I have talked to a lot of journalists since last Friday, but so far the best article I’ve read came from William Wan and is found in the Washington Post here. Mr. Wan had even written back to me to double check some facts, and I found that encouraging. I do find it indicative of this entire scandal that one side is open and transparent, one side is secretive and mainly silent. One side sounds like they take Jesus’ exhortation to openness and honesty seriously, the other seems far more politically oriented, seeking to do damage control. If Ergun Caner has been “exonerated,” as some radical supporters are claiming, why has he refused to come out and provide the “truth” to the journalists looking into the situation? Instead, he hides behind the stone wall of silence. I believe that says volumes. Reminds me just a little bit of the “spin” he and others put on their scuttling of the 2006 debate at Liberty. One side made all the information available, was open and transparent, the other—not so much.
I remain utterly amazed and quite offended by Norman Geisler’s statement on his Facebook page. Without engaging a single fact of the case, explaining a single contradiction or examining any of the evidence that proves beyond all dispute that Ergun Caner was telling multiple stories about his past at the same time to different audiences (when speaking to folks he knew could detect problems in his story, he told the truth; to those he evidently judged to be gullible, such as large congregations of Baptists, he would produce, and then embellish, his jihadi Muslim persona), Geisler has pronounced him “exonerated” and relegated the mountain of false statements, embellishments, and downright lies, more often than not uttered from behind a pulpit and tied directly to the gospel of Jesus Christ, to the scrap heap of simple “misstatements.” As I pointed out on the DL yesterday, one can hardly see how atheists and other enemies of the faith would not be fully warranted to see the cavalier way Geisler has handled a scandal that is sitting right in his lap (the attention over Caner has been focused on Liberty, but Caner teaches for Geisler’s Veritas Seminary as well, and they are closely connected) and the level of documentation related to it (video clips, audio clips, court documents) and say, “Well, if Norman Geisler can’t see the obvious truth of a matter that has this level of documentation, why should anyone think he has handled the ancient and considerably less full documentation regarding the resurrection accurately?” I call upon Dr. Geisler to set aside his partisanship and do a serious inquiry into the facts of this matter. If Dr. Geisler claims to have the answers, then maybe he can answer the questions Caner and Liberty refuse to address. In fact, in light of his statement, it would seem he is obliged to do so.