Wisdom rests in the heart of a man of understanding, but it makes itself known even in the midst of fools Proverbs 14:33, NKJV). The knowledge and fear of the Lord are directly connected to wisdom. With the Lord’s wisdom residing in the heart of His servants, it is only “natural” (or should I say “spiritual”) that one will have understanding. With this understanding come clear thinking, and clear thinking gives a person a path easily seen to take. The fool, on the other hand, having none of this can’t help but the see the wisdom that belongs to another that is so much escaping him. Another perspective, in Ellicott’s Commentary, we read: “‘Wisdom rests in the heart of him that hath understanding;’ he does not care to drag it out and exhibit it, but the fool cannot keep to himself anything which he thinks he knows.” RT
Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly (Proverbs 14:29, ESV). One who is quick to get angry is generally one who has taken little time to hear all the evidence that is available. There is little that is deliberate, but there is much that is reactionary. A reactionary person is of little benefit in leadership or counsel when judgments made are without the necessary information. On the other hand, the one who is slow to anger is likely to be slow to judge also. The reason for this, it should be, is because information is gathered in order to make an informed decision. This one has great influence with others.
Communication is important. If you have been around for any length of time you have already come to understand how easy it is for the writing of one person to be misunderstood by readers of that one person’s writing. This is the result, often times, of the lack of clarity on the part of the one who wrote, but many more times, it is a failure of the reader to take time to understand.
Recently, on my blog, I posted some remarks with regard to the writing (blog) of Frank Viola. He posted some sentiments on the myth of leadership. The topic intrigued me. I scanned and then printed his blog article; later that day I read it not once, but twice. Thinking I clearly understood what he said, I wrote my own words in reply to it; he read what I wrote and said that he and I understand the topic the same. I was perplexed by the remark of his, but wanting to do the right thing, I quickly advanced an apology for misreading what he said.
Last evening I read again what he said and, after this third reading, I said to myself that I didn’t misread what he said. His words were too plain for me to have done so. If you have read my remarks previous you’ll note that I said that within the local congregation the elders of that church are the leaders. He maintains the elders are not the leaders. Here is what he said: “Overseers/elders are not ‘the’ leaders of the local church. They simply lead in a specific capacity that’s different from the other members of the church.”
The difference between him and me is with regard to the use of the word the in relationship to leadership, in particular the elders/overseers of the congregation. I maintain, strongly, that elders/bishops/overseers in the local congregation are the leaders of that congregation. He does not. If he did not mean to say what the complete two sentences make plain that he did say, then he needed to say what I have quoted him to say a little differently. However, he did say it, and I did not misunderstand it.
Just as it is the obligation of the speaker/writer to make sure clarity is forthcoming, it is also the obligation of the hearer/reader to make sure it is understood before an adequate reply is forthcoming. If this does not take place communication does not occur.