Tennessee Pastor Speaks Out on Ergun Caner by Peter Lumpkins

Tennessee Pastor, Tim Guthrie, honks the nose of those who continually badger Ergun Caner, charging him in fabricating his Muslim roots.

In Guthrie's post entitled "The Whole Truth" he quotes a living, breathing witness who knew the Caner family up close:

"My name is Jamal Jivanjee, and I was born and raised in the greater Columbus Ohio area. My mother is an American & my father was born and raised in East Africa and is of Asian Indian decent. My father was a devout Muslim and we attended functions at the same mosque/ masjid that Ergun, Emir, & his family attended on east Broad street in Columbus, Ohio.

Ergun & Emir’s father, Mr. Acar Caner, was a very prominent leader within the Islamic community that we associated with and was very involved with this mosque. As a result, I remember as a young child going to their home with my family to have dinner with their family. Mr. Acar Caner was also the acting landlord of the apartment community where my family and I lived for a number of years..."

Read Guthrie's entire post here.

Will the Baptist Calvinist bloggers who've teamed with Muslim attack sites in attempting to bring Ergun Caner down back off? Will they drop their crusade to tarnish Caner even further? 

Not likely, I'm afraid.

With that, I am...

Peter

UPDATE #2: After Wade Burleson committed himself not to write on the Caner issue again, unless I miscounted, he has since posted three posts on his blog.  I wonder if making a public commitment not to do something but then doing it thrice would be considered an act of dishonesty?  Ummm. 

At any rate, Burleson showed up on this thread posing what he deemed a relevant question: "Could it be that the real problem is the assertion of innocence without the establishment of innocence?"  After his point was shown to be both legally and morally absurd (//link), he packed his gear and went back to Enid, posting an even longer version of his same point.  Evidently, Burleson does not realize that adding words to an absurdity does not make absurdity go away. Indeed it may make it even more absurd! 

Even so, Burleson's conclusion reveals nicely the wrong-headed, skewed thinking at work in so many of Caner's critics.  Burleson writes:

"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" [sic] (italics added //link).

Let me get this straight.  I dogmatically and viciously assert Caner's innocence before I have even thoroughly examined the facts? Frankly, it is Burleson and his sidekicks who have pronounced Caner guilty before sufficient facts have been gathered to establish guilt!  

For the record:  to my recall, I have never asserted Caner's innocence. I have continually and consistently denied that the evidence offered by the critics--including Burleson--was sufficient to establish guilt. Why is this basic, fundamental legal and moral distinction so difficult to grasp?  One must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Anything less is the overthrow of the presumption of innocence. Indeed prematurely pronouncing guilt is, from my perspective, patently ungodly.

Honestly, if this type of upside-down thinking Burleson and company are peddling ruled our legal system, what kind of justice system would we be?

UPDATE #1: Our brother, Matt Svoboda, editor at SBC Voices, attempts to engage my post  here with one entitled, "What is the Caner Controversy Really About?" The odd thing is, we had a perfectly good conversation going on here.  Indeed Matt was the first to comment. 

Even more strange is, not only does Matt curiously complain about my not answering questions this post definitively was not about, he ducks the questions concerning the duplicity of his statements on this thread.  In other words, Matt leaves us totally confused about what he was/is actually asserting about Ergun Caner (note here & here).

It makes me wonder if some of those who condemn Caner as liar had rather pronounce someone guilty than prove someone guilty. Come to think of it, that is a much easier thing to do.  It is also, from my perspective, an ungodly thing to do.

   

Comments

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

With all due respect, this post doesnt answer most of the questions being asked. I have already said that I think he was a Muslim and in his own heart and mind he may very well have been a devout Muslim. So yes, I agree that Caner was a devout Muslim... I have no problems with that.

Yet, he has still told very conflicting stories about his childhood. Will you write a post that clarifies all of those? When did he live in Turkey like HE SAID he did? Youth Jihadist at 15??? Peter, I have a feeling if Mohler or someone like him lied extensively about their childhood you would be asking for them to be fired and for them to publicly apologize.

Matt

[peter]

Matt,

A) I'm not surprised. The post did not attempt to answer all or even "most" of the questions that's been asked. Indeed, Matt, nothing I write nor presumably Tim Guthrie writes is either designed to or capable of satiating the unquenchable curiosity Caner's critics possess.

B) No. I do not have sufficient facts to "write a post that clarifies all of those," due, in part, because "those" is never static. Instead, when one question is answered, critics pose a new one or readjust the old one. For example, like cleverly switching the question from "Is Caner a "fake ex-Muslim"? to "Is Caner a "fake ex-devout Muslim?"

In addition, this is one pronounced way in which the approach taken by the Baptist Calvinist/Muslim attack team differs from what I and concerned others attempt to employ. How they (i.e. Baptist Calvinists & Muslims)--and apparently you, Matt--proceed is proclaim guilt based upon alleged discrepancies. Nonetheless, just because one does not see how discrepancies match, does not necessarily mean they do not match.

Hence, a firm conclusion cannot or should not be maintained. At most, it raises questions; it does not establish guilt.

Thus, I absolutely, positively refuse to condemn as liar and/or fake a person without sufficient goods to do so. I want the hard evidence in my hand. Period. And, understand: we're not referring to an artifact of history but a man's life and service.

From my standpoint, it is not at all wrong to raise questions in the Caner scenario. What is blatantly against both Scripture and reason is to pronounce and condemn a man because there exist as you've dubbed them, "conflicting stories about [one's] childhood..." Conflicting stories about Caner's childhood no more demonstrate Caner's guilt as "fake" than alleged "conflicting stories" skeptics raise surrounding our Lord's birth establish the gospel narratives "fake" and/or fraud.

C) Have all the "feelings" you wish, Matt. Begging the question pertaining to Mohler is less than convincing.

Indeed you're actually spot on: "if Mohler or someone like him lied extensively about their childhood you would be asking for them to be fired..." Yes indeed.

And, know this: if enough hard facts were established that Caner "lied extensively about [his] childhood," while unlike Mohler or another who serves an entity of the SBC (and may receive a public word from me on serving our denomination), I would nonetheless think it unconscionable that a reputable school like LBTS--or other reputable Christian or non-Christian schools for that matter--would allow his continued employment.

Even so, Liberty is publicly on record as stating they'd investigated the matter and not found sufficient evidence to justify the critics' claims contra Caner.

Until substantially more is forthcoming than we possess, I will not succumb to what may very well turn out to be an evil public slandering of one of God's servants.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim G]

Matt,
Just as Peter has stated above, the answering of something leads to a changing of the question. If you will read the comment stream over at my place you will see that a couple of comments have been made that allude to some of what you are asking.

Question: Why has there been NO public demand for repentance from those who claim he was NOT a Muslim nor a Devout Muslim? This is very telling don't you think?

[Mohammad Khan]

You guys have turned this into a debate of whether Ergun was a Muslim or not. Nobody cares. The issue is Ergun's lies. You are just diverting away from the real issue. Many Christians agree that Ergun Caner was a Muslim - for you lot to keep attempting to prove that Ergun was a Muslim is useless, you are just dodging the real issues.

[peter]

MK

A) I have no intention of tit/tatting back and forth with you about Caner. Other sites may do so. Other sites may even offer you "interviews." You would do well to pursue your agenda there.

B) I've watched most of your videos, MK. Much of your criticism only fires blanks. Continually indicting Caner for mispronouncing words is grossly irrelevant. Indeed your repeated charge "liar" and "gullible" Christians are definitive turnoffs--at least to me.

C) To suggest we're pursuing questions about which "nobody cares" depends on perspective. I would say from Ergun Caner's perspective, who has been dissed as a "fake ex-muslim," caring is a fortified understatement

D) To suggest, as do you, MK, that we have "turned this into a debate of whether Ergun was a Muslim or not" and concluding "Nobody cares" is patently absurd. You log on to this site with a link to your site. And what is the site? www.fakeexmuslim.com! Ergun Caner's portrait is your banner.

In addition, you even define, on your site precisely what you think a "fake ex-muslim" to be in your very first FAQ:

What is a fake ex Muslim?

A fake ex Muslim is somebody who is being untruthful about being a former Muslim. The errors an individual makes regarding their supposed devout Muslim background is what makes it apparent."

The entire site is given over to discrediting the Muslim heritage of Ergun Caner.

And, you actually expect us to believe "Nobody cares"? Obviously, MK, you "care" as well.

My advice is, find an acceptable Christian man with whom to dialog about the eternal living Christ and the truth of the Christian Scriptures before it is eternally too late to come to faith in the God of the Bible.

I wish you the best. Further, I wish the one and only true and living God's grace shine upon your journey.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim G]

MoKhan,
you are the one who stated he was not a Muslim. Change your site if you were wrong! Jesus is still waiting for you and loves you. Repent while there is still time.

[Tim Rogers]

MoKhan,

Do you know that Jesus Christ loves you even though you are casting aspersions on one of His servants? Jesus loved you so much he died on the Cross for your sins. His blood that he shed on that cross is sufficient to save your soul. The truth you are seeking is found in Jesus Christ. I pray for Jesus to reveal himself to you in a dream so you will know that he is real. I further encourage you to read the Scriptures of the Bible as they are truth without any mixture of error in its substance.

Brother Matt,

You say that you believe Dr. Caner was a Muslim and was a devout Muslim. Thank God. Now, are you going to call for Dr. Ascol and Dr. White to repent of their blatant lies they have posted concerning Dr. Caner?

Blessings,
Tim

[TRB]

Peter:

Couple of observations: I've noticed over the past few days the blogging about Caner has really died down--very few new posts anywhere. I was beginning to think the strategy of ignoring it until it died was working--until you raised it again. Not sure why you felt it necessary to do so.

I was wondering what you meant here: "I want the hard evidence in my hand. Period. And, understand: we're not referring to an artifact of history but a man's life and service."

Do you not consider the legal documents linked on a number of websites establishing Caner's early history and audio/video tapes from a number of speaking engagements to be "hard evidence in my hand"?

Or when you say "we're not referring to an artifact of history"--does that mean the hard evidence cannot be a historical document if it conflicts with your perception of a "man's life and service"?

TRB

[Darby Livingston]

"Do you know that Jesus Christ loves you even though you are casting aspersions on one of His servants?"

This is the height of duplicity. There are several frequent commenters on this blog that blast Wade Burleson every chance they get, pointing out his inconsistencies, arguing every fine point of his posts, impugning his character, questioning his motives, to which I say, "Do you know that Jesus Christ loves you even though your are casting aspersions on one of His servants?"

There is one bottom line to all this drivel. Why will you guys on this blog refuse to demand consistency with Caner when you so vehemently demand it of others. Egun Caner is on record claiming two different childhoods. That's not conspiracy and it's not just misunderstanding or mistatement. You don't know where you were born? He said he was born in two different places and called himself a sand monkey. There isn't much sand in Sweden or Columbus. Why does no one care about blatant lies? When did that become acceptable for preachers of the gospel?

[Tom Parker]

Peter:

Tim G, will really appreciate your posting on this as he is tired of this story being kept alive.

[Richard]

Dude, when video documentation shows Ergun claiming to have been born both in Stockholm, Sweden as well as Istanbul, Turkey, we have major problems.

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter and Tim,

First, I don't know what exactly Ascol or White have said exactly. If they said that Ergun was never a Muslim then I think it would definitely be right for them to apologize to Ergun.

Second, I am not condemning anyone. If you read my post at SBC Voices you can see that I have given Ergun the benefit of the doubt when I think it is appropriate. The problem is that his conflicting stories can't be pushed under the rug in the name of "giving the benefit of the doubt." I have never had an issue with Caner. I attend his school and I am thankful for it.

I have in no way "condemned Ergun." My post clearly says that I would just like him to either clarify(in a clear, blunt way) his childhood or just apologize for giving false testimony. I don't think Ergun should lose his job over this, but I do think he should apologize if he lied about his testimony of his childhood.

I don't understand when Christian brothers are willing to give some a free pass when they have lied(if they have) and yet condemn others. If Ascol and White have said things that are clearly false about Ergun, which if they said he was never a Muslim they have, then they should publicly apologize so we can move on. If Ergun has said things that are false about his testimony/childhood, which it appears he has, then he should publicly apologize so we can move on.

This whole thing is nonsense. I don't know how we got hear. SBC leaders calling each others name, people lying about their testimony, etc... It's sad.

I don't like being painted as a "calvinist hater" just because I am asking questions that I think are legitimate. I think you have to be completely blind to not realize Ergun has given conflicting testimonies about his own life. I dont ask the question because he doesnt like Calvinism. I go to his school and all the professors I have had have been very kind to me and in no way have "mistreated me" because I am a calvinist. I ask these questions of Caner because it is an issue of honesty. I would ask the same questions to Dr. Moore, Denny Burk, etc if it was them in this situation.

I do think in Erguns own mind and heart he was a devoted Muslim, which is all that matters. I have never "changed my questions." My questions have always been, "Ergun, will you please either 1) clarify your testimony so that this will go away or 2) apologize for saying things that are untrue about your testimony, then clarify it so that this will go away." The whole question of was he a muslim or a devout muslim is nonsense to me, which I said in my own post at SBC Voices as well. The question that is important, which is the same question that hasnt been answered is simply, "Ergun, what was your childhood?" When he answers that appropriately we will either move on or ask him to apologize for lying and then move on. It really is that simple.

Pride and egos seem to be getting in the way. I don't just mean that with Ergun, either. People on both sides seem to be more concerned with protecting themselves then getting to the truth.

Sorry for such a long response.

Peter- thank you for allowing me to comment have a cordial conversation.

I am not "after Caner." I am "after the truth."

Matt

[Tom Parker]

Peter:

I would say that it is Tim G who keeps interjecting himself into this very sad story.

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

Also, can you explain how having conflicting stories doesnt demonstrate Caners guilt?

Usually if I say in one place, "I was born in Africa" and in another place say, "I was born in Italy" those conflicting stories would show me to have lied.

Does that not work here? Or is the sky both blue and red? If one place Ergun says, "I lived in Turkey" and yet documents seem to show that he hasn't- would that not make him guilty?

Maybe this will be easier- In your eyes, what would make Ergun "guilty" in this situation?

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

Feel free to delete my comment posted at 7:10. I misread what you wrote which means I responded to something you didnt even say. I apologize.

[Darby Livingston]

"In your eyes, what would make Ergun "guilty" in this situation?"

I can't believe you have to ask Matt. Ergun would obviously be guilty if he were a Founder's calvinist or a liberal Burlesite. :)Duh.

[peter]

Darby,

"There isn't much sand in Sweden or Columbus. Why does no one care about blatant lies? When did that become acceptable for preachers of the gospel?"

Once again, I don't know how to state any clearer what I stated earlier to Matt: "From my standpoint, it is not at all wrong to raise questions in the Caner scenario. What is blatantly against both Scripture and reason is to pronounce and condemn a man because there exist as you've dubbed them, "conflicting stories about [one's] childhood..." Conflicting stories about Caner's childhood no more demonstrate Caner's guilt as "fake" than alleged "conflicting stories" skeptics raise surrounding our Lord's birth establish the gospel narratives "fake" and/or fraud."

Whether or not you agree with my reasoning or whether you think I'm duplicitous is, for me, beside the point. That's life.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Matt,

After reading your last statement, I realized you are pulling the same junk by using "double speak". Instead of acknowledging that Dr. Ergun and Emir Caner were former devout Muslims, you say; "I do think in Erguns own mind and heart he was a devoted Muslim". Your problem persists. You are not acknowledging they were devout Muslims, when it is proven by the very documents that you want us to believe. If you cannot believe the documents point to his being devout, then why should we believe the documents?

Also, your little covering phrase, "if" like there isn't anything out there that says they have. You say;

If Ascol and White have said things that are clearly false about Ergun, which if they said he was never a Muslim they have, then they should publicly apologize so we can move on.

You then use this same phrase for Dr. Caner's supposedly false statements, but you add that you know they are false. You are clearly using "double speak" to make your point.

Matt, this has been investigated by LU. You have had no less than Dr. Elmer Townes to publicly state that their investigation turned up nothing immoral or unethical. Are you now going to question Dr. Townes' ethics? Are you not going to accept the CT article? Or, could it be that you were some that were behind getting the CT to do the article and it did not turn out like you wanted it? Is that the reason that you are not willing to let this move on? You say you search for truth but you depend on a Muslim, known for doing all he can to discredit Christians, for your information.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter]

TRB,

Thanks. I actually did not "raise the issue" again. I pointed to Pastor Guthrie's piece of new information--pertinent information I might add--which no one to my knowledge had revealed.

Second, yes, audio/video data would be considered evidence, but only to raise questions (as I said earlier) but not enough to establish guilt. One of the sorriest debacles in this entire fiasco, for me, is to condemn based upon insufficient evidence.

In addition, I refuse to publicly condemn a man a fake short of not only the most substantiated evidence, but also enough substantiated evidence that no reasonable doubt exists in my mind that it could be otherwise.

Finally, as for the distinction I made between an artifact of history on the one hand and a person's life and ministry on the other, I was merely suggesting the raw significance of ruining a man's life and making premature judgments on inanimate objects about which we may be raising questions.

Hope this helps. If not, I'm afraid it'll have to do.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. please note my comment guidelines on identities. thanks!

[peter]

Richard,

Not sure toward which "dude" you refer. If you have a comment about anything I've written, please be specific.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Tim,

I am not using double speak. My point in saying, "in his own heart and mind" is that it is only there that knows whether or not he was a devout Muslim. I AM acknowledging that he was a devout Muslim. Why? Because the only place that knows says he is- his own heart and mind.

I hope that clears up the confusion. I am not using that line as a "way out" or anything. I am unapologetically saying that Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner was a devout muslim before becoming a Christian. I can't get any clearer.

Also, I depend on a Muslim? What are you talking about? I have never been to MK's website and I never will go there. I get most of my information from the research that Jason Smathers has done. So please dont say things that are simply untrue.

I said "if" about White and Ascol because I havent seen or heard them say that Caner wasnt a Muslim. I have heard they said it, but I havent seen it for myself. So, when I see evidence that Ascol and White have said taht Caner was never a Muslim I will call for them to publicly apologize to Ergun.

I am not willing to move on because the most important questions havent been answered. See my most recent blog post on SBC Voices for more details.

In Christ
Matt

[Matt Svoboda]

Tim,

We do know that some things are false...

Example: official documents prove that he never lived in Turkey. Yet, Ergun Caner has said that he did live in Turkey. We know that this is false.

Agree? If we cant agree on this, Im not sure why we are having this conversation. He has without question said in the past that he lived in Turkey and yet official documents prove otherwise. Anyone who cannot admit that is not even trying to see the truth.

I would be SOOO happy if Ergun would just come out and say, "I never lived in Turkey. I am sorry for saying that I did. Im not sure why I did, maybe I felt like it would leave a bigger impact. Anyways, I apologize for my deceitfulness."

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that at least on this one point we know that Ergun said something that was false.

[peter]

Matt,

A) You assert you don’t know “what exactly Ascol or White have said exactly.”  Well, that is not the impression you gave back in Feb.  There you indicated you knew enough about White & Ascol to state I misrepresented both.  And, if I recall, that was the post you continued to call me a hypocrite (was it four times or just three?  can’t remember…;^) (//link).

B) While you say you are not “condemning anyone” I’m willing to give you the benefit of a doubt.  However, if you’re not, what did you mean when you wrote: “If you go to Jason Smathers blog he gives you proof that Ergun has lied about his biography and testimony” (emphasis mine //link). 

Or, even take your little analogy your pitched my way concerning Mohler in the first comment on this thread: “Peter, I have a feeling if Mohler or someone like him lied extensively about their childhood you would be asking for them to be fired and for them to publicly apologize” (italics mine). 

The assumption, of course, concerning the hypothetical scenario pitched my way is established guilt exists on Mohler’s account (hypothetical, obviously).  That’s the only way I can see which makes your intended test for duplicity on my behalf to make sense.

Not to mention your implicit indictment in your last comment, “If Ergun has said things that are false about his testimony/childhood, which it appears he has, then he should publicly apologize so we can move on.” 

So, Matt, it is hardly as clear that you are *not condemning* Caner as you seem to suggest. At best, your statements are conflicting. 

By the way, if I am correct, since there is a reasonable discrepancy in what you’ve written, would I be justified in asserting that you are now a liar because of these discrepancies? Interestingly, that’s precisely what I see at play in the White-Kaufman-Burleson-Kahn coalition to discredit Caner—the assertion of guilt without the establishment of guilt. 

C).  You assert this whole thing is nonsense.  I agree much of it is nonsense, especially the nonsense of asserting guilt without establishing guilt.  No one—and I mean no one—would want to be treated as the Caners have been treated.  People have readily assumed guilt. 

Here’s a good one:  had my final draft been published for my book when it went to the publisher, were the criteria presently used against the Caners used against me, I would have been proclaimed a liar and a fake.  Why?  I confused my dates on conversion and call to ministry.  I was able to change it only because of a technicality on their end.

D).  I haven’t the faintest idea what you mean by being painted a “calvinist hater.” I’ve never used that term in my conversations to my knowledge. What I have done is followed the Christianity Today article, connecting “Reformed bloggers” teaming with “Muslim” critics in denouncing Caner.

E).  You assert, “I think you have to be completely blind to not realize Ergun has given conflicting testimonies about his own life.”  Both Tim and I acknowledged the occasion of ‘asking questions.’  What both of us deny, I’m confident, is establishing guilt before answers have been given.  And, know this: even if answers are never forthcoming, while the appearance of guilt may be more pronounced, it does not necessarily mean guilt is established.  It’s just that simple for me. So far as I am concerned, there may be militating circumstances that prohibit all things coming out.  I don’t know.  I do know I’m unwilling to hurl the label “liar,” “deceiver,”  or “fake” without the strongest moral compulsion.

F).  You assert, “The whole question of was he a muslim or a devout muslim is nonsense to me.”  Interestingly that was precisely M. Khan’s answer above and he has a site devoted to proving Caner a fake ex muslim!  In addition, know that it most definitely was not nonsense to White, Ascol, Kaufman, Burleson. 

G).  Yes, Matt, and I along with a few others were accused of the same thing about “protecting themselves” than “getting to the truth” when I was offering defense of the relentless attempt of Burleson-Duren-Cole coalition to bring Paige Patterson down.  What was entirely humorous in all was, I had never meet Paige Patterson.  Not once.  My approach was to demonstrate their evidence--while perhaps raising questions--could not establish guilt, the very approach I use now with Caner.  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.  If I perceived as sticking my head in the sand, so be it.  

F). Finally, you assert you seek the “truth.”  So do I brother.  But apostolic wisdom says to me, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” 

With that, I am…

Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

First, I apologize for calling you a hypocrite on the other thread. Even though I strongly disagreed with your post it was not right of me. I apologize.

While I dont have the time or energy to answer you point by point I will say a couple of things...

1) The evidence is obvious that he said he lived in Turkey, but he never did. So let me ask you Peter- did he lie about living in Turkey? You say guilt must be established... At least on this one point it HAS been established.

I have never "assumed" guilt on Caner. I have given him the benefit of the doubt in many areas. The two blogs I have written on the subject prove that. But, guilt has been established on some points and it is on those points that I am asking the questions.

If they guilt has in some way been wrongly established then Caner should easily be able to correct them in a clear, blunt way. If they havent been wrongly established then Caner should simply publicly apologize so we can all move on. Can you really say NO guilt has been established? If your answer is yes the only logical conclusion is that you are simply ignoring the evidence that has been given.

2) Right... Some people should not be treating the Caners as they are. I made this same point on the blog I wrote today. They are in the family of God and they should be treated accordingly.

3) My term "calvinist hater" wasnt a direct quotation of something you said, but it is somewhat accurate of how some Caner supporters are painting those of us asking questions. My questions have nothing to do with me being a 4-point Calvinist. I know for some people this is a "vendetta" to get back at the anti-calvinist, but its not for me and I dont deserve to be thrown into that group.

4) I know that it was not nonsense to White, Ascol, Burleson, and Kaufman whether or not Ergun was a devout muslim. But I dont care what is or isnt nonsense to them. It is nonsense to me. It seems dumb to me to debate something that only Ergun can no for sure. If in his own heart and mind he was a devout muslim then he was! That ends that!

5) Maybe the only difference between you and I is whether or not we think any guilt has been established. I think on some of the points raised guilt has been established. On other points guilt is assumed and those points should be done away with. But, the points where guilt has been established, in my mind, should be answered appropriately.

[Andrew Disque]

Matt,
Dude this guy is a pathological liar. Just keep posting at SBC Voice as you have and ignore him. He's a fool and an embarrassment to the SBC

Think of it: he is so obsessed with answering James White that he creates a site JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE. Is this a balanced individual we should be consulting for an opninion?

Peter:

Ask 20 random people where they were born and they will give you 20 correct reponses, unless one of them is Ergun Caner, in which case you cannot know if he is telling the truth (sine he replies Instanbul sometimes and Sweden other times). And Caner doesn't accept any follow-up questions about this.

But we don't know if he's lying. RIGHT?

[D]

I am trying to keep an open mind in all of this hoping the best about a brother in Christ but I would like to know a couple of things:

1. Did Ergun Caner claim to have lived in Turkey? Someone direct me to proof that he made this claim please.

2. Did he actually ever live in Turkey? Again I would like to see proof one way or another.

I do not know the whole issue so I really am asking I have no intention to argue with anyone.

[volfan007]

Matt,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 99.9% sure that you told me in another blog...I believe it was SBC Voices...that you were NOT a Calvinist. Yet, here you make the statement..."I go to his school and all the professors I have had have been very kind to me and in no way have "mistreated me" because I am a calvinist."

Matt, I'm almost sure that you told me that you were not a Calvinist at SBC Voices. Brother, this is not a "got'cha" thing. It's just a "scratching my head and wondering what's up with that" thing.

David

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Matt,

Example: official documents prove that he never lived in Turkey. Yet, Ergun Caner has said that he did live in Turkey. We know that this is false.

First, what is living to a kid? My daughter was born in Durham, but when she speaks of her childhood one would think she grew up there? Why, those were fond memories that she has.

Second, how can you say; "we know that this is false"? There is an affidavit signed that charges Dr. Caner's father with trying to take him to Turkey. How does this prove that Dr. Caner never went to Turkey before then?

Third, and this is the strongest one for me, Liberty University had all of this information as they performed their investigation. Are you now going to say that Liberty University is making false statements? You know,it seems that LU is his employer. The last I checked they were an autonomous Baptist entity. What right or authority does anyone have to call for them to fire the president of their seminary?

Fourth, Matt, you placed on your Twitter account the following:

I got an email from a writer for Christianity Today-he's writing something on Ergun Caner and wants to interview me...Should be interesting.

If you are not trying to tear down a brother, then what was your meaning of "should be interesting"?

Fifth, just to recognize our Calvinist brethren. You say that you do not know where Dr. Tom Ascol or James White said that Dr. Caner was not a former Muslim. Tom Ascol used his Twitter account to promote a book by a former Muslim and he said; 'Finally a book about Islam by a former Muslim that really was one'. What does that say about his feelings concerning the Caners? James White has said he doesn't believe they were former Muslims so many times just visit his site I am sure you can find it withing 2 minutes of reading anything over there.

Matt, if you truly want to let this drop, then drop it. LU has investigated and made a public statement. Accept it, let's move on and I promise if anything in the future comes up where he states anything wrong, I will be the first on your wagon driving your train. But, I will not tear down another man's ministry just because some Calvinist/Muslim coalition has a vendetta to prove.

Blessings,
Tim

[Wade Burleson]

Peter

You say the problem with the Caner issue is "the assertion of guilt" without the "establishment of guilt."

I would ask your readers to read this article and compare it to this article. Which article uses more facts and testimony from the public record? Which article uses more words and testimony from Dr. Caner himself? Which article establishes fact?

Could it be that the real problem is the assertion of innocence without the establishment of innocence?

[peter]

Matt,

Thanks. No problem.

By the way, at least a hypocrite is less grievous to me than a "pathological liar" one of James White's guppies logs about me here and another I am a "liar, law-breaker, and God-hater" elsewhere.  Sweet.

Anyways, Matt, while you confess you have neither the time nor energy to answer me "point by point" here, you had the time to write an entire blog elsewhere. I think that's great. But shifting the conversation elsewhere only to leave a conversation dangling here strikes me as very odd.

Also, when you say you do not have time nor energy to "respond" but would like to say a "couple of things" I think it would have been better to address my actual post to you. One particular you overlooked is this:

"So, Matt, it is hardly as clear that you are *not condemning* Caner as you seem to suggest. At best, your statements are conflicting.  By the way, if I am correct, since there is a reasonable discrepancy in what you’ve written, would I be justified in asserting that you are now a liar because of these discrepancies?"

Care to respond?

More importantly, Matt, you've continued to insist on this thread you've not condemned Caner:

“I have in no way condemned Caner” (italics mine). 

But I showed at least three instances where your assertion is questionable:

• “If you go to Jason Smathers blog he gives you proof that Ergun has lied about his biography and testimony.”
• the analogy your pitched my way concerning Mohler in the first comment on this thread, concerning which the only way I can see which makes sense is if it is assumed Mohler is guilty
• “If Ergun has said things that are false about his testimony/childhood, which it appears he has, then he should publicly apologize so we can move on.

You now come back once again and state in your last comment,

“The evidence is obvious that he said he lived in Turkey, but he never did…at least on this one point, it HAS been established.” (embolden mine, caps original). 

Just what are you saying, Matt, because I’m entirely confused?

On the one hand you insist, “I have in no way condemned Caner” and on the other hand, it has been established Caner lied.

I think you need to write a post at SBC Voices and explain the confusion you’ve created if you can find no time or energy to do so here, Matt.

Even so, I’d like to ask how you are absolutely certain Ergun Caner did not live in Turkey?  You boldly pronounce that it has been established that at least on this point, Ergun Caner lied.  How do you know, Matt?  What is the undeniable, hard fact which led you to this conclusion?

Suppose, for example, Ergun Caner & family lived in Sweden (where Ergun was born) and travelled back and forth often to Turkey.  Suppose further they had family in Turkey and many times would have long, extended stays in Turkey, so long in fact, that it is perfectly honorable to say “We live in Turkey. We also live in Sweden.” 

Do not college students say the very same thing every day on the college campus? “I live in Louisville.  I also live in Louisiana.” Who would think of ravaging a college student's integrity by suggesting he or she lied even if his or her living away from home way was only temporary? 

Suppose the Caner family’s life long dream was to make Turkey their permanent home.  Suppose they even had cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. living there. 

Suppose when Ergun Caner moved to USA, he went back and forth regularly to Turkey with his dad or other family members.  Suppose he had extended stays there.  Suppose while there, he, in fact, was a part of an entrance level ‘jihadist’ group which brainwashes young  Muslim boys.  Suppose his dad encouraged him to try it out.  Suppose every trip he travelled to Turkey, Ergun excitedly anticipated even the few days he could attend the “training camp.” Suppose further legal documents exist that shows Ergun’s migration to America is Turkish origin.

Now, I do not know if the above is completely accurate as I have supposed.  What I do know is this:  were the above reasonable accurate, only the most belligerent, literalistic nincompoop  would unalterably conclude it is undeniably established Ergun did not live in Turkey. Ergun lied.

Oh, yes Matt, contrary, to your denial, you assume, along with others, a heck of a lot when you state “The evidence is obvious that he said he lived in Turkey, but he never did…at least on this one point, it HAS been established.” (embolden mine, caps original). You, along with others, as your own words demonstrate, condemn Caner as a liar (though for some odd reason you continue to deny you do).

Hence, no, Matt, I am not “ignoring evidence” as you suggest.  Rather I am cautiously making no conclusions where the evidence does not warrant.  And, we’d be much better off, I honestly think, if others followed principled caution rather than premature condemnation.  In biblical terms, it’s called loving thy neighbor as thyself.

As for the ‘calvinist hater’ please drop explaining it to me and how you don’t fit the mold.  I have not used it.  What I did do was follow CT’s article in connecting “Reformed bloggers” and “Muslims” in their teamed attack on Caner.

With that, I am…

Peter

[aaron]

This whole thing is sad.

[Kendall]

Peter,
You said,
"Indeed you're actually spot on: "if Mohler or someone like him lied extensively about their childhood you would be asking for them to be fired..." Yes indeed.
And, know this: if enough hard facts were established that Caner "lied extensively about [his] childhood," while unlike Mohler or another who serves an entity of the SBC (and may receive a public word from me on serving our denomination), I would nonetheless think it unconscionable that a reputable school like LBTS--or other reputable Christian or non-Christian schools for that matter--would allow his continued employment.
Even so, Liberty is publicly on record as stating they'd investigated the matter and not found sufficient evidence to justify the critics' claims contra Caner."

Peter,
So do you believe that Ergun came to America in 1978? There is over 12 pieces of evidence where Ergun claimed that he came to America in 1978 and yet there is plenty contrary evidence that he came before August 1970 (Emir’s birthday). No doubt he was raised Muslim but the problem is that he lied about his childhood. He was no older than four when he came to America.
Why can’t Ergun or Elmer make a public announcement regarding this? On 4-26-10 Focus on the Family aired a sermon from 2001 in which Ergun said he came here in 1978… the problem has not been corrected.

[Matt Svoboda]

Tim,

I am not sure how you get that I am tearing down a brother in Christ for thinking that getting interviewed by CT was interesting. That is quite the logical leap. While I have been guilty of it in the past it is never wise to assume the motives of others.

Peter,

First, when I wrote my blog post I did have time and energy- it was much earlier in the evening then when I told you that I didnt have the time or energy to respond point by point.

So, am I condemning Ergun Caner?

On points where guilt has merely been assumed I am in no way condemning Caner, but have given him the benefit of the doubt.

On points where guilt has been clearly established I am not "condemning him", but merely asking for a response by him! I have said that I dont think he should be fired for all of this, but he should clarify his testimony and apologize for the times that he was deceitful about his story. There are points that it certainly appears that Ergun has said conflicting things. He should answer for those things. All he has to do is clarify his story and apologize for the times he said things that were untrue. I don't get what is so hard about this.

[peter]

Wade,

I'm surprised you're still speaking out on this since you swore off the subject. But, I'll bite:

First, you confuse my term "establishment of guilt" with "establishing facts." My point was and remains Caner's critics have definitively not established guilt of lying. What's they've done is employed discrepancies to pronounce him guilty, not prove him guilty. There is a huge difference about which you are presumably aware.

For example, biblical skeptics routinely assume the Bible is guilty of error unless proven innocent. Yeah. Right. I don't think I'll be conceding to him or her such a privileged assumption, a death blow to meaningful apologetics.

Even in reading and/or evaluating other literary documents there is the principle known as the "benefit of doubt." An author is presumed innocent of contradiction if reasonable explanations exist which account for the discrepancy, and should remain so until sufficient evidence makes it contradictory without a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, the presumption of innocence on every American defendant charged with crime stands at the heart of our criminal justice system. Yet, according to you, the fundamental problem facing us should rather be, "the assertion of innocence without the establishment of innocence?" This is both legally and morally absurd, Wade.

And, recall Paige Patterson who was repeatedly pronounced by you, Cole, and some of your other buds as guilty. Indeed even after a court of law found him not guilty (i.e, innocent)--or in your words, Wade, established his innocence--you nonetheless went right on pronouncing him guilty. Hurray for your stated principle, Wade!

Now, since you, Tom Ascol, James White, Debbie Kaufman, Mohammad Kahn, and a host of others have explicitly dubbed Ergun Caner a liar and a fake ex muslim, why don't you publicly apologize for your false charge?

Then, we can talk about which article quotes more facts.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Kendall]

Peter,

I would love to hear your response to my last post?

Thank you

[peter]

Kendall,

I think you may have overlooked comments I've written here. You write: "No doubt he was raised Muslim but the problem is that he lied about his childhood.

This is your deduction based on what you assume are contradictory events. While are contradictions are discrepancies, not all discrepancies are contradictions.

Hence, I refuse to potentially slander a brother based on what may be very reasonable explanations for the discrepancies. Raising questions should never devolve to proclaiming guilt. Ergun Caner has been smeared.

Indeed those in the beginning of this debacle--Mohammed Khan, James White, and Tom Ascol--who explicitly denied Caner was an ex muslim are getting a free pass from those on this blog who continue to harp about Caner. Where is justice? Accountability? on their behalf for smearing Ergun Caner by explicitly stating Caner is a fake ex muslim?

Indeed I would be the first in line to talk about some possible other discrepancies in dates in Caner's chronology. But not before the the main point is settled--Ergun Caner is an ex muslim. Khan, Ascol, White, Kaufman, Burleson needs to publicly come clean about that before I'm willing to move on.

For me, it's that simple. One has no moral right to trash another man's life and then subtly attempt to move on to other questions.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Sorry to get back so late...

[Kendall]

But Peter, you said,

"Indeed you're actually spot on: "if Mohler or someone like him lied extensively about their childhood you would be asking for them to be fired..." Yes indeed.

I just wish you and Tim G would at least agree that Ergun has lied about when he came to America. Why? Because he has publically stated on many occasions that he came in 1978 when it was before August of 1970 (Emir's birthday in the states).

Do you think he should clarify for everyone that he lied about when he came to America and that he actually came in 1969 or 70?

[peter]

Matt,

The problem here is your continued ducking of the questions I asked. 

From my perspective, there is a clear waffling taking place Matt.  I’m going to show this once more:

Your own words:

• “If you go to Jason Smathers blog he gives you proof that Ergun has lied about his biography and testimony.”
• the analogy your pitched my way concerning Mohler in the first comment on this thread, concerning which the only way I can see which makes sense is if it is assumed Mohler is guilty
• “If Ergun has said things that are false about his testimony/childhood, which it appears he has, then he should publicly apologize so we can move on.
• “The evidence is obvious that he said he lived in Turkey, but he never did…at least on this one point, it HAS been established.” (embolden mine, caps original). 

Matt, you have blatantly condemned Ergun Caner as a liar.  Your own words demonstrate this.  Yet you continually assert, ““I have in no way condemned Caner” (italics mine).

And your last comment only offers more fog:  “On points where guilt has been clearly established I am not "condemning him", but merely asking for a response by him!” If you can demonstrate how guilt about lying can be “clearly established” apart of condemnation for lying, I’d like to hear it. 

Now, the second part of my last response, you clearly ducked as well.  Let me repeat it:

Even so, I’d like to ask how you are absolutely certain Ergun Caner did not live in Turkey?  You boldly pronounce that it established that at least on this point, Ergun Caner lied.  How do you know, Matt?  What is the undeniable, hard fact which led you to this conclusion?

Suppose, for example, Ergun Caner & family lived in Sweden (where Ergun was born) and travelled back and forth often to Turkey.  Suppose further they had family in Turkey and many times would have long, extended stays in Turkey, so long in fact, that it is perfectly honorable to say “We live in Turkey. We also live in Sweden.” 

Do not college students say the very same thing every day on the college campus? “I live in Louisville.  I also live in Louisiana.” 

Suppose the Caner family’s life long dream was to make Turkey their permanent home.  Suppose they even had cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. living there. 

Suppose when Ergun Caner moved to USA, he went back and forth regularly to Turkey with his dad or other family members.  Suppose he had extended stays there.  Suppose while there, he, in fact, was a part of an entrance level ‘jihadist’ group which brainwashes young  Muslim boys.  Suppose his dad encouraged him to try it out.  Suppose every trip he travelled to Turkey, Ergun excitedly anticipated even the few days he could attend the “training camp.” Suppose further legal documents exist that shows Ergun’s migration to America is Turkish origin.

Now, I do not know if the above is completely accurate as I have supposed.  What I do know is this:  were the above reasonable accurate, only the most belligerent, literalistic nincompoop  would unalterably conclude it is undeniably established Ergun did not live in Turkey. Ergun lied.

Oh, yes Matt, contrary, to your denial, you assume, along with others, a heck of a lot when you state “The evidence is obvious that he said he lived in Turkey, but he never did…at least on this one point, it HAS been established.” (embolden mine, caps original). You, along with others, as your own words demonstrate, condemn Caner as a liar (though for some odd reason you continue to deny you do).

Hence, no, Matt, I am not “ignoring evidence” as you suggest.  Rather I am cautiously making no conclusions where the evidence does not warrant.  And, we’d be much better off, I honestly think, if others followed principled caution rather than premature condemnation.  In biblical terms, it’s called loving thy neighbor as thyself” (//link).

Now, if you’d rather not deal with my comments, Matt, just say so or don’t reply.  However, please do not come back playing the fiddle that you’ve been quite clear in what you’re suggesting, implying I just am not getting it.  Either show me how I’m not getting it by dealing with the above, or let’s call this exchange quits.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Wade Burleson]

Peter,

You write to me: You confuse my term "establishment of guilt" with "establishing facts."

? You obfuscate so much, Peter, you are confusing yourself.

You wrote in your 10:44 p.m. comment above:

I agree much of it is nonsense, especially the nonsense of asserting guilt without establishing guilt.

It seems you are the one confusing facts and guilt. :)

[peter]

Kendall,

I fail to see your point about Mohler. As with Matt (who brought it up), the assumption is, "Mohler extensively lied..." (hypothetically). I do not assume Caner "extensively lied" and for you and/or Matt to do so is the simple begging of the question.

Once again, it has definitively not been established Caner lied about his childhood--extensively or otherwise. Such deduced assertion is a conflation of two different dates that very well could have reasonable explanations for the discrepancy.

Hence, to conclude intentional fabrication on Caner's behalf is non sequitur. As well it should be. I possess no moral right to denigrate another human being without sufficient evidence void of reasonable doubt.

We're much to quick to execute. I want no part of it.

Now, Kendall, whether or not you agree with me is fine. However, I don't know what else to say.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Dear Wade,

You made my day. I obfuscate. Well, that's just peachy!

Just like with Caner being accused of lying without sufficient evidence, so now you assert I "obfuscate" without sufficient evidence. Though it's surely not funny, I'd bet Dr. Caner would trade accusations with me in a West Georgia minute.

My advice is, Wade, when you can show how I have been unclear or I 'obfuscate' I'll be glad to listen. Until you can, please refrain yourself. More important matters are at stake.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Kendall]

Peter, just for one aspect of this whole controversy, do you believe Ergun is telling the truth when he says he came to America in 1978?

If you heard him say on many, many occasions that he came to America in 78 but it actually it was 69 or 70, do you think he should set the record straight?

[scott shaffer]

Liberty isn't done investigating this mess. Check out this.

Makes you wonder about the first inquiry.

[Kendall]

Peter, you said, "Just like with Caner being accused of lying without sufficient evidence..."

What evidence would you accept that Ergun has lied for years about when he came to America?
What about from 6 sermons dating from 2001 until 2009?

[Michelle]

I guess I'm on a role here today (my 2nd comment). I have not heard anything bad about Caner before, and was dissappointed to hear that there was any controversy surrounding him. I have no idea what the "inconsistencies" of his testimony are (or are not).

Having heard a sermon by him before from when he preached at Woodstock, and sharing it with my (non practicing)muslim brother-in-law...who is from Turkey nonetheless, I wish these kinds of controversies were not (apparently) being so publically debated by the naysayers.

I appreciate you, Peter, for not being willing to jump in and condemn him if there's no evidence to condemn him.

I hope that my brother in law never reads any of the surrounding controversy about Caner.

[Drpenn]

I think you are right. They baptist calvinists or the calvinist jihad will not give up. James White is a tantrum thrower deluxe. He will continue spewing his garbage because it is all he knows how to do.

Some of my own thoughts on the matter:
http://wp.me/pIKnh-5d

and

http://wp.me/pIKnh-4V

In Christ - Diana (drpenn)

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

I did not even try to address your second point because you really don't have one. The man said, "I lived in Turkey." Evidence shows he did not live in Turkey. Saying, "I lived in Turkey" and "I have family in Turkey which I visited" are two VERY different things. You lump them together as if the distinction makes no difference.

I have visited Family in Kansas before(frequently), but I have never said that I lived there. Why? Because I never did. If I did say that I lived there than I would be lying.

I do not condemn Ergun on points in which guilt has been assumed. On points in which it has been proven and that guilt has been established it is not me who is condemning, but the evidence. The very evidence that anyone seeking the truth can clearly see.

Your logic in this discussion is somewhat baffling to me. I have no idea how you could accept someone saying they lived somewhere, when all they did is visit there. Surely, Ergun knows the difference, but I could be wrong. Maybe Ergun thinks he has lived in every place that he has visited in for preaching and teaching. That man moves a lot!

While you resort to name calling I will not. Good day, Peter. I am calling it quits.

Matt

[peter]

Matt,

Calling names? Employing a metaphor like 'playing the fiddle' is name calling? Matt, please. At least keep the conversation reasonable.

Now, It's perhaps best you are done. Why? Once again you log on and completely by-pass the points I've raised with you 3 separate times. You evidently think your addressing my comments. You are not.

Here is the simple truth: Matt, you are speaking nonsense when you affirm a) I do not condemn Ergun Caner as a liar and, at the same time, pronounce b)Ergun Caner a liar. Ignore it all you wish. But if you are not going to deal with your own problems in communication, I'd advise you to forfeit your right to deal with somebody else's--especially the alleged problems of Dr. Caner.

Next, you think you can get around another problem by boldly proclaiming, "I did not even try to address your second point because you really don't have one."

O.K. Forget the point (even though it was part of the question) and answer the question I've now asked three times, Matt...a question you continue to duck--How you are absolutely certain Ergun Caner did not live in Turkey? How do you know, Matt? What is the undeniable, hard fact which demands this conclusion?

You have not said. All you have done is stated "it has been established." And your last assertion is as impotent as your former one: "Evidence shows he did not live in Turkey." What evidence, Matt? That's a simple question you continue to ignore. What evidence?

Now, again, if you're unwilling to face the questions I pose to your conclusion, fine. I have no problem with that. But do not come back here with another comment that does not address these two fundamental questions I've asked of you:

a) your own conflicting statements
b) name the undeniable hard evidence which demands the conclusion Ergun Caner did not live in Turkey.

And, by the way, if you do not like my logic, I'll say to you as I said to Burleson above, either demonstrate where my logic is faulty or move along. Do not clog the thread with baseless bluster.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Matt et al ,

I wanted to make clear to Matt that ignoring problems his conflicting statements were making in our exchange was not going to receive a free pass.  If Matt wants to complain about Caner, he needs to deal with his own contradictory language.  Even so, he brought up a few things in his comment I’d like to now address.

Here are Matt's words: "Saying, "I lived in Turkey" and "I have family in Turkey which I visited" are two VERY different things. You lump them together as if the distinction makes no difference.”

Note, however, what I wrote: “Suppose [Ergun Caner] had family in Turkey and many times would have long, extended stays in Turkey, so long in fact, that it is perfectly honorable to say “We live in Turkey. We also live in Sweden.” 

Unfortunately, Matt ignored my obvious meaning by reducing the “long, extended stay” to a mere “visit.”  I did not say “visit.” Instead, I said, “long, extended stay.”

To distinguish, allow me: My son attended the University of Wales.  He stayed there quite sometime.  Was he merely visiting Wales or did he live in Wales? 

Again, if a doctoral seminary student—say, from NOBTS--receives an Oxford scholarship, and it requires six months abroad, is the student merely visiting Oxford, or could he or she legitimately say, “I lived in England.”

According to Matt, apparently the student would be lying to say, “I lived in England”:

“I [Matt] have visited Family in Kansas before(frequently), but I have never said that I lived there. Why? Because I never did. If I did say that I lived there than I would be lying…Your logic in this discussion is somewhat baffling to me. I have no idea how you could accept someone saying they lived somewhere, when all they did is visit there.” 

One may retort, yes, but one is a student required to stay, and the other is family, etc.  Granted.  My question is, if a young man stays, say 2 months, because of either family or studies or prison or whatever, why is it dishonest to simply assert “I lived in so and so”? For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone could legitimately charge the person with falsehood.

Indeed I challenge any reader to pose the rationale for rejecting what I believe to be a morally valid assertion, “I lived in so and so” while he or she only lived in the place temporarily.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Michele,

You are wise to embrace caution in publicly condemning another before sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is established.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter