- The Bold and the Fearful --

Interesting topic here,

First of all, I'm not trying to classify people into two, three or even four groups. However, there are certainly times when people do fall into one or more groups: Liberal/conservative, believers/unbelievers, Gay/straight, Pro-abortion/anti-abortion, etc.

Years ago, when I was afraid someone would tell the leaders about my TV in the closet, and when we would not talk about the fact that we liked drinking wine with dinner on occasion, a proverb really instructed me,

The righteous are as bold as lions, but the wicked flee when no man pursues.

Later, I took this verse to heart when writing my first articles, and attempting to talk to the leaders of the Assembly, etc. I noticed that secrecy, behind the scenes manipulation and head-in-the-sand thinking was the norm. I was up front, blunt, honest, and willing to admit my mistakes, whereas they were careful of what they said and had to get a ruling from headquarters before taking a stand on anything. Of course, as soon as the truth was told the majority all ran away/slunk away/and dissappeared.

I was willing to tell the truth, in public, out loud and take responsibility for what I said....boldly. I found that I was definitely an odd man out, and marveled at how people were so attracted to any person at all who was willing to be bold and blunt about the truth. I'm not bragging, I said it then and I say it now, I was not the best man for the job, just the only one available at the time.

As a student of history, and a serious student of American political history of late, I have adopted some principles from my learning in this area, using the Bible as my "gold standard."

Moral uprightness breeds hero's. A hero is an ordinary person, who chooses to do the right thing in a tight spot. This person may not be brave, smart, strong or charismatic, but all of those qualities seem to appear out of thin air when they take action based on righteousness. when in this mode, they are blunt, focused and committed.

Immoral people, when faced with a similiar situation, see many shades of grey, seek to "talk" their way out of the tight spot, and can be counted on to save their own skin, without regard to moral principle. They do their utmost to avoid conflict and "achieve peace in our time,"---Neville Chamberlin's words upon striking a deal with Hitler. These folks are sensitive, diplomatic, tolerant consensus seekers. They also have a firm conviction that they are much wiser than the "hero" type. By trying to avoid conflict at all times, they "flee" even when no one is pursuing.

Ordinary, moral people can have all sorts of personality traits and temperments, but at their core is a real faith that us unshakeable. This is where their moral backbone is derived, and where their strength issues. You want this person on your side when it counts. Their idea of problem solving is to eliminate the problem once and for all.

The go-along-get-along group have all sorts of personality traits as well, but their core beliefs change with the temperature. Their strength comes from feeling that most people agree with them and don't have strong negative feelings towards them. They can be good in a clutch, as long as they don't have to take too many risks. They can't be trusted in the long run, because they like to make deals.

Here's an example in the political current event arena:

The republican senate has mostly been elected on conservative rhetoric. They talk about limited government, lower taxes, right to life, etc. However, time after time, when given to opportunity to stand on principle, they cave and compromise. The most recent example of this is how they abandoned the "nuclear option," for Judicial Nominees. They had the opportunity to appoint conservative judges to the courts, and also to stop the libs from their shameless, immoral policy of obstruction. They had the votes, and the power to do the right thing.....but they compromised. No spine, no backbone, no morals. Entirely worthless people in my opinion.

There are countless examples of this. We have no leaders, but plenty of compromisers. We have no one who will publicly stand up and tell it like it is! Instead we get this "diplo-speak," about how the president is "dissappointed" that Newsweek made up a story from whole cloth. The fact that the Islamic people will burn bibles and persecute christians isn't mentioned, but we get all defensive if someone says a book was flushed down the toilet!

There are principles here that are being violated, and moral laws that are being ignored.......we've fallen under the control careful, oily, smooth talking, calculated cowards. Our current president wouldn't even point out the fact that his opponent was a liar! He did this in order to appear, "decent."

I don't see this sort of decency in my way of looking at things. Some things are just wrong, others are dangerously wrong. The latter group requires bold, clear action.

The little cuts and trims are for the little things. Major surgery is what the Great Physician does. Bandaids and aroma therapy won't work for aggressive tumors, even though they don't hurt as much and seem nicer.

Brent

: VerneCarty May 26, 2005, 01:32:03 AM

This, by definition, made you the best man for the job...I think it was God's choice, not yours...
Verne

No one knows one way or the other. All I do know is that millions of Jews would not have been slaughtered if a relative few had moral backbones. Hitler was able to do what he did because no one had the courage to stand up to an angry little man with a bad case or flatulence. Compromise guarantees shoddy, substandard results, served with a fake smile.

Let's talk about sailboat rigs. Let's say I'm being paid to re-rig a Pacific Seacraft 37. A naval architect has determined that 9mm 18 strand 316stainless wire is adequate for the rig. The local chandlery has a great deal on some Korean, 9mm 318stainless. I can get this wire for half the cost of the 316. Well, it's just as strong,(if you trust the korean manufacturing process) but it will corrode much quicker, especially in a tropical environment....but I can get it much cheaper.

What to do? Compromise! Brilliant idea! Let's compromise the integrity of the rig and save some money. I wouldn't want to be on that boat in 2 years, but what the heck! It's not my boat.

Anyhow, you see where I'm going with all this. If something's right, it's right. If something's wrong, it's wrong. Little things are neither. big things are one or the other. Seems easy to me.

: Brent T May 26, 2005, 01:52:37 AM

Gotcha.
I do not want to give anyone the wrong impression by what I said.
There were some very gifted men associated with George Geftakys.
Both Roger Grant and Ken Ludwig are very sharp guys. I was surprised to find that I could talk some fairly serious organic chemistry with these guys. Jerry Robinson from St Louis was also a sharp thinker in my view. Everybody knows that Steve Irons is probably in the top 3 percent of this country's intelligentisia.
I have really wondered about what happened in the hearts of some of these guys.
Any single one of them had the intellect and spiritual authority to stand up to a wicked guy like George.
I suspect that what happened was incrementalism.
You rationalize a small compromise.
Then you rationalze a bigger one.
Pretty soon you are in so deep, you don't know which way is up.
Trying to serve God when there is compromise going on is devastating. I was sick for months and did not quite know why.
I have never told Tom Maddux this but when he talked about being physically sick that was not just psychological.
I think God makes it literally impossible for his men to remain in a situation like that indefinitely.
How could they stand it??!!!
Ultimately all the potential and gift in the world means absolutely nothing, if not put to effective use when the siutation calls for it.
Any one of these guys would have been equal to the task in my view. God would have honored them.
Verne

: Ruth May 26, 2005, 12:22:47 AM

Brent and All,

The name of this thread sounds like a daily soap opera and well, maybe it does represent a daily drama. :-\ I would like to continue with the thought a little that Brent mentioned in the above quote.

I guess bluntness is good for certain jobs, but I wonder if a sharp instrument is better for most jobs though. I have spent a lifetime working on not being too direct. My husband gets his points across, but oh so diplomatically. The problem is, sometimes he is sotactful that people don't get the point and we have reoccurring problems consequently. I'm usually the meany who comes across with the "moment of reality" as I'm sure many on this board can imagine. ::) Don't get me wrong - I try to be tactful, but sometimes I sacrifice diplomacy and tact in order to get the facts out there if someone is having difficulty "hearing." :o For the most part, however, his daily path is much smoother than mine and people brighten when he comes around, whereas those who tend toward fear seem to get quiet and are more reserved when I'm around. They haven't started calling me the "ax woman" yet, but there may come a day. ;)
..... Sondra

Personally, I would rather have the blunt straightforward treatment than the beating-around-the-bush type. I'm sure your husband is a really nice guy and I do not want to make this about him. I am speaking in generalities here. I know people who are so 'social' so they put up with all sorts of stuff in the name of 'love'.

God bless,
Marcia

: Ruth May 26, 2005, 03:14:54 PM

But doesn't it take both? I will say this, I have been more often sorry that I spoke too bluntly and quickly than when I have hesitated, sought God's direction, and measured my words. Yes, sincerity and truth, but mercy and grace are like the oil and wine that is poured into the wounds that the sword of the spirit needs to make. God is faithful to speak, but He is kind and gracious, is He not?

My husband is very forbearing, but he doesn't often sacrifice the truth. He simply uses tact and doesn't sacrifice the person to correct a wrong.

sj

Just thinking out loud here.

If you are looking at the end result, yes and no. The end result is based on 2 factors, the deliverer of the message and the receiver of the message. If the receiver is not willing to receive the message than no matter what approach one uses it will fall flat. If the deliverer uses a blunt approach when a soft one was needed then it could delay the receiving of the message, and vice versa.

It is my opinion that people have a false impression of what "love" is supposed to look like. E.g. God loves everybody including the terrorist. By some people's diplomatic expression of love, we should trust God to change their hearts and see the error of their ways. In reality, the terrorist must be imprisoned (i.e. action taken against the terrorist), but given fair treatment while he is in prison.

It irks me when, in the name of love, people compromise truth for the sake of being diplomatic. But then I am the blunt approach kind of person.

Marcia

: VerneCarty May 26, 2005, 06:51:28 PM

Some folk think they are being real spiritual by accusing others of a lack of love or of being hateful.
It is evident that often these kinds of charges are borne of ulterior motives or just plain ignorance or worse, stupidity.
The gay community has used this charge effectively to silence people of conscience.
Has it ever ocurred to these idiots that there can be no such thing as "love" without its corresponding and opposite corollary "hate"? These terms are mutually definitive - if either one is absent, they both are!
You figure it out...
Verne

I not sure if this the appropriate area of what I am going to say so please forgive me if I got sidetracked.

"Sometimes it is more loving, for the sake of a friendship, to give some space"

Especially when someone is bound and bend on winning the argument, or attacking, or trying to rile the the other.

I think it would be better to put the "I" ownership, on feelings, opinions, thoughts, etc, than point a finger into the "You" "Should" "Must" etc. direction.

This is my opinion and am thinking out loud, and sharing my thoughts.

Lenore

: Ruth May 26, 2005, 07:15:31 PM

I don't think you know yourself, Marcia. I don't see you as a person with a blunt approach at all. ??? I see you as one who compromises to get along most of the time on this board, hence the humor in the "I agree" label from swte. I actually like people who are diplomatic though so I don't see it as a flaw in your character. It did allow you to stay alive around some "cold blooded killers." I will add that people who call themselves "cold blooded killers" who are Christians ought to be ashamed of themselves for stating the obvious contradiction.

Now, that's blunt and I didn't even try. But see, that's the point. I need to make an effort to NOT BE BLUNT. But sometimes I apply the truth in it's bluntness depending on the situation. But you, Marcia, are not a blunt person and I would gladly trade places with you in that regard. God knows.

Sondra

p.s. You guys ignore the Lord's example that I spoke of. Sure you can be as "for" or "against" something as you please if we are just taking opinions, but what about the Word and God's example in Christ?? And yes, there are few isolated examples where He is very piercing with truth, but for the most part He teaches to be kind and merciful....could we go as far as to say diplomatic?

I don't think you know me, Sondra :) Maybe I am overcompensating for the blunt-approach person that I really am. Which might also indicate why I can relate-to/understand the blunt approach type of person.

Re. cold-blooded killing, it is an absolute necessity to cold bloodedly destroy some of those strongholds set up by the forces of darkness.

Re. the Lord's example, I agree :) that he was gracious and kind, but "Get thee behind me Satan" sounds a tad harsh, as does "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" So where do we get off on using a harsh/blunt approach? Good question eh??

God bless,
Marcia

: tenderhearted May 26, 2005, 07:09:17 PM

So then, by your own argument, the vice versa would also be true then.

You said, "Sometimes it is more loving, for the sake of a friendship, to give some space."
Selah!!

You also said, 'I think it would be better to put the "I" ownership, on feelings, opinions, thoughts, etc, than point a finger into the "You" "Should" "Must" etc. direction.'

I gather that you are saying that the message remains the same, but the "you" should be changed to "I" etc. IOW make the message more palatable else you cannot receive it. So it would indicate that you do not like the blunt approach, but like the soft approach. IOW if others do not present the message the way you see it as being the fit way to present it then you get distracted by the 'way' of presentation and miss out on the 'what' is being presented.

Marcia

"Blunt" does not equal rude or harsh.

It may be perceived as rude or harsh, especially by the one who is being rebuked, but being honest and open does not mean rude.

Here's an example:

We live in a private community and have a Home Owners Association. This is a horrible thing, with every type of petty powertrip known to man in practice at all times.

A certain homeowner wants to put a 1500 sq ft. structure on his property. There is no rule that says he can't do it, but the board doesn't want him to do it, because they are worried it is too large. Yet, they claim that the size "is only one of the issues." They dance around with "concerns," like possible rental, taxing the sewage lift station, etc.

In a public meeting, the board was NOT up front and honest, they hid their true motive for denying the project and gave false and misleading reasons for doing so.

Everyone sat there and silently complained, but put up with the garbage. I decided to say something: "Isn't the only issue the size of the structure, etc." To make a long story short, I said what everyone else was thinking, but were afraid to say. The most manipulative member of the board started to pretend that I was rude, but soon found that the crowd found their voice, and that it was very much against him and his position. It took someone willing to be blunt and honest, in order to confront the the dishonest approach of the board.

Most people wouldn't want to rock the boat, speak up, or take the risk of being publicly put down.....but it didn't bother me at all. I knew what I was saying was true, and I knew that they were being deceptive and dishonest. The overwhelming majority of the people there agreed with me and told me so afterwards.

The board member thought I was rude.....until he quickly realized he had lost his grip.

However, I was not rude at all, merely direct, clear and simple in my question and statement. I did not raise my voice, or speak to him in a disrespectful manner...I didn't need to. The truth was more than enough. Had he continued on in lying I would have called him a liar....which also would not have been rude. (Lying in public is rude, not exposing someone who lies in public.)

Had I not used the "blunt" approach, I would have meekly "suggested" that perhaps we poll the community to see if there was interest in forming a committee to ascertain the overall preference of the community towards size limits on secondary structures. This could be done behind the scenes by a group that was accountable to the board, in order to avoid unpleasant confrontations in the monthly board meetings.....That would have been the diplomatic, socially acceptable, and politically savvy. It also would have allowed these creeps to control the private property of others, at their whim.

What I mean by "blunt" has little to do with style, and more to do with content.

If someone is a liar...it's good to call them that. It's not good to suggest that "we are looking at it differently."
If someone has been irresponsible....it's good to say that. It's not good to say, "You doing a great job, and have demonstrated real care for the people who work for you, but we need to re-emphasize some of the core components of your management duties."

etc.

Blunt, bold, truthfull communication is not about style, tone or volume. It's about content.

Here's a word that people objected to: Freak.

def: A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular: A freak of nature produced the midsummer snow.
An abnormally formed organism, especially a person or animal regarded as a curiosity or monstrosity. someone who is so ardently devoted to something that it resembles an addiction; "a golf addict"; "a car nut"; "a news junkie"

I used the word to describe some people on the BB. If you have a guy in your office who walks around telling everyone how "The Lord Jesus has purchased bride, washed her in His blood, and ordained that we be conformed to His image....and that the Word of God is a mirror, a sharp, two-edged sword, and that God has been showing me how much I dwell on the other side of the Jordan....etc."

This is a strange person. They are even stranger when their actions contradict the all flowery speech they dish out. The goofy smile and pasty, meek demeanor doesn't help either.

That's a freak in my opinion, going on the word's definition. I don't know why people gush on with God-talk at church, but don't talk that way outside church......that's hypocrisy in many cases.

Calling a phoney God-talker a freak is blunt....but it's not rude.

Brent

: Ruth May 26, 2005, 09:09:07 PM

: Marcia May 26, 2005, 08:18:52 PM

Re. the Lord's example, I agree :) that he was gracious and kind, but "Get thee behind me Satan" sounds a tad harsh, as does "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" So where do we get off on using a harsh/blunt approach? Good question eh??

I qualified my statement by stating that the message of the NT is by far "Love" and is taught with "grace poured upon the lips." Plus, I thought that second quote you gave was quite diplomatically stated ??? What am I missing on that one?

It was one of those rhetorical style questions. The Lord was blunt in those 2 instances at least, and in many others. The object is truth telling.

: Ruth May 26, 2005, 09:09:07 PM

I don't want to answer for Lenore here, but I do want to comment on this. The whole discussion here is style, Marcia. I took it that Lenore was only being specific and detailing "one way" of being diplomatic and winning instead of alienating. Everyone gives weight to style and method. If you are a quadriplegic and someone needs to feed you - would you like the food carefully placed into your mouth or would you like the food thrown somewhere in the proximity of your face? ;) Do you like a couple minutes to wake up before you cook breakfast or do you like to be forced to get up and get at it? Observing nuances of things have kept my husband alive to tell about it. :o No we actually get along marvelously, but you get my point. It's how things are said and done that make them easier to receive. Respecting other people's sensitivities can help them to soften their Will.

Sondra

Agreed that we all have something to learn about 'how' we communicate.
Truth appears harsh to the receiver when bluntly stated.
Truth is truth regardless of the method of communication.
Since we cannot always control our 'environments' it benefits us to consider the other side of the coin. How am I going to 'react' when someone is blunt?
Nicodemus did not get into insecure mode and have a conniption and neither did Peter. IMO we tend to be overly sensitive over every little contrary wind that blows across our paths.

I like Brent's points:

: Brent T May 26, 2005, 09:06:05 PM

"Blunt" does not equal rude or harsh.

It may be perceived as rude or harsh, especially by the one who is being rebuked, but being honest and open does not mean rude.
.....
Most people wouldn't want to rock the boat, speak up, or take the risk of being publicly put down.....
.....
What I mean by "blunt" has little to do with style, and more to do with content.
.....
Blunt, bold, truthfull communication is not about style, tone or volume. It's about content.
....

Marcia

P.S.
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blunt (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blunt)

Abrupt and often disconcertingly frank in speech: “Onscreen, John Wayne was a blunt talker and straight shooter”
....
3: characterized by directness in manner or speech; without subtlety or evasion; "blunt talking and straight shooting"; "a blunt New England farmer"; "I gave them my candid opinion"; "forthright criticism"; "a forthright approach to the problem"; "tell me what you think--and you may just as well be frank"; "it is possible to be outspoken without being rude"; "plainspoken and to the point"; "a point-blank accusation" [syn: candid, forthright, frank, free-spoken, outspoken, plainspoken, point-blank, straight-from-the-shoulder]
4: devoid of any qualifications or disguise or adornment; "the blunt truth"; "the crude facts"; "facing the stark reality of the deadline"

P.P.S.

I'd rather have a Brent, Tom, Verne, Mark tell me the whole truth, the straight truth, and nothing but the truth any day, than have a sappy syrupy sugar-coated lie disguised as truth from a coward. The dragon does not have any redeeming value, except to be slain. PTL for the truth tellers.

Marcia

: VerneCarty May 26, 2005, 08:21:46 PM

I think what you are saying is that it is possible to have a zeal that is not according to knowledge.
With this I heartily agree. Passion must have direction, and it must have purpose.
The fact of the matter is, if we love intensely, we cannot help but also hate intensely.
This is fundamental.
You can tell a lot about a person by the object and the intensity of either affection in my view.
While we need wisdom as regards the proper expression of our affections, lukewarmness is the order of the last days I fear...
Verne

I agree with your wisdom in this.

It is also a method and style of listening to the other person.
When expressing an opinion or a feeling. It is better to use the "I" statements.
When you listen, you acknowledge the feelings first.

By using the "I" statements is acknowledge ownership of that feelings, opinions, then you dont come across as accusationalizing.

I have been told I am too negative and too blunt.
So I have been trying to rub out the rough edges around my character and personality, and speak more postive. Now because I am human, I fail repeatly in this endeavour.
I can be very blunt, but I can go over the boundaries of human dignity and respect towards the other person.
So in a tug of war with my emotions the lessons to be less blunt, and negative, towards the goal of a more positive and compassionate sensitive, is a two step dance for me.

I get passionate about my viewpoints, when I feel that I am cornered, I will act like a crazed pit bull, or I can withdraw into my self, in to a pity party for myself. It is all being human with human emotions.

I learned in the last 8 weeks, with the course I was taking, that I can only change me, I am only responsible for my actions, reactions, feelings. etc. No one can change me, and I cannot change another. I can only change me.

There was a phrase that I learned and it is a very interesting phrase.

Feelings do not come by invitations.
Nor do they go by command.

Think about it.
FEELINGS DO NOT COME BY INVITATIONS
NOR DO THEY GO BY COMMAND.

We all have trigger points that cause us to reacted with our feelings. We dont have the choice of the emotions we have been giving.
It is our choice what we do with those feelings, and the reactions we have with those feelings.
That is why the "I" statements. I am so anger I can punch a hole in the wall.
It is recognizing the feelings. Putting them into words, and maybe taking the edge off them.

It is also been taught:
That changing your mind from what ever is bothering you, can change the feelings.
This I am working on.

It is only relying on God, that work will be successful, It is by letting our natural being take over we run into problems and failures. This is not weakness, to admit you are human, and the failing of the human nature has on us.

Lenore

: matthew r. sciaini May 27, 2005, 08:30:35 AM

Lenore:

Is it possible to talk too much?

Matthew R. Sciaini

Thank you Matthew for your question.

I have to say YES and NO.

Yes: If you are trying to listen to someone, really listen, eye contact, body language watching, trying to hear what the other person is saying, listening for tones, feelings, and the words they are coming across.
It is usually feelings that are being said, it is the listener job, to identify those feelings, and the contents of those words.
To remain silent until the person who is talking, is finished. It is not the listener job to advice unless the advice is requested.
Only after the listener acknowledged the person feelings, because frequently that is what is needed to have feelings acknowledged. Then to clarify the content of the conversation. Because frequently all the person wants is to have a shoulder to cry one, a listening ear, a friend who knows when to remain silent, give the attention to the one in need.

The No side of the answer to your question is: If a person in need has a life time of remaining silent, those negative emotions that have been subpressed is doing damage to that person.
It is needed to talk them out. Like most depressions is anger inward. So until those negative emotions are truely dealt with by bringing them to the surface, voice, acknowledge, recognized, only then can you let them go. Even in prayer to God, can help them. But some people have even lost God, not in the spiritual form, because God never leaves a Christian, but when the spirit has been broken, even Christian can go way into themselves over some trauma, or even a life time of traumas, that their road back, is needed with God's representatives here on earth.
a phrase I heard a few years ago about a child who required her Daddy in the room while she slept, even when her Daddy, kept reassuring her, and telling her God was with her.
When the final time she cried out to her Daddy, a frustrated Dad said, " Didnt I tell you God was with you". The little Girl replied. But Daddy I need ' GOD WITH SKIN ON".
The little girl Daddy was God's representative on earth for her.

So many people need GOD WITH SKIN ON in their lifes to help them overcome. That requires listening effectively, and allowing the person in need to be able to freely express themselves with out fear of judgement, unsolicited advice, or put downs.

In many ways we need to ask ourselves in cluding me.

AM I BEING GOD WITH SKIN ON WITH THE PEOPLE THAT SURROUND OUR LIVES.

Thanks for the question Matthew.
I hope I sufficiently answered it for you.

Lenore

: Ruth May 27, 2005, 07:35:19 PM

Every experienced Christian knows failure. That doesn't mean that "overcoming" is impossible. It just means that our natural man is still too strong and needs to be dealt with. God is up to the job, I might add. Mark seems to believe and suggest that "perfection" is never failing and therefore makes it ok to relax and "float" or something ?? - because it is impossible to get there at all. I am sure he is being a faithful witness for where he is, but the scriptures teach that "we can be angry and sin not" for example. I don't believe, as Christians, that we simply have no recourse, but to pick a tire iron and go after the other person. I don't buy that AT ALL!!! A person who does this has a serious psychosis and needs to get some counceling, IMO. To use this example as a "norm" when discussing sinful behavior, IMO, is way outside normal. That is close to murder. How's that for laying guilt on someone? Well, if the shoe fits....

Does that mean we will never, ever, ever, ever blow it? No, I don't think so, but I do think that that natural man can be given a significant blow through the working of God the Holy Spirit over time. Anger, let go, will grow. He did it with Job, with Jacob, with Moses, etc. Moses killed a man out of temper. God changed him didn't he? Moses is recorded as having "sinned" again with his lips - so we know he was human, but his whole demeanor changed after the 40 years on the backside of the desert.

I AM SEEING A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH ANGER IN MEN ON THIS BOARD. Everyone has anger, but it seems that some of the men on this board admit to having and maintaining AN SPIRIT OF ANGER and justifying it as normal. Just stopping the outward behavior doesn't defeat the problem. Supressing anger only gives refuge to that life. Death to that very life in self is the only cure. Otherwise, it will only manifest with a new face the next time, but it is that same monster.

This is syrupy "Eastern Religion" talk and not practical Christian teachings!! Mark is confused as to the difference. Mark and others are trying to convince that walking in peace consistently is impossible. They are trying to convince us that by ignoring our inner life is the way to peace. That is ridiculous and contradicts the scriptures.

"Fight the fight of faith." That doesn't imply sitting back and just "letting faith happen." Scriptures are clear and the majority of Christians know the well proven fact that it is through death that we have life. Mark is perhaps trying to say that this death is not a beating up of ones self. (oh so Californian to say it like this. ::) - but that's what I hear him trying to say). He does, however, state below that death to sinful behavior is required or possible. I strongly disagree with this (see below).

If you walk in the spirit you will not satisfy the lusts of the flesh." Walking in the spirit is a choice, not a "floating" through life. The spirit is a location and it has real things that we must clothe ourselves in such as Peace and Joy and Confidence in God. We "put them on" according to scriptures.

He first refers to the sin of "getting out a tire iron" to hurt the guy which is a whole different ballgame than what he refers to here...simply being angry. Good salesmanship, but I see the distinction very clearly. There is no other place to process guilt and anger besides inwardly. ??? I conclude that Mark learned how to deal with his guilt, shame, failure, and anger - is the point. I don't see that location has a thing to do with it. We process everything we do, think, are...INWARDLY. We are spirits who have a soul - right? The only question is WHERE inwardly. The natural man is weak to deal with sin. The Holy Spirit is simply not located in the natural man. The Holy Spirit only works through the human spirit and the human spirit then has dominion and is empowered by the Holy Spirit and this only as the Will of the natural man yields by choice.

Matt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

The life of God cannot come through any other means.

John 4:23-24
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Now the Lord condemned the Pharisees for "reasoning in their hearts" which tells me that reasoning and logic fails God's spiritual purposes. Rather it is through SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING of God's ways, God's will, God's mind, etc. that we can get out of ourselves and follow His ways. To walk in the spirit is to walk in His Spirit or His ways of thinking according to His priority of Love. This is objective and not subjective.

Jesus, as Mark call Him, I call Him Lord, came to save his self life - Mark states. Well, yes and no. I believe He came to regenerate it through the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through the individual's human spirit. There's only one access to God and that is through the human spirit. Our soul is our natural man...the man of the flesh is in charge until many battles are fought.

We must go through the rigors of the battles to learn. God takes us through process or inner REGENERATION of our natural man through death. The war is fought "battle by battle."

Sondra

WOW Sondra:

What a good gospel message!!

Great job in relaying it.

This is a honest question?
--Are you taking courses in this at a university, because you would be excellent.

Lenore

Hi Sondra,

Sorry I do not have any degrees or official credentials. I can't even use my computer programmer's degree without some serious retraining. So please forgive me if I don't appear to be very smart. :-[

I understood that MarkC was saying that all of the trying to make oneself spiritiual only built up frustration because of our total inability to do so. When he relaxed and accepted his spiritual condition then he could let God work in him. I know this is too simple and I do not have all the Scripture references to support my arguments, but I hope you will consider that, though I am not a Thd., there might be some validity to what I am saying.

I'm heading over to another thread now. Maybe I'll bump into Yarblonski on the way and we can commiserate together. 8)

Marcia

P.S.
Matt S, what credentials do you have? It might be useful to know just in case I want to consider your opinion in the future. And don't say that you have been a friend and that that is good enough, because if you don't have any initials after your name, even quoting the Scripture might not be sufficient. Oh how I long for the good old days when we were just plain readers on our knees before the Lord and our list of Thd LLD's did not count for anything. :P
Marcia

P.P.S.
Brent, I think Quincy and you would have been real good pals.
MM

: tenderhearted May 27, 2005, 08:05:11 PM

Matt, I know that this was addressed to you and I am not answering for you, just commenting with my own opinion.

Re. the YES. What if the listener fails in even one aspect e.g. she starts talking before the talker has finished talking?

Re. the NO. What does GOD WITH SKIN ON look like? IOW how do I know that the person is giving an accurate expression of God?

My observation, no degrees and initials and all, is that if the listener is really nice to the talker, then the listener can feed all kinds of garbage to the talker, and the talker will soak it up, only because the talker really just wanted a 'nice' time and 'truth' really does not matter.

Marcia M2 MM MGM

: Marcia May 27, 2005, 09:48:04 PM

I like this a I lot.

I studied over this, and did a little reseach on the traditional psychotherapy models, and considered the patient/therapist relationship. After careful consideration, I decided that I want to be the one in need. I want everyone to listen to me, and acknowledge what I say to be good. I don't want any advice from any of you. If I feel like talking, good people everywhere will listen to me. If I feel like being silent, they'll be happy. If get angry and enraged, good people everywhere will understand that it's just a problem I'm working through, and will love me even more, because they get to be God's representative.

You can make a lot of mistakes as the "healthy" person: speaking before they are done talking, misinterpreting body language and tone, not recognizing feelings that are being communicated...not to mention giving advice that isn't asked for! There's just too much risk, and too much responsibility there for me. Being God with Skin On, is very difficult, and I don't see why I should be the one to do it.

On the other hand, I don't see how you can go wrong by being needy. I think it's better to be the one who NEEDS God with Skin On. As a needy person, the burden of getting people to understand me lies with them. Others must keep silent while I speak, and carefully follow along, taking a test at the end to make sure that they have clarity with regard to what I was saying. I don't ever have to be afraid, or suffer judgement, and no one is going to put me down. That's why I think it's best to be needy.

Don't worry everyone, I'm not going to act out my new identity....I merely say it as a comment on what was posted below.

I say we abolish the word "needy" and use "extra-special" instead. It more accurately describes the benefits a person gets by being needy.

Brent

: Brent T May 28, 2005, 01:14:18 AM

If you take a look at the story I was relaying.

The God with Skin on was the little girl's Daddy. Because the little girl couldn't see God, and in her innocents, she was looking for God's earthly representative, which in a child eyes, is the parent who will protect them, nurture them, love them, etc.

Frequently people who have special requirements due to lives blows that have send them to the bottom of the pit of life. God with skin on is just being God's representatives on earth.
The ones who will love you, the ones who will accept you, the ones who will be there.
Whether it is a sunday school teacher that a child can run to for comfort; or Christian mentor for guidance, or even a school teacher who guides a child in learning their ABC's.
There are many Biblical examples of people representating God with Skin on.
In one of Sondra postings, those are the ones who go into the prison, or give a cup of cold water, etc.

God with skin on is those who try to follow the example of Jesus did when he was on earth.
Frequently non Christians have shown more Christian charity to people, that Christians.
God is using these people to teach us about charity and love.

Just thinking outloud, and sharing my opinions.
Lenore

: Ruth May 27, 2005, 09:52:39 PM

I just cannot go along with leaving God's work in the minds of people as a failure. It isn't possible to live a godly life....we have no choice but to pick up a tire iron and go after people with the intension of physical murder....people bragging about being cold-blooded killers, etc. Anger management doesn't manage too well. The death of the cross to that angry man is the only avenue of escape from the manifested behavior. WE CANNOT CHANGE OUR BEHAVIOR - as Mark teaches in that post. We can only die a death that gives the spirit man the control and that is the only access to the power of God's Spirit. The will must, through love for God and His ways and His mind, YIELD to THAT WHICH IS SPIRITUAL or the spirit man's control.

Sondra

Sondra,

Either I am incapable of clearly articulating my point, or you are able to read into my posts' things that I have not intended---- You are way, way off in your opinions re. what I wrote.

I never said that the Christian life was one of constant failure and defeat. The "tire iron" incident was meant to demonstrate that GG "higher life" teaching was what led to the flesh being out of control, vs a life truly under the control of the HS.

I most surely believe that our faith demands strong effort on our part to both resist sin and to choose godliness.

The error of GG "higher life" teaching was that the Spirit must control the inner life via an inner meditative discipline and an outer subjection to the "government of God", which was Assembly leadership/vision.

It was via these 'tricky inner doings', and submission to God's govt., that we were supposed to manipulate God into releasing an inner surge of spiritual (really just emotion) strength within to "overcome." My point in the previous post is that God does not work this way in our lives and that instead we must learn to be active in our faith.

As most Assembly members, I was dishonest re. my true life experiences, and struggled to hide my failure from myself and others. I agree that this can make for some serious psychological problems and one's for which former Assembly members can suffer for many years after being out of it. (I don't like to use psychological terms, such as psychotic, but if you would like to discuss this I could proffer an opinion ;))

Another key to GG's false holiness concept is the removal of grace as the operative principle. We have been given a new life in Christ and it is forever ours because of the work of Christ on the cross.

Searching within for a means to actualize that freely given life is to look in the wrong place and creates a distance between us and God. We must believe that God has done everything to provide for complete eternal security.

This "perfect love that casts out all fear" of failure and produces a peaceful heart within and this will make for much more success with our attitudes and behavior.

God "cleanes our hearts by faith": This faith is not a "daily reckoning faith" but by our initial faith in Christ--- "call not unclean what God has made holy." We need to believe this, and stop introspecting, and focus on what we have control over--- attitudes and behavior.

You'll be happy to know that I have not acted on my before mentioned road rage tendicies since leaving the Assembly. My understanding of a completed salvation has taken much of the anger our of my heart, and though I may begin to react to road idiots, I am no longer suffering from "psychosis" ;).

BTW, GG suffered from a serious road rage problem where he actually got out of his car and scuffled with other drivers! ::) There's a good demonstration of what his "higher life" teaching did for him! :o

God Bless, Mark C.

: Mark C. May 29, 2005, 12:18:51 AM

Count me as another person who has yet to see anyone actually "grow" from Deeper/Higher Life teachings. The vast majority of people I meet who are really into this stuff are just plain strange. Most of them go from church to church, never finding one that does it right, and eventually end up having little to no fellowship with other believers.

In almost every case---no exceptions come to mind----the strict devotee's of the Deeper Life cannot see, or bear to hear about anything negative about themselves.

There is this one woman, who lives near here, who attends three or four churches sporadically. She will be absent from one for months at a time, and then show up at a women's Bible study armed with literature and a strong personal testimony about how God is getting such great victory in her life. She creeps everyone out, and no one has any respect for her, due to a number of good reasons. However, this woman is convinced she is a spiritual giant!

If someone tries to tell her to cool it, she teaches them about how the natural man is at odds with the spiritual man, then when the "natural man" in the woman she is justifying herself to isn't "instructed," she gets angry and leaves in a huff, laying blame on the leadership of the church for not teaching the cross. This pattern repeats itself in other churches, and has for a long time.

There's no talking with her at all, she's far too spiritual.

Definitely and extreme example, but one that I think is a clear representation of the majority of people who are really into the Deeper Life.

Brent

: tenderhearted May 28, 2005, 10:14:01 PM

Sorry Lenore. This has not enlightened any more that your original. You've managed to say the same thing, but with more words. The reason you even brought up the story about the child was to illustrate a point about how you felt that we adults should treat you. My question still remains unanswered, What does 'God with Skin on' look like to you? If I were to read Matthew 23 and only Matthew 23 I would get quite a distorted picture of what 'Christ with Skin on' looks like, don't you think?? Even the apostles and disciples were disappointed, for a time, in Jesus when He did not seem to fulfill their pre-conceived notion of His purpose for coming to earth.

Marcia

: Marcia May 29, 2005, 12:43:01 AM

Extra special people need to be treated extra special, according to the extra special. I don't happen to agree.

Children should be allowed to demand anything from their parents....and they should get it. Why? Because parents exist to wait on their children. This is what a spoiled child will tell you, by their words and actions.

Other people exist to help the extra special. Extra special people assume that others are there for them, in the same way we assume the law of gravity, or that the lights will go on when we hit the switch. When this doesn't happen, the extra special get really angry and upset, just like a spoiled child.

The extra special are really important, because without them, us "normal" folk wouldn't be able to act like Jesus. Who would we give food and shelter to, if we didn't have homeless, lazy bums? Who would we visit in prison if we didn't have rapists and murderers?

I look at this stuff totally differently. The little baby needs love, support, pretty much everything. However, a resonsible parent teaches their children to grow up into responsible, productive, independent people. Buckling to their demand that "daddy" be in the room with them when they sleep is teaching them to be bossy, self-centered and cowardly. It's the wrong thing to do.

If I have a view of the world, in which my purpose is the meet nice people and receive charity from them....I am a beggar.
If I have a view of the world in which my purpose is to find needy people, and give them free stuff, while keeping them at arms length, then I am cruel.

Jesus said, "Take up thy bed and walk. He didn't say, "these folks here will help you, feed you, carry your stuff for you, and treat you well. You may find that in a long time, you'll feel better, at which time may you could carry part of your bed."

Brent

God with Skin on -

who was our great example here.

Jesus walked the earth, Jesus was God's earthly representative of God to the world.

1Peter 2:21 NKJV

For to this your were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example,
that you should follow His Steps:

There are verse in the letters of Paul, giving the same advice, follow Christ example.

We are God's earthly representatives.

Any Christian has a potential to shine God's love to the world, show God's mercy to the world, show God's grace to the world.

2 Cor. 3: 16 to 18

VS: 18:
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding 'as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Conclusion:
Hebrews 12:1-2
VS: 1
Therefore, we also, since we re surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside evey weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the reace that is set before us.

Looking unto Jesus the author, and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 1:14:
Pursue peace with all people and holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Hebrew 1:15

An example that author of Hebrews told us to do:
Hebrews 13: 1-3

Lenore

I am thinking out loud here.

There is a problem with assuming. There is a problem of listening with fix mind.
There is a problem of always having the last word.
There is a problem of always exerting your rights.

In another thread "Wounded Piligrim"

There were a couple of examples of assuming.
And few of listening with fix minds.

1. I got the a passage of scripture meaning of weakness wrong.
I was corrected.
The next posting I wrote: SORRY MY MISTAKE, then went on to proceed, to write out different translations of the scripture, for people to see for themselves how weakness in regards to the weakness of worldly wisdom reflects this. After all in another thread I did say to look up any scriptural references given on this website, for yourselves.
Well just look at the next posting. Because of an assumption, and a fix mind. Well you can see the results for yourself.

2. There was a declaration that certain men on this website is no longer a wounded piligrim.
What an assumption? What is the behind this statement? Personal knowledge? Face to Face Heart to heart Talk with them!
The lesson here is dont assume. These men could still very well be dealing with wounds of their own, that have not fully scarred over. They may have not felt free to disclose this information.
Leader can be dealing with things in their lives , just like the rest of us. This is a danger of putting leaderships on a pedastel. Treating them as equals, human beings, then when they fail us, disappoint us, or just fall of that appointed by others higher ground. Then we can be more understanding and forgiving.

I recently heard that assume is:

Making an { ass} out of { u} and { me]

I couldnt of put it more gently because it the effect wouldnt of been the same. Sorry if I overstep the courtesy boundaries.

Lenore

: tenderhearted May 30, 2005, 08:47:36 PM

STOP being a coward Lenore. Why don't you address me directly? I am not a wounded pilgrim anymore I can take it. I have not arrived yet and have lots to learn, but my identity is not longer tied up in wounded pilgrimness.

STOP judging me about making assumptions and start reading what people have publicly posted about themselves.

I commented on your post because you were wrong to link to two together the way you did. You don't like to be told bluntly that you are wrong, then yes you can spew all kinds of false doctrine and people will just say poor Lenore, she is a wounded pilgrim, but not me. You are a coward and a hypocrite.

Marcia

I looked up the word:

COWARD:

One who lacks courage in the face of danger, pain or difficulty.

DENIAL:

Refusal to grant the truth to a statment:

COURAGE:
Bravery, ability to control fear in the face of danger, pain, etc.

To have the courage of one's own convictions is to be brave enough to do or say what one believes is right.

BULLY:

A person who uses his strength or power to hurt or frighten others into doing what he wants.

Reason why I am writing this, I just read a post.

The attitude is assembly attitude.
The attitude I saw, was losing respect for someone who admitted to their own humanity and struggles.
The attitude I saw, was because others do not live up to their own expectations of what they deemed to be right, they want no part of it.
The attitude I saw, was an unforgiving one of those who havent caught up to their level of healing.
The attitude I saw was superior one , claiming I am better than that, I dont need what you are referring to.
The attitude I have saw was one of attacking, to shield the mirror that was being directed at them.
The attitude I saw was one of denial, with double talking, accusatory, .
These are the negative attitudes towards others that I saw.

What I also saw what was not saying, the area where is being held in tight control, denied, hidden, it comes out in an attitude that swings in messages that is brought forth.
It came out in the baiting.

I saw an attitude of a person who is still hurting, still in pain, still dealing with disappointments, still dealing with betrayals, still dealing with rejection of people who love that was valued.
I saw an attitude of a person who is crying out from behind a wall of denial and bitterness.
I saw an attitude of a person who is pushing away, when in reality ; is afraid of revealing what is in side, for the fear of further rejection. Needing that acceptance and love, yet too afraid to reach out for it in truth and honesty.
I saw an attitude of intolerance for those who are honest and reveals in absolute truth of themselves, but I also saw an attitude of fear to get too close, because it is a fear of coming out of that comfort zone, protectiveness of wall that has been erected. That wall is isolating causing further reactions of attitudes to come forth, because she doesnt want to accept a world ; doesnt fully understand or even want to even attempt to understand, and acknowledge, that there could be a possibility that can either be apart of that world, or even need the wisdom of that world. So actions of Rejecting first before being rejected comes into play.

In attempting to see, through experienced eyes and spiritual eyes. I believe God has reveal a truth, and the truth is being denied by unbending, unmoldable, and unwilling to taught attitude.

I am only expressing what I see, which can be only an viewpoint.

Lenore

AssemblyBoard

General Discussion => Any and All Topics => : ruth May 26, 2005, 12:22:47 AM