Tent Width Oct 25, 2006
Observations on Controversy Oct 24, 2007
First Impressions Dec 5, 2006
Recently, I felt compelled to do a little bit of research on the origin and meaning of the word “endorse.” The title of this post is the Anglo-French word from which the English word is derived, and it apparently has as its most literal meaning “to write on the back of.”
This makes sense when one thinks about the word “dorsal,” describing the back of something, and most commonly the fin on the back of a fish. It also makes sense to me as I remember my high school economics class, where we learned all about endorsing checks. When I endorse a check in order to cash it, I am declaring that no matter what is written on the front of that check, I am good for it. I am binding myself to stand behind it, and if it should turn out to be a worthless document, I will be forced to pay to the penny the amount on that check.
“Endorse” is a transitive verb, and its noun form, “endorsement,” has as the third definition “Sanction, approve,” according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Clearly, endorsements and the act of endorsing are things not to be taken lightly.
I share all this research in light of some highly-touted endorsements of the new incarnation of SBCOutpost. As you probably know, this group blog has been endorsed by three presidents of Southern Baptist Convention entities (and one university president). You might also be aware that writers on this blog have, in the last week, made pointed and direct attacks against the character, intelligence, and leadership of two men who serve as president at other entities.
I thought it might be helpful to share a little about what I’ve learned about the meaning and significance of this word, because I would expect that in short order we will hear, from some defenders of SBCOutpost, assertions of how little those endorsements mean, and condescending statements to the effect that they should not be taken as an approval of everything posted there. In fact, after the endorsements are so minimized, one might be left wondering why they appeared in the first place, meaningless statements that they are.
As a public service, I’ve come up with a little exercise* that will help us all. The image in this post is of a check. It is made out for $1,000, and the “Pay to the order of” line is blank. Print that check out, write your own name on that blank line, endorse it, and cash it at the nearest branch of your bank. Then in a couple of days, when the bank calls to demand that you pay them $1,000 because the check was phony (assuming they don’t laugh in your face to begin with), tell them that just because you “wrote on the back” of that check doesn’t mean you were standing behind what was on the front of it. This will be a lesson you will not soon forget.
*OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: Please do not, under any circumstances,
attempt this exercise. The check, and the signature, are fake.
Wes Kenney
Tent Width Oct 25, 2006
Observations on Controversy Oct 24, 2007
First Impressions Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
Bob Cleveland Jul 30 2007 - 7:19 am
“Endosser” sounds like someone who is trying to make us all go back to MS-DOS as the operating system on all our computers.
Reply
Tim Sweatman Jul 31 2007 - 8:57 pm
“I would expect that in short order we will hear, from some defenders of SBCOutpost, assertions of how little those endorsements mean, and condescending statements to the effect that they should not be taken as an approval of everything posted there.”
I’d hate for you to be disappointed, Wes, so I’ll start. I’ll address the second part of your statement, because I do not believe that the endorsements have little meaning.
It is clear from the statements that these men made in their endorsements that it is the forum, not the content, that they are endorsing. The endorsements of the Outpost by these men reflect their support for an open forum where people with all points of view can dialogue, debate, and even argue about various issues. I’m certain that each of them disagrees with some of what is written and definitely the tone of some of the posts and comments (then again, we as contributors do not always agree among ourselves). When a pastor endorses a book (with a nice quote that is put on the back cover), is he affirming his agreement with or support of everything written in the book or of the tone of the book? When a newspaper endorses a political candidate, does that mean the paper supports every single policy position of that candidate or his/her campaign style?
Reply
Wes Kenney Jul 31 2007 - 9:06 pm
Tim,
I appreciate the effort, but I’m afraid it falls quite short.
First of all, let me address your statement that they were simply expressing “their support for an open forum where people with all points of view can dialogue, debate, and even argue about various issues.”
Each of these men could have made such an endorsement in any number of venues. They could easily have written a “First Person” column endorsing the idea of blogs as venues for dialogue and debate. That they chose to do so on only one of the many blogs that offer such a forum is telling, I think.
As to the two questions you asked, I would answer “yes” and “yes,” respectively. Words mean things, and I’ve carefully laid out what “endorse” means. Endorsements should not be given lightly, because they do carry the significance of being responsible and accountable for that on which one has “written on the back.”
Reply
Tim Sweatman Jul 31 2007 - 9:47 pm
Wes,
That makes you the first person I have ever met who believes that someone who endorses a book is “responsible and accountable” for what is written in that book. So someone who endorses a book must agree with everything it says, someone who endorses a political candidate must agree with every position that candidate takes, someone who endorses a movie must like every single scene in that movie, etc. Must someone who considers himself/herself a fan of a particular singer like every song that singer sings?
I cannot speak for these men about why they placed their endorsement on SBCOutpost. But shouldn’t you just accept the words they have written about their endorsement? After all, words mean things.
Reply
Wes Kenney Aug 1 2007 - 6:10 am
Tim,
Perhaps the extent of our agreement here will be that words have meaning. I am clear on what it means to endorse, and am choosing to believe that those who have endorsed SBC Outpost have done so with integrity, and not with a redefinition of the word.
C.S. Lewis, in the preface to Mere Christianity, laments the loss of the language. He is referring specifically to the misuse of the word “Christian,” and he uses the word “gentleman” as an illustration. It is a word that once had a descriptive meaning, but has been misused:
I hate to see the same happen with the use of the word “endorse.” It has a descriptive meaning, and to the extent that people have used it while intending less that what it actually means, they have done violence to the word.
I cannot speak for everyone who has ever endorsed a book or candidate, but to the extent it has been done without the true meaning of the word in view, it has been employed deceptively. I trust that this is not the case with our entity (and convention) presidents.
Reply
Mike Aug 1 2007 - 9:58 am
Wes, do you have a copy of Grudem’s Systematic Theology?
Grudem is a Reformed Charismatic. His book is writtem with a Reformed Charismatic perspective.
Would you care to look at the second page of the endorsements and locate a certain seminary president who by all accounts is neither Reformed or Charismatic? I hope you are not calling Him deceptive.
Just to keep the record keeping straight…I’m neither an SBCOutpost supporter nor critic, though I’m rapidly becoming a non-reader.
Reply
volfan007 Aug 1 2007 - 10:31 am
while i would agree with some of you in here that just because someone endorses a blog, or a book, doesnt mean that they agree with everything they say and do. but, when i look at a book, and i dont know the author, the ones who are endorsing the book on the back pages or whatever sure carry a lot of wieght with me about whether i buy it or not. i may not think that the endorsers of the book agree with every word of the book, but it makes them seem to agree with the general direction and viewpoint of the book. does it not?
david
Reply