Ergun Caner, Frank Dux and Jesus Christ: A Comparative Study

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]

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]

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 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.

When You Decide Who God Is

A few days ago, I had quite the experience at a local pub here in Hampton Roads. I was spending some time unwinding after work, having a drink and reading Martin Luther's famous Bondage of the Will. Suddenly, I was brought into a conversation by three people: one gentleman by himself; and a couple. In terms of being able to handle a conversation between adults, I might from now on call these three (in order of the gentleman, the woman, and the man) by the names of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Bad and Ugly were obviously intoxicated (Ugly even more so), and so I tried to minimize my time speaking to them by speaking with Good instead. This proved to be a fruitless endeavor, given that Bad often interrupted Good, and Ugly spent much of his time leaning against me and murmuring things like "Your arguments are really bad" (he never said why) or "I don't want to talk to you any more" (apparently he couldn't just go anywhere else in the pub, which was empty). He was also doing small, annoying things like pinching my cheek and saying "You're so cute," or randomly tugging on the straps on the shoulders of my shirt. The amount of times Ugly made physical contact with me, in fact, gave me a brief fright that I was either going to have to call the police or reinterpret the meaning of "laying on of hands."

The range of topics between the four of us was everything from the morality of "self pleasure," to Calvinism, to whether the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds, to the nature of canon. The part that stuck out for me, however, was near the end, when Good asked me if I believed in "religion or relationship." I attempted to explain that this was really a false dichotomy, given God is the initiator of faith (and thus religion), and therefore it's a much more complicated matter (which is probably worth a future blog post!). Bad then cut in, declaring herself "Catholic," and saying that she liked going to liturgy because it appealed to her.

"It satisfies me, and that's what's important!" she said.

I then asked, "So you're saying that with worship it's more important to satisfy you rather than God?"

"No!" Bad retorted. "Don't misuse my words!"

"But that's what you said," I replied, "you said the important part was that it satisfied you. That just isn't scriptural."

"Well," she said, changing the subject (or trying to), "I just can't believe that my Jewish friends are going to hell, because they don't believe in Jesus!"

"Then you're at odds with Christ," I said, "because he said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me,' and 'he who is ashamed of me and my words, I will be ashamed of him before the Father.'"

To this, Bad said, "But you can't handle the Bible like that!"

"Why not?" I immediately asked. "Jesus quoted God's word against the devil. He quoted it against the Pharisees and Sadducees. The apostles quoted it against the Jews and Gentiles. Acts says that when Paul went into a new town, the first thing he would do is go to the local synagogue and reason with them from the scriptures. The standard was the word of God, and at this moment you are opposed to it."

Bad's response to this, and I quote:

"I don't care!"

Later on, as I drove away from the pub and headed back home, I pondered on what had just happened. Aside from the fact that I felt like I had just experienced firsthand an episode of Wretched Radio's Witness Wednesday, the words of Bad came back to me, and I realized that this is the battle cry of man's unregenerate state before God, and when faced with the truth of who God is they will turn violent and defensive. In retrospect, this seems to be the sad cleverness behind the lie of postmodernity: it offers a friendly answer but demonstrates no substance of truth; it plays the scholar while acting the fool.

Worst of all, this theology presents what appears to be a peaceful facade - a supposed ability to solve all the world's problems by pretending these problems aren't there - but in doing so, sacrifice the truth, and become enemies of it. I think it was part of the providence of God that the part of Bondage of the Will I was reading touched somewhat on this very subject; Luther writes, "To want to quell these tumults, therefore, is really to want to remove the Word of God and stop its course" (pg. 91). And likewise, "When we abandon [holy truths], we abandon God, faith, salvation, and all of Christianity!" (ibid) When we throw out the truth standard which God has put in place, then there is no standard, and every man is his own god, because every man is permitted to define god by his own standards.

What happens, then, when this cloak covering evil and error is removed, and the nakedness is exposed? Frankly, nothing much can be done or said. This is why there is nothing left to say except that which Bad said to me that night, when she declared "I don't care!" Here the facade of peace is removed, and the hostility is shown for what it is. Far from seeking truth, the rejection of the true God and His word is revealed to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The standard then becomes one we invent, based on what we decide to be truth (even if it is no truth). we in essence base God not around His word and truth, but our word and truth, and hence we place ourselves as the more important factor in worship over and against God. This is rank idolatry, of course, and it is this god which so many today worship. When this god feels threatened, its hostility lashes out at those who dare question its authority, and any gentleness the god has proclaimed to have is shown to be false. As Martin Luther wrote: "The world and its god cannot and will not bear the Word of the true God" (ibid). If, as Fulton Sheen once said, atheism is a cry of wrath, then postmodernity may be called a cry of rebellion.

Moments like what I experienced can no doubt be disheartening, and it can make us feel that we should join those passive voices which have submitted to this worldly theology. However, let us not cease to defend the truth, regardless of who it might opposing us or however they may choose to oppose us. The last word on this shall go to Martin Luther:

"Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed."

---------
Quotations from Bondage of the Will are taken from the translation by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, published by Baker Academic.