Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
1 Timothy 6:3-5 – Controversy About Controversy
This article will be controversial. Ironically, if you do not like controversy, you will like this article. Have I got your attention? This article will be about the controversial subject of being controversial, and how wrong it is to be controversial! Unless of course it is right to be controversial! Confused?
To begin, we must first let’s look at our texts:
1 Timothy 6:3-5 NASB – If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, (4) he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, (5) and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
Paul begins this letter to Timothy in the same way he ended:
1 Timothy 1:3-7 NASB – As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, (4) nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. (5) But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (6) For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, (7) wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.
In studying it is often helpful to break things down into categories. Let’s look at both texts.
Category One – Different Doctrine vs. Sound Words – Source of Teaching
How do we decide what is a “sound doctrine” (6:3)? How do we decide what are “different words” (6:3)? What makes a doctrine “strange” (1:3)? The answer is that we must look both backward and forward. There are two litmus tests given. The first is the obvious one, but I wonder if we stop short of where Paul – the Holy Spirit – did.
Looking backward, the first test of sound words is their origin – those of our Lord Jesus Christ (6:3). Paul also calls this, our instruction (1:5) since he taught what Jesus taught. Book, chapter, and verse are sound words. Abiding in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9) keeps us speaking Jesus’ teachings. Everything that Christ wants His apostles to teach (Jn.14:26; 16:13) are the words of the Christ. These are the sound words that we are to retain (2 Tim.1:13). Paul shows the contrast in 1:4 – myths and endless genealogies.
But here is a problem. First, the Holy Spirit did not stop with those of our Lord Jesus Christ (6:3) in defining sound words. And second, often people within a spiritual fellowship argue over what is found in the Bible. There is controversy about what is not supposed to be controversial! There is even controversy over what should be controversial. And unfortunately, I might start yet another controversy by discussing controversial topics. Instead of pointing the proverbial finger at the dissenters; I will point the finger at myself – and at those who agree with me.
Without tying ourselves to the specific myths and endless genealogies (1:4) disrupting the first century fellowships (Judaism?), let’s apply the principles to our day. Let’s discuss some important and even necessary doctrines, but let’s add this important caveat of Paul’s. Let’s move on and see if we can discover more about controversy and doctrine. We need to look forward.
Category Two – Different Doctrine vs. Sound Words – Effects of Teaching
Looking forward, we see the second test – does it conform to godliness? Paul expands on this in 1:5 – But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Notice the adjectives describing the effect: pure, good, and sincere. If that describes the teaching, shouldn’t that describe the teachers and students? What is our second category? Cause and effect. One of the amazing aspects of Christianity and Judaism is that Theology has a purpose beyond glorifying God through defining and describing God in ideas and words. Practical Theology has to be lived out in the Christian life where we become more like God by practicing godlike truths and therefore glorify, define and describe God in reality. That is true godliness. The cause of godliness is the words of Jesus. Jesus is the source of truth and therefore the cause of what happens to me when I conform myself to His teaching. The effect of the words of our Lord is godliness, love, a good conscience and faith. In fact, the word sound means healthy which is why it has a positive effect on our lives. What kind of people are we? What kind of people does our preaching produce?
We must get beyond thinking that doctrine is just believing the right thing – and condemning those who differ. It is far more than that. Yes, we might have the truth being practiced within our assemblies. We even may have the right positions on all the current hot topics. But that is not good enough. It is not good enough because it doesn’t go far enough. Right doctrine must produce right lives. We must become godly, loving, conscientiously clean, and faithful. We must become pure, good and sincere. Are these marks, these effects, what Christians are known for?
What are the effects of the different doctrine? Controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain (6:4-5). Quite a different result than from godly teaching, isn’t it? Describes some churches and Christians, doesn’t it?
Category Three – Different Doctrine vs. Sound Words – Intent of Teaching
Why are the effects of the different doctrine so disastrous? Let’s merge the first category – source – with this third so that we can see the intent of the teachers. Jesus’ intent is to make us have a right relation with God through godliness, love, faith and our inward selves. The intent of the false teachers is conceit; ignorance; maliciousness; and wrongful gain. Some people just like to cause trouble. Some like to show off or stand out. Some like to make others look badly. Some feel good about making others feel bad. Their own arrogance – contrasted to godliness – coupled with ignorance – contrasted to sound words – purposely leads them to asking questions (controversial questions and disputes about words) that don’t help people become more like Jesus. Instead, they want to profit from the controversy. Instead, they want to argue. Instead, of having people look at God, they want others looking at them. Trouble is who would admit to such diabolical intentions? I know I wouldn’t! Even more troubling is, who can deny such people exist? Maybe more troubling is the fact that these trouble-makers were considered Christians. And most troubling is the possibility that we could be one and not know it.
So what controversial questions are forbidden? Apparently whatever topics we are NOT talking about, it seems. Have you ever met a preacher (or brother or sister) who admitted to this sin? Have you ever met a Christian who confessed he was guilty of asking controversial questions and causing disputes about words? I have asked for modern examples of such controversial questions and the silence was deafening. Maybe I asked the wrong question, because I doubt I can give a list either – in fact, sometimes lists can lead to creeds. However, the text does tell give us clues. Can you figure them out? If not, go back to the source and the effect of the teaching.
Before going on, let me say one more thing about disputes about words. Yes, some words need to be disputed because of the unscriptural definition – for example, baptism. However, have you ever witnessed factionalized brothers arguing over words because they did not understand how their “opponent” used those exact same words? Have you ever thought, “They are saying the same thing, they just don’t know it!” Why? Their aim was not to comprehend but to clash. Nuances over possible shaded meanings become the focus instead of the true meaning of the speaker or writer. Good communication requires that we understand how the other is using a word, and not to assume he defines it the same way we do. As someone advised, seek first to understand then to be understood. Don’t argue over words. Argue over truth.
And here’s another problem – every religious organization is based upon controversy. Jesus Himself caused controversy. Church splits and divisions have their foundation in controversy. However, Scripture teaches us that some controversies are necessary:
1 John 2:19 NASB – They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
So how do we decide what controversies are required, and which ones are forbidden? Let’s go back to the tests. First, examine the source – are we arguing more about words, than “The Word?” Second, does the position I take help me become godlier?
So some controversies are unneeded and unscriptural. But some are required. Therefore can I make an application to some controversies that are required, but unless we are willing to apply the second test – the effect of our teaching – we might as well be quiet? May I prod our thinking that oftentimes we argue rightly, but stop there? May I challenge our lives that if we are going to engage in correct controversial subjects that we better be willing take that truth and apply it to our lives in such a way that we become more like the source of our doctrine?
Now let’s make some controversial applications about controversial topics that need to be discussed.
We can argue about church kitchens, but unless I am willing to practice the godly action of hospitality then I am falling short of the test of sound words.
We can argue over instrumental music, and types of songs to sing, but again, unless I am willing to bring my heart and soul into worshipping God through song, I am wrongfully controversial.
We can argue over orphans and widows and whether it is the church’s obligation or the individual’s. But unless I am willing to get personally involved in the lives of needy people through whatever means God blesses me with, and with whatever opportunities God brings my way, then I am falling short of the Holy Spirit’s test.
We can argue over the sponsoring church arrangement, but unless I am willing to accept responsibility for myself and get busy working, and unless I am willing to do rightly what the sponsoring church is doing wrongly, then I am simply causing trouble.
We can argue over qualifications of elders, but if I am unwilling to challenge myself to grow spiritually and to use my God-given gifts, then I am just causing controversy.
We can argue over marriage, divorce, and remarriage, but unless I am willing to model my marriage after Jesus and His bride – the church – therefore keeping my own marriage spiritually healthy, then all I am doing to preaching consequences leading to controversial effect.
We can argue over baptism and whether it is immersion and for the forgiveness of sins. But unless I am willing to die with Jesus in baptism, and therefore put to death my fleshly desires and wants, and unless I am willing to walk in newness of life and model what a real Christian should be, then I am simply arguing doctrine and missing the impact that doctrine should have on my life.
All of the above topics are important, and worth taking a position on and even arguing about. But my point is that having the correct doctrinal position is not all there is. We must go further. We must live that doctrine. And if we are not, how are we different from the Pharisees Jesus condemned:
Matthew 7:1-5 NASB “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. (2) “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. (3) “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? (4) “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? (5) “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
We can argue over whatever you and I have heard arguments over. But we must go beyond arguing and arguments. We must remember that doctrinal positions are nothing unless they change people. What’s the result of the sound words or different doctrines? Am I changed for the good by what I believe? Or am I just wanting to argue?
Simply stated, what I believe, teach, practice, and even argue about must take root in me spiritually, so that I am challenged to practice godliness and challenged to produce godliness in others.
Now that you’ve read what I wrote, can I say, “See, nothing controversial about that!”
Comments