a brother, John
In a message dated 7/24/2004 4:45:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]jt: Is it the content of what I say Bill, or the way I am saying it? Should I pray for more delicate wording?
In a message dated 7/24/2004 11:39:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hope you know that my regard for you is sincere -- but you can be a little short, as they say (so can Bill, by the way.) Your question above is the solution, I think. In the short time I have been an observer, I can tell each of you (Bill and you, Judy) what is not going to work when you two write each other. I continually refer back to I Co 13:4-7. That chapter is most often used to solve marital disagreements/issues when, in point of fact, it is a passage of instruction designed to give advice regarding how brethren are to relate to one another -- i.e. on this list. If I were sitting next to your computer, reading what you were preparing to send, I would be saying (often, I am sure) "I don't think that is going to go over well." If I know what sets each of you off, well, its not a secret is it?
jt: I do appreciate your concern John and I don't doubt that you are sincere. However, if I do as you say then what I write would be controlled by the anger of others.
What is it in my words above that give rise to the notion that I am suggesting we be controlled by the emotions of others? If we apply the advise of I Co 13:4-7 , we are being controlled by the Spirit of God are we not? The emotion of the others is of no concern to those controlled by God. I am certain you agree with that so help me out. Why do you think I am suggesting (in the above wording) you be controlled by the emotions of other?
How is it possible to speak the truth in love in such circumstances. I seem to
remember Paul wrestling with this problem (Galatians 1:10). I don't feel called to go out and incite a riot amongst unbelievers - however, when I joined TT I understand that there was freedom here and everyone was welcome along with their beliefs. I wasn't aware that anything had changed.
Nothing has changed. But nothing I have said relates to what is allowed on this forum. I don't care what is allowed. You and I (and Bill and Perry and ..........) are family members because we serve the same Christ, then we do not have the freedom to respond in the way we desire -- we are constrained by the spirit of love in Christ. Correct???
If I didn't know better, I would say that you are saying that 13:4-7 does not apply to those on TT.
When I am following your (the both of you) thread, I am learning or at reconsidering my own position BUT I AM ALSO WORRYING A LITTLE as to when it is all going to blow up. If we don't like the heat, we should float in the pool and stay out of the kitchen -- and both of you need to get a handle on that.
jt: Hey!! I'm not angry John.
And I am not saying you are angry. But I am saying that quite often, the "way you are saying" (your words above) could be more constrained. It seems that the best expense of time, on this forum, is to form our responses with a view to persuasion or to continue the learning circumstance. When we write only to correct, when there is no obvious concern to change the thinking of the other or to accept some of his/her thinking, then our discussion is of no importance. I doubt that anyone on this list is here for the purpose of correction. But if you are concerned that God work through you to enlighten, I would think that the advise of I Co 13:4-7 is forced upon you (and us all.)
Nothing Bill has said so far on this list has incited me to anger. I just can not
agree with him and since this is a public list and Bill posts his beliefs on a public forum, I am free to counter them publicly. I do not flame or attack the man personally, he's probably a very nice fellow like DaveH.
Bill is more than a nice man -- he is a brother in Christ. As such, the rules of the forum are not the only "rules" we are called to follow.
When I started with this forum, I was more an infighter than either of you and I can slam with the best of them. But along the way, I have decided to leave that out of my communication ..... way before Jonathan's criticism but the fact that I hurt him in some way was my fault -- whether i meant to or not. The Lord doesn't care if it pays to be nice or gentle -- he just wants us to treat each other that way period -- or did I miss His point?
jt: I don't see myself in a slamming contest, or as an infighter John because strife is as bad as adultery in God's eyesight. However, we all have a resposibility to speak the truth in love. If we see a brother/sister err (driving toward a broken bridge) is it love to leave well enough alone just to keep the peace or are we responsible to warn him/her? Should I allow someone's anger to determine whether or not I should obey my conscience in the Lord?
You are right on here. Accepting that Bill is a brother, consider this: assume that Bill is still a "babe in Christ" (sorry about that William) You see him in error and want to do something about that. Two things -- (1) there is a real God who does not need our particular help (He uses our help but He does not have to have our assistance to accomplish His will in Brother Taylor or others) and (2) when feeding a baby, more food will consumed when the feeding is palatable. That is all that I am saying. It is amazing to me at just how much you know. There are times, however, when your shared knowledge is lost in wording that is so blunt as to change the focus of the discussion.
I do appreciate your concern though John, it's hard to imagine what it must have been like to live in the kind of legalism that you have experienced in your denomination - I do want to respect God's boundaries but the bottom line is "Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty"... :)
We do have liberty but we are "constrained by love."
