Does Proverbs 26:4 contradict verse 5?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

So how does this apply to the LRC?

Many saw abusive acts done in the LRC but kept quiet because they didn’t want to be like the abusers. (The Meek will inherit the earth?) However the result was that the folly increased and more saints were abused. (Please note in this discussion I am using abuse to refer to the type of abuse TC dished out not PL).

I think Proverbs is very clear, if you have someone like TC you are better off not responding to the abuse lest you also become like him. However, if that does not become tenable at some point you have to rebuke him so that he will not be wise in his own conceit, though that might necessitate your exit from the LC.

Why would you be concerned with him being wise in his own conceit? One reason would be you see that he is causing damage to others. I have seen saints do this on numerous occasions (rebuke leading ones who were foolish).

This is quite an interesting observation. My initial thought was that those who witnessed abuse kept quiet because ...

1. They were taught that it was the "spiritual" way to perfect brothers in the recovery
2. They were taught that the brother (either WL or TC or any others) was god's deputy authority in the church
3. They were in fear of offending the deputy lest they receive more serious judgment, as Meriam and Ham did
4. They were also in fear that, by opening their mouth, they would "get it" next. Fear is a powerful deterrent for sure.

I'm also surprised that 77150 would link folly with abuse. I'm not sure if any "kept silent" because they did not want to be like the abuser. Most held the abuser's power in awe. Unconsciously, many learned bad habits watching their abuse. Bullies do tend to reproduce bullies. I have seen too much of that in others and even in myself, sorry to say.


Your application of "folly" in Proverbs 26 to LC leaders is an interesting one.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is quite an interesting observation. My initial thought was that those who witnessed abuse kept quiet because ...

1. They were taught that it was the "spiritual" way to perfect brothers in the recovery
2. They were taught that the brother (either WL or TC or any others) was god's deputy authority in the church
3. They were in fear of offending the deputy lest they receive more serious judgment, as Meriam and Ham did
4. They were also in fear that, by opening their mouth, they would "get it" next. Fear is a powerful deterrent for sure.

I'm also surprised that 77150 would link folly with abuse. I'm not sure if any "kept silent" because they did not want to be like the abuser. Most held the abuser's power in awe. Unconsciously, many learned bad habits watching their abuse. Bullies do tend to reproduce bullies. I have seen too much of that in others and even in myself, sorry to say.


Your application of "folly" in Proverbs 26 to LC leaders is an interesting one.

In my experience there was no way to confront the abusive behavior without getting bogged down in the mire. There was the teaching of deputy authority, but I never took that to mean that any elder was a "pope". On the contrary I understood that to mean that if I submitted to the Lord and had my head covered by him, then I also had His authority. So if my conscience told me to speak, and I went to the Lord, and searched diligently to make sure I wasn't being motivated by something other than the Lord, then I was fully in line with the teaching of deputy authority. I don't think I was ever in fear of offending the deputy, nor did I really fear "getting it". Probably my biggest fear was that I had been duped by the LRC.

I think if you look on the behavior from the viewpoint of eternity it is easy to see it as folly. After all, the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.

[OBW]

I think we have to understand the verses before we are able to decide how to apply them. I have noted this tendency in many cases in the past. We find something we don't think we understand, make a singular suggestion, then run with it.

So let's start with the verses rather than with TC or BP or anyone else, defining them as the fool.

I will throw out a consideration. I have no clear thought that it is correct, but here goes.

Might it be that how you read "according to his folly" in the two verses is the difference? In the first instance "according to his folly" is to step down into it and join the fool and his folly while trying to answer? In the second, it is to understand and respond to the error in thinking that has led to such folly? In other words, "according to his folly" is a somewhat vague statement that could mean both something like "fall into his folly" or into his way of thinking, his error, or it could mean to analyze and respond to the error in his way of thinking that is leading to folly. One is to join the folly. The other is to dissect the folly. Yet it is the folly that is engaged in either instance — one from the inside as a participant, and the other from the outside as one with an understanding of the error.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think we have to understand the verses before we are able to decide how to apply them. I have noted this tendency in many cases in the past. We find something we don't think we understand, make a singular suggestion, then run with it.

So let's start with the verses rather than with TC or BP or anyone else, defining them as the fool.

I will throw out a consideration. I have no clear thought that it is correct, but here goes.

Might it be that how you read "according to his folly" in the two verses is the difference? In the first instance "according to his folly" is to step down into it and join the fool and his folly while trying to answer? In the second, it is to understand and respond to the error in thinking that has led to such folly? In other words, "according to his folly" is a somewhat vague statement that could mean both something like "fall into his folly" or into his way of thinking, his error, or it could mean to analyze and respond to the error in his way of thinking that is leading to folly. One is to join the folly. The other is to dissect the folly. Yet it is the folly that is engaged in either instance — one from the inside as a participant, and the other from the outside as one with an understanding of the error.

I think this approach has merit. However, you have to realize that the writer intentionally put these two proverbs directly next to each other. It is a logical construct very similar to mathematical formula. To then come in and say that the expression "according to his folly" in one part of the construct has a different meaning from its use in the second part of the construct is a violation of basic principles. It would be viewed as being deceptive.

Instead, if we say that the world is not black and white. Situations change, circumstances change, etc. In such a world you have to do a cost benefit analysis. In one verse the writer is giving you the cost, in the other he is giving you the benefit. If the benefit outweighs the cost, then rebuke a fool. If not, don't.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

I think this approach has merit. However, you have to realize that the writer intentionally put these two proverbs directly next to each other. It is a logical construct very similar to mathematical formula. To then come in and say that the expression "according to his folly" in one part of the construct has a different meaning from its use in the second part of the construct is a violation of basic principles. It would be viewed as being deceptive.

Instead, if we say that the world is not black and white. Situations change, circumstances change, etc. In such a world you have to do a cost benefit analysis. In one verse the writer is giving you the cost, in the other he is giving you the benefit. If the benefit outweighs the cost, then rebuke a fool. If not, don't.

I would argue that the situation changing is just as altering to the formula as to how you read the phrase. It is quite common to hear phrases stated in different contexts and realize a different meaning from it. And to create the contexts back-to-back demonstrates that it takes more than a fool's view to deal with a fool. You can answer according to (in the manner of) his folly and join him. Or you can answer according to (with understanding of) his folly and correct him.

I am not disagreeing that what you say is not also true. But any deception would only be toward those who are not trained in wisdom. And the Proverbs are attempting to do some of that training. The one actually learning from it would stop and seek to discover the difference that makes both true while the simple would more likely just throw up their hands in despair and move on.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

And the Proverbs are attempting to do some of that training. The one actually learning from it would stop and seek to discover the difference that makes both true while the simple would more likely just throw up their hands in despair and move on.

Couldn't agree more.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would argue that the situation changing is just as altering to the formula as to how you read the phrase. It is quite common to hear phrases stated in different contexts and realize a different meaning from it. And to create the contexts back-to-back demonstrates that it takes more than a fool's view to deal with a fool. You can answer according to (in the manner of) his folly and join him. Or you can answer according to (with understanding of) his folly and correct him.

I am not disagreeing that what you say is not also true. But any deception would only be toward those who are not trained in wisdom. And the Proverbs are attempting to do some of that training. The one actually learning from it would stop and seek to discover the difference that makes both true while the simple would more likely just throw up their hands in despair and move on.

Let's consider an example that can help illustrate the conundrum. For the sake of argument let's say the "war on terror" was based on a terrorist attack on 9/11 that killed 2,000 innocent people.

Now some kids, motivated to fight in this "war on terror" joined the military and went to Iraq or Afghanistan, etc. Why? Because these terrorists killed innocent people and they need to be brought to justice.

However, can you guarantee that those who are fighting "the war on terror" will not themselves kill innocent civilians? Now some soldiers are not prepared for that and they come home with PTSD. You cannot rebuke terrorists without being dragged into their world. That is the price you pay.

Now in my experience this is equally true in the Christian life. Suppose you have a burden to counsel married couples. One of the couples you counsel ultimately gets divorced, leaving a broken family. Are you going to feel guilt? You might. You might think that if you had been wiser you would have helped them. These verses let you know that the cost of counseling is that some of the couples you counsel will get divorced. If you cannot handle that then don't counsel.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

Let's consider an example that can help illustrate the conundrum. For the sake of argument let's say the "war on terror" was based on a terrorist attack on 9/11 that killed 2,000 innocent people.

Now some kids, motivated to fight in this "war on terror" joined the military and went to Iraq or Afghanistan, etc. Why? Because these terrorists killed innocent people and they need to be brought to justice.

However, can you guarantee that those who are fighting "the war on terror" will not themselves kill innocent civilians? Now some soldiers are not prepared for that and they come home with PTSD. You cannot rebuke terrorists without being dragged into their world. That is the price you pay.

Now in my experience this is equally true in the Christian life. Suppose you have a burden to counsel married couples. One of the couples you counsel ultimately gets divorced, leaving a broken family. Are you going to feel guilt? You might. You might think that if you had been wiser you would have helped them. These verses let you know that the cost of counseling is that some of the couples you counsel will get divorced. If you cannot handle that then don't counsel.

If the counsel is right, healthy, time-tested, and peer-approved, then he who counsels might bear some grief for the couple still breaking up, but it won't be guilt, especially not the kind of guilt young soldiers face for shooting young children.

I don't think the example is very good. Try another please.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

Let's consider an example that can help illustrate the conundrum. For the sake of argument let's say the "war on terror" was based on a terrorist attack on 9/11 that killed 2,000 innocent people.

Now some kids, motivated to fight in this "war on terror" joined the military and went to Iraq or Afghanistan, etc. Why? Because these terrorists killed innocent people and they need to be brought to justice.

However, can you guarantee that those who are fighting "the war on terror" will not themselves kill innocent civilians? Now some soldiers are not prepared for that and they come home with PTSD. You cannot rebuke terrorists without being dragged into their world. That is the price you pay.

I would rather not get into the politics and opinions/emotions of terrorism, combating terrorism, the "just war," and other similar things.

I would suggest that war is what it is and there will be unintended casualties. And it has nothing to do with the fact that it was terrorism that brought on the war. If someone's goal is only to punish those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, war is essentially shooting flies with a bazooka.

Reminds of a comedy routine in which a guy takes a fictional martial arts method called Tai Kwan Leap so he could "beat people up" and "wipe the floor with bozos."

I don't think it is a very good example. Mudslinging in political debates might be easier to understand. Don't just throw mud back. You just fall into the same mud pit. But failing to answer the muddy charges is often not the best answer. The difference is in how the answer is given, not in whether there is or is not an answer.

As for marriage counseling, suffice it to say that there are too many moving parts, coupled with the fact that there are times when two people should not share the same house no matter the desire to maintain some spiritual principle. The best help may do nothing and the worst may be ignored while things turn to reconciliation. Not saying to stay out of helping marriages. Just saying that judging counseling based upon outcomes is, at best, anecdotal. And I'm not sure how to define answering "according to their folly" in that case.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is quite an interesting observation. My initial thought was that those who witnessed abuse kept quiet because ...

1. They were taught that it was the "spiritual" way to perfect brothers in the recovery
2. They were taught that the brother (either WL or TC or any others) was god's deputy authority in the church
3. They were in fear of offending the deputy lest they receive more serious judgment, as Meriam and Ham did
4. They were also in fear that, by opening their mouth, they would "get it" next. Fear is a powerful deterrent for sure.

I'm also surprised that 77150 would link folly with abuse. I'm not sure if any "kept silent" because they did not want to be like the abuser. Most held the abuser's power in awe. Unconsciously, many learned bad habits watching their abuse. Bullies do tend to reproduce bullies. I have seen too much of that in others and even in myself, sorry to say.


Your application of "folly" in Proverbs 26 to LC leaders is an interesting one.

My thoughts was primarily based on:
the teaching of deputy authority
the fear of being marked as divisive for responding
to take abuse is to take the cross

Going off topic for a moment based on the premise all elders are deputy authority. How did they get to be elders? As I've stated on other threads my oberservation of a local church elder is not much different than an elder from a non-local church. That being they embrace responsibility and it takes endurance and commitment to that particular assembly before being chosen as an elder. Differences I see for example in a non-lc church you don't know who the elders are until their oversight is required. Whereas in the local church, for the most part they are easily identified.
Where I see the local church elder being different than any non-local church elder is in the ability to move their eldership from city to city. For example from Los Angeles to Detroit or from Anaheim to Denver.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

My thoughts was primarily based on:
the teaching of deputy authority
the fear of being marked as divisive for responding
to take abuse is to take the cross

Going off topic for a moment based on the premise all elders are deputy authority. How did they get to be elders? As I've stated on other threads my oberservation of a local church elder is not much different than an elder from a non-local church. That being they embrace responsibility and it takes endurance and commitment to that particular assembly before being chosen as an elder. Differences I see for example in a non-lc church you don't know who the elders are until their oversight is required. Whereas in the local church, for the most part they are easily identified.
Where I see the local church elder being different than any non-local church elder is in the ability to move their eldership from city to city. For example from Los Angeles to Detroit or from Anaheim to Denver.

I found it very interesting that the story of Nabal and Abigail seems to be quite applicable to this, in which case it isn't off topic since it was the example used in the first post.

Nabal is of Caleb's house, no doubt a very highly respected name at the time. He was also quite wealthy. He rebukes David and his men saying "there are many men that break away from their masters", clearly in contrast to the teaching on deputy authority. No doubt for someone churlish like Nabal the teaching of "Deputy authority" was a great comfort, it justified his being someone that, as his own servants said "is such a son of belial that no man can talk to him". That is one version of the teaching of deputy authority and it is clearly a despicable teaching.

Another version is that of Abigail, who said " the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house; because my lord fighteth the battles of the LORD, and evil hath not been found in thee all thy days." Fighting the battles of the Lord supersedes any "deputy authority" likewise, having "evil found within thee" would void any so called service to the Lord. So with this, those who claim deputy authority can do so, not based on their lineage going back to Caleb, but to actually fighting the Lord's battles themselves. However, if you find evil within them, say false accusations, or a false measure, or a deceitful way, etc. then that would void any claim they would have to "fighting the Lord's battles" much like Saul's claim was voided by the bleating of the sheep.