One of the interesting (distressing?) sidebars to the recent conversations about fundamentalism is the difficult matter of naming names for the purposes of expressing appreciation or attaching opprobrium. I call it a difficult matter mainly because I think it is often far less profitable than some others seem to think. This is a blog, so file this in the category of one man’s opinion.
It is completely unprofitable for a preacher to hold up as models of great leadership men whose ministries were marked by theological error and moral failure. I don’t care how big their churches were or how recognizable their names. Doesn’t it smell of hypocrisy to hold up men like this without qualification while demanding disclaimers on everything else?
It is very unprofitable to paint a distorted picture of evangelicals in order to keep fundamentalists away from them. During the course of my adult life, my guess is that I know as many men that have moved toward evangelicalism because of these false representations as have been preserved by them. The misrepresentations that I have heard personally and have had others share with me that they have heard are ridiculous. Isn’t there something really twisted about trying to rally people to the defense of the Truth via distortions and misrepresentations?
It is unprofitable to adopt a “speak no good of my opponents” approach to ministry. I have never heard anybody advocate throwing out qualifiers altogether, but something is wrong with our sub-culture if we cannot mention a book, sermon, or well-known person without making sure that everybody knows that “we are not endorsing everything that this man teaches or does.” Good grief. I’d have to put disclaimers on my own sermons, writings, and probably even in the church bulletin! I imagine I’ll write more on this at a later point, but I personally believe this is one of the most telling marks of spiritual immaturity within our circles.
It is also not profitable to toss names into discussions that don’t need to be tossed into them, especially when we pile them into lists without making careful distinctions. It is very disconcerting to see good men’s names tossed into the same list with Jack Hyles and Bob Gray, whether that list is being held up for honor or rebuke. Whatever my disagreements might be with some of those men, tying them to the likes of Hyles and Gray does a disservice to everybody. Also, it is doubtful that introducing the names of people who were not directly involved in this discussion did much good at all in terms of substantive debate. Looked to me more like rabbit trails than ghost purging.
It seems like we need to find a more profitable way to focus on principles without getting caught up in personalities. No doubt, there are times when names have to be named because the Truth is at stake. I am all for that, and don’t mind at all when that is being done publicly. I suppose the closest thing I can come up with as a guideline would be something like, Be careful when tossing names in for illustrative purposes alone because: (1) you probably aren’t supplying as much detail as you need to support your point, (2) many people will be distracted away from your main point; and (3) a fight will probably break out over whether it was right to have said what you did about that person. So, if you are going to name names, then take it up fully and directly, but be careful about making passing comments that might be perceived as a drive-by shot at someone. I am sure I’ve failed in this regard, but this latest kerfuffle will hopefully help me in the future.
