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