Skip to main content

Chapell: A divisive person loves to fight.

By

Titus 3 v 9 
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.



In the life of the church there are signs in a person's behavior that give them away as a person who is quarrelsome.Bryan Chapell, in his commentary on Titus, describes the divisive person with incredible detail.  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We struggle with these commands to “avoid … arguments” because we know there are things worth disputing, and because it seems divisive to separate from divisive people. Two perspectives may help. First, Paul is speaking about ministry priorities. His words require us to examine whether controversy and argument about secondary issues become primary concerns in our ministries. If so, then our priorities require realignment. Second, there is a difference between needing to divide and loving to divide. A divisive person loves to fight. The differences are usually observable. A person who loves the peace and purity of the church may be forced into division, but it is not his character. He enters arguments regrettably and infrequently. When forced to argue, he remains fair, truthful, and loving in his responses. He grieves to have to disagree with a brother. Those who are divisive by nature lust for the fray, incite its onset, and delight in being able to conquer another person. For them victory means everything. So in an argument they twist words, call names, threaten, manipulate procedures, and attempt to extend the debate as long as possible and along as many fronts as possible.
Divisive persons frequent the debates of the church. As a result the same voices and personalities tend to appear over and over again, even though the issues change. Paul’s words caution us about the seriousness of being “divisive.” Though ego or entertainment may be served by argument, such engagement damages the church and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. These are not easy words for those of us who enjoy ecclesiastical debates or rationalize them on the basis of the need for the voicing of views or the advocacy of a cause. I confess there is a part of me that loves to debate. Competitive debate was my training before seminary, and in seminary I loved the give and take of a good theological wrangle. Still, I discovered quite soon when I became responsible for the spiritual well-being of others that what was fun for me was not healthy for the church, nor was it a good way for me to mature in character or understanding.

 At times we must fight (1:9). But if we love the fight, we must question if we are following God’s priorities. Do we really want to devote our lives to quarreling, criticism, and argument? The man of God must not strive (2 Timothy 2:24, 25). He is by nature peaceable and gentle (Titus 1:7; 2:1; 3:2). He stands where he must, but he takes no delight in debates among brethren and does not make them the priorities of his ministry. Nothing other than grace must be the priority of the gospel-centered church.


Hughes, R. K., & Chapell, B. (2000). 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: to guard the deposit (pp. 364–365). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

By
  There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ.  On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion.  The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin.  The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

By
  Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know.  So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated.  Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he kne...
Post a Comment
Read more

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

By
Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here.  I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions.  This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration.  I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him.   I assume he is a brother in the LORD.  Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern:  Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a  good and healthy example?  Let's think about it some together.  (Watch this clip below here first.) Context:  The clip was posted to stand on its own a...
2 comments
Read more