If It Was A Song, CT's Article Would Be Off Key

I’ve been wondering for a while just how long it would take before national media outlets got around to the Ergun Caner story. It’s the kind of story many reporters dream of, with Lies and Corruption in High Places. It fits most all the templates established since Watergate. The more that becomes known about Ergun Caner, the more enticing the story must look to a good reporter.

I’d been watching the story pick up steam for several months in the blogosphere, and, two weeks ago, after finally writing about it myself, I received a request from John W. Kennedy of Christianity Today for an interview, which I granted. As you can imagine, I’m not at all accustomed to getting calls from the press, but my interview with Mr. Kennedy was quite pleasant and professional.

Well, yesterday, Mr. Kennedy’s article for Christianity Today’s was posted on line. I’ve read it carefully, and I have a few thoughts and a few questions.

First, he did quote me accurately & I thank him. I stand by what I said. But I must say that I find the whole focus of the article to be very much “off target,” beginning with the title itself.

The article is titled “Bloggers Target Seminary President” when it really should be “Seminary President’s Dishonesty Exposed”. The actions of bloggers in uncovering Caner’s… um… embellishments, while interesting, is totally secondary. It might have made a good sidebar to the main article, but it isn’t the main thing here. The whole tone of the article – “Well, look at that! People are asking questions! I wonder why?” – is off the mark.

CT’s article also makes it sound as if a bunch of Calvinists were going after Caner because he opposes Calvinist doctrine. This is an attempt to deflect away from the real issue, which is Caner's record of dishonesty. If the charges are true, the theological position of the person bringing the charges is irrelevant. It is just a red herring. In regards to myself, sure I disagree with Caner's stance on Calvinism, but there are a lot of other publically known pastors, preachers, and teachers, with whom I have theological differences, but whose integrity I have absolutely no reason to question. The real story should be about Dr. Caner’s nine-year penchant for bending the truth about his past.

Mr. Kennedy completely fails to deal with any of the evidence which has been gathered and documented that shows Dr. Caner’s pattern of falsehood. I know that Mr. Kennedy spoke with Jason Smathers; both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Smathers told me so. Why is none of the evidence that Mr. Smathers collected discussed in the piece? It’s not like these are wild, unsubstantiated rumors, Mr. Smathers has gathered court records and other documents that directly contradict the timeline presented in Dr. Caner's readily available speeches on audio and video.

As the left-wing atheistic People for the American Way put it, “These are no vague or reckless charges, but carefully documented exposés that draw from Caner’s sermons, speeches, and online videos, and other public records.” If worldlings (c.f. 1 John 2:15)can understand what this story is really about, why doesn’t Christianity Today “get it?”

While both Ergun & Emir Caner declined to speak to Christianity Today (maybe the first time ever that Ergun Caner has turned down a request for an interview by a national media outlet), we now have official statements from Liberty University, in the person of Dr. Elmer Towns.

Dr. Towns, age 77, was co-founder, along with Jerry Falwell, of Liberty University back in 1971, and now serves as Vice President of Liberty University & Dean of Liberty’s School of Religion. According to Christianity Today, Dr. Towns and the Board of Directors of Liberty University “are satisfied that Caner has done nothing theologically inappropriate.” Theologically inappropriate? What in tarnation does that mean?

"It's not an ethical issue, it's not a moral issue," Christianity Today quotes Dr. Towns as saying. "We give faculty a certain amount of theological leverage. The arguments of the bloggers would not stand up in court." Repeatedly lying over a period of nine years is not an ethical or moral issue? A pattern of distorting the truth is simply “theological leverage?” Wow! I shudder to think how far someone might have to go before Dr. Towns would classify his actions as unethical or immoral!

And, as far as the evidence that has been gathered “not stand(ing) up in court,” I think that it fully accords to established rules of evidence and easily meets the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” required in civil court, and would, in my decidedly unlawyerly opinion, also meet the standard of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” required in criminal cases.

Further, Christianity Today reports that Dr. Towns believes that these are just attacks against Caner because of his opposition to the “Camel Method” of evangelizing Muslims. That doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory of examinations. Dr. Caner made his publicized remarks about the “Camel Method” in February of this year, yet James White was asking for help locating recordings of Ergun Caner’s debates over four months prior, back in October of 2009. Also, Dr. White has stated that he pretty much agrees with Dr. Caner’s opinion of the “Camel Method.”

Dr. Town’s statements, as reported by Christianity Today, raise new questions as to just how in touch Liberty University’s leadership really is with what is going on, and Liberty University’s academic integrity is now even more in doubt.

I have no doubt that Dr. Caner and Liberty University want this to just all go away. Who wouldn’t? But it isn’t going to go away. The situation continues, and needs to be dealt with honestly, forthrightly, and soon.

Postscript:
Because it was mentioned in the article, I want to briefly discuss the proposed resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention that I brought up quoted here. I exchanged e-mails with the author of the proposed draft resolution. He told me that he has been advised by good and Godly leaders in the SBC, not necessarily friends of Ergun Caner's, not to pursue such a resolution. As the CT article stated, "But in recent years, the SBC Committee on Resolutions has ruled as out of order nearly all efforts against individuals." So, don't look for anything to come to the floor at the Convention regarding this matter. (And I just caught this... I didn't tell CT that a blogger had written the draft, that is an assumption on Mr. Kennedy's part.)
Also:
James White, Fred Butler, & Tom Chantry all weighed in on the Christianity Today article yesterday.

Like Sharks in the Water?

For some unfathomable reason, this question has been on my mind lately: How are we, as Christians, to respond to leaders who are guilty of wrongdoing and are also unrepentant?

Do we, as many will do, wink and nod and maintain the status quo? Maybe the leader in question is a best-selling author or a trendy conference speaker in high demand. Is he a guest on national radio and television broadcasts? Perhaps he’s the pastor of a large church, which donates large sums of money to good and Godly programs. Popularity trumps just about anything else in today’s Church, after all.

Or do we, as many will do, circle like sharks who’ve caught a sniff of blood in the water, seeking every opportunity to rip out another hunk of flesh? Should we pounce on weakness like a cat on a mouse? Do we dispense with any mercy or compassion at all? Do we shoot our own wounded?

Luckily, we do not have to figure out the answers to such questions, because God has given us a Bible. And, in that Bible, He has given us instructions as to exactly what we are to do.

Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. (1 Timothy 5:19-21)

First, we are given a standard of proof for establishing the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any accusation. This standard of proof, “By two or three witnesses,” is the same standard taught throughout the Bible. (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16) The proof required to establish a charge against a leader in the church is neither more nor less rigorous then the standard of evidence required for establishing a finding of wrongdoing against anyone. Indeed, an accusation against anyone is nothing to be taken lightly. Evidence, weighed by established rules of evidence, must be required to confirm any allegation. If the evidence is insufficient, then the accusation must be dismissed. But what do you do if the data supports the charge?

While the procedures are virtually identical, Matthew 18:15-20 gives us more of a step-by-step detailed procedure then does 1 Timothy 5:19-21. It is likely that Paul expected Timothy, who “from childhood” had “known the sacred writings” (2 Timothy 3:14), to be familiar with Biblical rules of evidence, and rightly so.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.” (Matthew 18:15)

This process that Jesus laid out assumes that you have the knowledge that your brother has indeed sinned. You have looked into the evidence, asked the tough questions, established the facts for yourself, and are convinced that there is sin that needs to be confronted.

Seek out the sinning brother in private, and confront him with his sin. This is, for many, the most difficult part. It is easy to snipe and backbite and feed the gossip machine, but it is hard to confront someone to their face. But it must be done. If we love someone, we tell them the truth, even knowing that the truth will cause pain, embarrassment, or worse.

If the Holy Spirit uses your confrontation to bring repentance, that’s great. You will most likely now need to come along side and lend support during the process of restoration and reconciliation. But if there is no repentance, it is time to move on to the next step.

"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. (Matthew 18:16)

In the next step, you confront him again, but this time you bring one or two other people with whom you have shared both your concerns and your evidence. Face it, at this point you have assumed the role of a prosecutor who needs to make his case, and you now need to make the case to other people.

By now having to convince others of the conclusions that you have already reached, you are also giving someone else the opportunity to fact-check you and to possible keep you from going off half-cocked and bringing false accusations. For this reason, you want to approach people known for integrity and fairness. If you can now convince two impartial people of the brother’s wrongdoing, then you again confront your brother as a group.

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17)

And now we’re back where we began, with Paul’s instructions to Timothy about how he should handle accusations brought to him as an elder in the church. First, if the person bringing the accusation has not taken the required steps to establish the facts, the church elder should not receive the accusation. Second, the elder should examine the evidence for himself as well as verifying that the sinning brother has already been confronted privately. Third, the elder would be wise to confront the sinning individual privately himself, and offer another chance for repentance, before taking it to the church as a whole.

But, “Those who continue in sin,” are to be rebuked “in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.” Once rebuked before the church, if he still remains unrepentant, he is to be shunned (intentionally avoided) and denied the fellowship of the church until and unless he repents. As Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one… Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)

Now, at every level, as the circle of people who are “in the know” widens, each person does not have to start over and confront the sinning brother privately. They are certainly not commanded not to. They can, if they so desire and think it might be useful, but they are not required to. When it reaches the level that the elders are required to rebuke the sinner in front of the whole church, everybody in the church doesn’t have to then go privately to the individual and say, “I understand that you’re sinning. You need to repent.” (Although, that might just have quite an impact, now that I think about it. Imagine a line of people out his front door, waiting to confront him…)

Finally, Paul tells Timothy, “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.”

Be fair about this. On the one hand, you don’t believe everything bad that you hear about someone just because you think he’s a jerk and you don’t really like him anyway. He might very well be a jerk, but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of what he’s charged with.

By the same token, you don’t stretch the benefit of the doubt totally out of all reasonable proportion just because the accused is your golf buddy. In the case of a pastor, elder, deacon, or other leader in the church, he may have done your wedding, or baptized your kids. He may have even baptized you. You still need to accept that he might be guilty as charged, and follow the evidence, and not your feelings.

In Matthew 18:18-20, Jesus says that, if we follow His instructions, then our actions will be confirmed in heaven. (No, these verses are not about prayer meetings…pfft!) And it is no accident that the very next section of Matthew deals with Jesus’ teachings on forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35), as the whole goal of all of this is to bring the sinning brother to repentance and restoration with the church, the fellowship of believers.

This is the way that the Bible tells us that discipline in the church is to be maintained. Frankly, we don’t follow this near enough. My question to you is, if you are aware of allegations of transgression, what are you doing about it? Are you obeying the scriptures?

43/4=4 with 3 left over.

Never forget this most important truth!