Campus Church - 2008

Campus Church - 2008

2008.08.27 Diary of a Slacker - Part 1

(0:50) What Skinny - what McKinney and the guys just did was tame compared to what we end up doing throughout the semester. We like to sort of slowly marinate you into industrial goth. Before we're done, you'll be doing Skillet and Archetype.

(6:38) And for a guy like me, it makes total sense. I wasn't raised in the church, I didn't enter a church until I was almost in college. I was not only a skeptic and a critic, I was a vociferous antagonist against the church.

(6:53) I hated you. I didn't like Christians. I was raised as a Muslim, and I assumed you were going to hell, and I assumed you wanted to send me to hell.

(9:00) I am a towel-head. I am a sand-monkey. I am a camel jockey. I am olive-skinned. Now if those words offend you "that's just wrong" Shut up!

(10:01) I'm not saved 'cause I'm Baptist. I happen to be Baptist. I was saved Independent Baptist. I was in a church where if I'd come in dressed like this, they'd have given me a gospel tract.

(10:26) But then I joined a missionary baptist church, a black baptist church. I was the - Black Baptists? got some of y'all Missionary Baptists, National Baptist Alliance? I wasn't the only white guy in the church - there were a couple of white girls who were in the choir. Every black church has a couple of white girls in the choir, who are dating some of the guys. And, ironically, the white girls talk more black than the regular black people around them. They all sound like Bon Qui-qui. You're looking at them, and they're going "uh-huh let me tell you sumthin'" and you're like, "you're from Amherst, where'd you get that accent from?"

(20:27) Ergun M. Caner: What is your favorite part about playing football? Braxton Paige Caner (9 years old): Hitting and hurting people. (laughter from EMC and crowd) EMC: (in fake voice) See that's just not Christian. (regular voice) But we're Christians, Braxton! BPC: Oh, and then I'll pray for 'em. (laughter from EMC and crowd) EMC: Who do you want to play for when you get in college? BPC: Liberty EMC: (over some applause from the Liberty students) Yeah, seriously? That's cool. Didn't mean to embarrass you by bringing you out here. Anything you want to - you got a shot - I'll give you the mic - what do you want to say? BPC: If there's any hotties, call me. (lots of applause from the Liberty students) EMC: I'm gonna get fired. How do you recover from that? Who told you to say that? Did somebody tell you to say that? Was that Johnny Ray?

(23:26) Now, I didn't start well. I mean, I started as a Sunni Muslim, and lived until I was seventeen and a half - but once I got saved, I have tripped into everything I've ever gotten. I'm an accidental, whatever-I-am.

2008.09.17 Diary of a Slacker - Part 3

(5:09) This list comes from 1988, which was my first senior year. Do the math. I started Cumberland College in 1984, didn't graduate 'til '89. Yeah, I squeezed four years of college into five years.

I didn't bring this up because it is false, but because I think it is true. He graduated from high school in 1984, which is why he started at Cumberland in 1984.

Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology

Nick Norelli has posted a review of Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology (link to review). The upshot of his review is that he feels he wasted $75 on the set (retails is apparently about $165). I'm sure that Dr. Geisler especially won't like that Norelli ends up suggesting that Grudem's single volume (very hefty, but bound as a single volume) Systematic Theology is better.

An Odds Rebuttal

Not an odd rebuttal - a clever rebuttal - but one that deals with the question of odds (link to rebuttal). The explanation is important: it shows the silliness of simply assuming that a large number of alternatives (for example, the large number of alternatives to the the truth that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one true God) is an argument against the truth of a proposition.

The fact that there are 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 false religions is of no more significance than the infinite number of wrong answers to 2+2.

-TurretinFan

"Debate" with Norman Geisler Regarding Ergun Caner - Index

Given the wide latitude that Dr. Norman Geisler has given Dr. Ergun Caner in using the word "debate," I don't think that Dr. Geisler can reasonably complain if I now claim to have "debated" Norman Geisler on the topic of Ergun Caner. It's not a real debate, and I'm not claiming it is, but there was some interaction. Here's an index of the interaction.

1) (Geisler) Norman Geisler's Alleged Comments
2) (TurretinFan) Response to Norman Geisler's Coments
3) (TurretinFan) When can We Expect our Apology?
4) (Geisler) Further Comments from Geisler
5) (TurretinFan) Dr. Norman Geisler Digs Himself a Deeper Hole
6) (Geisler) In Defense of Ergun Caner
7) (TurretinFan) Intro to Response to Geisler
8) (TurretinFan) Response to Geisler Regarding Caner Part 1
9) (TurretinFan) Response to Geisler Regarding Caner Part 2
10) (TurretinFan) Response to Geisler Regarding Caner Part 3
11) (TurretinFan) What Dr. Geisler Overlooked
12) (Geisler) In Further Defense of Ergun Caner
13) (TurretinFan) Rebutting Norman Geisler
14) (TurretinFan) Is Lying a Moral Issue?
15) (TurretinFan) Has Norman Geisler Acknowledged that Lying is a Moral/Ethical Issue?

Although, of course, there was a lot of work that went into this interaction with Norman Geisler (from both sides, I imagine), I think it would be unwise and misleading to go around saying that I "have debated Norman Geisler" (or for Dr. Geisler to say the same about me). That's why I have "debate" in quotation marks in the title of this post.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner Faith and Family Interviews

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "More than a Prophet - I" August 27, 2007, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(3:48) We were the equivalent of PKs in that we were in the church - so to speak - in the mosque every time the doors were opened. And this was our background.

• Is this an accurate statement? I guess it is hard to know for sure, but it gives the impression of a rather high level of devotion.

(4:19) Interviewer: Now, Ergun you and your brothers were in Islamic Youth Jihad in Ohio, is that right? Ergun: Yes, sir, of course - but also before that in Turkey. The youth teachings - the youth groups are - take on various folds - different works that you do. Ours happened to be that of jihad, and so the jihadeen, up until I became a Christian when I was almost 18 years old.

• Notice how in this instance, the interviewer gives Caner the opportunity to limit his claim about being in the Islamic Youth Jihad to Ohio. Caner, however, insists that "before that" (not "sometimes, during that") he was in the Islamic Youth Jihad in Turkey.
• Also notice Caner's use of the apparently made up word "jihadeen."
• Notice further Caner's claim that he was "almost 18 years old" rather than "15" or "16," which would appear to be more accurate, based on his book Unveiling Islam.
• Additionally, notice that Caner is suggesting that there are a variety of different kinds of Islamic youth groups, and that his just happened to be one focused on jihad.

(12:41) One of the number one lines that Shabir Ally, the Muslim apologist, gave me at the debate which took place in Nebraska was "Why does one man have to die for me? What does one man's death have to do with my life?"

• While Ergun Caner and Norman Geisler appear to have conceded that this claim is not true, they insist that Caner was not intentionally misleading anyone. It's hard to understand such a claim, unless Caner was maybe debating someone else with a similar name or appearance in Nebraska. Can Caner or Geisler identify the mystery Nebraskan debater for us?

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "More than a Prophet - II" August 28, 2007, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(2:04) Jesus is one of the twenty-five major prophets, along with Baruch and Ibrahim and Ishma'il.

• I have no idea where Dr. Caner got "Baruch" as one of Islam's prophets from. This just looks (to me) like a mistake - not a lie. But this mistake suggests that Caner may not be as familiar with Islam as the claim that he was a essentially a PK would make one think.

(3:00) My father was invested in the jihadeen, trained in the madra - the Islamic training schools. We came to America to build mosques. And while here in America I came to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and God. And subsequent to that, of course, I was disowned by my family. And in the years that followed, both of my brothers accepted Jesus, my mother became a Christian, and my grandmother became a Christian. So that, even though I'd lost all my family - slowly - through the testimony of one young man, a friend of mine - that my family came to faith in Jesus Christ.

• There's that word "jihadeen" again. There is nothing to indicate that this is a word that means anything that would fit Caner's usage of it.
• Likewise, "madra" doesn't appear to be a real word, although possibly "madra" is an aborted attempt to say "madrasa."
• Notice the claim to have have been disowned by his family. Notice also that in the immediate context, he talks about getting his family back through the conversion of his mother and grandmother. However, as far as we can tell, his mother and grandmother did not disown him.

(3:58) And we always challenge them, in the Arabic or in English, to take us on.

• I don't think, at this point, that anyone believes that Caner can do a debate in Arabic.

(7:44) Religious freedom is defined as, I believe, and I would fight for, and I would die for a Muslim's right to build a mosque in my home town. To build a mosque here in Virginia and to worship Allah. I believe this because religious freedom means you have a right to be religious, or irreligious, or anti-religious. But it also means I have right to stand in front of that mosque and tell them that Jesus Christ loves them.

• I just included this one, because I think it is interesting. I don't share Dr. Caner's views on religious freedom, but I think that it is important for Muslim readers to see that he is willing to stand up for what he perceives to be their rights.

(17:28) Absolutely. Hadith, volume 9, number 50, says that a person cannot be killed - that a Muslim cannot be killed for killing an infidel.

• This is just an example of Dr. Caner citing the Hadith without providing the name of the collection - sort of an equivalent of citing the Bible without identifying the book of the Bible.

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - I" January 14, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - I" October 2, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run - again - as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - I" June 19, 2009, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(1:37) I was raised as a Sunni Muslim, more specifically, a Sunni with a Wahabi mother. And - uh - came to America in our teenage years to become - uh - missionaries. The term we use is different, masjidatos. But the masjid is the building of the mosques. And we built mosques in Toledo, Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, and it was while I was here in America that I was - uh - a teenage boy and became a believer in Jesus Christ, he would not let go of me - for three years he was relentless in not taking no for an answer. And became a Christian, and lost my family of course, my father - my mother - and my church became my family. It was from there that I started to preach, and brought me on this journey eventually up to Liberty.

• The claim that his mother was a "Wahabi Muslim" seems unlikely. I wonder if Caner would try to defend that claim today?
• Notice that he claims to have come to America in his "teenage years." If he came in 1969, he came in something closer to his "toddler years."
• Notice the claim that he was evangelized for three years.
• Notice that he again claims to have lost his family, and specifies not only his father, but also his mother.

(4:13) The only two things we've ever given was we have this Turkish coffee which is you eat the grounds. You marinate the grounds in water and that's what I was raised with. I mean its in our baby bottles. And so I come to America and its like this is colored water. And so, yes. I order my coffee and I get it very strong. My wife hates it - she says it peels the paint off of cars. The second thing is that my mother being - from her background - is that the Sufis in Turkey believe that if you lose your mind, you come into union with Allah. It's sort of mysticism, Buddhist concept in Islam. And so we brought to America, the hookah, which is the bong. And so one of my earliest memories is my mom with the munchies, you know, smoking the pipe. Between the two things, I'd rather drink the coffee. That's the short of it.

• Just a few minutes before he was claiming his mother was Wahabi. Now she's a Sufi?

(6:46) Well, my brothers and I - we all three were saved - our father had many wives, but father and my mother, they had three sons, all three of us got saved - and of course we leave Islam, immediately. And don't know where to go. All three of us became ministers of the gospel.

• One of many times that Ergun Caner has claimed his father had "many wives," and by "many" I don't mean "two" which is apparently the number of wives Caner's father had, one at a time.

(9:46) They say, "Oh, you know, jihad is not found in the Koran," hey - I'll give you 500 verses. They say, "You don't know the Arabic," well no - actually I do - let's dance.

• In another clip, I thought he used the expression "let's dance" but it could have been "what's next," so I flip-flopped in my transcription. Here, I'm pretty sure it is "let's dance."
• Being able to read Arabic phonetically, without understanding its meaning, is not knowing Arabic, certainly not for the purposes of debating a Muslim.

(9:59) They're not 'insurgents,' they're 'jihadeen.'

• There's that "jihadeen" word again. Can anyone find that word as a plural noun meaning anything like "warriors" in any Arabic dictionary?

(21:05) I tell people, "I fear no man," I feared my grandmother. Five foot tall, never learned English, you know - little Muslim woman coming to America and lived here - and she could never - toward the end of her life - she could never forgive those that hard hurt her.

• What's this stuff about his grandmother being Muslim? Wasn't she Swedish Lutheran?
• She may not have learned to speak English well, but her language was Swedish, was it not?

(22:05) You know the hardest thing for me was to forgive my father. Being disowned - and he cut me out of all his pictures - he would send - I would write him five times a year: I'd write him on Father's Day, his birthday, Christmas and Easter, and then one random time - and they'd always get sent back. You know - it's hard. My grandmother taught me to shave. Being Turkish kids you have to shave - you have a time when you learn how to shave your face, and then your eyebrows, and your back and so she taught me by showing how she used to hold the razor - and so I cut my face into ribbons, and the whole time thinking, "If I had a father, I wouldn't have to do this." But God can - But there was only so far that God could take me until I learned how to forgive - because even if he would never speak to me, me forgiving him was not contingent on him hearing it - it's contingent on me voluntarily releasing him.

• Individually, all these stories may be true. Being disowned was doubtless something very hard to forgive. I believe his story that his father returned mail that Ergun sent. I also believe the story about the grandmother teaching him to shave, etc.
• What Caner suggests, however, is that the grandmother's aid was needed as a result of the disowning. This shows, of course, that Caner was not a virtual orphan that was disowned by his entire family.
• More to the point, however, based on other things we have seen (here for example), it appears that the grandmother's raising of her grandsons is something that took place as a result of the divorce between Caner's parents, not the result of Caner's father disowning him. I have no idea whether Caner had already hit puberty by the age of 15 or 16, but one would expect it.

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - II" January 15, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Why Churches Die - I" October 3, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(2:34) When I went to Bible College, I had been saved eight months.

• I don't see how this claim could possibly fit with Caner being saved when his book, Unveiling Islam, says he was saved.
• I also don't see how this claim could possibly fit with Caner being saved on November 4, 1982, since Caner didn't graduate high school until Spring 1984.

(2:49) Interviewer: There were liberals at Criswell College? Ergun: No - there - no sir, I went to another college before. Interviewer: Oh, I was going to say - I can't imagine we had any liberals at Criswell College. Ergun: No, we had - um - We had - uh - We had issues we had to deal with at the college I was going to beforehand.

• This is the first time I've ever heard about some Bible college that Ergun Caner went to before Criswell College. Can Ergun identify it for us? I wonder if he means Cumberland College, which is where he got his B.A.
  

(18:06) But for your listeners, so I can be clear, I am an immigrant, I am Turkish, English wasn't my first or my second language, and I can say this, and if they don't like it - tough - I don't care.

• As far as we can tell, Ergun Caner came to America as a young child. Even if he wants to claim that English was his third language (after what - Swedish and Turkish?), he clearly speaks English natively, and apparently does not speak Turkish fluently (I'm not sure about his Swedish - perhaps it's excellent).

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Voices Behind the Veil - I" January 31, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner and Jill Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Voices Behind the Veil - I" March 23, 2009, with Dr. Ergun Caner and Jill Caner (link to mp3)

(8:26) I'll give you a great "for instance." When we came to America and came through New York we were stopped at the border because my father had listed my mother as property.

• I would love to see some documentation of this claim. I'm not sure we can ever disprove it, but are we really to believe that a guy who had been to school in Sweden, Acar, would list his wife as "property" on a custom's manifest?
  

(9:31) In my family, being the classic Muslim orthodox family, that is, we followed the Koran and the Hadith, my Father had multiple wives, and when the men sat at the table, the women stood. And then only after the men were done, even the youngest boys were done, we got up from the table, then the women could eat.

• In context does "multiple wives" mean "two, one after the other" or does it suggest that Caner's father was a polygamist?
• Again, what "women" are intended here? Is Caner speaking of his mother and grandmother or of these supposed "multiple wives" that his father allegedly had?

(16:04) I still have in my collection of things that I had as a child those evil eyes that my mother was told to put around my neck as a child - the fig that my father rubbed on the inside of my mouth to ward of the evil - they're called the injeel - you know the demons - the followers of al-ajal - who are supposed to be following you all through your life - you ward them off with these superstitions.

• One normally tries to ward off "evil eyes" - not wear them (evidence). A nazar is what one might use to try to ward them off, as an alternative to trusting in God (link to discussion of nazars). I don't doubt Caner has some nazars from his childhood, whether or not he knows what they are called.
• The term injeel is the term for the gospel - not the term for evil spirits.
• I have no idea where Caner is going with his "followers of al-ajal" - al-ajal apparently means "hasten" (link to evidence).

Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Voices Behind the Veil - II" February 1, 2008, with Dr. Ergun Caner and Jill Caner (link to mp3)

(Apparently Re-run as) Faith & Family Interview (Richard Land, Interviewer), "Voices Behind the Veil - II" March 24, 2009, with Dr. Ergun Caner (link to mp3)

(0:0) She had three sons who were believers in Jesus, three sons in the gospel ministry. Do you know what reached my mother for the gospel of Christ? Not one of us - it was a woman - a Christian woman. We forget the fact that if it is not the Christian woman who reaches the Muslim woman, it will not get done.

• This appears to simply be a montage of comments that were later made in the show. I present it here simply as evidence of the effect that Caner's words had on the producer of the show. I submit that the impression given was that Caner's mother was a Muslim woman who was evangelized out of Islam by a Christian woman.
  

(14:58) If I could say this as clearly as I can, without becoming emotional: I became a Christian in 1982. My brothers became Christians in 1983. But our mother did not become a Christian until 1991. She had three sons who were believers in Jesus, three sons in the gospel ministry. But she remained a woman behind the veil. She remained a woman in the chador. Do you know what reached my mother for the gospel of Christ? Not one of us - it was a woman - a Christian woman.

• Unveiling Islam clearly states that Caner's brother Emir got saved in 1982.
• There is good reason, from court documents, to believe that Caner's mother was not a practicing Muslim woman. Caner has provided at least one photo of her, and she was not wearing a chador in the photo.

(19:26) Jesus strapped a cross to his back, so I don't have to strap a bomb to mine.

• This is one of Caner's favorite catchphrases. However, there does not appear to be any evidence that he was on the verge of doing something precipitous, as the catchphrase suggests.

-TurretinFan

California Christian Apologetics Conference, 2006, Ergun Caner

Stand for Truth Ministries, California Christian Apologetics Conference, September 22, 2006 (link to partial video)

(referring to the time stamps in the partial video)

(0:10) I cannot be President. I came in 1978, when I was getting ready to go to college.

• Did he mean to say that he came in 1969, when he was getting ready for preschool?
• Did he mean to say, "I became a citizen in 1978, when I was getting ready to go to college"?
• Caner was about 11-12 years old in 1978. Was he getting ready to
  

(0:58) I live in the country now, but I have - my entire life - lived in the cement jungle, I've been an inner city person.

• From what we can tell, he grew up in Gahanna, Ohio. Does Gahanna even have an inner city? (See its website, noting that it was considered in 2007 to be one of the best places in America to live.)

(1:06) I learned English on Sesame Street. Held back a year from school, so I could learn English, so I could follow along better.

• Sesame Street began airing on November 10, 1969 (documentation), so it is possible that he did start learning English as a 3-year-old on Sesame Street. It's even remotely possible that he was held back a year from entering school so he could learn English better. However, he graduated high school at age 17, so if he was held back a year, it seems he found a way to catch up.

(2:35) I hated you. That may be harsh, but as Dr. Hayes told you, my madrasa - my training center - was in Beirut before I came to America. We came as missionaries to you.

• When did Caner study in a training center in Beirut? What year approximately?
• If we assume Caner did not in fact ever train in Beirut, is his statement an understandable, innocent misstatement?
  
• What Islamic missionary activity was the Acar Caner family ever involved with?

(2:59) [speaking of his father] Five times a day he would climb to the top of a minaret.

• What minaret? There's no visible minaret at the Islamic foundation building on Broad St. that apparently served in place of a mosque for the Caner family.

View Larger Map

(3:18) And so we came to America - it was '78.

• Again, is he just misspeaking "1969" as "1978"?

(4:03) I was the oldest. My father brought his wives with him. Yes, polygamous Muslims do come to America. We call it the Abraham lie. They say, "This is my wife, and this is my sister."

• This seems to pretty clearly state that Ergun Caner's father was a polygamist, who had more than one wife at once. Is that true? The evidence seems to suggest that Acar Caner had only two wives, one at a time.
• If it is not true, is this just a misstatement?
  

(5:11) So I, as a high school boy, moved to Gahanna, Ohio.

• Again, is he just misspeaking "high school" for "pre-school"?

(6:49) And I walked in to the Stelzer Road Missionary Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio in full gear - full keffiyeh - and a Koran.

• We have yet to see him wearing any true keffiyeh - and it may be that Caner does not even really understand what the term keffiyeh is, since he seems to think it means an entire outfit.

(7:21) I went home and told my father, "Abi, Isa Messiah" - Jesus is the Messiah. And my father faced Mecca and prayed the prayer of disownment. And it was done - it was the last I saw my father.

• "Abi" is the Turkish word for "older brother." (evidence) That seems like a strange thing for someone to call his father.
• The Koran repeatedly calls Jesus "the Messiah." (link to discussion)
• What is this "prayer of disownment"? Can Caner provide it to us? Can anyone even find a transcription of such a prayer on the Internet?
• Does the Sunni version of Sharia law even permit the disownment of children? Perhaps someone more well versed in Sharia law can tell me.
• Caner saw his father again, at the end of his father's life, according to his own testimony elsewhere.

(7:41) (speaking of his mother) She got saved and in the baptistry took off her keffiyeh - took of her chador. She's a church planter in Elephant Butte, New Mexico.

• Notice again that Caner seems to use the term "keffiyeh" now to refer to other Islamic clothing - in this case an chador.
• From what we can tell from the court records, Caner's mother was not a practicing Muslim during his youth. Was she wearing the chador in the baptistry just for dramatic effect?
• And why would she need to take off a chador except symbolically? The Scriptures not only permit but encourage women to cover their heads, and women in most Christian churches did, until the last 100 years.

- TurretinFan

Why Paul is not Welcomed in Thessalonica (while other "Christians" are...)

I read with disgust an absurd posting at AliElhajj.com (link to post). I thought it worthwhile to parody the posting by substituting Paul (as described in Acts 17, 14, and 2 Timothy 4:10). I suggest you read the absurd posting first, and then my parody below, in order better to understand the parody.

Last week Paul, an evangelical Christian, was arrested at or near the synagogue in Thessalonica. Since then Jason, who lives in Thessalonica, and some of his colleagues have been sounding the alarm- calling Christians to voice their concern over the persecution of believers in Thessalonica and the complicity of the Greek Police in denying the rights of Christ's followers.

This isn't the first time we heard this kind of thing. Not long before, Paul visited the nearby region of Lycaonia and was stoned! He and Barnabas described the incident as: "much tribulation."

What is happening in Greece? Are the Jews taking over? Is Mosaic law coming? Are we at the precipice of the Judiazation of the Roman Empire? Nothing could be further from the truth.

What is happening in Thessalonica is the mobilization of a community against a group that is confrontational and aggressive.

Christians are not banned from preaching the gospel in Thessalonica. Consider this: Demas had a booth in Thessalonica this year. He was not escorted to the rulers of the city and the community did not rise against them. Why? The answer is love and respect. Demas listened, conversed, and had an appreciation for the perspectives they were offered. He had a love, and a respect, for their audience and his audience of Jews and Greeks responded in kind.

Paul has a confrontational style. Now, he claims he was not confrontational and that the testimony of certain devout women of the Greeks will bear this out. Let's grant this. The problem is last year's "outreach" to Lycaonia was so outrageous that the apostle wore out his welcome in that region. The community does not want Paul there and his mere presence is considered a threat to the public peace.

You cannot harass and accuse the ones you are trying to reach with the love of Christ- it simply does not work. Headlining your video entries with "assaulted the house of Jason" is alarmist at best and does not accurately portray the events at the synagogue.

Moreover, if you speak to Thessalonica's residents, you will find that the last thing they want is Mosaic Law. Mosaic law is not coming to Thessalonica. I grew up in the Antioch, and in Thessalonica, and have Jewish family members living in Thessalonica. Thessalonica's Jews do not want Mosiac law. Did anyone notice the support the Jewish community offered to the temple prostitutes this year? Is this a community seeking Mosiac law in Greece? How do you think Jews who see and hear about Paul's epistles and Luke's "Acts of the Apostles" react?

Paul is not unwelcome in Thessalonica because of his faith or because of his attempts at evangelism. He is unwelcome because he is abrasive, denigrates the ones he is trying to reach, and inaccurately represents Thessalonica's residents. Paul did not form relationships with his audience and somehow missed the high value Jews place on relationships and respect.

In short, Paul lost the right to be heard.

(End of Parody)

-TurretinFan

Plagiarism in the Pulpit

Let's say I find two sermons that look like they have been plagiarized by Pastor X from the sermons of Pastor Y. Suppose I contact Pastor Y and he doesn't seem the least bit concerned - has no interest in the matter - or perhaps is just not that fond of dealing with pseudonymous folks on the Internet.

Do I, as a Christian, have a duty to spread the word about the apparent plagiarism to anyone else besides Pastor Y?

May I, as a Christian, spread the word about the apparent plagiarism to anyone else besides Pastor Y without being a gossip?

May I, as a Christian, remain silent regarding the apparent plagiarism?

-TurretinFan

Plagiarism in the Pulpit - Some Further Conditions

In my last post, I gave some general questions regarding pastoral plagiarism (link to post). People provided a variety of responses, but let me add a few more constraints to the question.

Suppose that one came across two sermons from Pastor X, an experienced "senior pastor" type person, which appear to consist to a large extent of the same thoughts and expressions in the same order as two corresponding sermons from Pastor Y, who is geographically remote (i.e. not in the same town).

In other words, in this imaginary situation, there are two sermons from Pastor X that look as though they are essentially just a slightly altered edition of the sermons from Pastor Y.

Let's assume that the differences in terms of rewording things, omitting things, and adding a few new thoughts are enough to avoid any charges of copyright infringement.

Let's assume, however, that the level of similarity is enough that if Pastor Y turned in these sermons as part of a seminary assignment, and Pastor X turned in his sermons to the same professor, the professor would be inclined to view the situation as "cheating."

Let's further assume that the sermon, in its edited form, was really good and greatly blessed the congregation of Pastor X.

Is this sort of behavior acceptable? Does that final stipulation that the sermon was a great blessing make a difference? Does the fact that the number of "plagiarized" sermons is 2 not 1 make a difference? Does the fact that the number of "plagiarized" sermons is 2 not 5 or 20 make a difference?

What if it turned out that Pastor Y had told Pastor X, "it's ok to use my sermons, and don't worry about crediting me"? Would that change matters?

Alternatively, what if Pastor X's rationale was this: "I'm busy - it's a good sermon - and there is no reason to reinvent the wheel." Would that be a sufficient rationale? If not, why not?

-TurretinFan

Pulpit Plagiarism

Pulpit plagiarism is a phenomenon in which a pastor takes a sermon originally by another preacher and re-casts it in some way or another for his own congregation without informing them of this fact. I've conversed with a number of people about this topic. Recently someone directed me to the definition of plagiarism found on John Piper's website (link to definition - article by Matt Perman).

Perman seems to think that plagiarism, where it is intentional, is stealing. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, though I see the point that Perman is making. Let's apply that issue to the situation of sermons. Is it plagiarism if a pastor essentially borrows another sermon he heard on-line without crediting the original author?

What if the pastor reads a great sermon by one of the Puritans and decides to make it his own by updating the language and shortening it by 50%? What if he does the same thing with the sermon of a living pastor?

Finally, how should we Christians react to discovery that a pastor has been engaging in plagiarism? Is this is a Matthew 18 situation? Are we required to keep our knowledge of the fact that something is plagiarism a secret until we have attempted to provoke repentance on the part of the preacher?

-TurretinFan

Update on Dearborn

The video of the "disorderly conduct" (so called by many of their critics) is now available. (link to video) Does anyone seriously think that these guys are doing anything wrong - anything for which they should be arrested?

Acar Martin Caner

Dr. Ergun Caner's Father legally changed his name from Acar Martin Caner to Acar Mehmet Caner (link to evidence provided courtesy of Jason Smathers).

I suspect that this was not the first name change in Acar's life, since "Martin" sounds like a nod to Acar's wife's Swedish Lutheran heritage. Likewise, I cannot help but wonder if the legal name change back to something more Turkish-sounding was motivated by Acar's second wife, who was apparently Turkish. These suspicions are just that - suspicions.

What the evidence does suggest, however, is that while Acar may have a devout Muslim to some extent (and perhaps increasingly so in the late 70's and early 80's), at some point he seems to have gone along with using (as his legal name) the rather "Christian" name Martin. That does not sound like the sort of thing that an extremely and zealously devout Muslim would do, particularly if that "Martin" were replacing the name "Mehmet" (a Turkish form of the name Mohamed).

Then again, perhaps there is a way that someone's name could be changed against his will in the immigration process - or something like that. This evidence is just evidence, it is not proof.

-TurretinFan

September 13, 1969

On September 13, 1969, (according to this document that Jason Smathers has unearthed) Acar Caner, aged 35 (nearly 36), came to America. At that time, his eldest son (Ergun Caner) was only two years old, though nearly three. Both of these dates/ages are based on an assumption that the birthdays we've been given for Acar Caner and Ergun Caner are correct. Furthermore, if the birthday we've been given for Emir Caner is correct (namely August 1970), it would appear that Emir did not come to America as an unborn child.

Also interesting is the fact that Acar Caner appears to have been granted U.S. citizenship on July 13, 1976, and that he claims he was not out of the U.S. for any more than 6 months at a time between then and (apparently) 1980 or 1981.

Another item of note is the fact that Acar Caner apparently changed his name (from Martin to Mehmet or vice versa is a little unclear to me from this document).

-TurretinFan

Circumcision Ended Without Scripture?

In the discussion between Matt Slick and Robert Sungenis, Dr. Sungenis made the following comment:

In Acts chapter 15, where the debate over circumcision arises. And Peter stands up and says, "We're no longer going to practice circumcision." And he had no Scriptural precedent to do so.

(see 53:51 in this mp3 recording of Dr. White's partial review of the discussion)

Dr. White provided some responses (as you will hear in the mp3), but I'd like to provide six of my own:

1. The debate in Acts 15 was really a debate over sola fide, which the Judaizers opposed, claiming that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Compare Acts 15:8-9 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
   
   
2. Peter stood up, but what he stood up to do was to argue for faith alone and against the burden of circumcision: Acts 15:7-11 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
   
   
3. Peter's comment was not the announcement of a decision. The decision was pronounced by James. Acts 15:13 & 19 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: ... Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: ... And then by all the church at Jerusalem, not just the apostles and elders. Acts 15:22-23 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: ... .
   
   
4. The decision of the council was specifically directed to Gentile converts, not to Jews. (see the verses in the previous bullets) It was not actually a call to end circumcision, just a recognition that circumcision is not necessary for salvation. Jews continued to be circumcised. Act 16:1-3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
   
   
5. Peter's argument itself refers to his experience with Gentiles such as Cornelius. That experience is recorded in Scripture, whether or not an as-yet-incomplete book of Acts had been written. So, the precedent on which Peter relied is in Scripture, although it may not yet have been in Scripture at that time.
   
   
6. The decision of the church of Jerusalem, however, was based on Scriptural precedent. Specifically, as James explains it we can see the Scriptural precedent, I'll provide cross-references in brackets. Acts 15:15-18 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: [Amos 9:11] that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, [cf. Hosea 3:5] and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. [Amos 9:12] Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. [cf. Isaiah 46:10]

So, for at least these reasons, I would have to respectfully disagree with Dr. Sungenis' argument.

-TurretinFan

Thomas Road Baptist Church Sermon Extracts

"Declaration, Revolution" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church April 9, 2006 (AM)

18:31 So looking in the camera, I said, "Yeah, I'll give you some statements." "So, when did you come over?" "Well, we finally settled in 1978."

"Why I Am Predestined Not to Be A Hyper Calvinist" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church April 9, 2006 (PM)

There are a lot of issues with this sermon, but the issues are not autobiographical, as far as I could tell.

"Racism in the Face of Diversity" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church July 30, 2006 (AM)

16:05 I am one - please pay attention - I am one who was raised to hate Israel. As a Muslim, we were taught that the Jews drink the blood of the Palestinian children. I was raised to despise them. In Arabic the speakers in the mosques and the masjids will stand up and say, "We will push them into the peninsula."

"Personal Testimony" by Dr. Ergun Caner, Thomas Road Baptist Church September 17, 2006 (PM)

9:30 My testimony is no different than yours. Because my testimony shares the exact same thing as yours. It always ends, "and then Jesus Christ saved me." Mine just happens to begin from a position of animosity. I hated you. I am twenty-one generations a Turk. I am the oldest of three sons of an Islamic muezzin. My father, Acar Mehmet Caner, was in my eyes a giant. He was a man that I believed could do anything. He played rugby, soccer, any sport where you could kick somebody else. My father was a man. My father feared nothing but he was devout as a Muslim. And in Turkey, Istanbul, Ismir (sp?) we came America with an express purpose. My father was an architect by trade. And we came to America to build mosques.

We went to Monclova (sp?) Ohio, Toledo - the largest mosque in the Midwest was there. And having received orders, my dad moved us to Columbus, OH, where we began the Islamic foundation on Broad St. That's how I got here.

I learned English here. I learned culture here. But I was raised devout as a Sunni Muslim. And I hated you.

Everything we ever knew about Christians - everything we ever knew about Christianity - we learned from the mosque, the masjid, the madrassa, or our imam. Our training, our Sunday school, our Pastor.

Everything we knew about you, we knew only because we were taught from outside.

I had no contact with Christians - I had no contact with Jews. Because the Koran teaches expressly, Surah 5, take no friends from among the Jews and the Christians for you bring their judgment upon you.

That was my world. We came to America, having lived in countries where we always the majority, and now I was the minority.

We dressed differently, spoke differently, worshiped differently, ate differently, and now we were surrounded by you. This was a difficult adjustment. We were devout.

There are two types of Turk who come to America. There are the devout and then there are the not-so-devout.

Let me lay aside some of your worries. I have never in my life, ever driven a taxi. I don't have a single silk shirt that I wear open to the navel with my fake gold chains turning my neck green entangled in my chest hair. I don't slick back my single eyebrow with my designer impostor perfume. I don't have a basket full of snakes, flying carpet, and I don't work at 7-11. But there are many of our people who do come to this country, and they are not devout. They come here as Muslims casting off Islamic legalism, and then they come to America and they become nothing.

And then I was the second kind. We came suspiciously. We came devout.

Every Muslim on the planet be they Sunni or Suffi, Shia, Ismali, be they Nation of Islam, a subset of the Sunni, be they Wahabi or Alluhit (sp?) - every Muslim knows there are five pillars and six foundations.

There is Abinadab [sic for ...], Salat, Zakat, "Swan" [sic for sawm], Haj.

But all of them can be summarized in one simple concept - work till you're good enough to make it in heaven.

The 23rd chapter of the Koran, Surah 23, verses 102 and 103 say this: he who finds his scales heavy will find perdition, he who finds his scales light will find blessing, paradise.

We are taught that from the moment you are born, your mother takes the fig and rubs it in your mouth, your father whispers the Shahada in your ear. And from that moment, every word, every deed, every desire, every motivation, every act, every will, every thought, every emotion, everything goes either on good scales or on bad scales, so that at the end of your life you you've got to have more good than bad to make it into paradise.

You have to be 51% righteous. It's why we pray five times a day, facing Mecca. It's why we roll out our prayer rug and begin "bismillah ah'rallahim, wa'hamdullah ah'rallahim" [attempted phonetic transcription]

It's why we live by the dietary restrictions of halal and haram. Eating things that are allowable, and avoiding the things that are not allowed - and avoiding pork and avoiding anything that was like lobster and crab - we did not eat these foods because Allah would hold it against us.

And there is only one eternal assurance in Islam - only one eternal absolute. The only people who ever know, according to the words of the Koran - we would read it, kiss it, place it to our foreheads, put it on the highest shelf - according to the Koran, according to the Hadith, the only people who would know where they were going to go. The only people who were absolutely sure were those who died in an act of Jihad, in a signed Fatwa, they were the martyr. It's why now five years following 9-11, it's why there is no shortage of my people willing to get on planes. It's why there is no shortage of us willing to do whatever it takes. It's not just an act of devotion it's an act of desperation.

We fear - we fear - that we will die with the scales unbalanced. We believe that by shedding our own blood and shedding the blood of others, it will get us the one thing that eludes us: forgiveness.

Even this week, the irony is seen. The pope says something that offends the Muslims, he says that - quoting from an Islamic scholar - that paradise is found in the shades of the sword. And they begin to riot. In other words, stop saying we're violent, or we will kill everything you know. That is the most retarded thing I have ever seen the media talk about.

How I found out that my blood was not needed is the point of this story.

It wasn't a massive church. It wasn't a beautiful people. It wasn't a guy on TV hawking Peter and Paul loincloths. It wasn't a magnificent choir.

What reached me for the gospel is a series of anonymous, singularly persistent people. One obnoxious boy who wouldn't shut up. One tiny church. One people.

For three years, Jerry Tackett chased me. I dressed differently, looked differently, yet in Gahanna Lincoln High School he made me his project. Trying to earn an AWANA badge or an RA badge, the guy wouldn't leave me alone. Invited me to everything - invited me to lock-ins, and pizza pig-outs and hot dog hog-outs. And he kept inviting me, and inviting me, and inviting me. And by the way, if you've ever worked a lock-in - I believe it is a tool of the devil. Nothing else would keep me up at 3 a.m. in the morning except trying to find kids hiding in the stairwell trying to make out when I should be asleep. It's the Protestant equivalent of Purgatory.

Three years - no - no - no - no - no - three years - no - no - no. Finally, I give in. Finally, I tell him I will show him. And I walked into the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, OH - little church that had one aisle. Little church that had 80 people if everybody was skinny. And they loved me to the cross.

I had never been in a church, never seen other Christians, knew nothing about their service.

I walked in with a Koran in my hand. I walked in thinking I will show them. I sat in the back - eight of them sat with me. The meaner I was, the nicer they were. The more cynical I was - callous, jaded - the more they smiled and overlooked my sin-sickened soul.

It's amazing to me. If you've never been in a Baptist church, it is a bit of an adjustment. It's the reason I'm as non-traditional as I am - I have no baggage. I didn't know when to stand - and to sit. I didn't know what a hymnal was, or the Bible was. I didn't know what a bulletin was, I thought it was the Bible. Some of you still do.

I didn't know when to do anything. Stand, sit, turn around, hug a neck, shake a hand, listen to the choir, grab a baby - it was just so much. Feel the burn - feel the burn - it's Jeezercise. And yet they loved me all the while.

As soon as the service was over, Jerry Tackett dragged me to Clarence Miller - one singular pastor. Clarence Miller had a sixth-grade education. Clarence Miller had sideburns like Elvis. Clarence Miller would wear these green suits with brown piping and he would preach, man, hard and hot.

When he'd get to preaching, I noticed that people would all take their handkerchiefs out, and when they agreed with what he said, they'd wave their handkerchiefs. I thought it was because he was spitting. You see, Clarence used to say if you ain't spittin', sweatin', and slobberin', you ain't preachin'. Man, he'd preach hard. Sometimes he'd preach so hard he'd unclip his tie. But it stayed pinned to his shirt, so it would just flop - right in the front - like that.

Tackett dragged me to Clarence and said, "Clarence - here he is!" (like you had to point out the boy wearing the dress)

(around 20 minutes)

Norman Geisler on Lying as a Moral/Ethical Issue

A friend of mine pointed out to me that in his book on Christian Ethics, Norman Geisler seems to call lying a moral and ethical issue (link to sample of book). On page 19, for example, lying is provided as example of an ethical issue which is decided by moral laws. So, it's not clear how Norman Geisler can justify his apparent belief now that the issue of a preacher allegedly lying is not a moral issue.

-TurretinFan

Is Lying a Moral Issue?

Dr. Norman Geisler seems to have the impression that lying is not a moral issue. Here are some verses that would suggest otherwise.

Psalm 119:163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.

Ezekiel 13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?

Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

Hosea 4:1-2
Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Isaiah 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:

Provers 13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.

- TurretinFan

Zola Levitt - Has Anyone Let Him Know? (Answer: Too Late)

On June 22, 2010 (according to iTunes), Zola Levitt released a podcast (ZL 338 - Signs of the End 2001: "Now A Christian" with Ergun Caner). You can get the mp3 here (link to mp3). It's important to realize that these are claims that were apparently recorded back in 2001 before Dr. Caner joined Liberty University. Why are they still being played? Perhaps no one has bothered to tell Zola Levitt about the issue with Dr. Caner's autobiography.

(UPDATE: As one alert reader noted, it's a little late - Zola Levitt has gone to his grave. Substitute the name of whoever is running his podcast these days.)

Dr. Caner states:

1. (1:25) "We came to America in 1978"
   
   
2. (1:29) "Exposed to Christianity for the first time here in America."
   
   
3. (2:00) "Everything that I had been taught about Christianity and about Christians specifically, just didn't bear out when we came to America. We were taught that you hated us. And coming to America - perhaps in Europe it is a little bit different - it certainly was for me - but coming to America they weren't hateful, they were loving."
   
   
4. (2:27) "I had lived in fear of the scales for so long, you know the Injeel on both shoulders, writing down the good and the bad ... "
   
   
5. (2:48) "I was disowned in 1982 - disowned by my father." Zola: "Really? Formally?" Caner: "Oh, Yes yes - just like in the Jewish faith - where there's a funeral service."
   
   
6. (8:35) "As a young man, I was in the Islamic Youth Jihad - as was my brother - both of my brothers. We were in youth groups that were taught these verses of the Hadith."
   
   
7. (9:07) "Hadith 9:50 says 'no one can be killed for killing an infidel' Hadith 9:57 says 'if a man changes his Islamic religion, kill him.' That's not ambiguous."
   
   
8. (22:41) "Fine, you don't like what I say, you don't like what I say about Mohamed, you don't like the fact that I speak in Arabic and translate the Qur'an for you -- you know - one of their lines is, 'oh, you don't know - you're just speaking in English.' Well, fine. Bring me the Arabic Qur'an and I'll read it with you. And they don't like that."

As to (1), we have a sworn affidavit from Dr. Caner's mother which seems to demonstrate that Dr. Caner was in the United States prior to 1978 (link to affidavit).

As to (2), if Caner came to America at age 3, how much Christianity could he have been meaningfully exposed to before he came. Combined with (1), it's hard to see how (2) could not be misleading if what Dr. Caner's mother swears is true, is in fact true.

As to (3), see above about (1) and (2). If Caner came at age 3, how is statement (3) not misleading?

As to (4), Injeel is not the Arabic word for "angel" it is the Arabic word for "Gospel." It's possible he was just nervous, but this is not the only time that Dr. Caner made that error. Here's another example. When this example was brought to my attention, I basically just wrote it off - I even tried to defend Dr. Caner about it (see my attempted defense here - and here). Now that I've seen a second example, I think it just goes to show that Dr. Caner isn't that familiar with Arabic.

As to (5), I question whether Dr. Caner's father held a fake funeral service for him - but I lack any proof that Dr. Caner's father did not do that. Perhaps Dr. Caner is telling the truth about this. Perhaps someone who knew the Caners can confirm this?

As to (6), check out the context of the "Islamic Youth Jihad" statement - does it convey the idea that the boys were trained as terrorists? or does it convey some other meaning?

As to (7), while there may not be any one "official" way to cite the hadith, this particular citation format leaves out the name of the collection making these citations similar to the citation "Bible 10:3." (see more discussion here)

As to (8), it's possible that Dr. Caner can sound out the Qur'an phonetically in Arabic, but it's hard to believe his claim to be able to translate it, particularly in view of item (4). It's also unclear how Dr. Geisler can claim, as he has, "He only claims to be able to speak Arabic the way most non-Arabic Muslims do. Although he was raised in Sweden by a Swedish mother, Ergun learned enough Arabic (as most Muslims do) to read the Qur’an and speak it in prayer."

I should note that "raised in Sweden" is kind of a strange description if Dr. Caner actually came to America in 1969 at age 3. That would make it sound more like he was raised in America. But, it is not completely clear whether Dr. Geisler has endorsed the 1969 date.

Conclusion

I'm not sure why Zola Levitt is still using this show as a re-run. Perhaps no one has mentioned the Ergun Caner situation to him, or perhaps he really believes that the statements above are all true, justifiable, or excusable.

-TurretinFan

"Living Dead" Themed Movies

My previous post included a video clip of Ergun Caner talking about an alleged experience as a teenager and new arrival to America, watching a film with the theme of the "living dead."

An alert reader pointed out to me that the video shows materials related to the film, "Return of the Living Dead," which came out in 1985. That's not when Dr. Caner came to America, even according to any of his own accounts.

There is, however, another film that did come out with the same theme, closer to when Dr. Caner came to America: "Night of the Living Dead," which came out in 1968. For those who think that Dr. Caner came to America from Turkey in the late 1970's, there's alternatively "Dawn of the Dead," which came out when Dr. Caner was nearly a teenager, in 1978.

As far as I know, Dr. Caner was not involved in producing the video clips, beyond recording himself talking. So, I'm certainly not claiming that Dr. Caner suggested the graphic art for his video or that Dr. Caner himself said he watched "Return of the Living Dead" as a new arrival.

Intead, the troubling part of the video seems to be his statement, at the very beginning:

"When I - uh - When I first came to America - I went to see a movie - I was a teenage boy - and I went to see a movie that had - uh - living dead as its theme ... ." And yes, that video can still be seen at TrueLife.org (link to page).

Was Dr. Caner a teenage boy when he first came to America? The sworn affidavit of Dr. Caner's mother strongly suggests a negative answer to that question. That affidavit is an affidavit dated 31 July 1975, when Dr. Ergun Caner was about eight years old. If that affidavit is true, Ergun was not living in Ankara or along the Iraqi border at that time. If that affidavit is true, Ergun was not getting misconceptions about the USA by watching TV in Turkey at that time. If that affidavit is true, though, how can Dr. Geisler continue to defend Ergun Caner's remarks? Who knows!

-TurretinFan

Rebutting Norman Geisler

Norman Geisler has still not given up on defending Dr. Ergun Caner (link to his further defense), stating that "a number of unjustified attacks have come to my attention." He has responded with 7 points to the 9 numbered points in my previous post (link to my previous post), collapsing four of my numbered points into two of his and ignoring the last (unnumbered) point about the fact that Dr. Ergun Caner's answer on Ramadan cannot match the facts.

Dr. Geisler also states: "Not one of these charges is substantial, involving any major doctrinal or moral issue." Is speaking the truth a moral issue? If not, then I fully agree with Dr. Geisler. Who has alleged any "major doctrinal" issue?

I appreciate the fact that Dr. Geisler has taken the time to respond to my post. I offer the following comments matching the numbers of his post:

1) Dr. Caner's Claim to Have Been Born in Istanbul, Turkey

Dr. Geisler somehow thinks that a person can understandably misstate their birthplace from their actual birth country (Sweden) to the homeland of their ancestors (Turkey). Dr. Geisler's justification is that "Since both Ergun and his father were Turkish citizens, he strongly identified with that ancestry."

How many people so strongly identify with their father that they claim to have been born where their father was, even if their father was born over a thousand miles away from where they were born? Is this normal behavior in Dr. Norman Geisler's book?

2) Dr. Caner's Claim to Have Lived in Ankara and along the Iraqi Border

Dr. Geisler alleges that the accusation relating to Dr. Caner claiming to live in Ankara and then along the Iraqi border is - well - here are his words: "This allegation against him is a mere assumption without evidence which illustrates the desire to defame Ergun by his critics." (grammar and/or syntax errors are from Geisler's page)

In fact, however, there is evidence. Here is the mp3 (link to mp3). When you get about 10 minutes into the mp3, tell me whether you hear this:

Coming to America, the only thing that I understood, I was fifteen when we came, the only thing - or - thirteen when we came, the only thing that I understood about American culture, I got from American television. And the only television that we were allowed to watch was the television that was - that passed the conscriptions of the censors in Turkey. I lived in Ankara, but then I lived toward the east for the most fpart of my life, on the Iraqi border.

Dr. Geisler speculates thus:

Ergun traveled with his father to Turkey several times. Later, he was along the Iraqi border as he said he was. It should not be deemed strange that Ergun has spent time in Turkey. After all, he has a Turkish father and was a Turkish citizen who came to America on a Turkish passport.

Please tell me whether that matches what Dr. Caner said. Leave aside for the moment the papers from the divorce decree that (on paper) prevented Dr. Caner from traveling ("In no event and under no circumstances shall either party hereto cause or allow any of the minor children of the parties to leave or be taken from the Continental Borders of the United States of America." [1978]). After all, maybe the parties ignored that, or maybe the alleged travel to Turkey took place before that.

Instead focus on what Dr. Caner said: "I lived in Ankara, but then I lived toward the east for the most part of my life, on the Iraqi border." How would visits to Turkey, even if they happened, be the same thing as living in Ankara or living along the Iraqi border?

And even if such visits could somehow count for that, how could they be considered a legitimate justification for saying: "for the most part of my life"?

My friend Dr. White (who strongly identifies with his Scottish ancestry) sometimes travels to Scotland and England. If he said in public, "I lived in London, but then I lived toward the north for the most part of my life, on the border of Scotland and England," (based on one or more of his trips) would that be the truth? Do normal people talk that way? Or would that be an embellishment aimed at making Dr. White sound more Scottish than he actually is? It's easy to apply common sense and answer those questions.

Now, apply common sense to Dr. Caner's statement and see whether Dr. Geisler's answer holds any water.

3) Dr. Caner's Claim to have Received Misconceptions about the USA from Turkish Television Prior to Immigration to the USA

Dr. Geisler claims that the statements about watching the Dukes of Hazzard in Turkey and getting a misconception about America from them was just a joke and was always taken as such. Listen to that same mp3, for which I provided a link above. The Dukes of Hazzard bit comes right after the comment about living "for the most part of" his life in Turkey. Was the part about growing up in Turkey also supposed to be a joke? Or did the two statements that appear to be untrue statements serve to work together to create a false impression that Caner came to America at 15 (or 13) rather than at 3?

Dr. Geisler also claims that Dr. Caner has been using this anecdote for "more than a decade." I cannot speak to the truth or falsehood of Dr. Geisler's claim in this regard. He provides no evidence of Dr. Caner using this anecdote more than a decade ago, and I cannot seem to find any evidence of Dr. Caner using this anecdote before Dr. Caner started referring to himself as "Ergun Mehmet Caner" (is that his real name or is that more of Dr. Caner strongly identifying with his ancestry?). Please keep in mind that "more than a decade" would mean that Dr. Caner used this anecdote before July 6, 2000. Can Dr. Geisler substantiate this claim?

Was the context of the anecdote the same back then? Perhaps we will never know. It may be very hard to find any recordings of Dr. Caner from back then using this same anecdote.

As for whether it was meant to be taken literally, compare the lead-off story in this presentation:

"Don't Mess with the Book" (mp3) dated 1/5/2009 according to SermonAudio.com. Listen for when the audience begins laughing at his claim regarding getting the Andy Griffith show in Turkey and thinking that all of America was like Mayberry. What does he say - does he say "it's true"? And when he gets to the part about watching Georgia Wrestling in Istanbul, does he say, "this is a little embarrassing, but it's true" and then does he go on to claim that he would get this wrestling show every two weeks in Istanbul for two hours, even specifying the channel?

That particular version of the story about watching TV in Turkey doesn't include the Dukes of Hazzard - so it is harder (probably next to impossible) to prove that the story is not true. But does Dr. Geisler believe it? Is it a credible story? (in light of what Dr. Caner seems to now admit)

4) The Three Possible Dates of Caner's Citizenship (1978, 1982, or 1984)

On the issue of when Dr. Caner became a citizen, Dr. Geisler simply asserts "It is well known that Caner became a US citizen in 1978." Dr. Geisler, however, provides no documentation to support the claim that Dr. Caner became a citizen then.

Dr. Geisler does not explain why the biography of Dr. Caner at TrueLife.org states:

Ergun was born in Stockholm, Sweden to turkish parents and in 1979 immigrated to the United States with his parents, grandmother, and two brothers. Ergun became an American citizen in 1984 and currently resides in Lynchburg, VA with his wife and two sons.

(source)

By the way, who told the folks at TrueLife.org that Caner's parents, plural, were Turkish? Who told them that Caner immigrated in 1979?

There are many possibilities about where the data on that bio may have come from. It may have come from someone who was unaware of the "well known" data that Dr. Geisler relies upon without providing us with any documentation. Another possibility is that it came from the man in this video:

(UPDATE: TrueLife.org seems to have disabled both direct access to the video and embedding for the video. You can still view the video on TrueLife.org's website for now.)I'm talking about the man who in the video above says, "When I - uh - When I first came to America - I went to see a movie - I was a teenage boy - and I went to see a movie that had - uh - living dead as its theme ... ." And yes, that's a video one can find at TrueLife.org (link to page).

Dr. Geisler, please tell us: was Dr. Caner telling the truth in that clip or not?

Dr. Geisler further states: "No intent to deceive existed, nor has it been established by this conflation of dates." Dr. Geisler is, of course, entitled to his opinion about what the evidence of the misstatement(s?) proves.

Dr. Geisler further writes: "Since it is well known by Bible scholars that this kind of thing is found in the Scriptures (which are without error), then any Christian pressing this charge would, by the same logic, have to impugn the Bible as well (see The Bible Knowledge Commentary, vol. 2, p. 40)." The gumption involved in comparing to Caner to Scripture is shocking. In any event, the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture did not get confused about dates and did not engage in conflation. Sorry, Dr. Geisler. Dr. Caner is not comparable to the Bible on this. I hope that Dr. Geisler has a better answer to alleged Biblical contradictions than he gives with respect to the Caner scandal.

By the way, I don't doubt that Dr. Caner has naturalized and become a U.S. citizen. I don't even doubt that there is somewhere a certificate to that effect. However, I do suspect (this is just a guess on my part) that the certificate does not say "Ergun Mehmet Caner." Does Dr. Geisler think that the name on the certificate is that name? Or does Dr. Geisler think the name on the certificate is "Ergun Michael Caner"?

5) Dr. Caner's Claim to have Worn "Keffiyeh"

Dr. Geisler provides a very low resolution photo allegedly of Dr. Caner, as a boy, wearing some sort of hat at some sort of event. It's so low resolution that it is hard to make out a face, but it could be the same boy shown in these pictures (link). Saying that this hat, of whatever kind it is, is a "keffiyeh" (see also here) is about as accurate as saying it is a "kippah." After all, both are names of hats, and both seem - on their face - to have etymological connection to a linguistic root relating to the concept of covering (the former in Arabic, the latter in Hebrew).

Regardless, the hat in the photo that Dr. Geisler has provided (allegedly via Emir Caner) does not show what would appear to qualify as a keffiyeh. Furthermore, of course, one wonders whether - even if Dr. Caner had worn a keffiyeh at a party once whether he was 10 (or so) - that would justify his comments.

Let me provide some examples of the comments I'm talking about.

"Church House or Jail House?" North Alabama Bible Conference-2005 (Dr. Ergun Caner speaking) afternoon of January 12, 2005 (link to audio).

Here are a few of the claims from that address:

1. at about 5:50 "came to this country in my teens"
2. at about 6:50 "I did wear keffiyeh"
3. at about 7:30 "We wore keffiyeh; we wore robes"
   
4. at 49:30 "I always lived in majority-Muslim countries and then I came to America"
5. at 49:42 "He [Caner's father] had many wives"

In that context, would Dr. Caner be vindicated if it turned out he did once wear keffiyeh? Listen to Dr. Caner's comments in context and determine whether in context, that would mean his statement conveyed truth to the listeners. (I address numbers 1, 4, and 5 in other sections of this post.)

Another example:

"The Greatest Day in Church" apparently preached Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (Old Bridge, NJ), on January 25, 2009 (sermon available for sale or free for streaming here).

(23:35) We wore keffiyeh, we spoke Arabic and Turkish, we read the Koran, we fasted 40 days during Ramadan, we lived by the rules of halal and haram and mushbu, the dietary restrictions.

Again, would wearing keffiyeh once at a party justify that kind of comment? or does that kind of comment suggest to the reader that wearing keffiyeh was the normal, ordinary dress of Caner and his family?

6) Date of Caner's Conversion and Date of Emir's Conversion

With respect to November 4, 1982, being the alleged conversion date, Dr. Geisler states: "There is some confusion about the exact year." No kidding!

Dr. Geisler argues, "Given that Ergun was converted in 1982 (as he claims) ... " but why should we take that as a given? Why not "Given that Emir was converted in 1982 as both Ergun and Emir said in their book, Unveiling Islam?"

One other question: Dr. Caner allegedly was called to the ministry in 1982. Is that supposed to be sometime between November 4, 1982, and December 31, 1982? I note that in Dr. Geisler's response he explains away the 1982 citizenship date on the basis that: "The other date [referring to 1982] is from the period of his call to the ministry and is sometimes lumped together with the earlier date in his testimony." Anything is possible, I guess!

7) Dr. Caner's Claim that His Father had "Many Wives" and that Dr. Caner had/has "half-brothers"

Dr. Geisler claims:

Ergun’s father did have two wives, having divorced the first one. He had three sons by his first wife (Ergun and his two brothers). So, Ergun has two full brothers and two step-sisters (from his father’s second wife). While speaking quickly on one occasion, he mistakenly called his brothers his “half” brothers. This is hardly evidence of an attempt to embellish or deceive. After all, he had the right number of each sibling, and he didn’t claim to have ten brothers or sisters!

Dr. Geisler does not address how two wives is supposed to be "many." Also, Dr. Geisler is not painting a complete picture when he says, "While speaking quickly on one occasion, he mistakenly called his brothers his 'half' brothers. " I don't know what one occasion Dr. Geisler is thinking about. Here are two occasions where Dr. Caner referred to his "half-brothers" and let's see whether Dr. Caner means his actual brothers:

"Don't Mess with the Book" (mp3) dated 1/5/2009 according to SermonAudio.com

(around 21:26 into the sermon) "In my family, my father had many wives. My father had many half-brother and sis--- I have many half-brothers and sisters. Our family very rarely got together."

Again - is "two" considered "many"?

Another example:

"The Greatest Day in Church" apparently preached Calvary Chapel Old Bridge (Old Bridge, NJ), on January 25, 2009 (sermon available for sale or free for streaming here).

(around 43:10 into the sermon) "My father had other wives. My father died in '99, never accepted Jesus. I have half-brothers and sisters who don't know Jesus."

Now, are those two instances both instances where Dr. Caner was just speaking quickly and called his brothers half-brothers? How could that be? Dr. Caner surely doesn't deny that his brothers know Jesus. And furthermore, in the first instance, Dr. Caner was correcting himself.

And what about the claim to "other wives"? Even if "many" can mean "two" (a very unusual use, I think you'll agree) how can one other wife equal "other wives"?

Conclusion

It's very saddening for me to see Dr. Geisler continue to try to defend Dr. Caner. My opinion is that Dr. Geisler is just digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. His opinion is that Dr. Caner "is a devout zealous believer who lives a life in obedience to Christ and who works diligently to extend his kingdom." That may well be true - I don't recall denying that, and yet Dr. Caner may have made a significant number of statements about his autobiography that are not completely true and that, taken together, paint a picture of his past that is not completely accurate. Was this done intentionally? People will have an opinion about that, based on drawing inferences from the number of misstatements, the theme of the misstatements, and the frequency of the misstatements.

There's one other small issue I'd like to address. Dr. Geisler writes: "a blogger-critic refuses to give his real name, using a pseudonym. This violates a moral and legal rule that one has a right to face his accusers." Dr. Geisler is misapplying this principle.

Dr. Caner has a right to confront the witnesses against him. I'm not one of the witnesses. I don't claim any special knowledge, and I have provided folks with documentation for what I have said. Everything I say without giving documentation for it should be disregarded. All of my opinions should be considered as having absolutely no weight in this matter.

Consider instead the documentation. What reasonable opinion is formed based on consideration of the evidence? Is it an opinion that Dr. Caner embellished or is it an opinion that Dr. Caner fully honored the truth on every occasion?

- TurretinFan