Comments on: That One Guy

By: Felix

Felix — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:40:52 +0000

I think our general bent to take the path of least resistance and not speak our true thoughts creates the perfect conditions, and even beckons the “one guy” to stand up and pontificate.

In my limited experience the “one guy” rarely engages after honest thoughts, opinions, convictions, etc. are expressed in a group setting.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:36:50 +0000

Wow…there’s way too much truth in that posting.

By: Kirby L. Wallace

Kirby L. Wallace — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:41:54 +0000

I can’t help but think that your “that one guy” is really an aggregate of “those guys”, unfairly grouped together in one person – much like the stuffing of a straw man.

Does any one guy actually qualify as “that one guy?” Otherwise, I’m left with:

Dick says “nay” to one thing out of ten, and Tom says “Hell no!”, and then Harry comes in and says, “uh, uh… nope…” to something else…

And everyone replies, “There’s that one guy again, making a wreck of things…”

I just have to admit, that I’ve not experienced this one “one guy”. I’ve met the spirit of him though, but I can’t seem to single out the one guy.

I can tell you that I’ve been singled out as that one guy quite often, though.

But, let me ask you something. If I come into a room full of Ethiopian Orthodoxists, all deifying Mary… What exactly do you expect me to say?

If a man comes in and says, “but let me show you a more excellent way”, does that invoke the one guyness theme?

What if he actually believes what he is syaing? Does that mean no one else believes what THEY are saying?

A while back, Tim Challies did a bit on “Evil as Entertainment.” And in reading it, I felt compelled to defend those he was criticizing. it was a “first impulse.” But I knew I couldn’t do it because I knew I agreed with Tim.

I guess the thing that makes me NOT “that one guy” (sometimes, anyway), is that I am willing to admit when I am wrong by simply not opening my mouth in the first place.

By: Derek

Derek — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:04:18 +0000

Thanks, Greg r. Do I disagree for the sake of disagreeing with others and raising hackles? No. If something someone presents has merit, I’ll consider it well and not just arbitrarily toss it out with the baby and the bathwater. Thanks for the encouraging note.

Yeah, I’m branded “That other guy” a lot. However, I guess I’ve been looking at branding the way they do in cattle country. Branding = ownership.

You helped me today as I’m putting a few things into perspective, brother. Unconventional thought. Yeah, that’s me. Heck, most of the people who’ve branded me wouldn’t even bother with iM. “He’s a righteous dude.”

By: Kozak

Kozak — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:44:41 +0000

Our ELCA church just blew up over the sexuality issues. There was a lot of anger on both sides with nasty e-mails (“they’re stealing my church!”) and accusations of conspiracies, etc. I voted to leave the ELCA, which garnered only 57% (needed 66%). Many pro-ELCA left in a huff. I personally had resolved to stay regardless of outcome.
I missed out on (?!) many of the e-mails, and my anger level was pretty much at zero. So my question is, in a big brawl like this, who was “that guy”? The pro-ELCA, i.e. status quo, people didn’t start it, but they were pretty wild with the vituperation. They demanded that the rebels just leave, and were prepared to depose the call committee chairman if they won, because he supported leaving.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:55:17 +0000

I dealt with that one guy and been that one guy.

We’re both in need of grace, but not necessarily a voice.

By: John

John — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:19:51 +0000

I think it has more to do with human nature than with politics per se. There are many truly wonderful believers with conservative political views and with liberal political views, and with moderate political views, and with various combinations and mixtures of any of those. The problem comes when faith is subsumed under and begins to become a subset of those politics rather than the other way around.

By: Chaplain Mike

Chaplain Mike — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:42:42 +0000

In my case, I thought I was being loving–you know, patient, kind, forbearing, not returning evil for evil. However, in reality I was just avoiding unpleasant conflict, and failing to see my responsibility of protecting the church family from harm. I also wasn’t truly loving to him, for I failed to be a true pastor to him and try to help him with spiritual formation. When one has a position of God-given responsibility for others (parent, pastor, etc) love includes discipline and correction. I didn’t do it, and lived to regret it, while learning a valuable life-lesson.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:42:40 +0000

An eerie silence has fallen over the discussion (if I’m reading the time signatures correctly). Where did everybody go?

By: CEY

CEY — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:39:51 +0000

There are some men in the community I grew up in who were on the local Christian school board. They would start a “discussion” (argument) at the meeting by saying something fairly outrageous, or taking the opposing position that was pretty far out there. But then as the argument went on they would slyly change sides and argue for the other side.

When people called them on it they acted surprised , as if they didn’t know what was up, but they did. They just liked to argue and keep something going.