[bit.listserv.christia] RCW: Christian rebuke

V111HFQ3@UBVMS (Robert Charles Weiss) (01/12/90)

        My friend Peter and I were talking about rebuke recently. He
asked me, "Did you ever hear Chuck Smith rebuke someone?" Chuck Smith is
the pastor at Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California. He has a radio
show that I catch frequently: "The Word for Today."  Peter continued, "He
has a way of rebuking where the person who is being rebuked comes away
edified! There is a way to correct someone in such a way that they are
built up in the process!! Christian rebuke shouldn't tear down, it should
restore!"

        A lot of what we read and write is colored in some respects by
the presuppositions of the intentions, or the mindset of the author in
what they have written. Keeping that in mind, picture me writing this with
a look of bemused resignation on my face.

        So no, this is not an attack. I will send an attack later so that you
will see the difference.

        I was reminded, in reading Bill's response to my question, of the movie
_Animal House_. Yes, I confess, I did see it. There was a scene in which Dean
Wormer gathers the Delta's before a student tribunal. He informs them that since
the beginning of the semester, they had been on "double secret" or some such
probation. Rising to the defense of the Delta's, the Rush Chairman ( I forget
his name ) launches into a monologue. Engaging in a humorous blend of
subtle sophistry and equivocation, he responds to the charges of poor grades
and poor attitudes. He finishes up with something like, "Are we not a product
of our educational system? *pause* And is this not an indictment against the
American system? *pause* Well, sir, I am not going to stand by and listen to
this while you disgrace the United States of America!!" At which point, the
Delta's hum a patriotic tune and walk out of the tribunal.

        I had asked Bill why he felt a statement that read, "Contented feelings
of connectedness with others and nature" was a "fairly Christian" statement.
I then read that by asking this I was being cynical, that I saw something wrong
with being content, that I saw something wrong with expressing love on a
Christian list, and so on. There was also some remarks that would infer
that I was seeking to disparage Elizabeth and what she wrote.

        Knowing Bill's high regard for the truth, I assume that perhaps my
asking a question in multiple ways may have been less than clear and may
have led to some confusion. Also, I think that Bill may have
mis-applied my question of his opinion, to stand for a question against
the original letter.

        Anyway, let's clear up a bit here, shall we?
        I enjoyed the original letter. I even sent a copy of it to my friend,
Jane. I do enjoy what Elizabeth writes. I have been very edified by it.

        My sole reason in asking was to find out why Bill would say that a
certain statement sounded "fairly Christian" to him. I am still at a loss,
but I hesitate to ask again.



        en agape,
        Bob Weiss


V111HFQ3@UBVMS.BITNET
V111HFQ3@UBVMS.cc.BUFFALO.edu