Often times, when a caution or warning is given about some, the response But he’s a nice guy is given.

That response irritates me because it usually never to the point. As an example, a man goes to a company VP to say that a certain director is micro-managing the people under him. For the VP to respond with, Yes, but he’s a nice guy is not helpful… the point under consideration is not whether or not the guy is nice, but whether or not he is micro-managing people (with the less-than-desirable results of such a practice).

I heard this irrelevant feedback in all kinds of areas; in the Christian realm, pointing out that some evangelist’s teachings don’t seem to follow Scripture often results in the (defensive?) feedback He’s a great guy — I’m perfectly willing to concede that he is a better Christian than I am: can we talk about the point under discussion now?

Here’s another case: a friend told me about his friend’s church (I know his friend, but not well). He mentioned that the church had lost the pastor (I had heard this). When I asked how they were doing, he said that they had a new pastor now. When I asked what the new pastor was like, I get the He’s a really nice guy response. While it is good that a pastor is a nice, there is next to no information there. He could, for example, be a dictator; many dictators are “nice guys” to everyone except those resisting his dictatorial ways. He could be a great Bible teacher, and/or one who diligently studies the Word, and/or have an outgoing personality. Even I don’t really know anything about him seems to me to be better than He’s a nice guy.