John Ankerberg: No Context for Real Dialogue about Truth

“Do you believe in subjective or objective truth?” was addressed on January 23, 2013 on the “Ankerberg Minute with Dr. John Ankerberg.” Dr. Ankerberg answered well.

A recent study of American 18 to 23 year olds reveals that one of the major themes of this age group is that they live in a culture where truth is considered subjective rather than objective. In the words of the study, there is no context for real dialogue about truth. And truth’s impact on our life choices.

How does this cultural mindset compare with Scripture? Well, first, Scripture declares objective truth on many occasions. Jesus Himself proclaimed to be the way, truth, and life. While there are some areas for disagreement there are many moral issues where the Bible has clearly spoken.

Whether popular or not, our calling is to present and defend the truth of God to those in our culture.

Dr. Ankerberg is right on! Truth is objective. Truth impacts life choices. There should also be a context for real dialogue about truth which many of us in the church today, like Dr. Ankerberg, attempt to foster. Popular Christians like Ankerberg engage culture presenting unpopular objective truths and morality.

Truth Blurred

The younger generation Ankerberg references are often influenced by the church’s claims of objective truth by the perception that said truth is often subjectively carried out.

For example, Kenda Creasy Dean writes about how American Christian teens view God in Almost Christian. One example from Dean’s book:

In the view of American teenagers, God is more object than subject, an Idea but not a companion. The problem does not seem to be that churches are teaching young people badly, but that we are doing an exceedingly good job of teaching youth what we really believe: namely, that Christianity is not a big deal, that God requires little, and the church is a helpful social institution filled with nice people focused primarily on “folks like us”—which, of course, begs the question of whether we are really the church at all. 1

Ankerberg’s short answer about the importance of objective truth is that it impacts our lives. He rightly claims that the Bible speaks clearly on “many moral issues.” Dean’s contention based on extensive research of American Christian teenagers is that the church is very good at showing teens that we don’t take Christianity too seriously.

My understanding is that for those younger men and women to take the Bible’s objective truth more seriously the church must demonstrate those truths as consistently as possible. Doctrine and moral positions must be more than lip-service. The objective truth of Christianity may be better demonstrated through admission of sin, repentance, seeking and giving forgiveness demonstrating how the gospel works out in the life of Christians.

Truthful Dialogue

A few days prior to the above “Ankerberg Minute” on January 21, 2013, James White published “An Open Letter to Dr. John Ankerberg.” In that open letter, White demonstrates that Ankerberg is unwilling to admit there is a context to dialogue about the truth of many of Ergun Caner’s claims about himself.

In the context of the younger generation, Caner has spoken to many youth groups over the years. He has spoken about objective truth while dismissing an objective dialogue about the evidence that shows many claims about himself to be false.

White’s open letter was motivated by the fact that Ankerberg recently promoted Ergun Caner (and his brother Emir) on his radio show as a guest. Ankerberg defended his decision with his own open letter - Why I Invited Emir Caner and Ergun Caner to The John Ankerberg Show. Ankerberg cites the conclusion of biased sources for Caner rather than examining the evidence himself to show whether or not Caner lied.

White also quotes one of Ankerberg’s ministry assistants defending Caner as follows.

Ergun Caner did not lie, while he was speaking he mistakenly misstated the facts. (He was not trying to deceive anyone, he just did not remember correctly.) Have you ever said something and realized later that it was wrong? It doesn’t mean that you are a liar, it means you forgot the information. When you realize that the amount of public speaking that Ergun has done, it would be easy to make a few statements and realize later that you were mistaken.

This is not actually a defense of Caner, but a few excuses for the differing stories. The problem is that there is extensive legal documentation, video, audio, and text of Dr. Caner’s words over the years. It seems a person who does a lot of public speaking would be more consistent when sharing information about their life. A few small details wrong here and there, sure.

But the 12 examples of falsehoods Dr. White noted are not small. The examples below have not been objectively refuted, but subjectively brushed aside.

1) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner was born in Istanbul, Turkey, as he claimed.
2) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner always lived in “majority Muslim countries” as he repeatedly told audiences during sermons.
3) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner studied jihad in a madrassa in Istanbul.
4) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner studied jihad in a madrassa in Beirut.
5) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner studied jihad in a madrassa in Cairo.
6) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner is able to speak Arabic.
7) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner has debated imams in mosques in Arabic (as his own website advertised).
8) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner has engaged in more than sixty debates (he claimed in 2006 75 such debates) with Muslim leaders.
9) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner’s father was surrounded by “caliphs” when he died (there are no caliphs today).
10) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner’s father brought multiple wives with him to America.
11) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner came to the United States in 1978 or 1979 (as his biography on the Liberty website claimed until 2010).
12) It is a falsehood that Ergun Caner learned English by watching US television programs in Turkey.

Truth Matters

Dr. Ankerberg’s whole ministry is based on promoting and defending the objective truth of the Christian worldview. He can press on with the Christian worldview because it is objectively true and defensible. Yet, that truth must also be practically demonstrable because as he stated it has an “impact on our life choices.”

As Ankerberg seeks to encourage a context where there is real dialogue about truth, he might consider beginning in his own house with Ergun Caner. Objectively examining the evidence against Caner would help his audience objectively see that he, a Christian, practices what he preaches.

I certainly agree with Ankerberg when he said, “Whether popular or not, our calling is to present and defend the truth of God to those in our culture.” I just wish he agreed, too.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

  1. Dean, Kenda Creasy (2010-06-12). Almost Christian : What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church (Kindle Locations 234-238). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Related Posts:


tagged as , , , , , in apologetics,Christian,Christianity,Evangelism,morality,politics,theology
The above article was posted on January 28, 2013


16 comments
Bennett Willis
Bennett Willis

http://crbcviews.blogspot.com/2010/04/stephen-ambrose-ergun-caner-and_5208.html

I re-read Tom Chantry's discussion of the Caner evolution (thanks to Moses' link). He gave a distressed but dispassionate accounting of the events. I recommend it to all. The comments that go with that blog posting are very expressive--and concerned--about the damage this might do to Christian witness across the world.

Chantry and the commenters worry about the "secular media" getting into telling the story. Somewhat to my surprise, this never happened to any extent. Maybe we think that people pay more attention to us than they do--perhaps we were protected. Maybe the secular media does not expect better of us than this.

I think that the story has been thoroughly told on the Internet. It is there for any and all to study. Whether it should be allowed to simply disappear is debatable. And as long as Ergun is active in speaking to various groups and insists on revisiting his comments, it will resurface from time to time. Personally, I regard this as a service to our cause. You can't just ignore things that won't go away--even if you wish you could.

Bennett Willis
Bennett Willis

Tim's comments (above) were typical of the sort of defense that was put together for EC's errors. Somehow the world was supposed to overlook numerous factual errors (some constituting "tall tales" at best) because of something. You never saw anyone trying to explain EC's statements because there was simply no explanation. He had stepped into the phone booth (shortly after 9/11) as Butch Caner and come out as Ergun M. Caner, an ex-Muslim who had done many things now shown to be false or impossible (White's 12 points and many others).

As mentioned in the posting, there were numerous video records that clearly showed what EC had said--and said again and again. The 12 points mentioned in the posting were the REALLY obvous errors.

Dr. Ankerberg's letter does not stand up to close reading. As a study of "truth," it is embarrassing. If it were a debate, his opponents would have a field day. I thought that EC's detractors (over the years) were consistently on point and by and large stayed with the facts. For many of them (particularly James White and D. Kaufman) it had to be difficult. They were subjected to commentary that make Tim's efforts in this thread seem feeble. However, when you have the facts in your favor it is easier than when the facts are against you.

Bennett Willis
Bennett Willis

It fell along the Calvinists/non-Calvinist lines only in the minds (or arguments) of the defenders of EC. Mostly, it fell along the truth vs “it is OK to change truth if it makes a better story” lines. I decided that what I had originally said was not quite right so here is what I should have said. I still don't understand how anyone could support EC in his stories.

But I have wondered about what a lot of people have been willing to say over the last few years. It is clear that "group loyalty" is much stronger than "truth loyalty" in the hearts of many.

Of course I don't understand why Emir has gotten off so lightly. He knows exactly the truth and has remained silent. Self interest is what comes to mind and it is clearly in his interest to "know nothing" about his family history. Since he is not taking verbal advantage of the Caner story, he is left alone?

Bennett Willis
Bennett Willis

It fell along the Calvinists/non-Calvinist lines only in the minds (or arguements) of the defenders of EC. Mostly, it fell along the truth vs "truth adjusted to make a better story" lines.

Bennett Willis
Bennett Willis

Regarding the Caner "controversy." It seems to me that Liberty "eased him out" as soon as they reasonably could considering their contract with him. Look at his present job as compared to the one he held when the discussion started and see if you think that he left "casually" and with no foot in his back. I was consistently amazed at the "defenders" of EC because they never defended him--they simply attacked the people who bothered to read the documents and draw the obvious conclusions. You can see more of this in this comment thread.

The "Squirrel in Babylon" blog had the best summary of the documentation that I saw--factual and without emotion. You can probably find it in the back issues of the blog.

Personally, I will never deliberately be in a meeting where EC is scheduled to speak. And if I accidentally find myself in such a meeting, I will wait until he is at the podium and then leave the room so that there will be as little doubt about why I left as there can be. I don't understand how anyone could schedule him as a speaker--but clearly a few still do. http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/ has some recent links to some of EC's current sayings. It is a couple of postings down the list.

Tim Rogers (@Timothy_Rogers)
Tim Rogers (@Timothy_Rogers)

Mark,

No you do not look for truth and go that route, not on this issue. The truth of the matter is simple. Ergun was cleared by a Trustee panel placed together that had no dog in a fight but to find the truth of the allegations that Ergun was not a Muslim. That was the only charge that came forth all of the other innuendo was added later. Now you have John Ankerberg and Norman Giesler two of the leading apologists in the world defending Caner. What do you and James White do? Call into question their integrity. Mark, that is the issue that I am saying you are trying to suck blood out of a turnip. You say he is unrepentant. When were you chosen by God to take on the role of the Holy Spirit? You say he goes on "unexcused". You mean to tell me going from the Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary to now being Provost of Arlington Baptist College is "unexcused"?

You see Mark, the more you push this in public the more attention Ergun gets. The more attention Ergun gets the more bookings he gets to come speak. The more bookings he gets the more people hear his story. The more people that hear his story, the more that come to Christ. So, it seems that Ergun has a stake in this much like Paul did. Thanks and pass onto JW my appreciation for his pushing this issue and enabling Ergun to get more bookings. You guys are really doing a great job furthering Ergun's speaking engagements. If you keep it up maybe the Pentagon will call wanting him to speak to their folks.

Tim Rogers (@Timothy_Rogers)
Tim Rogers (@Timothy_Rogers)

Mark,

Certainly you can call me "friend". As a matter of fact you can call me "Brother" as I believe that you are my Brother. I adamately disagree with you for the simply reason you have picked up James White's argument and you are using the argument that he took from MoKhan. A Muslim that has taken things and slanted them. This issue first got started by saying the Caners were not Muslims. Then JW came out and tried to argue it from another perspective. Now you have picked up his bucket of water and you are trying your best to carry his pale for him.

Tell you what. Let's look at this from the perspective of a Calvinist theology. According to the theology that you propose God ordained Ergun Caner to do what he did. Thus, it isn't Ergun you are arguing against it is God. Live with your theology Bro. In the Sovereignty of God He ordained this to happen and you are still trying to get the pound of flesh that you think God did not exact on him.

Robert I Masters
Robert I Masters

Mark,

I see no need to go to Ergun Caner.

I think this statement made by David Miller holds plenty of objective error in it . Do you agree?

Here is the quote as written in the comments of Marty Duren,s post on" Touch not the Lord Anoited"

"Most error is not total falsehood, but truth unbalanced or in extreme."

Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts

Les,

Oddly enough, it does. I'm not sure what that says about lovers of truth vs conspiracy and coverup, but it is odd how the lines fell on that issue.

Les
Les

Thanks Chris. Why the such harsh reaction by some for Mark posting about it? Does the dividing line fall along the C/NC line generally?

Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts

Les,

The issue was bigger a few years ago and ultimately led to an investigation by Liberty University which offered a fairly wishy-washy conclusion and a slap on Caner's wrist. For many people, that settled the issue. But Caner himself has never confessed his sin and admitted his deception. As Mark mentions, the most anyone has acknowledged are "misstatements" - though how someone misstates so many fundamental details of his own life simply boggles the mind.

Tim Rogers
Tim Rogers

Mark, Really!?? So James White can't carry his own water so you decided to pick up the bucket and carry it for him? And you think this is a way to get the non-Calvinist respect that you so desperately long for? Wow!! James White tries desperately to be recognized in the SBC as someone of character and scholastic aptitude and he has his minions (you) carry his water for him. This certainly is no way for him to get a teaching position in a SBC seminary.

Les
Les

Mark, I am unfamiliar with the Caner controversy. I'v seen a few references to it here and there. Why is this not discussed more in SBC life? Or has it already been discussed and put to bed?

Mark
Mark

For some it has been put to bed - I think. However, for many the charges have never truly been answered. There is a lot of evidence of lying.

Previous post:

Next post: