"What I see at play in the White-Kaufman-Burleson-Kahn coalition to discredit Caner (is) the assertion of guilt without the establishment of guilt... For me, it’s a horrible crime to publicly charge someone with either moral or societal crime or both without sufficient evidence to establish the charge."
I ask readers of this blog to carefully persuse this article and compare it to this article. Which of the two uses more facts and testimony from the public record? Which uses more words and testimony from Dr. Caner himself to establish guilt or innocence? Which article would you deem more oriented toward factual discovery? Could it be that the actual problem in this Caner issue is the assertion of innocence without the establishment of innocence?
For sycophants to proclaim the innocence of an ideological hero, when the world itself can read the facts that lead to the establishment of guilt, then that which is ultimately damaged is the message of the gospel itself. For Christians not to press for veracity in the testimony of her leaders is to abdicate truthfulness in the delivery of her message. How can people believe what we say about Christ when they can't believe what we say about us?
The fact that these ideologues can't see the ridiculousness of seeking to share the gospel with a Muslim while simultaneously trying to cover up the lies of one of their ideological leaders is an indictment on their Southern Baptist brand of Christianity. For those with a senstive conscience, this post is not about Caner, but those individuals who have boldly and emphatically declared that a thorough investigation has cleared Caner of all wrongdoing--only to have the Chancellor of Liberty University release the following statement yesterday evening:
"In light of the fact that several newspapers have raised questions, we felt it necessary to initiate a formal inquiry.”Do you remember what Dr. Towns, Vice-President of Liberty University, declared three weeks ago?
"The Liberty board has held an inquiry and directors are satisfied that Caner has done nothing theologically inappropriate.Well, either the Chancellor and the Vice-President of Liberty don't communicate regularly, or Dr. Towns is also guilty of asserting innocence without actually investigating the facts--just like the sycophants who have oft quoted him these past three weeks as justification for excoriating those who have declared guilt based upon an actual examination of the public record.
It is my opinion that "the official inquiry" by Liberty University, slated to begin soon, will leave no stone unturned. I believe the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry will be appropriate. The chairman of the committee is a man with impeccable credentials and is known by faculty for both his integrity and honesty. In short, this Caner issue will be resolved one of two ways in light of the established facts via the public record:
(1). There will be an official acknowledgment of the embellishment of Dr. Caner's biographical and professional background, a sincere public apology by Dr. Caner for his unethical behavior, and a statement by Liberty Seminary 's Board of Directors that Dr. Caner will be kept as President of Liberty Seminary, or
(2). Dr. Caner will be removed as President of Liberty Seminary.
I am hoping for the first resolution above, but as long as "friends" of Dr. Caner dogmatically and viciously assert his innocence before they have even thoroughly examined the facts, then they actually work to prevent the former from occuring. So, if Dr. Caner is released from his job, he will have nobody to blame but himself and those sycophants who weren't his real friends, just worshippers of his celebrity and ideology.