|
Meanwhile, the Red Baron notwithstanding, you do have a choice…
I'm going to venture an opinion here… nothing new there! This time, however, it has more to do with how I understand what another poster is saying. If I am wrong, or just do a poor job of presenting it, I gladly yield to his corrections.
Rroym has chosen to defend a pretty precarious piece of real estate, and he's done it among a group of people who all have strong feelings about… well, about almost everything. To restate part of his advice to us: "Do not tell other people how they ought to feel or what they ought to do, think or say."
The defect in this advice should be apparent: You cannot tell others not to tell others what to do or not do without telling someone what to do or not do. In other words, Doesn't rroym become guilty of doing the very thing he is telling us not to do?
Actually, whether deliberately or not, I think rroym has followed biblical precedent. In Joshua 24, Joshua stated his case clearly, ending by telling the people what to do.
Then, rather than give an altar call, he tells them they have a choice. Great stuff. They not only get to decide, they have to decide. Joshua told them of his own personal choice, but he made sure the people were left with a choice.
Seen from that angle, rroym's advice is well taken, and probably very much needed! Yes, Joshua's situation didn't lend itself to shades of gray or personal opinions. Still, the point I'm fastening on here is that it did end with giving people a choice.
Rroym has reminded us that we not only get to make choices, we have to make choices – and we make them for ourselves, not for others. And, like the Israelites of old, we each must give an account of ourselves to God. Not of others. I think this is a principle found throughout the Bible.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
