for Special Forces. He lied. People still lie and the word still means what it always did.
Well said, notastepfordsheep. My thoughts exactly. I lived through those early days of the "takeover" and observed that it was done in a cowardly and mean-spirited way. The CBF has helped preserve my sanity! It breaks my heart that our seminaries have become little more than Wed. night Bible studies. They have helped produce mega pastors who are living "high on the hog."
Florence in KY
I ordinarily don't engage you, Jon, but you asked nicely, it's a fair question, and I believe you to be sincere, so I'll try to answer your question as best I can. My comment would have far exceeded the word limit had I given a thorough answer earlier, and that was not my intent then or now.
One could write a very long book if one wanted to explore all the reasons the SBC has morphed into something I no longer recognize nor with which I desire to be associated. My basic beliefs are still "Baptist," but today I find it difficult, even embarrassing sometimes, to admit that I am "Southern Baptist," in great part due to the actions of men like Ergun Caner and Steve Gaines and the response of Southern Baptist leadership to the epidemic problem of CSA in the SBC where the perpetrators are supported and the victims ignored or demonized. And yes, I would have to include the actions (or inactions as the case may be) of Adrian Rogers as well. His condescending treatment of the pastor of a sister Southern Baptist church is but one example of his and his fellow CR supporters' arrogance and belittlement of women. Then there was his involvement in the formation of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club, aka the CBMW, and his spearheading the 1998 push to change the BF&M to include language about "submissive wives" which for a time made the SBC the laughingstock of the country.
So, to answer your specific question (if I understand your question), I would have to say yes, but it's not a set-in-stone answer. I will try to explain. I have come to believe that Adrian Rogers was at the least a symptom of the problems that have come to plague the SBC and maybe even part of the root of the problems. This is not a conclusion I reached hastily or lightly. It was a sad day when I woke up and realized the truth. Perhaps the problems have always been there, and I was simply ignorant to them. It's impossible to say, "The problems began _____," or "the SBC changed in _____," and state a particular time or year which is why it's difficult to say whether AR was part of the problem or merely a symptom of the problem. He was a generation ahead of SG so at the very least was closer to the root of the problem. Problem or symptom (does it really matter?), I am convinced the mindset of the men who led what became known as the "conservative resurgence" in the SBC flicked the first domino in what is still a spiraling cascade of dominoes in a story that has yet to be fully told or played out. Only time will reveal the extent of the good or damage done to the SBC that formally began with two men meeting over coffee and beignets at a New Orleans cafe in 1967.
Continued...
For many years I chose to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary, much like you seem to have chosen to defend EC, that Adrian Rogers was a naive man who was used by the likes of Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler. I have since come to realize that Adrian Rogers was in no way naive except perhaps when it came to judging character (e.g. Steve Gaines). He was among the inner circle of the CR masterminds and allowed himself to be used as the velvet-voiced first SBC president backed by PP & PP and others who realized change would have to be made from the ground up, not the top down. The president of the SBC has the power to appoint committee chairmen, and it's those committees where the real change in the SBC is accomplished. The whole basis of the CR was that if enough pro-CR committee chairmen were appointed there would eventually be a tipping point at which time the CR leaders would gain total control. Part of gaining that control was convincing the SBCers in the pews that there was a big problem in the SBC, and they needed men like PP and PP to fix it.
Isn't it sad that a denomination's leaders are so obsessed with power and control?
IMO the SBC regressed at least 50 years when the CR power brokers gained control and destroyed the careers of many good, decent people in the process. I remember those years, the '70s and early '80s, when we were told our "preacher boys" were being taught by "librul" seminary professors and how "we MUST take back our seminaries!" It wasn't until years later that I came to realize the problem was nothing more than a handful of professors who did need to go, but the problem was greatly exaggerated by the likes of PP & PP whose names had become household words in Southern Baptist homes across the south and southeast and used to gain control of the denomination. We believed them. In reality it was all about power and control. There was no epidemic of liberalism in SB seminaries. In retrospect, we were had! I dare say if we'd had the internet 40 years ago things would have turned out differently.
Thank you, anon. Blogger was having issues last night, and my comments bounced several times and were then published out of order. I've reposted them.
And where does Adrian Rogers fit into this comment? Since you did not list him does this mean he was the problem, not the symptom?
There you go again, Jon. Making leaps in logic that aren't... logical. Not mentioning Adrian Rogers didn't mean anything. I didn't mention R.G. Lee either, but if you want to talk about "roots" and "problems," his "Pay Day Someday" sermon (i.e. "women are Jezebels"... a far cry from the message I was expecting) that I had heard of for years but didn't have the opportunity to hear myself until a few years ago was a shocking, slap-in-the-face illustration of just how low in the food chain women are considered in the SBC. It was no different than EC's contention that a woman's place in the church is vacuuming behind the pulpit. Once again I was disappointed by the words of a man I had always respected (Lee, not Caner) based upon the accounts of people who were close to him.
Another possible example of Adrian Rogers' weakness in judging character was that he had Ergun Caner in to preach one Sunday at Bellevue in 2004. This was my introduction to Caner, and he delivered his patented "I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September" schtick complete with the rollllling "r's" and tasteless jokes. All that was a red flag to me about Caner then. As riveting as his story was, I couldn't help as he went along but think of "Mike Warnke" and "what a crock!" Little did I know what a big red flag that should have been to anyone who heard him or that guest speakers at Bellevue are reportedly routinely paid several thousand dollars for "supplying the pulpit" for one Sunday.
And finally...
It seems there is little room in the SBC today for women who aren't clustered near opposite ends of the spectrum, either submissive, baby-voiced doormats or flaming, lesbian, earth-child, "femi-Nazi" liberals. The majority of women who occupy all the vast space in between... including singles, married women who are childless, either by choice or fate, divorcees, young widows, working women, especially those who work in non-traditional "male-dominated" fields, and anyone who doesn't fit the predetermined "Baptist" mold are at best invisible in many SB churches. It would require a great deal of faking for me to fit into those churches (anyone who knows me IRL knows I don't do "fake"), but I'm even less interested in some Unitarian-esque church.
I long for a church where a person doesn't have to be fake to feel s/he's a valuable, respected, equal member valued for his or her gifts, a church where there aren't just women's groups, mom's groups, and men's groups, a church where not just men can teach men, but a church where the bible is taught by the people most qualified to teach and where members are not segregated into pink and blue boxes and treated as outcasts if they don't neatly fit the mold of one or the other.
I'll never forget the two old women (at least they seemed old at the time) in the SB church I attended as a child. One was a widow; the other never married. Both knew more about the bible than most seminary-trained preachers, and they both taught bible classes in the church. Be prepared to clutch your pearls here... they taught women... AND men! Shocking, I know. And as far as I knew, no one thought a thing about it. I didn't. My parents didn't. They were just Ruby and Louise, and they were walking encyclopedias of bible knowledge that would have put most seminary-trained preachers to shame.
This is one reason moving to Memphis years ago was such a culture shock. I always thought I came from the South, but this is the Deep South, and the differences are striking, mostly in the church but often outside the church as well. A common phrase I hear daily about extremely trivial matters is, "I'll have to ask my husband." Really? Do you have to ask permission to go to the bathroom, too?
I remember the first time I saw a list of Sunday School teachers at Bellevue it occurred to me that all the adult teachers with the exception of "ladies" classes were men. My heart sank and my stomach twisted into a knot when I learned the reason for that. It saddens me to think what a legacy of bible teaching would have been lost had those two mature female bible teachers from my childhood been members of Bellevue or a like-minded church.
I leave you with a story by Leon McBeth about his experience at a small West Texas church years ago and what happened when this young, green preacher dared suggest the men's class with their chronically ill-prepared male teacher join the women's class with their learned but female Sunday School teacher. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.
The right thing to do with this EC mess is to expose it, fully, with names and dates and quotes including demands for those involved to make it right-no matter the consequences-and to own their own words. But this will not happen despite the clear call to do so found in Eph. 5:11. No, things will continue and worsen as they always do in today's evangelical "church" and the SBC (Sweep Beneath Carpet) is famous for this above nearly all others. If the men in charge of BP were half the men of God they think themselves to be this situation would never have happened. But it did, on their watch and in order to "save face" they will continue to refuse to expose evil that they have perpetrated on their school, their contributors, the churches, and students. All the while, they have made themselves the laughing-stock to the world and a mockery to God.
Then there are the 'anons' and the 'Jons' who take it upon themselves to defend this practiced, habitual, hell bound liar and have the nerve to do so "in the name of God" HOW DARE YOU? Did Christ do nothing for you? Will you mock the Savior by standing up for His enemy? Repent of this wickedness if you are His.
Now we have the latest escapee from under the wood work in the person of BBC and he has the gall to attack EC and then slip in his own agenda 'under the radar'. He approves of women teaching men in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the Word of God (I would direct your attention to 2Tim. 2:12 and 1Cor. 14:34, but it is obvious that those verses have been redacted from your copy of the Bible long ago). Are you one of those guys, BBC, that has taken it upon yourself to enlightnen God as to how things are in the 21st century and would your require Him to alter His ETERNAL Word to make room for our new-found wisdom residing in women teachers of men? If those two women to which you refered were such knowledgable Bible scholars they would have known that they were commanded not to do what it was they were doing, teaching men. Do you think God will wink at your mockery of Him and let this nonsense slide with no consequences? That's what is believed by ALL the false prophets down through the ages. You expect us-and God-to allow this because BBC (and most of the SBC) has deemed it so? Good luck with that.
It seems there is little room in the SBC today for women who aren't clustered near opposite ends of the spectrum, either submissive, baby-voiced doormats or flaming, lesbian, earth-child, "femi-Nazi" liberals.
That should have read "in churches today." Obviously there's no place for the latter in SB churches. My point was it seems there's little room for any woman except the former in today's SBC churches.
Sadly, it's not a lot better for men sometimes. For the first time in ages I tuned in to the live feed from Bellevue one recent Sunday morning. A winter storm with ice was predicted for that evening and the following day, a forecast which was accurate as it turned out. After Steve Gaines bellowed over the invitation hymn (some things never change) and drowned out the song leaders and congregation, he announced that church would be held as usual that evening in spite of the weather forecast. He said if you're afraid of a little winter weather you're "a wimp." He repeated this several times, saying the very worst thing he could ever imagine being called is a wimp and that he is certainly no wimp. He admonished everyone to be there that evening so no one could call Bellevue members wimps. I can think of much worse things to be called than a wimp, but apparently in Baptistland this is the last thing a man wants to be considered.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you, Darrel, as you're not likely to change your mind. I would just like to set the record straight about a few things you ASSUMED about me.
First of all, why do you assume I'm "the latest escapee from the wood work at BBC"? What does that even mean? I was never a prisoner at BBC, but I "escaped" that place a long time ago. Are you capable of having an intelligent discussion with someone without resorting to name calling?
Second, where did I "slip in" anything "under the radar"? I merely stated my opinion, and I think I stated it clearly. No "flying under the radar" or agenda here.
I assume you meant I Timothy 2:12. I am quite familiar with that verse, and I'm well aware of how it's been plucked out of context for years to justify women not being "allowed" to teach men in circumstances ranging from bible teaching to a man asking a woman for directions to the coffee shop. The extent to which some have taken this verse is amazing and sometimes amusing.
Has it ever occurred to you that not only this but all of Paul's letters were written to specific churches with unique circumstances at a time in history when the organized church was new, where many women had converted to Christianity from pagan religions, where some women, perhaps in some churches just one woman, were disrupting the teaching of the gospel by trying to influence others with aspects of her former religion? There was a reason these women needed to be silenced. They were hindering the gospel by trying to introduce aspects from their old religion to other new Christians. Imagine the resulting chaos! Note the use of the term "a woman" versus "women." There is much historical context that is lost when people isolate single verses from the surrounding text and run with it. This is about as exegetically sloppy as interpreting "fell on his neck" (see the story of the prodigal son) as meaning someone literally fell down and injured his neck.
Where do you personally draw the line at women "being silent in the church"? Does this mean that women cannot sing solos, make announcements, read a passage from the bible... just how far should this go? When do boys (which in most churches women are allowed to teach) become "men" and can no longer learn from a woman? I'm truly curious to hear your answers to these questions.
Nothing has been redacted from my copy of the bible. (I'm not convinced there weren't parts that may have been redacted centuries ago, but my copy is as whole as it ever was.) I simply do not interpret everything as simplistically literally as you seem to.
You accuse me of the insulting notion of trying to "enlighten God." Mock me all you want, Darrel, but God will NOT be mocked. How sad that two Christians (I assume you are my brother in Christ) cannot disagree on the interpretation of a passage of scripture, especially one regarding what is considered by most to be a tertiary matter of the faith, without one calling the other names and accusing him of blasphemy. Is that all you have?
You even accuse Jon Estes and others, including me it seems, of being wicked and lost. I disagree with Jon on many things, but one thing I have never accused him of is being lost. I consider Jon my brother in Christ.
As for those two bible teachers from my childhood, I've no doubt whatsoever that when they met Jesus face to face He said to each of them, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant!" You, on the other hand, seem to have condemned them to hell, and that is beyond sad.
Finally, why do you assume I'm a he? Is it because you would be appalled if you thought you were discussing theology with a lowly woman? Just remember, Darrel, it's the internet, and you just never know, do you?
Finally, why do you assume I'm a he? Is it because you would be appalled if you thought you were discussing theology with a lowly woman? It's the internet, Darrel. You just never know, do you?
That reminds me of an experiment of sorts that a blogger conducted a few years ago. She had always posted using a feminine name but found she was rarely taken seriously on blogs during theological discussions. A learned bible scholar, she was well-qualified to contribute to these discussions but was more often than not ignored.
She then began posting on the same subjects using a masculine name. The differences were profound. Night and day polar opposite responses to the very same things she'd written all along! All of a sudden the same things she'd been "preaching" for years that had been ignored or dismissed became "nuggets of wisdom," and "he" was a flash-in-the-pan blogging "star." "He" was even asked to write guest blog posts by men who had previously demonized her when she was posting using a feminine name.
Watching all this unfold provided amazing insight into the mindset of many men (and some women) in the church. It also made me realize what a crock demanding someone sign his or her "real" name to be taken seriously is.
New BBC -
Thank you for your well thought out response.
Let me say just a few things which directly respond to comments from your words.
1 - I do know Butch Caner. We were in seminary at the same time. We bumped (not rubbed) elbows a few times. I liked him and enjoyed most of his humor. His ministry was never one that ran along side of mine. We did not meet with a gang of students and have coffee. We did, on a few occasions, sit in the same dorm room where a lot of the former Criswell College guys hung out and just listen to them tell their stories. Not once did any of them make it as an illustration into any sermon I preached. AN I went to Criswell College also (way before them).
I may have but I do not remember defending Caner but I do think at times it is perceived if you do not join in the disagreement against him you are supporting. I do confess to giving those written about the benefit of the doubt. I also confess to intentionally trying to be edgy in my remarks to draw ire. That works better in conversation face to face and with people who you really know.
2 - An example of that would be my giving Gaines the benefit of the doubt on the issue with the staff but did finally come around and say he should step down. In that discussion, I was really waiting to see if any source came out that the previous leadership knew anything. I am glad nothing ever did.
3 - It is hard to imagine how long these topics and new ones keep popping up that keep the discussion about the evil ways of men alive.
4 - Women in leadership. My first pastorate (while in seminary) a conservative small country church had a female deacon when I was voted in (and I knew it). I never made it an issue. Though some hills (blogs...)are fun to play on, not all hills are worth dying on. The church I just left we had the best Minister of Music I have worked with. Her heart towards God and spiritual growth in Christ was an amazing thing to watch.
A lot of the SBC controversy stuff became personal (in a not real way) because I was a student at Criswell College from 1979 -1983. The SBC resurgence message was loud and clear.
The fight is for others, there are better things to focus on. As time permits I will probably still show up and question peoples refusal to take their gripes to someone other then the ones they are griping about.
Again, thanks for you response. More than likely even the grumpiest people here would like me if they knew me. Not everything in y life is an argument -- just the few places I enter the blog world fray.
I am not even sure if the church I am pastoring is SB. IMB wanted nothing to do with us when they were being formed in the 90's. Their loss.
Missed your words lately NASS! You would make a good investigative attorney. Good to read your comments.
BBC
Thanks for further revealing your true colors, no matter the shade of deceit, it's still deceit. I could care less what your gender is, your doctrine is WRONG about women in the church, you know that it is wrong and still want to pass it off as correct. Do you aspire to be a woman pastor in the SBC "church" of your choice?
It is noted that you have skirted the real issue here, Mr. EC himself, and went on a defensive rant so as to make yourself out to be some sort of "authority" (of the self-appointed variety) on every subject you grace the "church world" with your self-acquired "wisdom". Since you are so well-liked by your peers why don't you persuade the folks @ BP to expose Caner-fully. What a hero you would be in everyone's eyes to be the one that "cleaned up this mess" and took the real credit for "saving PB".
Indeed, sir, ma'am, whatever (who cares?) it is you who mock God with your twisted "interpretations" of Scripture. By the way, if you are a girl, that makes what I have said all the more revealing when it comes to the deceit used by you. It's terrible to want something you cannot have, isn't it?
I'm a BPC alumnus. I am also a graduate of and SBC seminary and hold a doctorate from a Baptist university. I no longer identify as a Baptist. I am now Mennonite. And it is for these very reasons. We are not perfect, but we take no glee in conflict. There's something sick here. All. The. Way. Around.
If there is one truth about race, it is this: It doesn't matter if you're black or white--if you're Baptist, you like to fight. I don't. And I can no longer be a part of such a thing.
For the record, New River Fellowship is not related to the SBC. The church cut ties with all Baptist entities several years ago soon after Scott Crenshaw arrived and aligned with Robert Morris' Gateway Church.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/06/its-people-not-internet-schilling-twitter-trolls-vile-threats-his-daughter.
Well, looks like "retired" Caner played another high-profile gig this past weekend at Bellevue. Probably pulled down a few grand for it.
Dog, I hope that you and the others who've called Caner out over the years won't let up. Sure, if he truly is going to step out of the public limelight and fade into obscurity, let it go. But we know that's probably never going to happen. As long as he's doing gigs like this he and those who enable him should be in the crosshairs.
I don't get the whole sexting allegation. Everyone seems to have dropped that. Did anyone look into it? If so what was the result? Is it a case of those who would be in the know refusing to talk about it? If so then that in and of itself should be called out. If there's a credible lead out there that he did this and Bellevue put him in its pulpit then this needs to be publicized.
Just FTR, last week Caner spoke at Bellevue Baptist Church, a small church of less than 200 people in Gadsden, Alabama.
Not "Six Flags Over Jesus" in Memphis.
The people of Bellevue are definitely sherpherdless. Just like in Jeremiahs day
Bill
Thanks for the clarification anon. Though I have no reason to believe he won't be playing the big time venues again in the future.
Hello All,
Well, it seems his wife had cucked him. Please see:
http://pulpitandpen.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/caner-divorce-petition-compressed.pdf
Maybe it was with a black man?
Hopefully he will repent.
For McAfee Activation visit www.mcafee.com/activate after purchasing McAfee retailcard product to activate it. Our technical experts will assist you to activate it.
Post a Comment