Carl Tuttle

I have been around long enough to know that you can communicate something you don't intend to by simply referring to something without explanation. For instance, in my previous post I wrote that I wouldn't be writing about 'the bad' regarding John Wimber. In writing that, I am not trying to imply that I have the goods on John, or some other juicy details that could be revealed. The fact is I spent an extraordinary amount of time with this person and saw him at his best and worst; it would be possible to write about some of these things with a slanted and negative view, and that's what I'm choosing not to do. I have no desire to intentionally cast John in a negative light, that's all. I'm not covering for some dark side, or anything like that. I just want to affirm the good and positive.

The reason I am taking the time to even blog about it is because I think it is an area in which we all have to be careful. By referring to something, without explanation, it is not difficult for others to infer that we have some sort of juicy detail that we aren't willing to reveal. This can cast suspicions on another.

I have seen this played out in the church. For example, a person is talking about someone and the listener questions what is being said. The person communicating then says something to the effect of "Well, you don't know the whole story," leaving the listener with the impression that there are things that they don't know that are negative. I think that is slanderous and malicious, ungodly and not kind. If we can't share the whole thing, in most cases, we shouldn't share anything.

So having seen and even experienced this, I wanted to be clear that there isn't any immoral or sinful thing that I know about John that I am not sharing. It's just simple life stuff that wouldn't add anything to the story, nothing more, nothing less.