THE so-called “pastoral letters”, sent by Paul to Timothy and Titus, are unusual in being written to individuals rather than whole church communities. They offer candid insights into the challenges being faced in these early churches, and what I find striking is the scale of attention paid to the character of those within a Christian community, and particularly the importance of the way they choose to speak.
Paul urges Timothy, “Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarrelling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen” (2 Timothy 2.14). Personally, I have always found that this warning about “quarrelling about words” resonates deeply. It can so often be the case that a disagreement becomes damaging, precisely because words are twisted or misrepresented. And the honest reality is that sometimes we quite enjoy such quarrelling, as we demonstrate that our opponent has not spoken with sufficient clarity.
Here, as with all consideration of speech ethics, we have to recall the significance of how we are speaking, and to what end. Ultimately, are we seeking to see God’s Kingdom come on earth as in heaven? If so, that will surely affect the way we speak — particularly with brothers and sisters within the Church — and also the words we choose to use. The aggressive email sent before the church meeting may well be raising valid and important points; the question is whether it also offers an example of someone forgetting how it is that Christians are called to face their disagreements.
The pastoral letters, or epistles, are so insightful precisely because they see this human reality and speak directly into it. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul has already warned against false teachers with their “unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction” (1 Timothy 6.4-5). But his concern is not merely false teachers from without, but the way in which disputes are faced among God’s people.
So, Timothy is also warned to “avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly” (2 Timothy 2.16). This observation is revealing because it reminds us of the way in which just a few ill-chosen words can gather momentum and lead a community in an unhelpful direction.
This is why our challenge is to tame the tongue — we all know the fallout that can follow from even just a few misspoken words. For Paul, there is a particular importance here in relation to disagreements, which can so easily spiral downwards into more serious and damaging debates. Christians are to “avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly” (v.23). Now, this does not mean that all debates are to be avoided, not even potentially controversial ones, but it does mean that there is a call to consider whether a debate in prospect falls under Paul’s categorisation of “foolish and stupid” controversy.
Sometimes, a disagreement over something trivial can light a profoundly unhelpful fire in a church community. Greater initial discernment might have seen the argument avoided in the first place.
I CONCLUDE with a short summary of qualities that should be found in a servant of the Lord: they “must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed” (vv.24-25). Here we see a reminder that the fruit of the Spirit should be visible and operational in the life of any Christian.
Kindness, patience, and gentleness are highlighted as character attributes that should be noticeable. And, when debates arise, as they surely will, gentleness should be a hallmark of how the Christian servant engages with an opponent.
There is, it has to be said, no suggestion on Paul’s part here that the opponent might actually have something useful to contribute. He seems to be suggesting that they are risking the doctrinal integrity of the Church. But my interest is the way Paul urges Timothy to engage. Patience and gentleness, if truly visible, would mean taking appropriate time to hear an opposing voice. Such people should be “gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth” (v.25).
When Peter writes his first letter to churches in the region of Asia Minor, facing the threat of persecution, there are clear echoes of Paul’s concerns for the part that speech plays in ensuring the faithfulness and unity of emerging Christian communities. Peter urges “whoever would love life and see good days” to “keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech” (1 Peter 3.10).
The pursuit of godly speech is frequently characterised in terms of resisting evil and its associated temptations. The way in which words are used is clearly regarded with great significance by these early Christian leaders, if people are both to be faithful to the gospel and also promoting the loving unity to which they are called.
This concern for the quality as well as the content of speech is present in perhaps the most famous verse from Peter’s letter. It may be that you, like me, have heard a particular extract from verse 15 with regularity in your Christian life: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”
But the verse continues in a way that is important in all contexts, and particularly as we consider questions of disagreement: “But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (3.15b-16).
The focus of this verse is clearly an encouragement to Christians to consider how they are able to express their hope, and it is always good for us to think about how we might respond to such a challenge — particularly without any time to prepare. But, in my own experience, Peter’s consideration of the way in which this hope should be articulated doesn’t always receive the attention it deserves.
Note that the encouragement is to give answers to those who ask (rather than forcing our answers into conversation where no such enquiry has been made). And when a question about Christian hope is asked, the answer is to be given with gentleness and respect.
This is an approach to dialogue which is inherently challenging, whether within or beyond the church. For the Christian engaging with someone from another faith, or from a position of no faith, it is important to consider how a conversation that is faithful to Christian revelation is equally faithful to this encouragement to speak gently and patiently.
Within the Church, these challenges are often even more acute. When Christians face an inevitable disagreement in a particular area, gentleness and patience can rapidly evaporate. But the call found in the New Testament is one to careful and loving speech that seeks to understand the other, while remaining faithful to the gospel. Arguably, this becomes particularly difficult in the Church, when two faithful Christians find themselves in substantial disagreement. But the principle of gentle, respectful engagement can still prove transformative.
Effective facing of disagreement within the Church does, however, assume that there is a shared commitment to seeking a singular truth. Nowhere do we find New Testament writers shrugging their shoulders in the face of interminable debates, and simply agreeing to disagree on matters relating to Christian faith and how to live it out. Peter underlines this commitment to the seeking of truth, and then relates it to how Christians should treat one another: “Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart” (1 Peter 1.22).
For Peter, obeying the truth has a natural by-product: the growth of sincere love in community. Once a church has noticed that quality, he encourages a deepening of such love from the heart. Thus truth, unity, and love intertwine within a gospel context; true love in Christian community flows most clearly, Peter suggests, when that love exists as a result of fidelity to the gospel and its call.
This is an extract from Loving Disagreement: The problem is the solution by Christopher Landau, published by Equipping the Church at £12.99 (Church Times Bookshop £11.69); 978-1-80376-012-4.