Libertine moralists

Based on rumors that Ergun Caner may be a candidate for the presidency of another SBC educational institution, Jared Moore and Mark Lamprecht have been attempting to forestall that eventuality by reminding people of Caner's past transgressions, for which he remains evasive, impenitent, and even defiant. Moore and Lamprecht are simply endeavoring to maintain minimal standards of ethical purity in a Christian denomination to which they belong. 

To my knowledge, Cancer decided to cash in on 9/11 fervor by recasting himself as a jihadist who converted to Christ. It was a smart career move while it lasted. But from what I've read, critics like James White and Turretinfan have produced stacks of evidence implicating Caner in a scam to reinvent his past. 

And it isn't just outside critics. The fact that Liberty U eased him out, despite the institutional incentive to put the best face on the situation, is independent corroboration.

However, Peter Lumpkins has, once again, been running interference for Caner. Here's what's striking. Lumpkins is a classic example of a legalist and moralist when it comes to teetotalism, but an antinomian libertine when it comes to a genuine ethical issue like Caner's résumé inflation. 

The Pharisees forbad what Scripture permits or prescribes while they permitted or prescribed what Scripture forbids. 

Lumpkins is a modern-day Pharisee. On the one hand, Scripture permits (even praises) moderate alcohol consumption. Conversely, it condemns the kind of blatant, massive fraud that Caner stands accused of. On the other hand, Lumpkins invents a nonexistent virtue (teetotalism) while condemning a nonexistent vice (moderate alcohol consummation). Conversely, he defends genuine wrongdoing. 

Where's the standard of holiness?