The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness (2 Tim 2:24-25)."See," the other side now responds, "we are supposed to correct opponents." And, indeed, that's what Paul says ... but it's not all he says, is it?
The instructions aren't vague. Avoid foolish, ignorant controversies. What are these? These would be controversies unrelated to the reason why we're here. It would be about why gas prices are high or how bad or good the government is or whether or not she looked good in that outfit. We're here as representatives of Christ for the gospel -- here to do God's work. With that agenda, it is clear to see that much of what we argue about is peripheral despite how vital it may feel. We are told to not be quarrelsome -- not being marked as being at war with others. We are to be marked as being kind and patient. "So, we're not supposed to correct others?" No, indeed! We are supposed to respond to those who oppose the truth with the truth, but we're supposed to do it "with gentleness." You know, "A gentle answer turns away wrath" (Prov 15:1). Yes, answer, but gently. Remember the aim is not to win, but to correct. Their response is in view, not your "rightness."
"The goal of our instruction," Paul said, "is love ..." (1 Tim 1:5). That is still true. In Paul's instructions to the young pastor Timothy, he includes instructions for us. Yes, we are to avoid foolish controversies. We are not to engage in every debate. It is not our place to search the Internet because someone someplace is wrong. On the other hand, it is our duty to correct those who oppose the truth, but gently. Something for all of us, whether we like to contend with others or not.
12 comments:
Two things:
1. "It would be about why gas prices are high or how bad or good the government is or whether or not she looked good in that outfit."
Wow. I can't believe you ran with this Dan-ish comment. You're making a elementary error in providing three examples, one of which is vastly unlike the other two. Sartorial expression is hardly like economic concerns or political policy concerns. The latter two have immense impact on the quality of life and the health and welfare of one's fellow citizens. How one dresses is mere subjective opinion about something impacting no one in any significant way.
2. I'd have to go back and study the chapter from which your point is derived, but from memory, I don't think it's speaking to earthly concerns at all when speaking of foolish controversies. I think it's about foolish controversies about the faith. There's nothing at all foolish about controversies surrounding election choices resulting in a doddering old fool risking nuclear destruction.
Agree ... to disagree. Consider 2 Tim 2:4, 10. Note, by the way, that it doesn't say not to, say, vote. It just says to avoid the controversies. Do what's right; just don't fight over it. And in the future I'm thinking of classifying things like "Dan-ish comments" as "unfriendly." (That last was in fun.)
Actually, you should classify it that way. Any such comparison can't help but be insulting. 😏 (At least I didn't mention feo! 😬)
As to the point, I studied your offering and still see it as referring to matters of the faith, not debating questions regarding other things. When trying to bring another to Christ, to engage in contentious debate with a third person about minor matters seems quite clearly to me to be the teaching.
As I said, I will agree to disagree. When Paul says a soldier doesn't get entangled in the everyday affairs of the world, I understand that to mean "everyday affairs of the world" and NOT "matters of the faith." You read it differently. Your call. I will attempt to "please the One who enlisted me" and you can do the same according to your own understanding.
But Paul's mention of the soldier isn't in reference to verses 24-25. Here, he's using an analogy about serving during hardship. What's more and in any case, "stupid and foolish arguments" is not defined. Going back to your original examples, the first two aren't either. They matter to the lives of our fellow citizens because of their impact on them.
Is it your aim to NOT agree to disagree? You and I have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of "good." Yours is "whatever makes Americans most comfortable" and mine is "God." God classified it as "good" when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery and God classified it as "good" when Pilate and Herod and the Jews wrongfully murdered His Son. I have a basic belief that we are not reliable measures of "good" and so I tend to go with God's Word ... for instance, when it says we ought not be entangled in the everyday affairs of this world. You and I disagree. Do you really feel the need to try to convince me that you're right?
I've always found the phrase "agree to disagree" nonsensical. Why must one agree to do what is already being done? I prefer coming to agreement, or at least understanding why disagreement exists...that is, resolve the issues which suggests disagreement.
"You and I have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of "good." Yours is "whatever makes Americans most comfortable" and mine is "God.""
This isn't anywhere near true. It's absurdly false in fact.
"Do you really feel the need to try to convince me that you're right?"
I'm shocked at your cowardice. I'm seeking to have you explain why you think it means important issues which affect the lives of your fellow Americans, your fellow Christians, are not to be debated as if they're all meaningless tripe. I'm not talking about mere "comfort". I'm talking about real suffering which results from not confronting those who clearly will bring it about. There's nothing "Godly" about doing nothing to prevent it and you haven't come close to arguing for that with this post.
Are we not encouraged to confront people in love? In doing so, is that not entangling ourselves in an everyday affair? (Matt 18:15-20)
"Agree to disagree" simply means, "I can see that we will not be coming to an agreement on this and we won't make it a fight." I have explained to you the Scriptures that compel me to believe that being entangled in the everyday affairs of the world is bad for Christians and you reject them. So we're done. I don't have any means of letting go of the clear texts I see and you don't have any way of agreeing with the clear texts I see, so we're done. I won't continue to beat you over the head with them. You call it cowardice. I don't. I call it not answering a fool according to his folly, another biblical command.
It seems quite clear that Stan doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned at all about our world around us. He's made myriad posts about social and societal issues. But the warning is about making them our focus. If we are so intent on correcting the society around us, we lose sight of what truly matters. He's not saying don't talk about these earthly matters, but don't get embroiled in debates about things that have no eternal significance. Say your piece and then let God work. Don't get into bickering about matters that don't ultimately matter. The horrendousness of our current president is meaningless compared to His eternal glory and the eternal lives of our fellow Man. Fight for Truth, not politics. It could even be a good thing if the true suffering this president causes leads people to turn to God. People typically turn to God when they are in need, not when they are in comfort.
And that is the danger wealth produces. Why would the wealthy turn to God when they've already got it good now. It is why our rich country is turning its back on the Christian roots.
Calling it what pleases you doesn't change what it is. The text isn't clearly saying what you seem to need it to say in order to be "right". And I'm doing no more than seeking something more tangible than "that's how I see it", since at this point I'm quite certain I already know that.
And I know exactly what "agree to disagree" means. It means you want to go on believing what you can't support and you want me to stop pointing out how lame your understanding given your explanation of it, particularly as my passage offering clearly contradicts it. And now, as if your petulance wasn't enough, you move on to name calling. That's just great.
The worst part is how often over the years I've expressed appreciation for your insights. Apparently, anything less brings scorn. Amazing.
Wow, Marshal, you have arrived. Exactly like Dan. What I cannot support? You mean like when Scripture says we shouldn't be entangled by the everyday affairs of the world, you understand it not to mean that?? And I have no support???
Please, Marshal, I have often invited Dan not to read here, not to visit here, not to comment here. (Okay, I have banned him from commenting, but you get the idea.) You find it "unsupported" that I contend that Scripture means what it says and I stand there? That's certainly your prerogative. But I won't be changing that position anytime soon, so, please, feel free not to read my blog anymore. I'm not forcing you.
Post a Comment