Featured Ergun Caner Elected President of Brewton Parker College

Let the gossip begin

 

I agree with your OP completely. The man should not be in a position of authority. His inconsistency, his backtracking to cover his lies, his outright denial of having said what he is recorded as saying make him an imminently poor choice for the position. Can't imagine what they were thinking!

 

I've only read of alleged falsehoods. What has he been accused of lying about in reference to his past?

 

Other than lying about being an ex-Muslim jihadist? What more do you want?

 

I agree.

Unfortunately, that's the way it has been for a long time - before and after the "Conservative Resurgence."

 

From what I'm reading, this was dealt with back in 2010 so why is this a bad hire now? Has he not confessed and repented of the sin? Or do folks just feel like because of his celebrity, he shouldn't be in a position of leadership just yet? And if that's the case, how long should one wait before giving him another chance?

 

Yes well let's unnecessarily turn this into something about the resurgence. Such bitterness.

 

I will tell you why. Caner was very attack dog against Calvinists prior to all of this coming to light. I do not support his attitude and behavior.

When you stand against Calvinism in any way these new Calvinists today want you completely destroyed. They do not want Caner to ever be seen working in any position. They want him digging ditches some where. That is when Calvinists will be satisfied.

The entire Calvinist blogosphere is lit up right now over this. Calling for him to be accountable to more questions they can think up. After the recent dust up between Calvinists and non cals in the SBC this seems to be stirring things up again.

It is ungodly.

 

James White is another attack dog Calvinist who is only looking to destroy Caner. To take White's argument over the trustees of a school who interviewed him personally is rather odd. People are going to believe what they want to believe rather than giving any consideration to the truth. This is ab out payback and nothing more.

 

If this allegation is true it completely taints anything this man has ever done. He would not have risen to his position of prominence without this in his biography. I would consider him to be untrustworthy. (Again, if this is true.)

Let me say that I know nothing about this man and am coming to this topic with zero background knowledge.

So we have a birther issue... :laugh:

 

No, I'm just pointing out that it has always been a good ole' boys club. That was one of the main motivations for the "Conservative Resurgence." "Conservatives" were being systematically shut out of denominational leadership. It was wrong of the SBC leadership to do it and they deserved to challenged.

I'm actually trying to give some perspective that this is not something that is confined to the newer leadership in the SBC as the OP seemed to suggest. I'm actually advocating for a fair assessment of the current leadership.

The "bitterness" I feel is toward the "good ole' boy" network is because it has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God whether the theology is fundamentalist, "conservative", moderate, or "liberal." It is part of fallen human nature and has no place in Christian leadership. You'll find the same attitudes in the state denominations and the CBF, among others.

 

Three separate committees have investigated this issue with Caner. And they did it in a personal way. Yet those who are on the outside arrogantly want to believe they know more than them or at least as much as them and if they chose him they must have acted in some erroneous way.

What has happened to Christianity when we are looking to take someone down in such a vindictive way.

 

With due respect, Rev, I'm not a Calvinist and I'm "lit up" over this. The lies are too compellingly documented for him to be called to this position. He should have declined.

 

Two things:

No matter what gossip White has put on the internet neither you nor anyone else knows all the details.

Second, it is not of your business.

 

If this is your standard, then you should stop all of your political and current event postings because there is no way you know all the details about all of the people whom you criticize.

For that matter, you should also avoid criticizing anyone on the BB because you don't know all of the details.

 

Here is a post on one of the blogs right now that speaks to Caner:


peter lumpkins commented on Dear Ergun Caner, A Few Questions.
in response to Rick:

” . . . you can’t forgive, forget . . .” Has Caner asked for forgiveness?


Yes. It’s posted on my blog and SBCToday. The problem, however, is two-fold. A) James White and crew (Moore, Lamprecht, FBCjaxwatchdog, et al) wouldn’t accept it. In fact, James White offered a line-by-line “response” to it; B) Dr. Caner will not apologize for something he did not do. That is, create a fictitious life. As for the first, I find morally deplorable. Who in their right Christian mind would parse a person’s sincere apology for misstatements, wrong dates, confused names, and/or conflated timelines, etc. Sweet heavens do we really want to parse people’s confessions? As for the latter, I don’t blame Caner. White and company allege he made his life up for profiteering purposes. Dr. Caner will never, ever confess to such because he most certainly did not do it. Three schools vetted his life record. They tested the speculative theories of James White and Mohammed Khan built exclusively upon unnecessary inferences from alleged contradictions which critics insisted made Caner a moral fraud. Indeed an independent private investigation firm contracted a team of professional investigators to thoroughly sift through EC’s entire life. They found nothing…nothing which substantiated the allegation of lying, fraud, or deceit. And, the video Jared posted emphasizes this finding in the last quote they cited: “We never once found that he lied” (3:25).
What they found were some discrepancies of misstatements, wrong dates, confused names, and/or conflated timelines, discrepancies for which Caner unequivocally apologized, but nonetheless discrepancies which offered no proof whatsoever that he intentionally wanted to deceive anybody. To reduce discrepancies to deceit, lying, conspiracy, and/or dishonesty is a strangely similar strategy skeptics employ when they attempt to show the gospel writers were woefully contradictory and therefore cannot be trusted.
It’s time to stop persecuting this man by morally smearing him when all the evidence that exists are thoroughly subjective claims based upon definitively unnecessary inferences from the evidence cited. Sober Christian men like Norm Geisler, John Ankerberg, Ron Rhodes, Paige Patterson, and Joseph Holden have vouched for Caner’s testimony not to mention Kregel Publication’s public vindication and support of Ergun Caner.
With that, I am…

Peter

 

What is it with liberals who cannot make legitimate comparisons.