Is it Christ-Like to Insult?

[Don]

See, here's what I think we're missing.

I ascribe to the Situational Leadership model. The model describes types of leaders as well as types of followers. You match your leadership style with the type of follower.

For example, a subordinate who has to be told how to do every little thing doesn't respond well to leaders who want to say, "get this done." On the other end of the spectrum, subordinates who don't need to be micro-managed don't respond well to leaders who believe they have to micro-manage everything.

And lo and behold, imagine my surprise when I realized this leadership model is actually found in (or rather, I hope, derived from) scripture. Specifically 1 Corinthians 12, where we find the analogy of the body of Christ, and the principle of the hand saying to the feet, "I have no need of you." Additionally, when we look at passages like 1 Peter 4:11, where we find that whatever we do, we do it as of the ability God gives us.

Now some might say I'm stretching scripture; but consider: There are those that have the gumption to take Luke to the side and straightly tell him he needs to look at things a different way. And Luke's the kind of person (follower? leader?) that requires that type of leadership. AND, there are others around here who only have to be gently told about certain behaviors, and they're the kind of people that that's all it takes.

Where we run into a problem is when we seem to be talking about constantly using one form instead of matching the form to the follower. "Catching more flies with honey than vinegar" works for some; but for others, they *have* to be told they're idiots, pharisees, and/or vipers.

Seems to me this thread has reached as many pages as it has because we're not recognizing that the body is made up of many different members, each with their own unique abilities and personalities.

In fact, I've been trying to get this across to a certain supervisor I currently work for. He's taken to using jargon about people he feels aren't being positive enough, referring to them as "boat anchors" and even "viruses." I've tried to convey to him that, just like an Army general once said, you don't go to war with the army you want; you go to war with the army you have. The test of leadership is to turn them into the army you want.

God has the army He wants. The rest of us just need to figure out whether we accept that, or if we can turn it into the army we want.

 

[agedman]

Well, I've certainly found that out, if I didn't know it already! :BangHead:

One of the most problematic areas of the BB is the lack of letting someone just be wrong.

Even in my own posts, I pursue a matter most often out of pure frustration that those in contention just don't "get it," and if I try one more time, the folks might be seeing the same view from the same vantage point that I see. It doesn't work, and I need to just quietly back away and let the other person think that my silence is agreement. Ultimately, the discussion isn't of huge importance to God, or He would be expressing a lot more Holy Spirit discernment and wisdom among the general posters - especially me!

I know that some preachers have vented on their assemblies at times, when the frustration level is overwhelming. Often damage is done when a conversation with the believers would not only unite but can be used to truly bring a time of worship.


Perhaps, on the BB, the same is done in that a person just needs to vent; allowed to pour out their thinking with others joining in the thread to give resources and shared wisdom - even personal experiences. Not every thread in the debate areas need refutation(s), but every thread should be edifying.

On the BB, it is hard to let a person vent and discern that they are expressing excessively because they honestly care and have concern rather than just trying to win an argument by bludgeoning the opponent.

I am all for healthy debate, but debate that is edifying and not that which is destructive. Insults are just not appropriate.

And to some who want to raise rebuke as some hallmark of righteousness, look at what Paul states:

1Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 2Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. 5For each one will bear his own load. 6The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. 10So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.
​

There is a time when a rebuke is necessary.

It is when the assembly is informed of ongoing unrepentance by a member who is practicing sin. When the assembly in effect publishes to the world that such will not be tolerated and is removed from the fellowship that the the destruction of the body that the soul might be saved.

It is when the home of a person is invaded and threatened by a pastor who thinks that he has the right to tell another man's family what to do.

It is when the pastor is not "contending for the faith," but is foaming with froth.

But, I am wondering if on the BB it wouldn't be wise to let the "rebuke" come from the moderators and administrators who have authority, and not from those of us who are so silly as to think we have all the answers.

Mind you, I do have all the answers, and the world needs to conform to my thinking because it consistently is the most rational view.

 

[sag38]

I wish I could hit the "like" button for Don's post.

 

[John of Japan]

One of the most problematic areas of the BB is the lack of letting someone just be wrong.

Even in my own posts, I pursue a matter most often out of pure frustration that those in contention just don't "get it," and if I try one more time, the folks might be seeing the same view from the same vantage point that I see. It doesn't work, and I need to just quietly back away and let the other person think that my silence is agreement. Ultimately, the discussion isn't of huge importance to God, or He would be expressing a lot more Holy Spirit discernment and wisdom among the general posters - especially me!

I know that some preachers have vented on their assemblies at times, when the frustration level is overwhelming. Often damage is done when a conversation with the believers would not only unite but can be used to truly bring a time of worship.


Perhaps, on the BB, the same is done in that a person just needs to vent; allowed to pour out their thinking with others joining in the thread to give resources and shared wisdom - even personal experiences. Not every thread in the debate areas need refutation(s), but every thread should be edifying.

On the BB, it is hard to let a person vent and discern that they are expressing excessively because they honestly care and have concern rather than just trying to win an argument by bludgeoning the opponent.

I am all for healthy debate, but debate that is edifying and not that which is destructive. Insults are just not appropriate.

And to some who want to raise rebuke as some hallmark of righteousness, look at what Paul states:

1Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. 2Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. 5For each one will bear his own load. 6The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. 10So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.
​

There is a time when a rebuke is necessary.

It is when the assembly is informed of ongoing unrepentance by a member who is practicing sin. When the assembly in effect publishes to the world that such will not be tolerated and is removed from the fellowship that the the destruction of the body that the soul might be saved.

It is when the home of a person is invaded and threatened by a pastor who thinks that he has the right to tell another man's family what to do.

It is when the pastor is not "contending for the faith," but is foaming with froth.

But, I am wondering if on the BB it wouldn't be wise to let the "rebuke" come from the moderators and administrators who have authority, and not from those of us who are so silly as to think we have all the answers.

Mind you, I do have all the answers, and the world needs to conform to my thinking because it consistently is the most rational view.

I appreciate your post, brother, and the Scriptures you quoted.

Just to be clear, though, I believe wholeheartedly in Biblical rebuke. It is sometimes necessary to be direct and strong, with the goal of hurting someone to help them. However, this thread is about insult, which I clearly have distinguished from rebuke. I believe that insult is aimed at a person's character, which only God can judge, but rebuke is aimed at actions and attitudes, which usually can be easily discerned.

Again, I believe that the power behind a Biblical rebuke is not in harsh words, but in using the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit. Too many simply sound off without prayer and the Word, but a preacher in particular is to make prayer and the Word central in his ministry--and it these are vital for every believer also.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I wish I could hit the "like" button for Don's post.

Here ya go ...

 

[Luke2427]

Check your shoe size. If it doesn't fit, I wasn't talking about you. It was simply a general statement. And anyway, if someone was skinned alive for preaching Christ, they certainly don't fit what I said.

Why?

_________

 

[Luke2427]

Rebuke is good and proper. Name calling and insulting is wrong. I am dead wrong if I do not rebuke error. I am also dead wrong if I rebuke error in a prideful way.

Non sequitur.

Calling someone what they are is not necessarily done with pride.

If you call someone what they are by name, you are calling them a name and you are doing righteousness (if the heart is right of course).

If you are against calling people what they are, I don't know how you could have ever even READ the Bible.

I really don't.

I'm not sure you could even BELIEVE the Bible if you are against such a thing.

It really is more clear than the Virgin Birth.

 

[quantumfaith]

I wish I could hit the "like" button for Don's post.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: Like

 

[quantumfaith]

See, here's what I think we're missing.

I ascribe to the Situational Leadership model. The model describes types of leaders as well as types of followers. You match your leadership style with the type of follower.

For example, a subordinate who has to be told how to do every little thing doesn't respond well to leaders who want to say, "get this done." On the other end of the spectrum, subordinates who don't need to be micro-managed don't respond well to leaders who believe they have to micro-manage everything.

And lo and behold, imagine my surprise when I realized this leadership model is actually found in (or rather, I hope, derived from) scripture. Specifically 1 Corinthians 12, where we find the analogy of the body of Christ, and the principle of the hand saying to the feet, "I have no need of you." Additionally, when we look at passages like 1 Peter 4:11, where we find that whatever we do, we do it as of the ability God gives us.

Now some might say I'm stretching scripture; but consider: There are those that have the gumption to take Luke to the side and straightly tell him he needs to look at things a different way. And Luke's the kind of person (follower? leader?) that requires that type of leadership. AND, there are others around here who only have to be gently told about certain behaviors, and they're the kind of people that that's all it takes.

Where we run into a problem is when we seem to be talking about constantly using one form instead of matching the form to the follower. "Catching more flies with honey than vinegar" works for some; but for others, they *have* to be told they're idiots, pharisees, and/or vipers.

Seems to me this thread has reached as many pages as it has because we're not recognizing that the body is made up of many different members, each with their own unique abilities and personalities.

In fact, I've been trying to get this across to a certain supervisor I currently work for. He's taken to using jargon about people he feels aren't being positive enough, referring to them as "boat anchors" and even "viruses." I've tried to convey to him that, just like an Army general once said, you don't go to war with the army you want; you go to war with the army you have. The test of leadership is to turn them into the army you want.

God has the army He wants. The rest of us just need to figure out whether we accept that, or if we can turn it into the army we want.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[John of Japan]

Non sequitur.

Calling someone what they are is not necessarily done with pride.

If you call someone what they are by name, you are calling them a name and you are doing righteousness (if the heart is right of course).

If you are against calling people what they are, I don't know how you could have ever even READ the Bible.

I really don't.

I'm not sure you could even BELIEVE the Bible if you are against such a thing.

It really is more clear than the Virgin Birth.

So you feel that anyone who doesn't interpret the Bible just like you do in this instance hasn't even read the Bible. Your humility is overwhelming.

Furthermore, you misinterpret what I've said. (Deliberately, or just ignorant of English communication? I don't know.) I have not said I'm against calling people what they are, nor under proper Biblical guidelines am I against it.

 

[agedman]

I appreciate your post, brother, and the Scriptures you quoted.

Just to be clear, though, I believe wholeheartedly in Biblical rebuke. It is sometimes necessary to be direct and strong, with the goal of hurting someone to help them. However, this thread is about insult, which I clearly have distinguished from rebuke. I believe that insult is aimed at a person's character, which only God can judge, but rebuke is aimed at actions and attitudes, which usually can be easily discerned.

Again, I believe that the power behind a Biblical rebuke is not in harsh words, but in using the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit. Too many simply sound off without prayer and the Word, but a preacher in particular is to make prayer and the Word central in his ministry--and it these are vital for every believer also.

Non sequitur.

Calling someone what they are is not necessarily done with pride.

If you call someone what they are by name, you are calling them a name and you are doing righteousness (if the heart is right of course).

If you are against calling people what they are, I don't know how you could have ever even READ the Bible.

I really don't.

I'm not sure you could even BELIEVE the Bible if you are against such a thing.

It really is more clear than the Virgin Birth.

I thought I would rebuke you both for miss applying Scriptures.

No actually, I think that this thread needs to look at some examples from the Scriptures in which humankind rebuked humankind.

For instance:

If anyone needed rebuke it was David over the Bathsheba sins.

How did Nathan approach David. By name calling, or confronting him with verbal assault?

Not at all! He posed a scenario in which David could identify and the prophet new would rile the indignation of the king.

Then, said - You are that man.

David had no option than to be broken before God.

For instance:

Peter sermon at Pentecost. He pointed out that the very person condemned to death by the Jews was the messiah. Did he rail on them. Did he rebuke them by name calling? Or did he name sin as exceedingly sinful and urge repentance?

I have already referenced how much care one should take when confronting a believer who is in error in a post.

What I'd like to see is some Scriptural examples in which a rebuke rises to the level you both have indicated is acceptable. Rebuke by a man towards another humankind.

 

[Luke2427]

I thought I would rebuke you both for miss applying Scriptures.

No actually, I think that this thread needs to look at some examples from the Scriptures in which humankind rebuked humankind.

For instance:

If anyone needed rebuke it was David over the Bathsheba sins.

How did Nathan approach David. By name calling, or confronting him with verbal assault?

Not at all! He posed a scenario in which David could identify and the prophet new would rile the indignation of the king.

Then, said - You are that man.

Two things:

First of all, it is an argument from silence which is no argument at all.

You are saying that since Nathan DIDN'T do something then that means it ought not be done.

Nathan might not have pointed his finger either. Does that mean it is a sin to point fingers? No. But it is the same thing as what you are trying to argue here.

Secondly, Nathan WAS calling David something by the illustration he gave. He was saying, "You are a greedy, self-centered, cold-hearted, callous, evil man!"

When he says, "You are the man, " he is saying that David is the piece of trash used in Nathan's illustration.

You guys are losing this because the Bible is FULL of the godliest of men saying the harshest of things.


You are going to continue to lose this and no amount of fallacies you apply to this discussion can change that.

I wish people had the humility to say they were wrong. But very few ever do here on BB.

Why don't you do it?

You HAVE to know by now that you are wrong.

Say it. It would help change the spirit of this place.

Peter sermon at Pentecost. He pointed out that the very person condemned to death by the Jews was the messiah. Did he rail on them. Did he rebuke them by name calling? Or did he name sin as exceedingly sinful and urge repentance?

Yes, he called them WICKED and MURDERERS.

 

[Luke2427]

So you feel that anyone who doesn't interpret the Bible just like you do in this instance hasn't even read the Bible. Your humility is overwhelming.

That is VERY, VERY insulting.

Very insulting.

You are a hypocrite, sir.

Furthermore, it is not that you INTERPRET it diferently. It is that you ignore it altogether.

NOBODY who takes the Bible seriously is not aware of prophets and psalmists and Apostles and Jesus himself CALLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE.

NOBODY.

NOBODY who takes the bible seriously.

NOBODY.

Furthermore, you misinterpret what I've said. (Deliberately, or just ignorant of English communication? I don't know.) I have not said I'm against calling people what they are, nor under proper Biblical guidelines am I against it.

Now you are crawfishin'.

Calling people what they are is calling people names.

If you are a fundamentalist hack (not saying you are but lets assume for a second that it might be the case) and I call you a fundamentalist hack, I am calling you a NAME.

Either you are against it or you are not. Why don't you make up your mind and get back with me on it.

 

[John of Japan]

That is VERY, VERY insulting.

Very insulting.

You are a hypocrite, sir.

Wow. So it is not insulting for you to say I don't even read the Bible, and in fact actually ignore it, but it is insulting and hypocritical for me to object sarcastically to your personal attack. Unreal. (Sarcasm is a legitimate literary device often used in the Bible, in particular by the Lord.)

 

[John of Japan]

To the monitors: please close this thread. It is past 10 pages, and furthermore Luke is once again resorting to personal attack.

 

[Rippon]

Luke: I beg of you to honor the request to have this thread closed. You're way out of line. Don't "contribute" any more.

 

[agedman]

Two things:

First of all, it is an argument from silence which is no argument at all.

You are saying that since Nathan DIDN'T do something then that means it ought not be done.

Using Nathan as an illustration of how it OUGHT to be done was my post, not what was NOT to be done.

Nathan might not have pointed his finger either. Does that mean it is a sin to point fingers? No. But it is the same thing as what you are trying to argue here.

Nope, that is what YOU ASSUME I am arguing.

Like I posted: "I think that this thread needs to look at some examples from the Scriptures in which humankind rebuked humankind."

Secondly, Nathan WAS calling David something by the illustration he gave. He was saying, "You are a greedy, self-centered, cold-hearted, callous, evil man!"

But Nathan DIDN'T say those words, did he. He didn't have to use rude rebuke because the conviction of David's own words were used. Your attempt to put them in as part of the under the breath statements has absolutely no Scriptural foundation.

When he says, "You are the man, " he is saying that David is the piece of trash used in Nathan's illustration.

There is no warrant given in Scriptures that considers Nathan even thought this of David. Rather, the fact that Nathan approached David as he did shows just the opposite of your statement.

You guys are losing this because the Bible is FULL of the godliest of men saying the harshest of things.

Isn't that EXACTLY what I suggested the thread needs to explore? Did I not post that the thread needs to explore examples of HOW rebuke is portrayed in the Scriptures, so that there is something other than opinion based posts? Isn't opinion based posts sort of like you have shown about Nathan's attitude toward David - completely biased to opinion, assigning thoughts and motives into the example without the slightest Scripture foundation, and in brief, just plain wrong thinking?

You are going to continue to lose this and no amount of fallacies you apply to this discussion can change that.

This is a problem that I see occurring on the BB.

It is that someone must win and someone must loose.

Why?

Why can't a topic be stretched to take what I ask and post examples of how the Scriptures show rebuke in action and do so without there being a "winner or looser?"

I wish people had the humility to say they were wrong. But very few ever do here on BB.

You can say you are wrong any time you desire, Luke. I'm not keeping you from it.

Why don't you do it?

Why should I? Can you have such a high exalted opinion of yourself that you can proclaim who is right and wrong? Nathan couldn't. He let David do that.

You HAVE to know by now that you are wrong.

I am wrong on many things. Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that you could handle this topic.

Say it. It would help change the spirit of this place.

What would help "change the spirit of this place" is you not assuming who won or is wrong and who needs humility.

Perhaps if you took what I posted more seriously, you could actually engage with accurate accounts of Scriptures. Refrain from placing your own bias and opinion of attitude and hidden thoughts into the examples, and actually show, by Scriptures, the types and styles of rebukes given in Scriptures.

But so far, you are attempting to rebuke me, assign agenda to Nathan, and put words in his heart that are totally out of any Scriptural authority.

Yes, he called them WICKED and MURDERERS.

To what end?

Did he describe them accurately?

Were they not wicked and murderers?

I have a friend who is a convicted felon. It is not a joke between us, but neither is it a covered sin. He is a felon. When we are together he is not removed from that label.

The title one carries as a result of their action is just that - a title. That it carries the sting of rebuke and shame is a part of the title.

Peter used the title of what they were as did Nathan ("you are the man") but not as some inappropriate judgment, but a point in which the folks, and in Nathan's instance David, could be brought to account leading to repentance.

 

[Luke2427]

Wow. So it is not insulting for you to say I don't even read the Bible,

I'm not the person saying insulting is a sin. You are. I don't have to abide by your standard. But you DO have to abide by your standard- or else be a hypocrite.

and in fact actually ignore it, but it is insulting and hypocritical for me to object sarcastically to your personal attack. Unreal. (Sarcasm is a legitimate literary device often used in the Bible, in particular by the Lord.)

So is calling people names- you just don't like it so you cherry pick which parts of the Bible you are going to obey and emphasize.

This is what many fundamentalists do.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke: I beg of you to honor the request to have this thread closed. You're way out of line. Don't "contribute" any more.

Send it to me in a pm. Posting it publicly means you are not seriously engaging me but making a PUBLIC statement.

I grow weary of these backhanded, high and mighty, holier than thou little corrections offered by people who seemingly fain concern to make themselves look sensitive and enlightened.

 

[Revmitchell]

John's posts are never anything but gracious and attacks and insults on him are unwarranted.