The Bold and the Fearful --

[ruth]

ruth

[editor]

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]

 I'm not bragging, I said it then and I say it now, I was not the best man for the hob, just the only one available at the time.

Brent

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

[editor]

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.

[vernecarty]

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.

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

[vernecarty]

The frog-in-the-pot-of-water syndrome.

I read Sondra's post 2 minutes after she posted it and this verse came to mind "The righteous are as bold as lions, but the wicked flee when no man pursues."

Marcia

Many Christians, in my humble opinon, never fully realise the depth of their spiritual authority in Christ because they have never pursued holiness. I do not say this in any elitist  kind of way or as someone who has all the answers.
God will never give true spiritual power to us if we are not serious. I think you must go through the desperation of Romans 7 to come out the other side of Romans 8:1
Do we want victory over our sin just so we could look good to watching eyes?
Or do we recognize that winning that battle is only preparatory for the real conflict to the glory of God?
There will be not more powerful spirit filled men than the two witnesses of Revelation.
The beast is nevertheless going to kill them both.
This suggests to me that it is going to take everything we've got...and then some for the real conflict.
Just thinking out loud here....
Verne

[tenderhearted]

The quote came from Proverbs 28:1

NKJV:

The wicked flee when no one pursues;
But the righteous are bold as a lion.

Check out the rest of the chapter.

Each of the verse are loaded with spiritual truths.
Each verse is worthy of Study.

Lenore

[M2]

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."    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

[M2]

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]

Just thinking out loud here.


It irks me when, in the name of love, people compromise truth for the sake of being diplomatic. 
Marcia

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

[tenderhearted]

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

[M2]

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

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

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

[vernecarty]

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

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

[editor]

"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

[M2]

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.

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.     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:

"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

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