I tend to lean toward the “don’t cause offense” crowd. Perhaps this is not a good thing, but I can’t help but remember that old CS Lewis quote: “It’s very easy to break eggs without making omelets.”

However, on the other hand, “offending the mainstream” does not usually equal being a prophet. Too many people think they have the prophetic calling when all they are is rude.

Now, I can be assertive about my beliefs without belittling others with contrary beliefs - particularly if my primary focus is on understanding how the other person’s beliefs actually might be able to help me modify or understand my own better. Once I say, “There’s nothing I can learn from you,” contention is almost a foregone conclusion.

If the other person holds that same view, I can avoid contention only by being willing to walk away without “winning”. I’m fine with that.

This is why I strenuously avoid debates with Evangelicals - by and large that is the opinion they hold of us, at least in my experience. We should be as bold as possible, but only insofar as it is undeniably mixed with genuine love and compassion.

I can think of another angle on this verse.

I think it is inaccurate to see boldness and non-overbearance as opposites, or as choices which exclude one another. The opposite of boldness is not pushiness, but cowardice. So, if we fail to witness or assert a position because we are afraid, the admonition to be bold is appropriate, but I think we are still under obligation to present the message in away that makes it likely our hearers will listen long enough to understand it. To interpret this verse as giving license to be overbearing is an example of wresting the scriptures, I think.

I have found that the biggest difference for me personally is maintaining a calmness in approach and a mindset that focuses on understanding instead of belittling. I also have found that anger and offense lead inexorably to contentiousness, so if I can avoid taking things personally I can “contend” (engage different viewpoints) without being contentious (attacking the person expressing the different viewpoint).

Iow, I can be assertive about my beliefs without belittling others with contrary beliefs - particularly if my primary focus is on understanding how the other person’s beliefs actually might be able to help me modify or understand myown better. Once I say, “There’s nothing I can learn from you,” contention is almost a foregone conclusion.

If the other person holds that same view, I can avoid contention only by being willing to walk away without “winning”. I’m fine with that.