“Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 29:20).  So if you do not want to turn into a grumpy old man – or to become a fool – then learn how to curb your tongue. And learn how to listen and read better. Just imagine how many unnecessary arguments and fights could be avoided if we followed these commands. And they are indeed commands, not mere advice!

I suppose it is not too late if you are still wondering what New Year’s resolution you might make. Well, as my title indicates, seeking to minimise as much as possible what many people turn into over time – a grumpy old man or woman – could be a real goer.
Of course sadly some folks do not turn into this over time – it seems they always have been grumpy! But old age can see an increase in this. And the obvious solution for the believer is to seek to be as Christlike and Spirit-led as possible. That is the ultimate antidote for most of our problems!
Putting Christ first in all things and saying no to self is the main way we press ahead in the Christian life and is the main way we can avoid heading into grumpitude, if I can coin a term here. But there are also other practical things we can seek to do as well.
The Christian Communicator
One thing we all can work on is being much more careful in how we speak, how we write, how we read, and how we listen. So many problems arise when we do not seek to excel in these areas. Daily conflicts and arguments occur when we do not take great care in these matters, and much of our grumpitude can stem from this.
We all should be concerned about the importance of good communication – Christians included. In fact, this is especially crucial for the Christian, since we have been entrusted with the gospel message that we are meant to share far and wide. And that involves communicating. That involves using words. That involves making ourselves as clearly understood as possible.
Yes, I know, our life should be a witness as well. But it is not an either/or – it is a both/and. We MUST share the gospel with words, but our lives should back up and reflect what we are saying. Paul in Romans 10:14-15 speaks to this:
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’”
Some years ago I penned a whole article on this: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2011/12/15/if-necessary-use-words/
When I put up a post, say on the social media – even a very short post – I try very hard to make sure it clearly says what I intend it to say so it will not unnecessarily be misunderstood. Yet it always amazes me how often someone will come along and totally miss the point of what I am saying, or totally misconstrue it.
Worse yet, they will attack what they thought I said instead of what I actually said. This happens far too often. The truth is, we should be just as careful in our reading and listening as we are in our speaking and writing. Scripture speaks to this matter quite often.
James for example puts it this way: “let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak” (James 1:19). Sadly we usually reverse the order here. And there are plenty of Proverbs that address this matter. Here are just a few of them:
Proverbs 10:19 When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.
Read More
Related Posts:

Not having his excellence spill out of us in the form of verbiage may not be a sign that we have an affection problem. It may just be evidence of a particular personality. It may be evidence of other perfectly innocent and ordinary things too. We shouldn’t be too quick to assume a lack of affection for Jesus. But I think it is fair to say, if we find that we never have anything to say, might it be because we don’t actually have a living relationship with him and we simply don’t recognise his excellency? 

One of the great tasks of being a Christian is to go into the world an proclaim the excellencies of the one who called us. I do think we so often get taken up with the idea of evangelism as presenting a basic message about what Jesus did on the cross to the detriment of seeing it as a more fulsome task of proclaiming the excellencies of him who called us, in which the cross is not the whole story but a **ahem** crucial aspect. We are not called to just tell people the basic message of how they can get right with God, but to proclaim his excellence to them. A key part of what makes Jesus so excellent is the cross – we are missing something absolutely vital if we don’t mention it – but to proclaim his excellence suggests doing something more than imparting basic facts.
That is what I think often goes missing. It’s not particular key facts about mankind, the problem of sin and the particular solution in Christ. It’s more that we can convey all those things factually and yet do very little to proclaim Christ’s excellence. Not only is there much more to the excellence of Jesus than just what he did on the cross that we often don’t mention – though I can’t stress enough, what he did on the cross is a pretty major bit of excellence in its own right – but there is perhaps a tone and feel to what we say that may or may not convey excellence too. There is a difference between simply saying things Jesus has done that are good and so enthusing about Jesus that he is seen to be excellent. And proclaiming his excellencies suggests we find him so excellent that it just spills out of us. We are not merely into the imparting of basic facts about Jesus, but overflowing with the greatness of him that our evident love for him is seen, felt and heard.
The usual example we might give is the way people talk about whatever they are excited about. When somebody is excited about something – a holiday, a wedding, their hobby, whatever – it just spills out of them. They don’t necessarily rabbit on about it endlessly, they might have a bit more sense that not everyone is quite as excited as they are about it, but it definitely comes out. You will hear about it at least a bit and there is a palpable sense when they are speaking that this is not just some information they are imparting neutrally, facts to be heard and weighed, but a thing they are desperately excited about. Even if you’re not into yourself and don’t get the appeal, you can tell they just love it.
Read More
Related Posts:

The question of whether an indictment should be brought for an offense committed in the distant past, is, and should be, a matter of judgment and discretion for the original court — regardless of whether the offense was personal or general, private or public (BCO 29).   Granted, the court might decide that commencing process for an alleged offense in the distant past would be unfair to the accused (for various reasons) or even too challenging for effective prosecution.

This article provides seven brief reasons why the 48th General Assembly’s recommendation is wise, and why Presbyteries should vote to approve the proposed revision to BCO 32-20.
At the July 2021 PCA GA in St. Louis, the Overtures Committee voted 95-22 to recommend the GA approve a revision to BCO 32-20 (below).  The Assembly, which may have been divided on many other votes, overwhelmingly approved this recommendation on a simple, hands-raised vote.
Proposed New BCO 32-20.  The accused or a member of the court may object to the consideration of a charge, for example, if he thinks the passage of time since the alleged offense makes fair adjudication unachievable.  The court should consider factors such as the gravity of the alleged offense as well as what degradations of evidence and memory may have occurred in the intervening period.
Before giving reasons why the proposed revision should be adopted, we note a September 7 article in The Aquila Report misquoted the above text of the GA’s proposed revision.  It quoted the original Overture instead of the amended text adopted by the GA.  The misquote included a different and additional first sentence, which was deleted by the GA.
Below are a some of the many reasons to approve the revision, a few of which were included in the original Overture.

Expeditious judicial process is important, especially in a case of public scandal. Nothing in the proposed revision would hinder or delay process.  In fact, it could expedite it.
The current version of BCO 32-20 prohibits judicial process against a scandalous offender if process doesn’t commence within a year of the alleged offence. While that might encourage expeditious process, it has a huge downside.  If the cause of Christ is jeopardized by the Church’s neglect of timely discipline, how would disallowing prosecution on day 366 repair the matter?  The scandal would continue, unabated. And one might even argue, from our current BCO 32-20, that a higher court could not institute process in a case of scandal after a year has passed if the original, lower court declined to do so within that year.
The current wording of BCO 32-20 might even be used to shield a child abuser. For example, if a person alleges a church officer abused them two years ago, the accused might claim BCO 32-20 shields him from prosecution, contending that because the alleged offense occurred two years ago, and was not publicly known (not a case of scandal), and has not “recently become flagrant,” the current BCO 32-20 disallows prosecution in the PCA.
The two SJC Decisions cited in the September 7 article did not involve cases of scandal. Each involved ministers seeking to get convictions dismissed, partly on the grounds that the alleged offenses occurred more than one year in the past. In other words, they essentially argued for a hard one-year statute of limitations for all offenses.  Surely that’s not the biblical view, and if that’s the way BCO 32-20 is being interpreted, then it warrants revision.  It was probably an overstatement for the September 7 article to contend: “The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) found the present wording in BCO 32-20 useful in deciding a number of recent cases.”  Sometimes, the SJC is compelled to rule a certain way based on a poorly written BCO paragraph.  Neither of the cited SJC Decisions should automatically be interpreted as the SJC regarding BCO 32-20 as being well-written or “useful.”
Three items from the September 7 article warrant brief comment. First, it implied the 2021 Assembly approved the revision hastily, late into the night.  But Overture 22 was filed and published online in March 2019, so St. Louis GA Commissioners had over two years to consider and discuss it.  In fact, the overturing Presbytery revised it after such discussions in 2019 and 2020.  Second, the article contends the GA’s recommended revision, “leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.”  Such a statement mistakenly suggests that the bodies assigned by our Lord to the enormous task of judging guilt or innocence are somehow incapable of just judgment in such a lesser consideration. Finally, the September 7 article contends presbyteries should “vote down the proposed amendment and seek an amendment that better addresses the valid concerns raised in the original overture.”  But the current, 140-year-old antiquated language in BCO 32-20 is so liable to misuse that it should be revised as soon as possible. If further refinements are needed, there’s ample opportunity to perfect the language with future overtures.
The question of whether an indictment should be brought for an offense committed in the distant past, is, and should be, a matter of judgment and discretion for the original court — regardless of whether the offense was personal or general, private or public (BCO 29). Granted, the court might decide that commencing process for an alleged offense in the distant past would be unfair to the accused (for various reasons) or even too challenging for effective prosecution. And the accused could raise that objection.
Finally, the St. Louis Overtures Committee had many ministers and elders experienced in matters related to BCO 32-20, including 10 members of the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (i.e., 40% of the entire SJC, including all four of its Officers). If there had been procedural concerns with this revision, the SJC members certainly would have brought it to the attention of the OC, which they did not.  The Overtures Committee approved the revision by an 81% majority.

It would be wise and prudent for Presbyteries to vote in favor of this proposed revision of BCO 32-20.
Howie Donahoe is a Ruling Elder in Boise Presbyterian Church, Boise, Idaho.