Wednesday, May 05, 2010

The Integrity of the Messenger Is as Important as the Content of the Message

Dr. George Alan Rekers is a well-known Southern Baptist minister of the gospel. In 1983, Dr. Rekers and Dr. James Dobson founded The Family Research Council. Dr. Rekers presents himself, and is considered by conservative Baptists, as an expert on "human sexuality." When the Southern Baptist Convention adopted The 1998 Family Amendment, the writings of Dr. George Alan Rekers played a crucial role in justifying the need for a change to the BFM. Both Liberty University and The Southern Baptist Convention have published Dr. Reker's writings in their respective theological journals, including Helping Children Grow Up Straight. In the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Dr. Rekers wrote Chapter 17 entitled Rearing Masculine Boys and Feminine Girls. Dr. Rekers runs his own website, entitled Teen Sex Today, where Dr. Rekers "blogs about teen sex" and the problems associated with it. Dr. Rekers has a Th.D. degree from The University of South Africa, the same university and the same degree bestowed on the President of Liberty Seminary. Dr. Reker has spoken on many occasions at Liberty Seminary, is considered an expert in his field of human sexuality and the biblical, model family, and has profited immensely from his expertise. The State of Florida recently paid Dr. George Rekers $87,000 to be the "expert witness", testifying that homosexuals had no business adopting children.

Yesterday, the The Miami NewTimes News reported that Dr. George Rekers returned from a "gospel crusade" in Europe with a Rentboy in tow. For the unitiated, a "Rentboy" is slang for a young, male prostitute. It seems that Southern Baptist Rekers took a ten day vacation with the boy. When caught and photographed at the airport, Dr. Rekers initially said that he had "hired" the Rentboy to carry his luggage because of a recent back surgery. Then, upon reflection, gave a lengthier explanation for hiring the young man to travel with him to Europe:

I have spent much time as a mental health professional and as a Christian minister helping and lovingly caring for people identifying themselves as "gay." My hero is Jesus Christ who loves even the culturally despised people, including sexual sinners and prostitutes. Like Jesus Christ, I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them ... I have a loving Christian ministry to homosexuals and prostitutes in which I share the Good News of Jesus Christ with them (see I Corinthians 6:8-11). Contrary to false gossip, inneuendo, and slander about me, I do not in any way "hate" homosexuals, but I seek to lovingly share the gospel with them ... If you talk with my travel assistant (the boy prostitute) ... you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirablity of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail.
I would like to ask conservative, evangelicals leaders, particularly Dr. Elmer Towns of Liberty University, three questions in light of Dr. George Alan Rekers' embarrassing situation and his attempts at explaining himself:

(1). Are Dr. Rekers' words of explanation, considering that he is now caught with discrepancies in his own story, what you might call giving someone "a certain amount of theological leverage"?

(2). Does it concern you that when Dr. Rekers seems to be caught redhanded in lies about his own past, his own personal experiences with homosexuality, and his own "alleged" expert credentials on "curing homosexuals," that the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is actually being compromised?

(3). Will you allow Dr. Reekers to continue to speak at Liberty, be published in Liberty's Journal of Theology, and represent the "conservative, Christian values" of your school? If not, could you explain the difference between granting license to live a lie to some experts in certain fields and not others?

For the sake of fairness and for all those Southern Baptists who want to believe that every explanation given by their leaders is gospel truth, Dr. Rekers offers--again--his version of his trip with the boy overseas. Read it here. Obviously, Dr. Rekers wants everyone to believe that only radical homosexual activists, liberal leftists, and Christ-deniers would EVER think he is lying when he explains that the Rentboy was hired for ten days to carry his luggage. I know many people think Southern Baptists are idiots, and frankly, being a Southern Baptist pastor myself, I am beginning to think that our Convention is filled with ignoramuses and sychophants. Frankly, there are some things we Southern Baptists could actually learn from the Muslim and the homosexual activists right now--like how to tell the truth and not to act like we only want to cover and protect our own.

The homosexuals are having a FIELD DAY over Dr. Rekers' hypocrisy. And, well they should. The greatest problem is NOT that Dr. Rekers hired a boy prostitute. The worst problem is NOT that Dr. Rekers may be struggling with homosexuality. The real problem is that Dr. Rekers presents himself as somebody he is not. It's a credibility issue. He claims to be an expert on how parents ought to raise "Boys to Be Boys" and "Girls to Be Girls" and how "Men Should Love Women" and how Americans should respect "The Sanctity of Christian Marriage" and the "Nuclear Family." He has made thousands of dollars as "the expert." Ironically, I may agree with his message; but it is his hypocrisy and lack of integrity that cause his message to burst like a balloon poked with a hot pin to those unacquanted with the true gospel. When the icon of celebrity worship in the religious right is shattered, and when we begin to simply go about our business of loving people in need of a Savior, only then will the integrity of our lives match the incredibly powerful content of our message of grace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

In His Grace,



Ramesh said...


I am speechless.

Tom Parker said...


It will be very interesting to see how the leaders of the SBC handle this scandal.

Christiane said...

His contrasts are so very extreme, I wonder if he doesn't suffer from 'reaction-formation'.

Again, like Caner, the 'persona' was created. Large amounts of money were made, like Caner.

But what about the reaction of the Christian community to which Rekers belongs?
Have they 'distanced themselves' from him by rejecting him;
or have they covered for him;
or have they accepted that he has some trouble and offered to counsel him in the midst of their community?

I think you can always judge the maturity of a Christian community by how it cares for its own in times of need. Rejection and/or covering up are equally harmful to the person.
Acceptance of the need for ministering to a person who experiencing brokenness is a sign of maturity and strength.

I'm guessing that his community would be the Dobson organization. (???)

Steve Bezner said...


We have a truthlessness pandemic.

shadowspring said...

I keep thinking of Romans 1 and 2, where Paul, immediately after listing so many things that go wrong in we humans seeking fulfillment apart from Christ, writes:

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Romans 2:1

Note to self: Don't make a ministry out of pointing out sin in others...

Neil Cameron (One Salient Oversight) said...

When the icon of celebrity worship in the religious right is shattered,

When? How? Bakker, Warnke, Tilton, Swaggert - they all happened 20 odd years ago and nothing has changed. American Christianity is most certainly "conservative" - it does not change. Scandals erupted in yesteryear, they erupt today and they erupt in the future.

What will force change is a long term decline in attendance - a process which the American church has caused, and is not caused by them durn libruls and demmycrats.

Scott said...

This guy is done and quite simply because of this reason: Supposed homosexual activity.

The SBC will turn a blind eye to lies from the pulpit, molestation of members of the opposite sex, engaging in the viewing of pornographic materials, embezzlement, infidelity, fraud, and any number of other forms of conduct unbecoming.

But not homosexuality...

We've made homosexuality our scapegoat for all the ills of the Southern Baptist Convention along with the exclusion of women based on questionable interpretation of scripture written in a male dominant society hundreds of years ago.

You can't imagine the heat that comes when you mention that a friend or family member is gay and that they are attending a SBC church. That church would come under fire faster than anyone could imagine, even in the homosexual in question is just an average member struggling with their sin just like the deacon asking them to leave while having an affair that the whole church knows about yet says nothing because of the check he writes each month.

This guy is ruined and will probably never recover either with his family or with his career.

He just picked the wrong sins to roll with while over in Europe. Had he hired a female prostitute, nothing would have ever been said at all...

Lydia said...

Scott, they overlooked it when Gaines at BBC supported his pedophile minister of prayer. (It was a same sex offense in that case. Maybe because it was a child it does not count?)

As a matter of fact he was speaking at SWBTS chapel not long after the scandal broke and the pedophile minister of prayer had to go after 6 months of being protected by Gaines.

I am wondering if RBMW will be re-released without chapter 17? :o) said...


Great point. We excoriate the Muslims, condemn the homosexuals and point the finger at everyone else but us.

Frankly, we ought to thank the Muslims and homosexuals for their investigative reporting these past few weeks.

They have made us very aware that we are as much sinners as they.

In His Grace,

Wade said...

One Salient,

Maybe, just maybe, things are changing. We'll see.

Scott and Lydia,

Both good points.

Lydia said...

Ramesh said...

Thanks Lydia.

ABP News > Liberty U. backs seminary president amid charges of misrepresentation.

Anonymous said...


Allow me to make a slightly more biblical connection between Drs. Caner and Reker. The problem is not that both men have made serious errors in judgment (even as tragic as both their public humiliation has been). The problem is not even(though it is in reality a problem) that they have both denied the extent of the charges made against them. No, the problem is much deeper and began with both men long ago. The Gospel, Robin, needs not science nor proof. The Gospel, Robin, needs not weights nor measures nor scales. The Gospel, Robin, needs not defense from man's ways or minds. The Gospel, Robin, needs not man nor angel for its delivery. The Gospel, Robin, needs not testimony nor example save that which is found in the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Gospel, Robin, needs not propellant from a can or vocal cord or book. The Gospel, Robin, need only the Mouth from which it was spake and a heart for which it was purchased.

When we realize this Robin, we realize that we are here to make testimony to God's amazing grace in Christ Jesus. We, like Paul are "set apart for the Gospel." We do not empower the Gospel nor propel it nor open the hearts of man to it. We simply testify to it.

Drs. Caner and Reker were not testifying to the power of the Gospel. They both sought to empower it through their own means.

Nowhere Robin, nowhere does Scripture ask us to empower the Gospel. Paul tells us it was promised beforehand by the Prophets.

God does not need help in keeping his promises.

May we all learn from this. Our job is to be witnesses. Our job is to tell others what Christ can do. How he has changed us. To give an account of the hope within us.

Sadly the world thinks we are just hungry, hungry sin-hunters.

The Lord has used 2 of his servants to show us all how not to act. For the sake of the Gospel.

May His Spirit reign eternal in the hearts of all who hear His voice and believe!

K said...

Debbie, I guess we were both thinking the same thing and typing at the same time.

You make an excellent point to Robin. I would like to hear his response.

I think I know what he will say, because Tim Rogers has already said it.


Well, there are several problems with believing repentance has occurred.

(1). His statement of repentance has been removed from Caner's website. (see here
(2). The archives at have been scrubbed. When you click on anything from 2005 to 2007 it takes you to the current page.
(3). Authorities at Liberty are making challenges to YouTube to get ALL videos of Caner speaking fabrications of his past removed.
(4). The resume posted at and Liberty University have been changed, and reposted, but any statement of repentance has disappeared.
(5). Liberty issued a statement, through Dr. Elmer Towns, that the PROBLEM WAS THE BLOGGERS, who cannot hurt or harm Liberty. That kind of statement lights my fire because it is evidence of an institutional lack of integrity.

Whoever is giving Ergun Caner advice is really, really messed up.

Ron said...

The common Th.D degree from The University of South Africa is more than a coincidence. I have wondered for some time about this degree. Keith Eitel and Dorothy Patterson, wife of Paige Patterson have doctorates from the same university. I wonder how much time each of these individuals spent in South Africa working on this degree. Is it an internet degree? What kind of accreditation do they have in SA.

I also wonder if there is some understanding if you are a friend of Paige Patterson you can get a Th.D. at that university. Is there some quid pro quo with that school and Paige Patterson I read Keith Eitel’s dissertation and was not impressed with its quality or research.

Anonymous said...

I do not think the degree ought to be considered part of the issue. Dr. Don Whitney of SBTS, formerly of MWBTS and author of several books on Spiritual Disciplines has or is in the process of getting the same degree. He already has a DMin. For some conservative evangelical scholars, the degree is attractive as it is a non-resident conservative evangelical doctorate. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It in facts takes longer but works well with those who are engaged in full time ministry. We should all be thankful for the availability of such programs. Coincidence? I am of that opinion.


FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Excuse me while I vomit...I would have just as soon lived the rest of my life and not having to learn what a "Rent boy" is. said...


Thanks for your perspective. I find myself disagreeing with you.

If there is a sense of corporate humility, brokenness and repentance over our complicity in the deceit of our leaders, then the kingdom is advanced.

Mind you, the true kingdom. Maybe not the reputation of the SBC, but the true kingdom.

Let me give you, Amy, an actual quote from a Muslim who has read sites of Christians, including mine, and has seen Christians refuse to allow deceit of Christian leadership to continue, and has seen Christians refuse to call "Muslims" the problem for pointing out the lies, and has seen Christians deal with issues in openness and transparency as they have called for an accounting of the discrepancies in the public statements of our leaders.

I quote him verbatim:

I am more open to listen to Christians who want to talk to me about Christ Jesus than I ever was before.

That one sentence, Amy, runs contrary to your stated belief that the kingdom is not being advanced.

Lydia said...

"Again, you are practicing the doctrines of Saul Alinsky rather than the grace of Jesus Christ."

Robin, Alinsky and the SBC must have collaborated for the CR. Here are some tactics from Rules for Radicals. Anyone recognize any of them from CR history?


"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126 (About getting power)

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. Robin is doing it here)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

(Which is why anyone who questioned the tactics of the CR instantly became a LIBERAL)

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

Wow, sounds familiar.

RazorsKiss said...

As far as I can tell, that distance learning degree is similar to that you can receive at locations here in the states. However, it's less expensive, and can be done at your own pace. I'd have to go look back at the info I found on it to give details, but it's rather similar to Columbia Evangelical's program, iirc. said...

Thanks for the comment Lydia. I had two thoughts when Robin accused me of using "Alinsky's" tactics: (1). What are Alinsky's tactics?, and (2). How the heck does Robin know Alinsky's tactics and I don't?

You've answered both questions for me. Thanks.

Ron said...

You said, "the degree is attractive as it is a non-resident conservative evangelical doctorate. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It in facts takes longer but works well with those who are engaged in full time ministry."

You may be right. I don't know. I just see a few red flags. I also don't know what a non-resident conservtive evangelical doctorate is. A doctorate should be based on the research and academic preparation.

I don't know anything about Dr. Whitney. Is he a friend of Paige Patterson? What is being passed around about this university that causes so many SBCers go there for an extra doctorate or first time doctaorate to put on the resume.

Rex Ray said...

Robin Foster,
You’re the perfect example of a lawyer’s advice:

1. If you have the law, argued the law.
2. If you have the facts, argue the facts.
3. If you have neither, scream like mad and attack.

Your attack is pointless and boring.

Tim Rogers,
You haven’t changed a bit.

“If he has seen, heard, or known about something he has witnessed, and did not respond to a public call to testify, he is guilty.” (Leviticus 5:1 Holman)

Tim, not only do you not “testify”, you attack those that do.

RazorsKiss said...

Dr. Whitney doesn't run in the same circles as Patterson, et al.

He's more in the Founders group.

As I've been saying from the beginning - the degree angle is a dead end. It's legit.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the man's judgment was not good in spending what seems to be a lot of time alone with what is alledgedly a homosexual prostitute. But did anyone ask him if he had sex with the guy?

Rex Ray said...

Dear Megan,
A lot of times the one that gets hurt most in a fight is the one that tries to break it up.

Also cheering for both sides will receive blows from two directions.

I like your pleasant attitude, but:
1. Would you explain how both sides are saying the same thing?
2. Are you saying Wade indulged in ‘slander’? (Webster – a false report maliciously uttered and tending to injure the reputation of another.)
3. Wade is stating facts while Robin and Co. are using slander.
4. How does ‘facts’ vs. ‘slander’ portray the same principals about God and Jesus?

What irks me most is when one is murdered and someone says, ‘Oh, they both were in the wrong.’

Megan, keep watching and ducking because I believe the ‘good guys’ are going to win.

If Caner won’t admit he lied when truth is written in history, why would Rekers hiring a boy prostitute tell the truth?

He’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar – excuse me – I mean slop jar.

Joe Blackmon said...

Hmmm, let's see here. In the article, the writer apparently spoke to the hired dude. If there had been anything sexual between them, don't you think dude would have spilled the beans? It sure doesn't look good for them to be together but the guy he hired made no allegations and would have no reason to hide anything. Until he does, this is nothing more than Wade, again, throwing garbage at the wall to see what will stick (IMB finances, SWBTS and Tulips...). said...


Friendly word of advice. When you are in need off someone carrying your luggage, do not hire an advertised boy prostitute off an Internet site called Rentboy. People may not buy your story.

Not So Perfectly Me said...

Isn't this the guy (or one of many) who claims that gays molest children more than straight people....and isn't it thoughts like that that has lead to the proposed law in Uganda that makes homosexuality a capital offense?

Yeah, I called them for the lying fools they are a long time ago.

Anonymous said...


"Lucian" as the boy is called might be the one with the most integrity in the entire mess. He was hired for a purpose. He is simply protecting his "client" (Dr. Rekers). I am guessing Lucian did not have a clue who Dr. Rekers was from Adam. Lucian's "job" as an international escort is now in jeopardy from his perspective. I mean we are not talking a few hundred bucks. I am going to guess this 10 day trip was in the neighborhood of 1000.00 per day. The term "rentboy" does not get its name because someone wants to "rent" a boy, it comes from notion that young gay boys who leave home need to make money to pay the "rent." So many engage in behavior with older men with money that they would otherwise not do. This is his livelihood and he probably makes a good living, especially if he is willing to travel internationally.

Now, remember Ted Haggard's male prostitute? That stuff was amateur. That guy stood to make more money talking to the press. So he "sold out" his "client." Now eventually, once enough international press reaches this kid Lucian, and once his fame propels him to a more lucrative career, he too will sell out Dr. Rekers. But for now, the cash in his pocket is keeping him "to the story."

God has a lot of patience Joe, but sometimes we go over the top and with a snap of God's fingers He exposes us.

He does this for our good, for the good of those within our inner and outer circles, and for His own glory.

May we all remember that a genuine testimony is a valuable commodity, eternally speaking.

Joe Blackmon said...


You may well be right that he had more to gain by shutting up than spilling the beans. I'm just not sure that he would have lost much by ratting the guy out if they actually did have sex.

Anonymous said...

A missionary who wishes to remain anonymous writes:

Wade and all,We should be careful in making automatic assumptions about the degree from UNISA. Other than Dr. Caner, the guys mentioned (with certain negative overtones) all have doctorates from other very recognized schools: UCLA and TEDS.

I don't know why Dr. Rekers would stack his UCLA PhD with a ThD from UNISA, but he already has plenty of recognized credentials, not the least of which is a professorship at Un. South Carolina, and a stint at Harvard. Perhaps he felt the need to have some theological letters behind his name since much of his work is within the realm of conservative Christianity.

Some have asked why there's an attraction to UNISA. Here are a few:

1. South African Universities offer British modeled research PhD or ThD or in the case of UNISA, a DPhil, which means the student focuses solely on the research project, presumably becoming the expert in that narrow gap of knowledge they are producing.

2. That translates into little to no coursework, assuming an appropriate background in the field.

3. No coursework sometimes translates into no residence requirements - none required at UNISA, which means, in most cases, one can keep their job while doing PhD studies. This is good for those with life situations that don't allow them to stop life to do PhD work.NOTE: Many British Universities still insist on residence while conducting research even though no course work is required.

4. COST! The universities in South Africa are state schools that are heavily subsidized by the government. That subsidy combined with a good exchange rate translates into THOUSANDS of dollars in savings. The undergrad programs double tuition for foreigners, but the doctoral studies do not. Additionally, some SA schools offer nice study stipends, which makes it even more cost attractive.

Also, a friend told me that often European degrees appear "sexier" to Americans, so there is some upside in that. Except, perhaps in the specific case/subject of this blog entry. :-)

My background: Why I chose a SA institution other than UNISA.

1. I found UNISA very disorganized and difficult to work with – they lost papers, mailed them back to me in a UNISA envelope, then claimed they never got them.

2. The university I chose has a stronger reputation than UNISA, primarily because it is a resident research facility, producing the largest number of research degrees per year in Africa.

3. While my school is a resident research facility, they were willing to consider my appeal to remain in my work location – Middle East - due to my specific research project. (I'm being purposely evasive due to nature of my research, but Wade knows.)

4. Cost is thousands of dollars less than other programs that accepted me.5. They accepted me! ;-)There are a lot of factors that go into the decision to pursue PhD work: age, finances, interest, needs, goals, etc.

For me, South Africa works. And as a friend doing his PhD at Dallas Seminary and is not happy with my choice told me, "In the end, your work will speak for itself. So, it's up to you to prove you made the right choice."I haven't seen the work any of the men mentioned in this blog or the comments, so I have no opinion if their choice was correct.

Christiane said...

You wrote 'Biblical grace forgives

I thought about that for a long time. Something about that phrase 'moving on' stopped me cold.

If someone is 'in trouble' and does something wrong, they can be forgiven of the wrong that they did, yes.
But do we then act as if 'nothing happened'?

I think in real Christian 'community, people who are 'in trouble' and who are breaking the Laws of Christ and shaming Him with hypocrisy;
these people need the care of their community in order to heal of their own wounds, before they act out again.
For their brothers to 'move on' as though 'all is well', that is not an option, but a lack of responsibility to the fallen Christian brother.
The only kind of effective 'moving on' would be a venture into a healing, nurturing and compassionate treatment of someone who is needing the guidance of Christian care. That kind of 'moving on' looks past the sin, and focuses on the sinner and leads him back to the Lord again,
by the strength of the witness of those Christians who are 'family' to the one who has fallen. Then the person will know he has a HOME among these witnesses;
and will not be abandoned (as Ted Haggard was) or hidden away as an embarassment (as the old biography of Ergun Caner was).

"I have come home at last! This is my real country! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now...Come further up, come further in!"
— C.S. Lewis (The Last Battle)

The Christian mystery is a strange one: how DO we love one another as He loved us?
We weren't abandoned. We weren't left unaided. So we can't do that to one another, can we?

Mr. Foster, calling attention to hypocrisy is not a bad thing at all.
The 'bad thing' is the abandonment of a person, or the 'hiding away' of a person's biography, instead of giving healing care and rehabilitation to a fallen brother, who has a home as a member of a Christian family 'in community'.

Liberty University needs to help Dr. Caner now, instead of 'hiding away' information that is an embarrassment to their image. They are his 'family'. He needs them now.
Then 'moving on' will be a journey 'further up and further in' to the Kingdom for all concerned.f

In Christ, peace
Christiane said...

To All,

There are a few people, who after they comment, I find myself becoming sarcastic and biting in response. I don't like that in me, and I apologize to those to whom I have responded in such a manner. I have deleted the comments pertinent to my apology. I realize that to some, reading comment sections are a form of entertainment, but to me, it is far more serious. When dealing with such a serious matter, to allow caustic, biting and sarcastic comments, the gravity of the situation becomes lost. Comment moderation should help. Everytime I allow comments, I realize why I came to the point of shutting them off.

Jeff said...


This comment really belongs under your previous post, but I didn't know if it would be read.

Brother . . . without defending Caner, I just want to point out that it appears you are speaking out of both sides of your philosophical mouth, no doubt without intending to.

You are strong on cooperating with people with "differing doctrines", but are ready to cut off cooperation with Liberty.

What that says is that you will cooperate with people who are wrong about doctrinal truth, but you will not cooperate with people who are wrong about historical truth.

Regardless of my opinion of Caner, for argument's sake let's just say that he is as guilty as you say that he is. His historical untruths, are no different than others who teach doctrinal untruths.

Both are on purpose.
Both are with the intent to make people believe something that is not true, (even though both may believe that it is)
Both are issues or debates about what actually are facts and what are not . . .
and both are issues or debates about what those facts mean . . .

False doctrine is a lie about doctrinal truth . . .
You have asserted that Caner has lied about historical truth . . .

One may teach someone about his birth, that isn't true - that's historical.
One may teach someone about his new birth that isn't true - that's doctrinal.

To cooperate with those who tell "Theological Untruths", but cut off those who tell and tolerate "Historical Untruths" betrays a matter of mere personal preference.

I think I know what your explanation of this would be, but I did want to point how your post struck one person.

Joe Blackmon said...

Does his hiring of a male prostitute raise questions? Um, yeah.

Is his explanation plausible? Um, no.

Would I want to have him speak at my church? Um, no.

Will I buy any of his books? I'll buy exactly as many as I have bought. That would be none.

Does this PROVE that he's a closet homosexual? Of course not.

Does Wade care about this? No, it's just another way for him to bring up Caner without bringing up Caner directly.

James Hunt said...


I appreciate your transparency, tenacity, and humility.

Craig Dunning said...


Reports from the "luggage handler" are starting to surface.

I'll let you Google it if you are interested, but I will say the obvious suspicions that came to most of our minds when we saw that an anti-gay activist hired a "luggage handler" from a homosexual sexcort website, seem to be accurate.

While the doctor does have medical issues, the "luggage handler" says he wasn't hired to handle the suitcases. Of course, the photo of them at the airport already told us that!

Also, there apparently is a secrecy agreement that is about to be broken and published. We'll see if that happens, but if it does, based on what I've witnessed lately, I anticipate all of the doctor's fans will say, how bad it is for the "luggage handler" to break his agreement. And probably very little about the doctor's actions.

One advertises himself as a Christian, the other advertises as a sex-worker. Which one should be expected to behave according to higher standards?

Tom Parker said...


You said to Wade:"You are strong on cooperating with people with "differing doctrines", but are ready to cut off cooperation with Liberty."

That is a bunch of baloney, Jeff.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Gary Snowden said...


Your comments equating historical untruths with doctrinal untruths left me utterly bewildered and shaking my head. You affirm that both are purposeful and with the intent of making people believe something that is untrue. I would strongly suggest to you that your assessment of those who are guilty of "doctrinal untruths" is far off base.

Except in the case of some diabolical cult (and I'm not even sure then that your argument would be valid), I don't think anyone teaches as doctrinal truth and attempts to foist it off as truth that which they conscientiously know to be in error.

While some may not share the same interpretations of some particular biblical passages that you do, that hardly qualifies as grounds to automatically assume that your stance (and I don't even know where you stand on any specific issue) is the only doctrinally correct possibility. It's one thing to affirm the infallibility of the Scriptures. It's quite another to take upon oneself the mantle of infallible interpreter of the Bible.

Your attempt to draw a parallel between those who knowingly "doctor" their resumes and biographical information so as to gain notoriety on the one hand, and those who don't share your own interpretation of all doctrines is farfetched and groundless.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Joe, Jeff: Say that what you are saying is true concerning motive. It isn't but let's pretend. My imagination will be as big as yours. :)

Now where is the truth of what Ergun or Dr. Reker still not the issue. What has been shown still needs to be dealt with. Something neither of you has done yet. You have attempted to side track, but never once have you dealt with the evidence given. Why do you think that is?

Joe: You are amazing. Really. Your contempt, hate, and down right ugliness is something that I am praying and attempting to kick out of the SBC. Not the person, but definitely the attitude. You are a great example as to why. Also you are doing no different than Ergun, you too are lying and attempting to pass it off as truth. I am blunt, but again I see an elephant in the room when you come into it too and I just feel the desire to point it out.

Bob Cleveland said...

In a "denomination" which claims 16 million members (a number about which we boast), but somewhere south of 5 million actually involved enough to be called "disciples", it doesn't seem to be common, in SBC pastoral DNA, to hold people accountable; even their own members. Thus, I'd expect some of them to be upset when someone else steps up and starts calling for accountability, of public folks, out in the open.

Maybe that accounts for some of the shooting of the messenger that I've seen over the last 4 years. Like on this thread.

Anonymous said...

This, along with the Caner mess , "has given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme." It is time for true Christians to draw near and mourn over sin.


Lydia said...

As I've been saying from the beginning - the degree angle is a dead end. It's legit.

Thu May 06, 01:13:00 AM 2010

I agree. WHERE is a total non issue. Except he once published that he had a PhD.

Lydia said...

I agree that the man's judgment was not good in spending what seems to be a lot of time alone with what is alledgedly a homosexual prostitute. But did anyone ask him if he had sex with the guy?

Thu May 06, 07:06:00 AM 2010

And we would believe him when he looked for a traveling companion on rentaboy?

Does anyone know if he is married?

Emily Hunter McGowin said...

Even if we are to believe that Dr. Rekers didn't know this young man was a prostitute when he hired him, and even if we are to believe that Dr. Rekers didn't hire this male "escort" for sex, and even if we are to believe that this does not indicate that Dr. Rekers himself struggles with same-sex attraction, and even if we are to believe Dr. Rekers' claim that this is simply a matter of him loving those who are culturally despised, that leaves one fact crystal clear and just as appalling:

Dr. Rekers contributed financially to a business that exploits young gay men as sexual objects for the pleasure of wealthy gay "renters." Even if he made use of only for the purpose of hiring someone to "carry his baggage," he still hired someone from a known prostitution service. This is deplorable behavior, deeply unethical, and profoundly contrary to Christian morals. Contributing to the maintenance of organizations that peddles human flesh for cash is not acceptable behavior for a Christian, let alone a Christian "leader" who supposedly stands for Christian morality in the "public" sphere.

Tom Kelley said...

I was sad when you shut off comments, mostly because I knew I would miss reading the interactions and various perspectives of your regular commenters. When people become a regular part of your life, even if only in the online realm, they start to feel like family. Even when they fuss and argue a lot.

But when you spend some time away from your fussing and fighting family members and then everyone comes back together for a visit, you can better see how dysfunctional it is.

So now I think its best when you share your thoughts with us but keep comments off and let us keep our thoughts to ourselves.

Byroniac said...

Jeff (if you are the same one I communicated with previously):

I am sorry that I treated you in an un-Christian manner and responded in anger instead of grace. If I offended you, then I am sorry now (but I was not at the time I wrote it, unfortunately). You deserve more respect than what I gave you, especially as my fellow brother in Christ. I may not understand the point you were trying to make, but even if I disagree, I should do so without the critical spirit I displayed. I was wrong for that and I admit it. I am sorry it has taken a few days for me to come to terms with this, which just shows I am not nearly as sanctified in my Christian walk as I thought.

Byroniac said...

Joe, with all due respect, it almost sounds like you're arguing: if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, don't rush into judgment, it may not be a duck. :)

Lydia said...

Great comment, Emily which brings me to this question: Isn't prostitution still illegal?

Rex Ray said...

If the subject is ‘cover-up’ maybe we should start at the top where Obama’s wife named his home country.

Anonymous said...

A blog post today by Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International.

The Theme? Dr. Rekers, Jo-Vanni Roman (The "rentboy"), and Grace.

We all need to pray for these two men. One old. One under not. One experiencing the wrath of a righteous oblivious to this wrath. God can however do amazing things with both of these men. God can redeem them from remaining sin and one from reigning sin. Our God has promised to make all things new. Let us pray for the souls of those oppressed by the chains of the bondage of sin.

Rex Ray said...

So many detective stories are solved by the criminal making just one little mistake.

Wonder if the youtube recording of Obama’s wife stating that Kenya was Obama’s home country may become the straw that broke the camel’s back

Kerygma said...

"Dr." Dorothy Patterson also got one of her two "doctorates" from the University of South Africa.

Steve said...

Man, I thought I'd done some dumb stuff, but this one ...

Emily Hunter McGowin said...

I appreciate the Chambers' blog post referenced above. Certainly, the grace of God is available for Dr. Rekers (and Jo-Vanni Roman). But, I find it very difficult to offer him mercy as a fellow Christian when he's willing to cover his foolishness (and possible immorality) with idiotic platitudes about being like Jesus.

Now that I've re-read Dr. Rekers' "explanation," I find it even more insulting and offensive. He says: "My hero is Jesus Christ who loves even the culturally despised people, including sexual sinners and prostitutes. Like Jesus Christ, I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them..."

I've checked my New Testament and I can't find any instance of Jesus sharing a room with a prostitute to "try to help them." Personally, I find it infuriating to hear a fellow Christian dress his clearly unwise, inappropriate, and (possibly) immoral conduct in self-righteous Jesus-talk.

Maybe it betrays a bad heart on my part. Truly, I am the chief of sinners. But, until Dr. Rekers repents, not only of his actions, but also of this self-justifying, preacher-speak nonsense, I can't imagine extending a hand to him, as Chambers' advocates.

Anonymous said...

Now there is someone else claiming a encounter with George Rekers


Update and Video interview with the baggage carrier:


Rex Ray said...

Anti-gay rights activist resigns after trip with male escort
By the CNN Wire Staff
• Anti-gay rights activist resigns from group that promotes counseling for homosexuals
• Baptist minister George Rekers insists he is not gay
• Rekers says he has hired lawyer to fight "false media reports"
• Rekers has been prominent, effective foe of gay rights legislation across country