Q & R: A new Kind of Christianity: anonymity?

Here’s the Q:

I am reading the 10 Questions book. I am struck by your directness that certainly does challenge/raise concerns/give hope.
In your chapter about Jesus, where you discuss Revelation, you quote [a well known critic of yours]. Yet, you do not call him by name. Given that you are strong in your critique of his perspective, why not call him by name? You can still be respectful (as I think you are). But it feels awkward. You quote him, but do not cite the quote.
Then you do the same thing again in the next chapter (though you refer to a youtube video). Again, why not call the person by name?
I find myself agreeing with much of what you say, and then wondering how I am to share it with others. The setting aside fo the 6 point narrative (one so beloved to many) – I wonder what that means for me?
Blessings to you and those in your care. Thank you for sharing things so definitely, because it gets us thinking.

Reply after the jump.

R:
Thanks for your question. Years ago, when I realized that my work would probably be controversial, I decided not to name people whose ideas I seek to counter. I did this for a few reasons.
1. I felt the Spirit leading me to. (Reason enough!)
2. I wanted to keep the focus on issues, not personalities. When ego gets engaged – mine or someone else’s – we’re in trouble before we begin.
3. I had experienced what it’s like to be a target of personal critique and attack, and didn’t want to put others in the same position whenever possible. This is part of doing to others as I’d have others do to me.
4. A person is a lot more than any single idea or statement. I might disagree with that one statement, but I don’t want to bring dishonor or disrespect to the person.
Occasionally I mess up in an interview and mention a name, and I don’t criticize others for mentioning names (including mine!), but it’s been my policy for several years to try to avoid doing so. I’m sorry it seemed awkward.