A few days ago, Ergun Caner announced on Twitter that he was innocent and denied all charges against him. For those who are not familiar with the accusations made against Ergun Caner, this page where James White collected together his videos on the subject might help (by the way, the graphic at the top was made by yours truly). He added in response to one critic:
Whenever the Caner affair pops up its ugly head again, I can't help but remember similar charges made against someone else. Who is it? Of all people, it's actually one Frank Dux, whose real life experiences were the basis for the famous 1988 Jean Claude Van Damme flick Bloodsport. While the film of course made plenty of exaggerations and additions (some of which Frank Dux criticized), the basic premise is similar to how Dux claimed it unfolded in real life. This, of course, has led many to call foul and claim Dux is himself exaggerating or adding to his life story. Now, whether or not you think Frank Dux is the real deal, the point I'd like to make here is that he has responded to critics by providing evidence, or pointing to where the evidence can be found. One example can be found here, and another here. Overall, he's been pretty precise in response to his critics and naysayers.
Now compare this with Ergun Caner, who has done nothing in response to his critics except to repeat the mantra of "I'm innocent! They're being mean to me! It's a Muslim/Calvinist conspiracy!" Imagine, instead, if he release information to confirm or respond to his critics. Imagine if he presented evidence that he really was raised in the Middle East. Imagine if he explained the wild contradictions that exist in his various testimony presentations. Imagine if, once and for all, he told us who he debated in Nebraska! This sort of thing should not be hard, and one would think that at least some superficial evidence could be provided on this subject. For example, I grew up in my preteens in Europe when my father, who's in the military, was stationed there. If someone wanted to challenge this, they could easily research with the military on where my dad was stationed during my preteen years, to see if indeed it was in Europe. If I "misspoke" and said I was in San Francisco in 1991 when records showed my family wasn't there, I could easily correct it and say we were actually there in 1989, which could indeed be confirmed. The point is, these sort of things are easy enough to prove, and whereas Frank Dux, who (as far as I know) is not a believer, is capable of responding to such accusations, Ergun Caner, who claims to be a Christian and therefore worship He who is the embodiment of truth (Jn 14:6), does not even attempt to provide any answers or evidences. In fact, as precedence shows, Caner and his allies have a habit of simply trying to hide any errors and contradictions.
Now let's take a moment to turn to one other person: Jesus Christ. Ergun Caner said in the tweet above (as he has elsewhere) that Jesus never defended "against false accusations," and so he won't either. Of course, why did Christ remain silent against his accusers? Let's take a look at the accounts in the gospels:
Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. [Matthew 26:59-60a]Why was Christ silent? Because he didn't have to defend his innocence. It is said that these were "false testimonies," yes, but not only were they false but the "testimony did not agree." Christ's enemies were inconsistent, and if Christ had not been asked personally to assert his divinity and his Messianic status, he probably would have been a free man.
Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” Yet even about this their testimony did not agree. [Mark 14:55-59]
Now let's compare this to Ergun Caner's situation. Is he under attack by false testimony? Upon what basis is it false except his word against theirs - and his enemies have demonstrated their accusations, not simply launched into blanket charges. Is he under attack from accusations that are inconsistent? On the contrary, the accusations have been very consistent...in fact, the only inconsistent one has been Ergun Caner himself. People have not had to make up charges like they did with Christ, who was blameless before all, but there are serious charges and allegations against Caner which he has yet to provide any real response. Frankly, to use the innocence of Christ against legitimate questions and accusations is sickening and blasphemous.
Ergun Caner, if you read this post, please understand that this isn't being done out of hate. You bring a mark upon the gospel of Christ when you add to it your false stories and embellished testimonies. You're making it harder not only for yourself, but your family as well. Please, sir, repent of your sins, repent of your wrongdoings, and be an example for others out there who might be in your position. God has granted you this time to repent, but there will come a time when it will no longer be available to you. When that time comes, you will be held accountable for all you have done. Please, seriously consider these things.
