{"id":81,"date":"2010-07-10T01:11:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-10T07:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/?p=81"},"modified":"2010-07-10T01:11:00","modified_gmt":"2010-07-10T07:11:00","slug":"ergun-caner-defenders-failure-to-communicate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/?p=81","title":{"rendered":"Ergun Caner Defenders: Failure to Communicate"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>“What we’ve got here is (a) failure to communicate.”<\/em>\u00a0 These words, first spoken by American character actor Strother Martin in the 1967 Paul Newman film, Cool Hand Luke, <\/em>might best describe the two (or more) sides in the curious case of Ergun Caner.\u00a0 After my\u00a0most recent post regarding Dr. Caner’s supporters, I had\u00a0little inclination to write another post on this subject quite so soon.\u00a0 Until I read Dr. Norman Geisler’s further, further defense<\/a> of Dr. Caner.<\/p>\n

Apart from being\u00a0an interested Southern Baptist pastor and former attorney, I have no stake in this case.\u00a0 I know neither Dr. Caner nor\u00a0Dr. Geisler nor any of the “Extreme Muslims and Extreme Calvinists<\/em>” who first brought the allegations to light.\u00a0 However, if one chooses to make a public defense of someone through their website, then that person opens the door to\u00a0others\u00a0commenting on\u00a0and analyzing\u00a0said defense.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Whether or not a defendant chooses to testify in\u00a0his own defense, his credibility, especially in a criminal case, will always be weighed by the jury during deliberations.\u00a0 When a defendant’s credibility has been damaged (and in criminal cases, it will be), then the attorneys will attempt — with varying degrees of success — to rehabilitate or restore the\u00a0defendant’s credibility in the eyes of the jurors.\u00a0 One way lawyers try to do this involves calling\u00a0 character witnesses who will testify that the defendant is an upstanding member of the community and someone who can be trusted.\u00a0 These witnesses, while not on trial themselves, subject their own <\/strong>credibility to the scrutiny of the jury and,\u00a0their testimony will be\u00a0viewed, both objectively and subjectively, as either trustworthy or untrustworthy, by that same group of people.\u00a0 If\u00a0jurors find a witness for the defense (or prosecution for that matter) biased — either because of a prior relationship with the defendant or because of what that witness stands to gain or lose if the jury delivers a guilty verdict — then that particular witness’ testimony will most likely be disregarded by the jurors.<\/p>\n

Dr. Geisler’s latest missive offers the following\u00a0supporting evidence in\u00a0Dr. Caner’s defense:<\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
  1. Dr. Caner’s Exculpatory Statement<\/li>\n
  2. Seven Character Witnesses (including himself)<\/li>\n
  3. Liberty University’s Statement Regarding the Allegations Made Against Dr. Caner<\/li>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/ol>\n

    While Dr. Geisler and others seem intent on treating this like\u00a0a criminal case, I maintain that the standards of criminal law simply do not apply.\u00a0 The ethical\u00a0criterion\u00a0for pastors, seminary professors, or Christian apologists should be neither the strawman of\u00a0“perfection<\/em>” nor his twin brother\u00a0“guilty beyond all reasonable doubt,” <\/em>but rather “above reproach<\/em>.”\u00a0 With this as my standard, I will cross-examine the evidence and witnesses that have been proffered by Dr. Geisler.<\/p>\n

    First, Dr. Caner’s own statement, since deleted or withdrawn from his personal website,\u00a0should be viewed in the light most favorable to him.\u00a0 Even so, his self-serving statement (as all exculpatory statements are) cannot\u00a0dispose of the case.\u00a0 If it\u00a0did, then there would have been no independent investigation by Liberty University and most of us would not be writing or talking about this issue.<\/p>\n

    Second,\u00a0each of the character witnesses has some\u00a0kind of relationship with Dr. Caner.\u00a0That is not surprising. \u00a0These personal and professional relationships do not fundamentally negate the credibility of any of the witnesses.\u00a0 Rather, they point to personal biases\u00a0that\u00a0may\u00a0not necessarily affect their testimony, but will most certainly affect the weight that others afford that testimony.\u00a0<\/p>\n

    Invariably, family members will testify in court\u00a0on behalf of relatives.\u00a0 That Emir Caner, the brother of Ergun, would be called on to testify in the court of public opinion, should strike everyone as perfectly reasonable.\u00a0 Emir provides a sincere and powerful defense of his brother.\u00a0 No one should question his credibility.\u00a0 However, most impartial observers would not grant Emir’s testimony the same weight as a witness who had no vested interest in the case.<\/p>\n

    Dr. Geisler uses Kregel Publications as another character witness in this case.\u00a0 Kregel, which has published some of Dr. Caner’s books, issued the following statement on July 6, 2010:<\/p>\n

    Kregel Publications has concluded that the Kregel titles by Dr. Caner are trustworthy, factually accurate, and helpful to both Christians and seekers wanting to know more about Islamic beliefs and how those beliefs compare and contrast with biblical Christianity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    It should be quite obvious that Kregel Publications has a vested financial interest in this case\u00a0and\u00a0they do\u00a0not want\u00a0their own judgment, reputation or credibility called into question.\u00a0 Of course they concluded that all of Dr. Caner’s books that were published by Kregel were without any defects.\u00a0\u00a0Their self-serving statement does not negate their credibility, but their pecuniary interest might\u00a0diminish their credibility in the eyes of some.<\/p>\n

    Three other witnesses — John Ankerberg, Ron Rhodes, and Joseph Holden all have personal and\/or professional relationships with Dr. Caner.\u00a0 None of these men, who have been with\u00a0Ergun Caner in various venues, including radio programs and apologetics conferences, would want to doubt Dr. Caner’s veracity or credibility.\u00a0 To give credence to any allegation of wrongdoing by Dr. Caner\u00a0could perhaps cast each of these men’s ministries in a\u00a0less than flattering light.\u00a0 That does not mean that their credibility is in question.\u00a0 Rather, it means that their testimony is weighted accordingly.<\/p>\n

    I will not dwell on the testimony of Norman Geisler.\u00a0 To insert his own statement (in the third person)\u00a0into his own blog in support of Dr. Caner is akin to a defense attorney testifying on behalf of his own client.\u00a0 Enough said.<\/p>\n

    Before addressing the testimony of Paige Patterson, let me briefly interact with Dr. Geisler’s defense presentation of the Liberty University Statement.\u00a0 For a more detailed analysis, I would encourage you to read my blog post, Credible Witnesses<\/a>.\u00a0 The LU Statement is rather brief.\u00a0 It does not take too much space to quote it in full.\u00a0 But, if you\u00a0refuse to\u00a0quote the complete statement, then integrity demands that you not use an ellipsis when doing so would significantly alter the context of the statement.\u00a0 The heart of the LU statement, omitted by Dr. Geisler through\u00a0his use of an ellipsis, reads:<\/p>\n

    but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence.\u00a0 Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.\u00a0 Dr. Caner\u2019s current contractual term as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary<\/a> expires on June, 30, 2010.\u00a0 Dr. Caner will no longer serve as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.\u00a0 The university has offered, and Dr. Caner has accepted, an employment<\/a> contract for the 2010-2011 academic year.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Liberty University’s Statement, while certainly pithy, speaks volumes to those who are willing to listen.\u00a0 That Dr. Geisler would quote from Tim Roger’s article at SBC Today, To Clear from Accusation or Blame<\/a>, in his own argument for the exoneration of Dr. Caner, reveals not only a stunning\u00a0ignorance of the concept of exoneration (with all due respect to Mr. Webster), but a tin ear to boot!\u00a0 While he certainly declared his claim that Liberty exonerated Dr. Caner, Mr. Rogers argument defending exoneration came to an abrupt halt after I posted the last comment to the aforementioned article.\u00a0 That comment became the\u00a0foundation for my Credible Witnesses<\/a> post.\u00a0 No one does their future credibility any\u00a0favors by continuing to argue for Dr. Caner’s exoneration.<\/p>\n

    Dr. Caner’s own statement, Liberty University’s Statement, and six character witnesses all cross-examined.\u00a0 That leaves just one — Paige Patterson, the President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX.\u00a0 I’ve literally saved the best for last.\u00a0 Without a doubt, Dr. Patterson’s testimony proves to be the most persuasive and effective\u00a0of any presented by Dr. Geisler and, therefore should be given the most weight.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because of what Dr. Patterson says, but more importantly, because of what Dr. Patterson does not say.\u00a0 No self-serving statements.\u00a0 No spirited defenses of men. \u00a0In one short paragraph, Dr. Patterson focuses not on Ergun Caner, but on the Lord Jesus Christ.\u00a0\u00a0Referencing Jesus or God eight times, while only mentioning the\u00a0“Caners”\u00a0once, Dr. Patterson lifts up and magnifies the name of Jesus!\u00a0 A simple proclamation of the Gospel.\u00a0 The same Gospel that saves sinners like you and like\u00a0me and like “two Moslem boys” in Ohio.\u00a0 The same Gospel that cleanses and forgives, rehabilitates and restores.\u00a0 In this case, I\u00a0think I’ll give\u00a0Dr. Patterson’s\u00a0Christ-exalting testimony the\u00a0greatest weight possible.\u00a0 After all,\u00a0you cannot lose\u00a0when you testify about Christ!\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “What we’ve got here is (a) failure to communicate.”\u00a0 These words, first spoken by American character actor Strother Martin in the 1967 Paul Newman film, Cool Hand Luke, might best describe the two (or more) sides in the curious case of Ergun Caner.\u00a0 After my\u00a0most recent post regarding Dr. Caner’s supporters, I had\u00a0little inclination to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[14],"tags":[3376,606,725,755],"class_list":["post-81","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ergun-caner","tag-ergun-caner","tag-liberty-university","tag-norman-geisler","tag-paige-patterson"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1LP7G-1j","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=81"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=81"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=81"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=81"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}