The back and forth about the Caner controversy continues. Norman Geisler has yet another unconvincing defense of Caner. It’s embarrassing to see a person of Geisler’s prominence in evangelical circles resorting to a hair-splitting Christian equivalent of Bill Clinton’s “it depends on what the definition of “is,” is” in trying to justify Caner’s stories, but there you go. Christian leaders should be held to a higher standard than an ordinary parishoner (James 3:1 “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”) but that idea seems to not have any traction among Caner’s defenders.
Rather than dealing forthrightly with Caner’s exaggerations and embellishments, and recognizing how this kind of falsity can impact the way the Christian message is received (Romans 2:24 “As it is written the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you”.), some of Caner’s defenders prefer to engage in over-the top name-calling. (Terms at the link used to describe James White and other Caner critics: “despicable human being…psychopathic mind…rants like a mental ward occupant…spewing vile invective…rant of insanity…megalomania…frauds and fakes…mentally irregulars.”)
Read the most recent response of James White and the other posts on his blog relating to the controversy, compare those to Caner’s defenders, and judge for yourself whose statements are the most reasoned, plausible, and charitable.