Let's start this morning, by rereading last week's verses, Titus 3:1-8. I want you to hear something in Titus 3:8, in particular. But it's much easier to hear it, if we take a running start at it:
(1) Remind them, to the rulers and the authorities, to be subject/submissive, to obey, for every good work, prepared, to be,
no one to criticize/defame, non-combative (cf. Brill) to be, not demanding of one's rights (?), all humility/gentleness showing to all people.
(3) For we were once also foolish/thoughtless, disobedient,
being deceived,
serving/slaving various desires and pleasures,
in wickedness and envy spending our lives,
loathsome/despicable,
hating one another.
(4) Now, when the kindness and the love appeared-- of our Savior God-- not by works of righteousness that we did, but in accordance with his mercy, he saved us,
through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit,
(6) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
(7) in order that, being made right(eous) by that one's grace/favor, heirs we would become in accordance
with the hope of eternal life.
(8) Trustworthy, the (=this) word/message [is],
and concerning these things, I want you to insist/speak confidently,
in order that the ones having given allegiance to God would be focused on engaging in good works.
These things are good and beneficial for the people.
Let's pause here. So Paul instructs Titus this: "Tell the churches to focus on engaging in good works. Doing good works, is good. It's also beneficial for the people-- for the church."
Notice here how Paul frames his instruction here, in terms of "what's good," and "what's beneficial." Those would be two good words to underline in your own Bibles. When Paul writes this, he sounds much like the Roman philosophers of the time (h/t Ben Witherington). They often evaluate things, on the basis of whether they are good, and beneficial. But in my experience, it's not the way Christians normally think or talk today. When you are considering a course of action, you should ask yourself, "Is it good? Is it beneficial?"
And when it comes to good works, the answer, is "yes."
Verse 9-11:
(9) Now, foolish/stupid controversies and genealogies and strife and quarrels about the law avoid.
For they are useless and fruitless.
(10) A divisive person, after a first and second warning, avoid/reject (BDAG),
(11) knowing that such a person is twisted,
and is sinning,
being self-condemned.
In verses 9-11, Paul describes a type of behavior that isn't good, and isn't beneficial. Instead, it's useless, and fruitless.
There are certain types of arguments that Christians get into, that are a total waste of time. Here, those arguments probably revolve around detailed, nit-picky discussion of Old Testament laws. Let's flip back to Titus 1:10-16 (NRSV Updated no reason):
10 There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; 11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what it is not right to teach. 12 It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said,
“Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.”
13 That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
We don't know the specifics of what this group is pushing. But the source of this teaching is Jewish Christians-- verse 10, "those of the circumcision." It focuses on "Jewish myths" (which is possibly a way of describing the myths that built up around biblical stories, some of which are fascinating-- like those of Adam and Eve. Or, it could be a somewhat polemical way of describing the Jewish traditions that built up around the Torah, that try to help people keep it. Jewish myths tell you can you walk a certain distance on the Sabbath, maybe).
The key verse, is probably 15. This group teaches that some things are not pure, but Paul says that they are. The idea here, isn't that Christians are a clean/pure people, and they can do whatever they want in life and still be clean/pure. It's not that you get be immoral, and get drunk, and cheat, and lie, and steal, and still be clean/pure in Christ. Rather, the focus here is almost certainly on Jewish purity laws. Christ has made you clean, and pure. Eating things like bacon, or dolphin, or shrimp, doesn't change that. And using a cup or dish that hasn't been ritually cleansed, doesn't change that either. Your purity comes in part through Christ. And your purity comes in part through how you live.
There's a lot we don't know, specifically, and I don't want to build this huge, flawed, reconstruction of what exactly the problem was. But I imagine that these Jewish Christians are acting like we are still "under" the Mosaic law. And if that's the case, you end up arguing about what exactly the law allows, and doesn't allow. You end up with the kind of complicated arguments, and disputes, that the rabbis had. How carefully do you need to clean a dish, in order to avoid being ritually defiled? Do you need to use the sanitize button on the dishwasher, to avoid defilement?
So. When we flip back to Titus 3:9-11, we see Paul's opinion of the matter. Those nit-picky disputes are a total waste of time. They aren't good, or beneficial (Titus 3:8). They are useless, and fruitless (Titus 3:9). They put far too much time and energy into things that don't matter, and when you do that, you lose sight of what's truly important (this could be unpacked using Matthew 23:1-36, or narrowed down starting in verse 16, especially verses 23-26.)
At this point, let's reread verses 10-11:
(10) A divisive person, after a first and second warning, avoid,
(11) knowing that such a person is twisted,
and is sinning,
being self-condemned.
What should you do about these Jewish Christians, pushing this bad teaching, and turning whole families away from the truth (Titus 1:11)?
If the Jewish Christians in the church insist on having these debates, and being divisive, you should first of all warn them. Call them out, tell them that they need to stop. Maybe you do this privately, after the church meeting is done. Or maybe you just do in the moment, when things are starting to get heated and stupid, and becoming a total waste of time. Probably, you do both.
If the divisive people just won't stop quarreling, and bringing up senseless arguments about the Mosaic law, then you warn them a second time. And after that, you should "avoid" them. I don't think the idea is that they are kicked out of the church (h/t Witherington?). But you just sort of shun them. You don't associate with them.
This is harsh, and maybe seems extreme. But the reason you do that, is because those people, by the way they are acting, are twisted. They are sinning in an ongoing, unrepentant way (present tense verb). And they've condemned themselves.
So that's how we should hear verses 10-11, in their original context. The question I've wrestled with all week, is how we should hear it today. How should we respond to divisive people? How should we avoid being divisive, ourselves? But that, I'll save for the end.
Verse 12-13:
(12) Whenever I send Artemas to you, or Tychicus, quickly come to me in Nicopolis.
For there I have decided to spend the winter.
(13) Zenas the lawyer and Apollos diligently send on their way,
in order that nothing to them may lack.
Let's just pass over verse 12, and talk about verse 13. What does it mean, for Titus to "diligently" send Zenas and Apollos on their way? What does that look like? (Ben Witherington was helpful here).
These two men are apparently both Christian workers, of one type or another. Missionaries, teachers, or both. Both of them have other places that they need to be. And so Paul is telling Titus, make sure you give them the supplies they need for the journey. This is just a little note. Paul doesn't really say much. But when you send out missionaries, you send them out with what they need. You make sure they lack, in nothing.
Verse 14:
(14) Now, our people must also learn, good deeds to dedicate themselves to for the basic/necessary needs, ["good deeds" is focused]
in order that they wouldn't be unfruitful.
This is a confusing verse, and scholars disagree about what exactly Paul means here. Probably, Paul is saying that Christians should make sure to provide for the basic needs of traveling Christian teachers and missionaries. In verse 13, Paul had just talked to Titus about providing for Zenas and Apollos, by making sure they had no lack.
And so Paul catches himself here (probably), and says that this is a lesson the church as a whole needs to learn. The idea is not that the church provides a guaranteed universal income for all people, so that everyone has their necessities provided for, whether or not they work. The idea is that you make sure that Christian teachers and missionaries have "enough," and "lack nothing," so that they can do the job Jesus gave them. So when the church sees Titus helping Zenas and Apollos financially, it will hopefully learn from that, and copy Titus's example.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 346, does a nice job laying out the interpretive possibilities for verse 14. The other two main options are these:
Option #1: Christians should have jobs, and make some money, so that they can provide for their own needs, and not be a burden to other people. "Good deeds," in this reading, are your job. It's a good deed to work, and provide for yourself. And having a job keeps you from being unfruitful (1 Thessalonians 4:12; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16). [This was how I first understood it, but this is a slightly strained understanding of "good deeds," and Christians working isn't a problem elsewhere in the letter.]
Option #2: There are times in society when natural disasters occur-- famine, flooding, hurricanes, drought. Christians, in those situations, should be ready to dedicate themselves to the good deeds of providing for people who are suffering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verse 15 I'll just read:
(15) All the ones with me greet you.
Greet the ones loving us in the faith.
Grace [be] with all of you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
When we take a step back, and read verses 8-15 together, as a whole, the one recurring theme has to do with the question of "usefulness."
There are fruitful, and useful, ways to spend your time. And there are also things you can do, that are unfruitful, and a waste of time. And this is true both for us as individuals, and for as a church.
Verse 8:
(1) We read last week in verse 8 that good works, are good, and beneficial for the church/people. When we as a church, or as individuals, do good works toward others, we will find that we are helping ourselves, maybe more than anyone else. I said last week that if you reflect back on those days where you worked really hard, in doing good, that you'll realize those are the days you felt more happy, more content, more filled with joy, than normal. When we do good works, we are doing what God made us a new creation for (Ephesians 2:10).
Verses 9-11:
(2) Verses 9-11 show that there is a type of quarreling, and arguing, that's unfruitful, and a total waste of time. And specifically, this has to do with "the law"-- which would mean, the OT. The Bible.
There is a type of debating, and arguing, about the Bible that's foolish. It's not worth it. If we are reading Titus in context, it's easy to understand why Paul is determined to stamp out the disputes in Crete. Churches shouldn't spend a whole lot of time worried about Jewish ritual purity laws. And if they disagree on some point, it shouldn't be that hard to disagree in a way that keeps the peace. You and I can disagree about whether you have to hit the sanitize button on the dishwasher, for the dishes to be ritually cleaned. We could perhaps consult some Jewish rabbis, for their take on it. But we shouldn't find ourselves raising our voices over it, or challenging the sincerity of each other's faith over it.
Now, where it gets hard, is when we turn our attention from the first century church, to the contemporary church. Most of the things that Christians disagree about it, that divide us, aren't nearly so foolish. And that's what makes it tough. Paul and Titus knew the right answer to questions like this:
(1) Should babies be baptized? If so, what exactly does that baptism do?
(2) Should women be allowed to teach, preach, and prophesy in church? Should they be silent? Or something in between?
(3) Are the charismatic gifts of the early church available today? Can people still have the grace gift of speaking in tongues, or prophecy, or healings, or miracles? Or are manifestations of that, manifestations of Satan?
(4) Should Christians hold to a premillenial, postmillenial, or amillienial views of the end times? If you're premillenial, should you be pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib? In certain denominations, you can't even be a member (at least some Assembly of God) unless you answer these questions the "right" way.
(5) Is salvation a free gift, requiring nothing from you-- no repentance, no submission to Jesus as Lord? Or does salvation cost you everything? Can you drive a wedge between Jesus being Savior, and Jesus being Lord?
(6) Can you live however you want as a Christian, without any eternal consequence? Or is there a point at which living in open, gross, unrepentant sin puts you on the path to destruction?
When we look at the contemporary church, we see that's it's splintered off into dozens of denominations. Christians who don't baptize babies, struggle to live in peace and unity and shared mission with Christians who do baptize babies. And so you end up with Lutherans, and Baptists.
Now, Baptists who think God's grace let's you live however you want, and still receive eternal life, struggle to live in peace and unity and shared mission with Christians who think you can take a path that leads to destruction. And so you have the Free Will Baptist denomination.
Christians who think God prophesies through them, or heals people through them, or gives them the gift of tongues, have a hard time working with cessationist Christians who are pretty sure those tongue-speaking Christians are demonic, and going to hell. I know of a church who got a new pastor, and this pastor used part of his first sermon to try to pronounce all the curses of Revelation on the charismatic members of the church. I feel pretty good about the curses not sticking. I think what he did is ridiculous. But stuff like this, is part of how we end up Pentecostal or charismatic churches.
We could look at the splintering of the church, and feel sadness about it.
But it is what it is. And thinking about it this week, maybe this is actually for the best. Whether you baptize babies or not, you are still part of God's family. You can still live in a way that pleases God. You can still live as God's slave, and do your part in God's mission in the world. Being separate from Christians who disagree with you on this, lets you pour your time and energy into doing good works, and telling people about Jesus. The end result, is that both churches are more fruitful.
So all of that is kind of a big picture perspective on the church as a whole. I'm not sure we need to spend a ton of time feeling sad about the hundreds of denominations. I'm not sure it'd be fruitful, or beneficial, to pour ourselves into fixing that. My wife's family is predominantly Lutheran Brethren, and I'm not a Lutheran. Her family is filled with godly, committed Christians. I'd be happy to worship with them, serve with them, go on missions trips with them. But it's okay that I don't. And us being separate, for the most part, doesn't keep us from living in a way that's good, and beneficial. We are separate, but it doesn't really feel like we are divided.
Now, what happens, when we narrow our focus down, and think about this church? What should you do, when you find yourself disagreeing with people in this church, about the Bible? More specifically, what about the times when you find yourself disagreeing with church leadership? Especially, the elders, and people who teach?
I can say, with total embarrassment, that I'm something of an expert on the topic. I don't know anyone who has sinned more in this area, and gotten it wrong more times.
At the same time, there's also been times, when my disagreeing with people has made a huge impact, in a good way, in the direction a church has taken. I've steered churches away from a very dark road.
The issue of division, and disagreement, is a complicated one. But let me give you eight things to think about, when you find yourself in disagreement with another Christian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall outline:
1) Accept that your church, is going to teach in accordance with its denomination.
2) Think about how open teachers/leaders are to new perspectives, and learning new things.
3) Think about how humble teachers/leaders are, and how they will respond to questions/challenges.
4) Think about how big of a deal it is.
-Does the disagreement fall within the bounds of ongoing scholarly disputes?
5) Think about how you should openly disagree with people.
6) Think about how often you should openly disagree with people.
7) Remember that in general, church peace, and a united focus on the gospel, is more important than being right.
8) What's beneficial, and fruitful?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Accept that your church, is going to teach in accordance with its denomination.
Some disagreements come from you being in a church where you don't comfortably fit. If you're a Baptist, who is a part of a Lutheran church, you're going to be squirmy when Lutherans baptize newborns.
A few weeks ago, I talked about how the church is like a filing cabinet, and some of us perhaps feel like an oversized folder. We don't fit very nicely, because we hold different beliefs on some kind of big areas. Maybe you're at the church because it has a good kid's program, or you find it easy to worship God there, or because nine sermons out of ten, you think the teaching is great. But that one time out of ten, your pastor sounds like the Lutheran he is, or the Baptist he is, and of course you disagree. Right? Lutherans are Lutherans. Baptists are Baptists.
If at some point you choose to belong to a church where you know you're an awkward fit, part of what that means, is that you've chosen to put up with the "bad" theology and practice.
If you're a Baptist, who is a part of a Lutheran church, you can't go crying to the pastor about how baptizing babies is wrong after the Sunday morning service. If you're a Lutheran, who is a part of a Baptist church, you can't be upset when the pastor refuses to baptize your baby.
If you're a charismatic, in a church that isn't into that at all, you can't get upset that the church refused to let you prophesy during the morning service. You're at a church that quenches the Spirit, and treats prophecies with contempt (1 Thessalonians 5:19-20). But that's your choice, and you should just accept it. It works the other way too. If you're a cessationist, and you find yourself at a charismatic church (probably because you like the worship, and it feels more alive), and you see these things, you can't go complain to the pastor about it.
If you find yourself belonging to a church you disagree with, on well established, clearly marked battle lines, it's often better to just let the church be wrong, than to cause division in the church. God is willing to work with Lutherans and Baptists, cessationists and charismatics. And those churches will accomplish more, and be more fruitful, if you just keep your mouth shut and let them work together, united.
On some of the more serious issues-- things like free grace theology, and same sex marriages-- it's maybe a harder issue. Some Christians find themselves in a church, or denomination, that's drifted in really bad ways, over a period of decades. And they have to make a decision, about whether they will try to be salt and light within the church, and denomination, or if they will splinter off. I think that some of those churches are not better off united. I think that some of them, it's better if they just die out. But if you're part of those churches, it's a tough call. It's the kind of thing you spend a lot of time praying about, and talking to wise friends for advice about.
2) Think about how open teachers/leaders are to new perspectives, and learning new things.
I had a pastor once who was a remarkably godly man. A true shepherd, who loved the church. He freely admitted that his main weakness was in the area of biblical studies. He recognized that the Bible is a big book, that there were lots of things he didn't know, and that he was going to make mistakes at times. And what this pastor did, from the pulpit, was encourage the congregation to speak up, and let him know if at any point, he was teaching something wrong, or just didn't get something quite right. He did this repeatedly. When it came to concerns about his sermons, he had a truly open door.
He studied like crazy; he poured himself into sermon prep. But there are times when you are only as good as your best commentator, and there are areas where you have blind spots, and can't get out of the interpretive box you live in.
Let's turn to Acts 18:23-26 (NIV no reason).
23 After spending some time in Antioch, Paul set out from there and traveled from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[a] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
If your pastor is like a young Apollos, and you find yourself in a position where you understand parts of the Bible better than they do, and they are open to learning new things, you can feel free to speak to them privately, and help them read the Bible a little better. If you do it right, out of humility and love, it won't be divisive. It will helpful. It will, in Paul's words, be "good," and "beneficial."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And actually, when people move into the world of biblical scholarship, one of the first things they notice, is how often scholars disagree with one another. Almost always, this disagreement is done, maybe not with grace and love always, but at least with professionalism. It's rare to see scholars get heated with one another. But scholars, as scholars, interact with each other's positions, and over time, this interaction has resulted in a better understanding of the Bible. When I take a position on something, and someone challenges part of that position, and points out flaws, or weaknesses, it forces me to reexamine what I think. Sometimes, I end up changing my position. Other times, I sharpen/clarify my position in a way that strengthens it. But that process, is invaluable. And when we look at how much better we understand the Bible today, than we did even a hundred years ago, we should be thrilled. Much of our progress in understanding the Bible, has come through (1) disagreements over what it means, and (2) a willingness to change our views.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this, we come to the third thing in our outline. It's related to the second:
3) Think about how humble teachers/leaders are, and how they will respond to questions, concerns, or corrections.
When preachers and teachers prepare their sermons, they pour themselves into the process. They spend hours studying, praying, reflecting. They carry that lesson or sermon around with them all week, mentally, if not physically. And the end result, is that the sermon, or lesson, is little bit like having a baby. I say that, maybe sounding like a dude. But you gave birth to it, and you view it with some affection and care. You put a lot into it, and most weeks, you're pleased with it.
It's really hard, when you've done that, to have someone come along after the sermon and point out that you completely missed the point. You studied the passage carefully enough, and long enough, that you accidentally memorized it, but you missed something obvious, and wasted everyone's time for 30 or 40 minutes.
I've done it. I still feel sheepish about a couple sermons, in particular. It happens.
If you struggle with pride, and aren't particularly humble, you'll naturally react to that person pointing out what you did, by being argumentative. You'll instinctively defend your little sermon baby. Not only this, but if you're a leader in the church, you might be tempted, in that situation, to frame the situation in terms of submission to church leaders, and obeying them. You might find yourself wanting to quote Titus 3:10-11, and what Paul says about how to treat divisive people. It's maybe only later that you reread the passage with fresh eyes, through your helpful friend's perspective, and feel like an idiot. Your friend was very right; you were very wrong. I've been there too. It's embarrassing, when it happens.
If a teacher struggles with pride-- or maybe just lives in pride, and it's not a struggle at all-- then there's perhaps no point in saying anything. And if you've tried helping a teacher or pastor once, and that person responded by rebuking you, or feeling threatened, then consider letting everything else go from that point forward. It's not worth it.
4) Think about how big of a deal it is.
Most of the time, when you disagree with something taught, that disagreement will fall within the boundaries of ongoing scholarly disputes.
If you read an academic commentary on Titus, for example, you'll find that scholars on a regular basis disagree about lots of things. They take different perspectives on things, in almost every verse. Those perspectives are usually defensible biblically. They are in line with what the Bible teaches elsewhere. A verse might mean A, or B, or C. And there's no agreement on if it means A, B, or C.
If your pastor or teacher says it means A, and you're quite sure it means C, it's probably not worth talking about. Those are the kinds of disputes over picky little things, that end up being not worth the time and trouble. Those are the kinds of things that lend themselves to being the "foolish controversies" of Titus 3:10-11. It's not a big deal.
Now, there are some small groups, where discussions about these things might be worthwhile. I taught a Greek class once, and when we were reading through Philippians, those are the exact kinds of things you spend a lot of time talking about. There's a place for drilling down, and thinking about grammar, and syntax, and what exactly the biblical author means. There's a place for learning to read the Bible more carefully, and deliberately.
But if you're fortunate enough to have a small group like this, you'll probably find that the discussions about these things, are just that-- they are "discussions." They aren't divisive, they don't lead to hurt feelings. It's done in the context of a group that's godly, mature, and open to different ways of reading the Bible. The end result is good, and beneficial.
Now, sometimes, a passage probably means A, B, or C. Scholars disagree. There's some uncertainty. But occasionally in church, what ends up being taught by the small group leader, or Sunday school teacher, or pastor, is D. And it's not even possible, that the passage means that. D isn't a real option; it's for sure wrong.
Most of the time, that flawed interpretation is not a big deal. It's not dangerous. It's not going to steer them down some dark road. If the church went home believing what was taught, it would be okay.
In that situation, it's often better just to let it go. If a teacher talks for 30 minutes, and in a twenty second section, said one stupid thing, it's probably not a big deal. You can't pick apart everything.
5) Think about how you should (openly?) disagree with people.
When I was younger, I was determined, not just to get everything right, but to make sure other people did the same. The "truth," and "being right," was the highest priority.
I was the kind of person who was a "heresy hunter." Those are the people who spend the entire sermon or Sunday school class picking it apart, and searching for false notes, and flawed interpretations. Those are the people who have written a million words on the internet, criticizing different famous Christian teachers for something they said or did. And that was me. Not the internet part. But the picking apart, was me.
When I heard those false notes, my main concern was to address them, and fix them. And I didn't really think about the fact that the teacher was my brother or sister in Christ, and that there are higher priorities-- church unity, a focus upward on God, a focus outward on the world. The gospel itself.
When I spoke up, it was out of a commitment to being right, and rightly dividing the word of truth. It wasn't out of love.
The end result wasn't good. Let me just encourage you to learn from my failures. Think about how you should disagree with people, and what you are trying to accomplish.
6) Think about how often you should openly disagree with people.
On this point, let's start by thinking about small groups, and Sunday school.
The rule I've settled on, for myself, is that I will openly disagree with people, or with the book we are reading as a group, one time per meeting. Usually, I think I can disagree one time, more or less directly, without turning the group sour. And so what I try to do, is use that one time carefully. I'll let 10 things go, and save that one time for the biggest deal-- for the thing that's most likely to actually harm people, if they believe it, or do it. And the rest of the time, I'll try to just focus on finding something positive. Sometimes, I can redirect the conversation in a better, more biblical direction. Sometimes, I'll follow the classic grandma advice: If I can't say anything good, I'll say nothing at all.
Now, when it comes to a pastor, and his/her sermon, it really depends on the pastor. There's not an easy answer.
But if you're the kind of Christian who goes to the pastor with concerns, that's one of the things to think about-- how often you're doing it.
7) Remember that in general, church peace, and a united focus on the gospel, is more important than being right.
Groups that are really focused on being right, and getting everything right, tend to become inward focused. They tend to tear each other apart. And they tend to be useless, when it comes to mission.
Now, in all of this so far, I've been trying to help us become more self-aware of what we are doing, and why, when we find ourselves in disagreement. As we think through different churches we've been a part of, and different Sunday school classes, and small groups, we see that there's usually not a one-size-fits-all answer to all of this. It's messy. It's complicated. It depends on a lot of things.
But in the end, there's a simple question we can ask ourselves, that makes everything much easier. #8:
8) What's beneficial, and fruitful?
There are times that speaking up, and arguing, has to happen. In Paul's letter to Titus, there is a group of teachers that needs to be shut down, because what they are teaching is deeply harmful to the church. Some things, you can't let it go. Sometimes, you have no real choice, but to speak up.
With lots of other disagreements, the question of what's beneficial, and fruitful, is complicated. It depends on the issue, on the people involved, and on the setting. And really, what I've been trying to do here, is help you think about how complicated it is. There's a lot of moving parts, that make it hard to have a simple approach to all of it.
But if we keep Paul in mind, it's really not that hard. Before you open your mouth, think about if the end result will be beneficial, and fruitful.
And if you opened your mouth, because you thought you should, be honest about how it went, after the fact. Was it worth it? Is the result, that people are in a better place in some way?
There are times we will speak up, when we shouldn't have. Maybe it was just one too many disagreements, in a short period of time. Maybe we spoke up with someone who isn't open to new truths. Or maybe we lack the spiritual maturity to speak up in a way that's filled with grace, humility, and love.
When it goes really poorly, sometimes we need to apologize. And we need to just let more things go, in the future.
Again. I've messed all of this up more than any of you. In Paul's words, I'm the worst of all sinners. And many of you know, I'm in no way exaggerating here. I have a shameful past.
But from this day forward, I'll be more intentional about framing it like Paul does. Is it fruitful? Is it beneficial? Or should I just let it go?
In closing, let me just encourage you to do the same. When you find yourself disagreeing with someone in this church, on some point of interpretation or theology, just stop and think. Will speaking up, be beneficial? Will it be fruitful? Or should I just keep my mouth shut?
And above all else, what is always good, and beneficial, and useful? Titus 3:8. "Good works." Good works are good for you, and they are good for everyone around you. So let's dedicate ourselves to focusing on good works.
Translation:
(1) Remind them, to the rulers and the authorities, to be subject/submissive, to obey, for every good work, prepared, to be,
no one to criticize/defame, non-combative (cf. Brill) to be, not demanding of one's rights (?), all humility/gentleness showing to all people.
(3) For we were once also foolish/thoughtless, disobedient,
being deceived,
serving/slaving various desires and pleasures,
in wickedness and envy spending our lives,
loathsome/despicable,
hating one another.
(4) Now, when the kindness and the love appeared-- of our Savior God-- not by works of righteousness that we did, but in accordance with his mercy, he saved us,
through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit,
(6) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
(7) in order that, being made right(eous) by that one's grace/favor, heirs we would become in accordance
with the hope of eternal life.
(8) Trustworthy/faithful, the word [is],
and concerning these things, I want you to insist/speak confidently,
in order that the ones having given allegiance to God would be focused on engaging in good works.
These things are good and beneficial for the people.
(9) Now, foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and quarrels about the law avoid.
For they are useless and fruitless.
(10) A divisive person, after a first and second warning, avoid/reject (BDAG),
(11) knowing that such a person is twisted,
and is sinning,
being self-condemned.
(12) Whenever I send Artemas to you, or Tychicus, quickly come to me in Nicopolis.
For there I have decided to spend the winter.
(13) Zenas the lawyer and Apollos quickly send on their way,
in order that nothing to them may lack.
(14) Now, our people must also learn, good deeds to dedicate themselves to for the basic/necessary needs, ["good deeds" is focused]
in order that they wouldn't be unfruitful.
(15) All the ones with me greet you.
Greet the ones loving us in the faith.
Grace [be] with all of you.
