FR7 Baptist
Active Member
What came out of the Rev. Wade Burleson's church? I read his blog from time to time but I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why The Caner Double Standard
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
- Status
What came out of the Rev. Wade Burleson's church? I read his blog from time to time but I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
In order not to derail this thread see PM
This is patently untrue. There are a growing group of Liberty Students, among others, who are not Calvinists; they just want Liberty to do something about Caner. I had the website...I will see if I can find it again.
I like Caner. Love his lectures; he is a GREAT teacher. But he still should not have lied, and he should still issue a public apology and repent for what he has done. He is making a school, which I happen to love, look bad.
I am almost halfway through with my M. Div....I would hate for the schools reputation to be ruined before I even complete it!
Doesn't add up to the "world" or "Christian World". And more importantly my comments are not addressing everyone who is interested. They are directed toward the vitriol being displayed by folks like white and some on this board. Nothing I have said is untrue and nothing you said shows otherwise. In fact they do not address my comments at all. But what is true is that those who hate Caner were the genesis of this whole thing in a very vitriol fashion.
Last edited by a moderator:
RevMitchell, do me a favor, first define how you are using the word "vitriol" and second, document this behavior from James White.
Third, show how this vitriol from James White and others makes any difference on the lies of Caner?
Even if what you say about White were true (and it is absolutely false) that would in no way excuse Caner at all.
I wonder if anyone is expecting an impartial review by the "committee" appointed to "investigate" this business. At this point, given the comments and attitude by the administration of the school and pastor of the church, I doubt anything but a whitewash will happen.
As an alumnus it makes me sad. Dr. Caner is immeasurably better than the former leader of the seminary. He is qualified to lead well. These few instances where he spoke wrongly need to be addressed. They are not, imho, grounds for dismissal, but a strong message about Christian and academic integrity needs to be sent.
The concern here is being voiced by so many it must be dealt with publicly. Granted I believe Dr. Caner will see the fallout from a fiscal standpoint as he will lose speaking engagements. Yet, I wonder, given the historical position of the seminary and university as being constantly the target of this or that, if it isn't just seen as another mark of martyrdom in their quest for living Jesus out loud. If that is the thought, they really are delusional.
As an alumnus it makes me sad. Dr. Caner is immeasurably better than the former leader of the seminary. He is qualified to lead well. These few instances where he spoke wrongly need to be addressed. They are not, imho, grounds for dismissal, but a strong message about Christian and academic integrity needs to be sent.
The concern here is being voiced by so many it must be dealt with publicly. Granted I believe Dr. Caner will see the fallout from a fiscal standpoint as he will lose speaking engagements. Yet, I wonder, given the historical position of the seminary and university as being constantly the target of this or that, if it isn't just seen as another mark of martyrdom in their quest for living Jesus out loud. If that is the thought, they really are delusional.
IF one can say this, then one can say that those who defend Caner do so only because they hate Calvinism. See how ludicrous that is?
It's been proven James White didn't start this. And it's been shown on here and from ancedote that non-Calvinists (LBTS students, CT, etc.) are now calling for action.
I don't doubt what you say about Burleson's blog. However, if a prostitute witnesses a murder, does her licentiousness make her blind? The credibility of a witness must be germane to what is witnessed. CNN can report accurately about a Republican's extramarital affair.
I think some have gone overboard (esp on here) defending Ergun and attacking him.
It's difficult personally for me. I cannot speak fully to this issue because I have known both Caners for quite some time. I could say a WHOLE lot more. I just won't.
Havensdad, you mentioned LBTS is being made look bad by Ergun. I don't know about that. LBTS could either be complicit or they could be unknowingly complicit. We just don't know. At the end of it all, I fear LBTS will make LBTS look bad. That's the result no one should want.
Keep in mind anybody that disagrees with Rev. Mitchell is a liberal in his mind. Rev. Mitchell confuses legalism and separatism with conservatism.
Here is why the "Rev Mitchell's" of the SBC hate Wade Burleson(besides the Calvinism): http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2005/12/crusading-conservatives-vs-cooperating_10.html
So you can take the words of Rev Mitchell on if Burleson is a liberal or you can take the words of Wade Burleson. I've been listening to him on-line for 10 years and can assure you he's no liberal. But then again if ones definition of liberal is "anyone who disagrees with me" then he may be. Liberalism would show up in a verse by verse exposition of Romans don't you think??? Go to the sermons page and see for yourself: http://www.emmanuelenid.org/oldwebindex.htm
Notice a theme with rev. Mitchell? Attack the Calvinist defend the "Caners" of the world. Defend the power structure of the SBC and demonize anyone who questions it. A common pattern within the SBC in recent years.
Last edited by a moderator:
My pastor and several others have hear about it, all the way down here in South Texas. It has been in an associated press article, and several secular papers; also mentioned at the Christianity Today site, and the Virginia convention plans on addressing it. Not even to mention the "blogosphere." That is a huge percentage, and the "Christian World" could well be used. Anyone who actually keeps up with current events in the Christian World, knows about it.
As far as James White, I am not a big fan myself, but for the interest of this story I have read all the posts related to it. There is no "Vitriol" there. Not one, single name called, not one attack; just a listing out of the issues, and a request for Caner to answer them. You cannot just say someone is "spewing vitriol," and then refuse requests to provide examples. Everything I have read from White has been very civil and professional.
Would he have ever been considered for that position had the truth of his history been known? Never in the jihad, not raised in Turkey but Ohio, never debated Muslims to the extent he claimed, etc... His reputation was built on lies or half-truths. But apparently that is ok with Rev.Mitchell and Jerome as long as he's no Calvinist and as long as he tows the SBC line.
==At this time I think most Southern Baptists who are "in the know" are paying attention to this situation. There is plenty of "vitriol" on both sides of this discussion. Sadly, that is the way things usually are. I don't see this as being a very complicated issue. Caner exaggerated his background to boost his public image. What he needs to do is confess his sin, repent, and move on. He does not have to lose his job (even though I think he is not seminary president material) and he does not have to grovel. All he needs to do is make a statement confessing and repenting of his sin. Liberty University can admonish him through official channels (reprimand) and everybody can move on.
As for the op, I have not heard anyone make the point I was making. It was an observation on the situation. When a politician lies, ie...when they open their mouths, and gets caught everyone wants an apology (etc). When a liberal politician lies about his background (etc) conservatives come rushing out of the closet demanding answers (etc). Yet here we have a conservative, Christian leader who has done the very same thing many politicians do. Yet we see very few conservative Christian leaders demanding answers from him. Some of the biggest names are remaining frighteningly silent and those who are speaking up are defending Caner and downplaying his sin. I believe it is sad that many Christians hold politicians to higher standards than a seminary president.
General comment (not replying to Rev)...
I don't think Calvinism is the issue here. Dr. White was one of the first on the issue because of his history with Dr. Caner over the Calvinism debate. However when he, and others, uncovered Dr. Caner's lies they did the right thing by shining the light on Dr. Caner's sin. Calvinist or not, Dr. Caner should have been exposed and forced to answer the very difficult questions. We should never overlook sin. Not in our own lives or in the lives of fellow Christians. We are to hold each other accountable. Dr. White tried to get Dr. Caner to deal with this months ago. If Caner had come clean then this would all be over. Caner, and the folks at L.U., is the one who is responsible for the current mess. Imo, those who are trying to say this is whole mess is nothing but a bunch of Calvinists attacking a non-Calvinist are guilty of the red herring fallacy. Dr. Caner's misunderstanding of Calvinism is not the issue here.
this whole thing has nothing to do with Calvinism, it has everything to do with being honest
You are correct here. The issue started with this Muslim fellow who has a mission of trying to root out any Christian leader with a Muslim heritage. His accusations against Dr. Caner are pretty silly and have (mostly) been done away with. The issue is that Dr. Caner's reply exacerbated the situation and caused the flare up. He issued a statement, then withdrew it, then made people come and read it in a quiet corner, then assailed the Muslim accuser, then things got out of hand. Dr. Caner never appropriately responded.
That led to the rogues gallery of SBC "self-appointed ecclesial police" getting involved because they smelled blood in the water. Then ChristianityToday got involved, Dr. Towns gave an unfortunate (to say the least) statement, and the wagons that had already been circled in the 'Burg saw more Indians comin' and got tighter.
This isn't going to have a Christ-honoring solution and we've, essentially, allowed a pagan to draw us into a big ole SBC shootout when we've got people dying with Christ outside the entrenched armies.
You are correct here. The issue started with this Muslim fellow who has a mission of trying to root out any Christian leader with a Muslim heritage. His accusations against Dr. Caner are pretty silly and have (mostly) been done away with. The issue is that Dr. Caner's reply exacerbated the situation and caused the flare up. He issued a statement, then withdrew it, then made people come and read it in a quiet corner, then assailed the Muslim accuser, then things got out of hand. Dr. Caner never appropriately responded.
That led to the rogues gallery of SBC "self-appointed ecclesial police" getting involved because they smelled blood in the water. Then ChristianityToday got involved, Dr. Towns gave an unfortunate (to say the least) statement, and the wagons that had already been circled in the 'Burg saw more Indians comin' and got tighter.
This isn't going to have a Christ-honoring solution and we've, essentially, allowed a pagan to draw us into a big ole SBC shootout when we've got people dying with Christ outside the entrenched armies.
Those who are being silent are doing so because this is not finished. While everyone else has dubbed him guilty because of their personal desire to see him destroyed he has not pubically addressed it yet and therefore guilt has not been determined. That is reasonable and necessary.
The vitriol is determined because of the determination of guilt prematurely and the desire to see him removed by those who are not effected by whatever he may have done. Treatment of Caner regardless of what he has done or not done has been over the top and unfair.
If he has lied or exaggerated his life in any way he should repent (and possibly be removed from his position). And so should those who have found him guilty prematurely.
The vitriol is determined because of the determination of guilt prematurely and the desire to see him removed by those who are not effected by whatever he may have done. Treatment of Caner regardless of what he has done or not done has been over the top and unfair.
If he has lied or exaggerated his life in any way he should repent (and possibly be removed from his position). And so should those who have found him guilty prematurely.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not entirely accurate. First, it is a well-poisioning expedition to say all who disagree want to see him destroyed. That's just bunk. It's equally fallacious to say that you, RevMitchell, defend him because you follow him and want to see him exalted. Second, he has addressed this. Esoterically he has said he has misspoken, everybody misspeaks, but that he's done nothing wrong and that's all he's said. He has said nothing in particular, just generics. Then he went publicly quiet. He has privately said (publicly through LBTS and those who support the machinery) that this is all because he's anti-Calvinist, anti-Muslim (kinda what you're saying)...all the while never really addressing the issues - yet secretly tweaking certain things in bios, etc. Third, the handling has been bungled and there appears to be a cover-up. The thing no one is realizing is that there are those who know the facts. There are those who have known Ergun and Emir a long time and can attest to certain things. The hope was that these folks would not speak out or be recognized or would be quiet for fear of reprisal. This strategy is clearly backfiring. The question is now, what did Liberty know and when did it know it.
Bingo.
Forget possibly. He's financially gained from this. His books, testimony cds, etc, would be based on lie. That can't happen. Pastors get canned for it, secular college presidents get the axe for it, and Caner's fate should be no less. We have a responsibility to be salt and light, not blend in with the darkness.
I'm going in circles here. I know, Rev, you are on Caner's side and nothing is going to dissuade you. Let me just caution you that there are bigger issues here and that the Kingdom of God is bigger than one man.
From what I've been reading here it looks like my decision to not give testimonies of "this is what I was, this is what I am now", or at least avoid it, or just keep it short and necessary, is right.
Mr. Caner is a human being, fallen just like any of us, and therefore prone to "embellishments", whether we call it a lie or what not.
Many sincere and true Christians have fallen for this venus flytrap of pride and I think while Mr. Caner should bear the consequences, on the other hand, those who call themselves disciples of Christ should also extend the hand of forgiveness to him and help him recover.
Mr. Caner is a human being, fallen just like any of us, and therefore prone to "embellishments", whether we call it a lie or what not.
Many sincere and true Christians have fallen for this venus flytrap of pride and I think while Mr. Caner should bear the consequences, on the other hand, those who call themselves disciples of Christ should also extend the hand of forgiveness to him and help him recover.
This is a misrepresentation of what I have said.
This is an insightful point.
It seems to me that once you've circled the wagons around the leader you are hard pressed to anyone approaching as anything but a marauding invader. One of the things that too many people defending Dr. Caner are doing is labeling everyone who has legitimate questions about his statements and truthfulness with some "unbecoming" brand (i.e. liberal, hyper-Calvinist, Liberty-hater, etc) when in fact many of the people asking questions aren't out for blood but clarification.
It seems to me to be the mark of an immature mind that has to label any idea opposed to their position with such polarizing terms. A mature mind can take opposing views, understand them without having to adopt them.
Has he not spoken for himself in this matter? Are you unable like him to remember what you birth certificate says where you were born?
- Status