The Dumbest Arguments

Suggested Reading: 2 Timothy 2:8-14

When my kids were young, they argued about the dumbest things. They argued about whether bacon is meat or a pig. They argued about whether enchiladas are Mexican food or normal food. They argued about whether or not a jacket qualifies as a coat. Inevitably, one of them would get convinced of a particular position and the other would be convinced of the opposing opinion and they would argue back and forth until the argument escalated into a fight where they both ended up getting their feelings hurt. Most of these arguments sound stupid on their surface and probably amounted to nothing more than semantics. But, at times, it seemed like they just couldn't help themselves.

Unfortunately, as Christians, we often get into arguments with each other that are essentially the same. We argue about whether God knew we were going to sin or whether we sinned on our own. We argue about whether Christ's death on the cross was substitutionary or conciliatory. We argue about whether this sin is tolerable or whether that behavior is acceptable. We argue about whether the Creation account was literal or whether the author intended us to read it figuratively. We argue and we argue and we argue about things that, many times, don't amount to much more than semantics. We stake our salvation on insignificant things that have nothing to do with God's offer of forgiveness through Christ. We argue over stupid things until we rightfully look like fools to a watching world. So often I want to tell arguing Christians the same thing I tell my kids, "It's ok if he calls a jacket a coat! It's ok if you call enchiladas normal food! You're not responsible for what the other person thinks! You are responsible for behaving and for getting along with each other!"

Paul knew the danger that flows from arguing about every little thing. In 2 Timothy 2:14, Paul warned Timothy, "Remind everyone about these things, and command them in God’s presence to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless, and they can ruin those who hear them." (NLT). Some things in Christian theology are worth fighting for. But many of the arguments we get into with other Christians simply are not worth the time and the energy that we put into them. Worse, they do much more harm than good. These silly fights alienate brothers and sisters from each other and drive wedges between us and our partners for the cause of the Gospel; they distract us from the primary goal of reaching a lost and dying world with the love of Christ and cause us to spend all of our energy on a war of words that will ultimately mean very little, if anything.

Hopefully, as my kids grow older, they will learn to pick their battles a little more wisely and argue only about those things that really matter. Hopefully, they will learn to have even those disagreements in a manner that demonstrates they still love each other. But what about the arguments we have with our Christian brothers and sisters? When we get into arguments do we evaluate the significance of the disagreement or do we jump on in regardless of the consequences or the resources we will expend? When we pick an argument, do we carry it out in a spirit of love for each other or are we more concerned with proving that we are "right" and eliminating the other person's "false" perspective?

What have you argued about recently? Have you picked your battles wisely? Or are you wasting precious time and resources on things that don't really matter?

Are you really even a Christian?

Suggested Reading: Mark 3:13-19

In the romantic comedy You've Got Mail, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan play characters whose personal and political philosophies are diametrically opposed at nearly every point. Their differences are exemplified by the stores they each own and operate. She owns a mom and pop bookstore while he is the corporate CEO of a massive chain. Her business ends up failing because his succeeds. From a business perspective and a personal perspective they have every reason to hate each other. But the two eventually strike up a friendship and then fall in love.

I have often wondered why Christians have such a hard time doing the same thing. I grew up in an "independent, King James only, Bible believing, New Testament Baptist Church" and then went to college and seminary in what is considered, among Southern Baptists at least, as one of those "liberal" schools which happened to have a lot of "conservative" students as well. Much more often than I wanted, I wound up in the crossfire of Christians on both sides attacking each other. They would argue over theology. They would argue over politics. And if it went on long enough, the "debates" would digress to people calling each other names and questioning the faith of the other group. Most of the time there was evidence to support both groups' opinions, both in the political realm and from scripture, but neither side wanted to give the other an inch. At times, it almost seemed like they hated each other.

In Mark chapter 3, we are given an example of two disciples who could easily have fallen into a similar situation. Jesus went up on a mountain and called to him those men who would eventually become the apostles. In verses 19, two of the men listed are Matthew, the tax-collector, and a man known as Simon the Zealot. Matthew was a man who not only accepted Rome's rule over Israel but had chosen to make his living by helping them to enforce their rule. Simon, as a member of the Zealot party, was vehemently opposed to Roman rule and had committed his life to removing Rome from its position over his homeland, even if it required violence.

According to the customs of the day, these men would probably have hated each other. But we are never given any indication that they were at each other's throats. I'm sure there would have naturally been some initial distrust and probably even some debates along the way. But these men followed Jesus together and, together, they helped turn the world upside down. So what made them different than us? My guess is that they allowed their mutual devotion to Jesus to override their differences.

We don't have to agree with every political and theological stance that another believer takes. But we do need to allow for the fact that Jesus calls people from every walk of life and from every political ideology. And we need to remember that everybody's opinions are going to be a little different until Jesus sets all of us straight in the end. We must be willing to allow our mutual devotion to Jesus to be stronger than our political differences or our relatively minor theological disagreements.

Jesus said people would know we were his disciples because of how we love each other. Are we really loving each other or are we too busy fighting over our own opinions?

Secret Popularity Contests and Worthless Conversations

Suggested Reading: 2 Timothy 2

I once served as a substitute teacher for first grade. One of the required supplies for the class was a handheld whiteboard that the kids could use to do scratch work and play with when all of their assignments were finished. While I was helping guide some of the students through an assignment, I noticed another student sneaking around with his whiteboard. When I went to investigate, I discovered the names of two students had been written down and there were hash marks beside each name. The student had been taking a secret vote to see which of his fellow students was the most well liked. I immediately erased the board and told the sneaky surveyor that voting just to see which student was more popular was only going to hurt somebody's feelings. A sheepish grin from the student told me that the student understood perfectly and it might have even been the intent.

As adults, and especially as Christian adults, we like to think we have grown beyond petty exercises which serve only to hurt people but the truth is that often we have only become less honest and more sophisticated about it. The self-proclaimed "theologians" among us tend to be the worst but almost all of us are guilty of it. We begin a "discussion" on a controversial topic just to get a rise out of people. We post our "enlightened" opinion on Facebook hoping someone will disagree with us so that we can feel superior and have a chance to "teach." We bring up something terrible another person has done, knowing (and probably hoping) it will lead to everyone badmouthing someone we should have forgiven long ago. We fight over "theological" tenets that hold little, if any, practical value and end up taking sides and dividing our groups, churches, and denominations over them.

The Apostle Paul understood this very human tendency when he was advising Timothy on his pastoral ministry. In 2 Timothy chapter 2, Paul advised Timothy three different times not to engage in such discussions and to steer his people away from them and their dire consequences. In verse 14, Paul wrote, Remind everyone about these things, and command them in God’s presence to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless, and they can ruin those who hear them. Two verses later, he wrote,  Avoid worthless, foolish talk that only leads to more godless behavior. Then seven verses later Paul added, Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights (2 Timothy 2:14, 16, 23, NLT). 

When we engage in potentially dangerous conversations, we must ask ourselves two very important questions: 1) Why do I want to have this discussion? And 2) What will the likely consequences of this discussion be? If we only want to feel good about ourselves in comparison to someone else, to get an ego boost or put someone down, we should never even begin. If the conversation is more likely to lead to division and hurt feelings than to actually accomplish any good, we should never even begin. Some conversations never have happy endings. Some conversations only serve to benefit us at everyone else's expense. Those are the conversations we should avoid at all costs. Some difficult conversations must happen, but they should always be approached with wisdom and with love.

What conversation are you thinking of starting? Before you open your mouth, consider your motives and the consequences. Once the words are out, you likely won't get another chance.

Caught in the Crossfire of Christian Firing Squads

Suggested Reading: Mark 3:13-19

In the romantic comedy You've Got Mail, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan play characters whose personal and political philosophies are diametrically opposed at nearly every point. Their differences are exemplified by the stores they each own and operate. She owns a mom and pop bookstore while he is the corporate CEO of a massive bookstore chain. Her business ends up failing because his succeeds. From a business perspective and a personal perspective they have every reason to hate each other. But the two eventually strike up a friendship and then fall in love.

I have often wondered why Christians have such a hard time doing the same thing. I grew up in an "Independent, King James only, Bible believing, New Testament Baptist Church" and then went to college and seminary in what is considered, among Southern Baptists at least, as one of those "liberal" schools which happened to have a lot of "conservative" students as well. Much more often than I wanted, I wound up in the crossfire of Christians on both sides attacking each other. They would argue over theology. They would argue over politics. And if it went on long enough, the "debates" would digress to people calling each other names and questioning the faith of the other group. Most of the time there was evidence to support both groups' opinions, both in the political realm and from scripture, but neither side wanted to give the other an inch. At times, it almost seemed like they hated each other.

In Mark chapter 3, we are given an example of two disciples who could easily have fallen into a similar situation. Jesus went up on a mountain and called to him those men who would eventually become the apostles. In verse 18, two of the men listed are Matthew, the tax-collector, and a man known as Simon the Zealot. Matthew was a man who not only accepted Rome's rule over Israel but had chosen to make his living by helping them to enforce their rule. Simon, as a member of the Zealot party, was vehemently opposed to Roman rule and had committed his life to removing Rome from its position over his homeland, even if it required violence.

According to the customs of the day, these men would probably have hated each other. But we are never given any indication that they were at each other's throats. I'm sure there would have naturally been some initial distrust and probably even some debates along the way. But these men followed Jesus together and, together, they helped turn the world upside down. So what made them different than us? My guess is that they allowed their mutual devotion to Jesus to override their differences.

We don't have to agree with every political and theological stance that another believer takes. But we do need to allow for the fact that Jesus calls people from every walk of life and from every political ideology. We need to remember that everybody's opinions are going to start out a little different until Jesus brings us closer and closer to his own in the end. We must be willing to allow our mutual devotion to Jesus to be stronger than our political differences and trust that Jesus will eventually straighten out our theological differences if we are all following Him.

Jesus said people would know we were his disciples because of how we love each other. Are we really loving each other or are we too busy fighting over our own opinions?

Playing the Gospel Gotcha Game

If you've ever watched political debates, you may have noticed a pattern. Rather than dealing with the issues at hand, each of the candidates chose to find ways to turn the questions into an opportunity to bash the opponent. Oh? you're asking about how what I said was wrong? Think about this thing the other guy actually did. Oh? You want to know why I constantly lie? Let's take this opportunity to talk about the other guy's less than winning personality. The entire debate, and the entire campaign really, has boiled down to attacking the other person for their sins and downplaying one's own sins. There is little attempt to discuss policies. It's all about delegitimizing anything the other one says be destroying the opponent's character.

Jesus had a couple of opportunities to fall into the same trap in Mark chapter 2. In the first instance, the scribes of the Pharisees criticized Jesus through his disciples by asking why Jesus was eating with "Tax collectors and sinners" as if they were perfectly righteous and upright themselves. Jesus didn't respond as I would have been tempted to do by saying, "Well, you're really not as righteous as you think" and then proceeding to list all of their sins (like he was capable of doing). Instead, Jesus responded by addressing the core issue in the discussion: his purpose on earth. "Those who are well don't need a doctor, but the sick do need one. I didn't come to call the righteous but sinners" (Mark 2:17, HCSB). Rather than destroying his "opponents" as he was capable of doing, Jesus addressed the core issue that swept away the heart of their criticism, essentially saying, "Sinners are the ones who actually need me."

The second opportunity was just a few verses later. Jesus and his disciples were walking through a grain-field and his disciples plucked a few heads of grain to eat. The disciples of the Pharisees then accused Jesus' disciples of breaking the Sabbath (presumably by reaping). Now, I had always assumed the disciples did break the Sabbath until I did some research recently only to discover that plucking a head of grain as you are walking through the field in order to eat it right then was not considered "work"  which violated the Sabbath by many Jewish authorities. When the Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples of breaking the Sabbath, Jesus could have stopped and declared, "Technically, according to Rabbi so and so, what they did is ok so leave them alone." Jesus could have pointed out the incorrect portion of their argument and addressed the Pharisees' gotcha moment. But Jesus didn't. Instead, Jesus addressed the real issue: the nature of the Sabbath. Jesus quoted an example of someone breaking temple regulations in a time of need and summarized by declaring, "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28, HCSB).

In both cases, Jesus' critics tried to get Jesus bogged down in a "gotcha moment," where a technicality  or an incident that could be made to look bad might be used to derail Jesus. But instead of giving in and addressing these little things, Jesus chose to address the core issue which would sweep away these smaller arguments. Jesus chose to address the heart of the problem rather than get caught up in playing the game.

As we try to share our faith with people, or even just as people criticize us, we cannot allow ourselves to get distracted by a game of "gotcha." Rather than giving in to an initial gut reaction and addressing each little nit-picky point, we have to look for the bigger issue behind  their objections and criticisms. We can't allow ourselves to get distracted with the minor arguments that never really move the discussion forward. People's minds never get changed in the gotcha game; people only play it to reinforce their own beliefs. Instead, we must allow the Holy Spirit to point us to a person's larger concern that, maybe, they haven't even fully articulated to themselves yet.

Don't get distracted by the gotcha game. Look for the big picture and address the heart of the issue.