tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949422246633548404.post1371075864528845145..comments2024-02-07T11:31:44.141+03:00Comments on On Life in St. Petersburg: Wagging tonguesElizabethhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15283395756742923658noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949422246633548404.post-59955228401766823502009-11-24T10:04:03.711+03:002009-11-24T10:04:03.711+03:00I would think that if the conversation topic were ...I would think that if the conversation topic were innocent, then no warning bells would go off. There would be no need to discuss the legitimacy.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15283395756742923658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949422246633548404.post-73770837718018795152009-11-24T06:30:12.870+03:002009-11-24T06:30:12.870+03:00Gossip does usually connotate negative talk...but ...Gossip does usually connotate negative talk...but I also have heard people call "idle chatter" so long as it involves other people or events "gossip" and that is where I think we can glean some insights. Those talks do sometimes offer temptations to say unnecessary and negative things, though.Anniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12623179886908222942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949422246633548404.post-26454339433147230062009-11-23T09:50:22.717+03:002009-11-23T09:50:22.717+03:00I would say that "gossip" usually has a ...I would say that "gossip" usually has a negative connotation. Either it's slanderous in some way or it involves idle talk. But I agree that it's possible to talk about someone in a positive way. <br /><br />And you're right, sometimes it is necessary to seek advice about conflict resolution, when we don't "name names." Although that may force someone to choose sides.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15283395756742923658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2949422246633548404.post-1782243859398561372009-11-22T22:15:33.628+03:002009-11-22T22:15:33.628+03:00I'm not sure that gossip, per se, is always ba...I'm not sure that gossip, per se, is always bad. In fact, I think that often we talk about someone and their actions or words, in an effort to understand them or the situation - not to judge or criticize. In fact, talking about a situation with a third party might actually lead to greater compassion and understanding.<br /><br />It is when we fall into criticism or relating stories in a way that is not fair, or not flattering to someone, or find ourselves speaking to a person who should not be privy to the information, that I think things go wrong. For example, in ministry, it can be very helpful to speak to a colleague about a situation. Perhaps they have background, or insights, or advice; perhaps they will pray with you or offer some support or assistance. Another appropriate thing might be to talk to someone else, relating the situation, but not naming names (for example I do this with my husband). It is when I name names to someone who has no right to know, or to a person who is a peer of the person being discussed that I feel I've slipped over the line.<br /><br />We had a deacon whose wife was so holy, such a good example. Whenever she heard something that was detrimental to another's character she would do just what you describe - say something nice or positive about them, or defend their action in some way. That not only defused the criticism, but was a good reminder to the speaker, without being an out-and-out criticism - the speaker could suddenly hear how she or he was sounding. I have tried to adapt this approach myself.Anniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12623179886908222942noreply@blogger.com