Some of my preoccupation with the discussion about distinguishing between ideas and individuals is rooted in what I was doing this week—speaking seven times on the subject of discernment to a group of missionaries. I think this concept is critical to the practice of discernment. Discernment will be damaged if we credit or discredit ideas simply because of who sets them forth. It can work either way. Fools are occasionally right about some things. And wise men occasionally say or do foolish things.
If that’s true, then: (a) doing something wise once doesn’t grant anybody lifetime status as a wise person, and doing something foolish doesn’t consign one to the fools bin for life; and (b) that an idea or action springs from a wise person isn’t a sufficient justification for that idea or action, or that it springs from a fool isn’t a sufficient refutation of that idea or action. The idea or action is what needs to be evaluated. Defenses of that idea or action should focus, as well, on the idea or action, not shift the subject to the thinker or actor.
I’ve already noted that this is easier to say than to do. I’d add that it is not a final rule too—we all will draw conclusions about a person if they regularly say or do foolish things. None of us should make snap judgments based on a limited sample of evidence or that run contrary to a significant amount of evidence. We all, though, do draw conclusions from patterns. Rightly so.
It is also helpful when critiquing anything to give the author the benefit of the doubt until he has proven untrustworthy. So, if he says something like, “There is a lot of talk about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals these days,” then it might be good to assume that the subject is “fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals” and not really about a particular individual, even if individuals are named as representative of one category or another.
It is necessary, too, when you attempt to refute a point to actually address that point, not shift the subject to some other issue. An example:
Doran: “Scotty Bowman made a bad decision when he tried to use Sergei Federov as a defenseman.”
You: “Scotty Bowman won 9 Stanley Cups as a coach, so I think he knows what he is doing.”
Doran: “I am not saying that Scotty Bowman is a bad coach. I said I think he made a bad decision.”
You: “How many Stanley Cups have you won, punk?”
Both of these defenses tend to shift the subject away from the decision itself to the person who made the decision (first answer) or to the person who is critical of it (second answer). IOW, the first defense rests on Scotty’s credibility as a coach and the second defense rests on my lack of credibility as a coach. Obviously, those are, in fact, arguments and they do potentially have some merit, but I hope none of us would give them a definitive place in our judgment. Remember, even wise men can make a foolish decision and even fools can make a wise decision from time to time.
It would be better, though, to offer counterevidence that directly relates to the specific assertion being made. If one asserts, for instance, that naming a pavilion after a man who had a significant hand in the liberalization of a seminary and convention may demonstrate a difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, then counter with arguments that disprove that. If the argument is made that doing this is wrong, then counter with arguments that show that it is proper to do so (or at least not as bad as alleged). Just so we are clear about what I am saying, here’s what I think shouldn’t be done:
Doran: “That conservative evangelicals, like Al Mohler, would honor a man who had a significant hand in the liberalization of SBTS and the SBC may reveal a difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.”
Objector: “Al Mohler has taken a tremendous stand for the faith at great cost to himself and his family.”
Doran: “I am not saying that Al Mohler is a bad man. I said that this decision might reveal a significant difference between two approaches to theological controversy.”
Objector: “Where’s your post about the buildings at BJU that are named after racists?”
Nothing is gained by this kind of counterargument because it is beside the point. Something, though, is lost by it—the question itself. Instead of addressing the question (potential differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals), the topic gets shifted to whether Al Mohler is a good guy or not and whether SBTS is a good seminary or not. Those are legit questions, but not what was being discussed. It is quite possible that one might agree with me that this was a bad decision and still think that Mohler is a good guy and SBTS is a good seminary. Here comes the chorus again—even a wise man can make a foolish decision from time to time.
I’ll close by referring again to Trueman’s point about what’s happening to our culture. I wrote the same thing last week (and posted it on Friday). The tendency to take all disagreements personally is not good. We are in danger of losing the ability for intelligent discourse and debate. It is slightly ironic, in my view, that a post originally intended to highlight a potential difference between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism has revealed a striking similarity between the two—the tendency to justify decisions on the basis of who made them rather than on the quality of the decisions themselves.
