strife – La Vista Church of Christ

Turn Away from Them

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:50:21 +0000

by Bill Robinson

Understanding Paul's Command

The sharpest warning Paul ever wrote sits in the middle of a thank-you list.

Romans 16 is the warmest chapter he ever put on paper. He names close to thirty people. Phoebe, who carried the letter. Prisca and Aquila, who risked their necks for him. Mary, who worked hard. Rufus and his mother, who had been a mother to Paul too. Household after household, greeted by name.

Then Romans 16:17-18.

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive" (Romans 16:17-18 ESV).

Where that warning sits tells you how to read it. This is not a bitter man looking for a fight. This warning is tucked inside a roll call of people Paul loved, most of whom he had never met. He had just spent fifteen verses honoring them. Now he is protecting them.
If we read the command to avoid apart from the affection surrounding it, we will misread it every time.

Two words are worth slowing down on. "Divisions" is the word Paul lists in Galatians 5:20 among the works of the flesh, alongside jealousy and fits of anger. "Obstacles" translates a word that meant the trigger stick of a trap, the piece that springs the snare. So we are not talking about people who are merely difficult to get along with. We are talking about people who split, and people who set traps.

Notice also who is being addressed. "Brothers," plural. The whole congregation. Paul does not hand this to a preacher or a committee. Watching is work the church does together.

Now the word everything turns on.

"Avoid" is one word in English. In Greek it's a picture. The word is ekklino, built from "out" and "to bend or lean." To bend away out of the path. Standard lexicons render it "to turn away from, to shun." Paul adds "away from them," which reinforces what the verb already says. And the form is continuous. Not one dramatic gesture, but a settled direction.

It shows up only three times in the New Testament, and the other two are worth sitting with.

In Romans 3:12, Paul quotes the Psalms: "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless." There the word describes the whole human race swerving away from God.
In I Peter 3:11, Peter quotes the Psalms too: "Let him turn away from evil and do good." There it describes exactly what a Christian is supposed to do with sin.

Same verb. So when Paul tells the church what to do with a man who divides it, he reaches for the word that describes the instinctive movement a believer makes when sin is put in front of him.

I don't raise that as a hypothetical. Elders have told me the word "avoid" does not mean "avoid." I understand the desire to handle a hard text carefully. But a word that means to bend out of the path can't be made to mean stay on it.

Now the part that keeps this from becoming a weapon.

Look at the standard: "contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught." That clause authorizes the warning and limits it at the same time. A fixed standard exists, so division measured against it can be identified. And the standard is not the preacher's judgment, the elders' preferences, or how we've always done it. It's apostolic teaching.

Every misuse of this verse I have seen has been a misuse of that clause, either by skipping it or by quietly substituting my opinion for the apostles' teaching. If I can't show from Scripture that something is contrary to what was delivered, this verse gives me nothing to say.

One more honest note. Romans 16:17 gives a direction, not a procedure. It isn't I Corinthians 5. It isn't Titus 3:10. Where Scripture is silent on the mechanics, we should be too.

But it does require one thing plainly. You cannot avoid a man you have not identified.

Why Does the Command Exist?

Paul's word for how error moves through a church is gangrene.

Writing to Timothy about two men who had wandered from the truth, he says their talk "will spread like gangrene," and that "they are upsetting the faith of some" (II Timothy 2:17-18). The image is medical, and it isn't gentle. Gangrene does not stay where it starts.

That's the first reason Scripture tells us to turn away. Error spreads. It does not sit politely in the corner where we found it.

Here's the second, and it should humble anyone who thinks his congregation is too solid to be affected. At Antioch, Peter pulled back from eating with Gentiles, "and the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy" (Galatians 2:13).

Barnabas. The man who vouched for Saul when nobody else would. Who went to Tarsus and found him. Who walked the first missionary journey. If Barnabas can get carried along, the argument that our people are too grounded for this doesn't survive contact with the text.

The third reason is the aim of the men themselves. Paul told the Ephesian elders that "from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:30). Note where the danger comes from. Not only from outside. From among your own selves. And note the goal: after them. That's Romans 16:18 in a different setting. He doesn't serve Christ. He serves himself, and he needs people to do it with.

The fourth is the method, and it's the one we miss. Jeremiah's opponents were not shouting blasphemy. "They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, It shall be well with you" (Jeremiah 23:16-17).

Nobody follows an obvious wolf. People follow a kind voice saying the comfortable thing. Which is exactly why Paul warned about smooth talk and flattery rather than about open heresy.

And look at who gets hurt. Paul says they "deceive the hearts of the naive." The word means unsuspecting, without guile. These are not the argumentative members. They have no defenses, because it never occurred to them that they'd need any.

That's why the command exists. Not tidiness. Casualties.

Dealing with Objections

The best objection to Romans 16:17 comes from Paul himself, two chapters earlier.

"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions" (Romans 14:1). Two chapters later, he says to avoid them. Same letter, same author, both binding.
They're not in tension once you see what each one measures. Romans 14 is about opinions, matters of conscience over food and days, where Paul flatly refuses to legislate and commands us to receive one another. Romans 16 is about the teaching the apostles delivered. Different standard, different response. Patience on opinion. Separation on the apostolic deposit.

That distinction is not a technicality. It's the discipline that keeps this verse from becoming a club. A man who applies Romans 16:17 to something Romans 14 covers has not made a small mistake. He has divided a church over an opinion, which puts him closer to the man Paul describes than to the man Paul instructs.

A second objection: Doesn't this weaponize the pulpit?

It can, and I've seen it. But the text binds the preacher before it binds anyone else, because the standard is "the doctrine that you have been taught," not the doctrine I prefer. The cure for that abuse isn't to stop preaching the verse. It's to preach the whole verse, including the part that puts me under it.

A third: Isn't this just exclusion?

Exclusion asks who we can keep out. This text asks how the flock stays whole. Paul's stated concern in Romans 16:18 isn't a clean membership roll. It's the hearts of the unsuspecting. And there's a question buried in the objection that runs backward. Who is doing the dividing? The text locates it, and it isn't the man holding to what was taught. It's the one working "contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught." Forget that, and the brother who asks whether we're still standing where the apostles put us becomes the divisive one, while the man who moved the ground becomes the peacemaker.

The last objection is the one I hear most: Aren't you being harder than God?

To Thyatira the risen Christ said, "I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants" (Revelation 2:20). To Pergamum, He held their toleration of false teaching against them, and they should repent. To Ephesus He gave commendation: "I know you cannot bear with those who are evil" (Revelation 2:2).

He commended a church for refusing to tolerate false teachers and threatened two churches for tolerating them. When we are more patient with error than the Lord is, we have not out-loved Him. We've decided our comfort with a person outweighs His concern for the unsuspecting.

Some among us have quietly set this passage aside, and they do it in the name of love. It's a warped view of love that protects the man doing the damage and leaves the unsuspecting to absorb it. I also know of elders who publicly marked false teachers and then went on in practice as if they never had. A marking nobody keeps isn't mercy. It teaches the congregation that our words don't mean anything.

So what does this ask of us?

Watch, and understand that watching is not suspicion. Suspicion assumes guilt and goes looking for evidence. Watching knows the teaching well enough to notice when something has moved. Which means the ordinary work of teaching the Bible plainly is most of what obedience to this verse looks like.

Measure by apostolic teaching, which means every accusation carries a burden of proof. Before we treat a brother as divisive, someone should be able to state the teaching, show where it was delivered, and show how his position stands against it. If we can't do that, we have a preference, not a case.

Turn away, and remember that turning away is a direction, not an outburst. It means not handing him the platform. Not passing his material along because he made a good point. It does not mean cruelty, gossip, or refusing to speak to a man on the sidewalk.

And do it in order. Titus 3:10 gives what Romans 16:17 assumes: a first and a second warning before the turning away. Paul opposed Peter to his face, in the open, and then they went on serving together. Confrontation is the labor that comes before separation. A church that has done no confronting hasn't yet earned the right to avoid.

Read the verse that follows all of this: "I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil" (Romans 16:19). That's the whole aim. Not people who are hard. People who know what is good so well that evil finds nothing to hold onto.

We don't want anyone gone. We want the flock whole. Those two sound like opposites until a wolf shows up, and then they turn out to be the same thing.

Peaceable Kingdom

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 23:44:40 +0000

by James W. Adams
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 22 No. 3, September 1996

[The following article was recently written by an 81-year-old gospel preacher who has observed what others of us are observing. The Lord’s body is being destroyed by zealots who have no love for the truth or their brethren. Nothing in this article asks for compromise with error; but it does plead for a cessation of the draconian tactics typical of too many who act like jack-booted thugs operating within the framework of churches of Christ. Brother Adams is on the staff of The Guardian of Truth.

by Floyd Chappelear]

Some twenty years ago Henry Gemmill wrote in The National Observer, "I have solved a problem that seems to annoy most operators of bird-feeding stations - raids by acrobatic squirrels. For a while I was baffled; I could discover no deterrent. But the irritation can actually be taken care of easily. I simply decided to run a bird-and-mammal feeder. ״

This solution is what international circles call detente. Détente is another word for compromise through acquiescence to what appears unsolvable and inevitable. However, detente signifies toleration, but not necessarily mutual participation. It is "live and let live," not "live and help live." Mr. Gemmill’s solution in the interest of "peace" is a form of capitulation. In common vernacular, it is, "If you can’t whip them, join them." Mr. Gemmill could have situated his bird-feeders so as to make them inaccessible to the most "acrobatic squirrel." I know, for I have.

The truth is: squirrels, being what they are, will chase away birds and devour all the food. What they do not eat they will scatter to the four winds. If you want to feed squirrels, build a squirrel-feeder. If you wish to feed only birds, make the feeders inaccessible to squirrels. If you desire to feed both, build a squirrel-feeder and separately build a bird-feeder which is totally inaccessible to squirrels. Recognize the fact that some things are not subject to peaceful amalgamation, whereas some are. The key to peace is knowing and respecting the difference.

The Problem Defined

You are wondering: What does this have to do with religious considerations? The answer is: a great deal. Brethren who are equally honest, capable, and sincerely devoted to what they believe to be the teaching of the word of God are, at the same time, not of one mind about many things which are taught in the word of Cod. All agree that there should be peace and unity. All agree that the word of God never teaches two antagonistic points of view on any subject with which it deals. The problem is: How can we have peace and unity in the kingdom of God when such situations occur?

The Ideal Solution

The answer generally given to this problem is: Study the word of God together in an atmosphere of mutual love and respect (not only for each other, but for the word of God and the peace and unity of His people) and arrive at a determination regarding what is the truth concerning the matter and stand together on the "truth." Theoretically and ideally, this is eminently correct, but in practice, it does not always solve the problem. After such study and despite a proper attitude, those holding divergent points of view often remain of the same opinion; hence, the problem of peace and unity remains unsolved. Birds have not been changed into squirrels, nor squirrels into birds, nor has either been converted to unified and peaceful eating out of the same feeder.

Further Analysis of the Problem

Since the ideal solution has not resolved the problem, what is the next step? The next step is to decide whether an individual must understand, believe, and teach the truth about the disputed matter to be acceptable to God and to be saved now and in the world to come. In a word, is it essential to salvation? Obviously, if it is not essential to salvation, divergent views may be safely tolerated. It simply becomes a matter of agreeing to disagree. The difference may be left unresolved provided both disagreeing parties agree not to make an issue of their respective points of view.

If the differences involve matters that could conceivably affect the salvation of souls and cannot be resolved, a solution other than simply agreeing to disagree must be sought. This introduces another significant element to consider. Do the disputed matters involve individual or collective action, are they personal in nature and responsibility as to practice, or do they have to do with group practice?

An illustration of the general acceptance of this principle is apparent in our dealing with the problem of (1) the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of Christians in their assemblies versus (2) the wearing of an artificial covering on their heads on the part of women in the assembly worship. Almost universally, "conservative" and "liberal" brethren have agreed to tolerate wearing or not wearing an artificial covering without allowing the divergent practices to inhibit peace and unity. On the other hand, they have disallowed the use of mechanical instruments of music and recognize such as being destructive of peace and unity. The rationale in this matter is that the wearing of an artificial covering is an individual matter and affects only the relationship of the individual practitioner to the Lord, and does not necessarily affect the relationship of any other person to the Lord. On the other hand, the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship involves all the worshippers in the assembly and violates the consciences of all those who believe it to be unauthorized by the teaching of the word of God; hence, participation in the use of it would cause them to sin against God and bring condemnation (Romans 14:23).

Also, we have dealt with the problem of a Christian’s participation in combat service in carnal warfare or serving as a policeman, state trooper, or sheriff on the same basis, that the matter is strictly personal and involves the individual only. Other Christians may disagree with his right to do so, but are willing to and do tolerate his practice without a breach of fellowship. We have extended this matter further to include the right of preachers and teachers to teach their convictions on these matters (while not pressing for acceptance of their views) without breaches of fellowship.

There is also the question of whether (1) the Holy Spirit personally indwells the Christian (though not exercising direct influence upon the heart) or (2) whether He dwells in the Christian representatively through the instrumentality of the word of God. Many prominent and totally acceptable preachers of the word among "conservative" and "liberal" churches of Christ believe and teach position (1), while just as many equally prominent and acceptable believe and teach position (2) without breaches of peace and unity. The indwelling is not denied, nor the Holy Spirit’s influence. Only the manner of the indwelling is controverted. While it is not denied that the Holy Spirit either does or does not indwell the Christian personally, the matter is not considered sufficiently important to demand a breach of fellowship.

I personally am convinced that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian by means of and to the extent that the word of God is believed and practiced by him or her, and that the personal indwelling view contributes to the susceptibility of Christians to the concept of direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the Christian and the exercise of charismatic gifts by Him. Yet, I highly regard, love, and unfailingly have fellowship in Christ with many brethren who believe and teach the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer, yet who do not accept the idea of direct operation or the present exercise of charismatic gifts.

Is Fellowship on This Basis Wrong?

I believe the distinction between opposing concepts relative to Bible teaching among brethren that has been made in this article to be valid, logical, and scriptural. I further believe that fellowship maintained on its basis is not only scriptural and reasonable, but that it fully meets all of the demands of brotherly love, the bonds of peace, and the unity of the Spirit enjoined by the word of God. I repudiate utterly the concept that unity and fellowship maintained on this basis constitutes compromise with error, is dangerous, or that it may legitimately, logically, or scripturally be employed by defenders of unauthorized institutionalism and centralized church cooperation in benevolence and evangelism to justify their activities.

The idea that tolerance of opposing views (views mutually exclusive of one another) in some matters constitutes capitulation to error, and the expression, recommendation, and practice of such is prima facie evidence of a move toward denominationalism, whether it be among “conservative, liberal, or middle-of-the-road churches," is absurd. All of the illustrations which have been used in this article involve positions that are mutually exclusive of one another relative to the truth concerning the matter involved. For example, it is either true that Christians may use mechanical instruments in their assembly worship with the approval of God or it is not, it is either true that female Christians must wear an artificial covering in the assembly worship to please God or it is not; it is either true that a Christian may be a combat soldier in war, a policeman, a state trooper, or a sheriff with God’s approval or he may not. Some of these matters involve collective responsibility, while others are strictly individual and personal. Therefore, some opposing views of Bible teaching may be safely tolerated; others may not. Each case must be decided on its own merits.

It should be noted that other considerations than those which have been set forth in this article may well have bearing upon the exercise of tolerance in the interest of peace and unity. The dispositions of those involved with reference to the liberty they demand to express their concepts in a public manner may have to be taken into account. Do they merely express their convictions or do they press for their acceptance? Do they "despise" those who differ from them or "judge," i.e., "condemn" them (Romans 14:3)? Are they actuated by a "party spirit" (I Corinthians 3)? Also, consider the fundamental character of the particular matter involved. Is it a clear, unequivocal repudiation of absolutely clear Bible teaching? If so, a person who holds such a view may be tolerated, but not allowed to teach it in a congregation without commensurate refutation. Too, if it is taught as an essential point of view rather than the mere expression of a possibility or opinion, this could make a difference. However, these are matters that must be decided by each congregation, and no person or persons can prescribe or seek to impose his solution upon congregations of which he is not a part.

Individual fellowship is personal and congregational fellowship is local. Let no one arrogantly assume the right to prescribe ecumenical bounds or impose encyclical sanctions. This is the essence and spirit of ecclesiasticism and antagonistic to clear Bible teaching concerning the absolute authority of Jesus Christ, the right of private interpretation of the Scriptures, and the autonomous character of local congregations.

A Disturbing Mindset

There is a mindset these days among some professed "conservative" brethren that, in all controverted matters relative to what the Bible teaches, where there are diametrically opposite points of view, there can be no fellowship between such brethren until and unless there is a meeting of the minds - a reaching of complete agreement- that any other course is a capitulation to error. This is based on the fact that a concept is either true or not true, the word of God being the standard. No one known to me disagrees with this fact, but the previously noted conclusion that is deduced from it is not necessary, justified, or true.

Such a conclusion ignores the fact that not all things taught in the Bible, though true, are equally significant in determining whether Christians may or may not be in fellowship with one another. This is not to say that anything taught in the word of God is unimportant, or that all should not seek to know and believe the truth about what is said. It is to say that not all things bear the same degree of importance in reference to peace, unity, and fellowship among brethren. For instance, there is a wide difference among brethren and always has been on the subject of Divine Providence. None known to me has denied the providential care of the Father for His children. However, its extent, the manner in which it is accomplished, and the expectations of the Christian based upon it have been widely disputed. All of which are either true or not true. Yet, I have never known of brethren dividing and refusing to fellowship one another over the question of Divine Providence. Neither have I heard of anyone trying to suppress the expression of one’s views on this subject, or making it a test of whether a brother is sound and suitable to be used in a gospel meeting by a congregation.

I do not presume to dictate to any persons or churches relative to whom they may fellowship or to sit in judgment on them relative to the exercise of this prerogative. However, I do urge that brethren use their "thinking caps" and exercise, to the highest degree, discretion, brotherly love, and respect for the general peace of the brethren and churches in the exercise of their rights relative to fellowship. Christians, preachers, and churches are not clones fashioned by, hence amenable to, the ideology of any paper, congregation, preacher, or combination of preachers. Churches which require a preacher to preach only that which their members know and believe to be true assume omniscience and infallibility and demonstrate their unwillingness to give consideration to anything beyond their "God’s Little Acre" (with no intention of endorsing the lewd character of the novel which bears this title) of mental and spiritual acquisition. This attitude demonstrates that those who assume it are dead between the ears and set in the concrete of their own ordinarily limited capacity. Through more than sixty years of preaching, my rule has been that only the Lord may tell me what to preach. The instances in which churches tried to do this can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and they did not succeed.

May the Lord deliver us from the mindset that would seek to “smoke out" every preacher’s personal opinions and modus operandi concerning moot questions among brethren
as a condition of soundness and fitness to proclaim the gospel. The excuse given for acting on the basis of this mindset; namely, "a church has the right to ask concerning the teaching of those whom it uses and supports," is belied by the fact that the inquiries of those who made them, the names of those receiving the inquiries, and the answers or refusals to answer of those of whom inquiry was made were publicized, circulated, and the practice recommended to other churches. Never in sixty years of gospel preaching have I ever encountered an effort of this kind. My prayer is that it may die aborning!

Gentle, Not Quarrelsome

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 17:57:16 +0000

by Edwin Crozier

Text: II Timothy 2

I find it a bit humorous. When Paul tells Timothy he is given a spirit of power instead of fear and tells him to fan his gift into flame, many people conclude, "Timothy must have been a timid, cowardly fellow." However, I've yet to hear anyone say, "You know, Timothy must have been a quarrelsome and pugnacious fellow, considering how many times Paul tells him to stay out of fights and arguments."

I don't think Timothy was any more argumentative than I think he was cowardly. Rather, these were simply the dangers that came with the preacher's course. Paul warned Timothy of them. But I have to admit, I am a preacher. I hang out with preachers. I have conversations with preachers. In my experience, preachers, as a class, are a pretty quarrelsome lot. I have and continue to struggle with the tendency to verbally spar and not think about the fallout until later.

Paul tells Timothy to pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace along with others who call on the Lord from a pure heart. While he pursues those things, he is not only to avoid youthful passions, but also foolish, ignorant controversies. Why? I would expect that their foolishness and ignorance would be enough. But Paul has a bigger reason. These controversies breed quarrels. And the Lord's slave must not be quarrelsome.

Don't misunderstand. Sometimes, the Lord's slave must correct opponents. But he is to do so with gentleness. The Lord's slave is to be kind to everyone, able to teach, and patient in the face of suffering. He is not supposed to quarrel and fight.

We are once again left with the struggle to know the difference between when correction is needed and when arguing is to be avoided. When is the controversy foolish, and when is it contending for the faith? We struggled with this question while reading Titus as well. Perhaps we have an easier time here. This tells us how to behave no matter the conversation. We are to be kind, patient, gentle, skillful. If we work on these traits no matter the controversy, perhaps we will respond properly when the controversy is foolish and when it is necessary.

In both cases, we must remember who the enemy is. The "opponents" are not the enemy. Rather, they have been captured by the devil to do his will. The devil is the enemy. We ourselves were once captured by him and were doing his will. With this in mind, we can approach the controversies with the right outlook and the opponents with the right attitude. In so doing, God may perhaps grant them repentance that leads to the knowledge of the truth.

Let us pray that we will be the kind of slave to the Lord we need to be. Let us pray that the Lord will grant repentance to the opponents. Let us avoid foolish controversies. But no matter the controversy, let us abandon being quarrelsome and pursue gentleness, patience, and kindness.

Euodia and Syntyche

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:31:16 +0000

by Edwin Crozier

In one little paragraph, we find the rubber hitting the road for Paul’s letter to the Philippians:

"I entreat Euodia and Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life" (Philippians 4:2-3 ESV).

It’s probably a bit much to say this entire letter was written in order to get to this paragraph. However, everything Paul has said informs what he wants Euodia and Syntyche to do.
As we read of these two sisters and fellow workers, let us see ourselves. Are there any brothers or sisters with whom we have disagreements, disharmony, and strife? Paul would write this exact same letter to us and call us by name to “agree in the Lord.”

Be aware, when Paul in Philippians 4:2 asked these sisters to “agree in the Lord,” he used the same words as he did in Philippians 2:2 when he told the whole congregation to complete his joy by “being of the same mind.” The word translated “agree” is the same one as the “mind” we are to have among ourselves in Philippians 2:5. It’s also the same word used to talk about the “minds” the ambitious teachers have set on earthly things in Philippians 3:19 and explaining how the mature are to “think” in Philippians 3:5.

In other words, Paul was not simply telling Euodia and Syntyche to come to an agreement over some doctrinal disagreement or even preferential dispute. He wasn’t asking them to pull out scriptures and cross-reference verses to figure out the answer to some Biblical question. He was telling them to view each other the way Christ views them.

Euodia and Syntyche needed to have the mind of Christ. Each was to abandon any envy, rivalry, or selfish ambition she had toward the other. Each was to view the other as more significant than self. Each was to seek the interests of the other above her own interests. Each was to humble herself before the other. Each was to be willing to die to serve the other. Each was to count serving Christ in this relationship as greater than any other thing they thought to be gain to self.

Grudges and hurt feelings can arise for numerous reasons within a congregation. Paul takes this seriously. So seriously, he called these sisters out by name in a publicly read letter. Can you just imagine how these sisters felt as this letter was read to the congregation for the first time? Paul thought this was so important, he included it so it would be repeated every time this letter was read from then on, even after the women had reconciled, which I hope they did.

Paul takes our disharmony with others in the congregation seriously. Let us take seriously Paul’s instruction to be of the same harmonious mind in Christ with our brothers and sisters.

When Wisdom Walks Away

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 21:00:34 +0000

by Cleve Stafford

There’s a certain kind of argument that never ends well. No matter how calmly you speak, how clear your reasoning is, or how sincere your intentions are, the other person will not act accordingly. Proverbs 29:9 lays it out plainly: “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” That verse is not just a warning; it pretty much paints a picture we have all seen before.

Maybe it was during a family dinner, a church business meeting that turned tense, or just scrolling through an online comment section. You try to offer something meaningful, something grounded in undeniable truth, and instead of a thoughtful response, you get mockery or explosive emotion meant to elicit a negative response from you. There’s no peace in it, and no chance of a resolution – there is just noise. Proverbs 29:9 doesn’t say the wise man wins the argument, but rather that he gets drawn into a mess he can’t fix. There is pure rage, laughter, but no actual, active listening—there is just noise.

Imagine the following: you’ve got a person trying to reason, probably measured in tone and hopeful for resolution through clarity. Across from him is someone who either blows up in anger or just mocks the whole conversation. This person is not interested in finding common ground. That’s what the fool does. Not because he’s unintelligent, but because he’s so hardened that he’s not looking for truth; he’s trying to win or dismiss. And he’s loud, not to be heard, but to drown out what he doesn’t want to face.

I think Solomon, through the Spirit, was doing more than giving us a warning. He was showing us the emotional toll of trying to force wisdom on someone who isn’t ready to receive it. He was giving us permission to walk away when there was no chance of resolving the differences. Jesus did this too, didn’t He? There were times when He answered the Pharisees, and there were also moments when He stayed silent, knowing that words would fall on stubbornly deaf ears. He didn’t chase every argument. He didn’t pour out pearls where He knew they’d be trampled. Matthew 7:6 says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”

Now, let me be perfectly clear: that’s not a license to give up on people. We’re called to be patient, kind, and to teach with gentleness. But it does mean we need discernment to decide when to continue and when to walk away. Not every argument is worth our energy, and not every conversation is fertile ground. I’ve had moments when I stayed too long in a debate. Not because I loved the person, but because I wanted to be right, or because I didn’t want to seem weak, or because I thought I could out-talk their resistance. But every time, I walked away feeling drained and discouraged.

The truth is, sometimes the most loving thing you can do is step back and pray. Let God work on the heart. Be ready to speak when the time is right, but wise enough to be quiet when it’s not. Yes, that is hard, but it’s also a combination of humility, courage, and wisdom, sprinkled with a generous helping of sugar. Paul told Timothy, “Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels” (II Timothy 2:23). That advice still holds true to this day and will do so till the end of time.

So next time you find yourself in one of those moments where everything you say is met with rage or ridicule, remember that your value doesn’t come from winning the argument. Your value is in your attitude, and remember, wisdom doesn’t need to shout to be right. Sometimes, wisdom just walks away, keeping the relationship intact. Wisdom knows that there will be a better time and patiently waits for that moment.

That Is Not the Way You Learned Christ

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 16:34:11 +0000

by Doy Moyer

“But that is not the way you learned Christ!” (Ephesians 4:20).

We hear much about how people think Christianity is supposed to be from all sides. This is often debated ad nauseam through the lens of taking partisan sides. Christianity gets culturally hijacked and manipulated to fit a narrative of our own making, but the one thing consistently missing is the gospel itself.

We are fed stories through algorithms that divide and rip the hope from our hearts. Our culture is filled with despair. We are led into spirals where all we see and think about is death, blame, and more violence. Outrage floods social media as we scramble to make sense of why the next bad thing happens. It’s a never-ending doom scroll that sends us deeper down a path that can only give us the fodder for more anxiety, anger, and hopelessness. And we continue to do it.

That is not the way we learn Christ. Violence, immorality, worldly political divisions, and outrage do not produce the righteousness of God (cf. James 1:20). The context of Ephesians 4 shows the point. Becoming callous, given over to evil practices, corruption, and deceitful desires are set over against the new self “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”

With all the outrage and division, I ask my fellow Christians, where is the gospel in our discussions? Are we trying to be beacons of light, spreading the good news about the truth of Jesus? We need to knock down the straw men, the idolatrous and false view of Christ and His message, so that we can see the light of His hope through forgiveness, transformation, and the love that only God can define and demonstrate. More violence and anger will not accomplish this.

We are continually tempted to be at each other’s metaphorical throats in front of a world that sees this and says, “Yep, that’s Christianity for you.” It’s as if the gospel has taken a back seat to the “real” discussions we ought to be having, wherein political walls and blame shifting are the norms. It’s almost as though we are telling the Lord, “You wait over there a minute while we fix this problem.”

Tragedy is occurring in the streets. Evil is having its day. Perhaps it is time to pause, lament the state of this corrupt world, humble ourselves before God, pray the Lord for mercy, and repent of anything that has contributed to our cultural and moral decline. This includes a failure to set the gospel message front and center in our lives, in our words, and in our hearts. Of the things we think about, this is most excellent and worthy of praise (see Philippians 4:8). It runs counter to the hopelessness and despair that the world provides.

This is not a time for “yes, but…” or “what about….” It is a time for reflection, repentance, and redirection so that we can see the path cleared for hope, forgiveness, reconciliation, and rebuilding.

We do need to know what is going on in the world. We need to stand for justice, defend the oppressed, and do what we can to be lights as we seek the welfare of where we live. I’m not saying we can’t have a voice and express opinions. However, the way we do that is just as much a part of our message as the words we choose.

And this is the critical point I am trying to make:

Interject the gospel into this corruption. Healing cannot happen on our own terms. We cannot look the Great Physician in the eyes, reject what He offers, and expect to fix things on our own when we ourselves are corrupted by the same culture we try to fight. Healing won’t happen that way. It can’t happen that way. This world needs Jesus as much as at any time, and Christians, who know that we don’t learn Christ through violence and worldly anger, are the ones who need to be spreading that news. Will we be those who can do that?

As a reminder, this has been done before. As our Lord said to His disciples:

“The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves” (Luke 10:2-3).

We may be lambs among wolves, but we are servants of the Lamb of God Himself, who is also the Judge before whom all will stand. The way we learn Christ in truth is also the way we need to teach others about Christ, and this is not accomplished through carnal, worldly tactics (II Corinthians 10:3-5).

Raising Doctrinal Concerns the Right Way

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:41:17 +0000

by Matthew Allen
via From Fear to Faith

Truth matters. Scripture never calls God’s people to ignore error. Elders are told to guard the flock, preachers are charged to handle the word accurately, and Christians are warned that some will depart from the faith.

But Scripture is equally clear about how concerns are to be handled.

Faithfulness is not measured only by what we believe. It is revealed by how we respond when we think something is wrong.

Start by Distinguishing Concern from Suspicion

Not every uneasy feeling is a doctrinal crisis. Concern is rooted in evidence. Suspicion is rooted in assumption. Scripture warns us against confusing the two.

“Anyone who answers before he listens is foolish and shameful” (Proverbs 18:13).

“The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him” (Proverbs 18:17).

Before speaking, ask: What exactly is the issue? Is it something clearly taught, or something inferred? Is it a pattern, or a single statement taken out of context?

Being careful at the beginning prevents damage later.

Go to the Source Before Going to the Crowd

The biblical pattern for correction is personal before it is public.

Jesus taught that when a brother sins, the first step is private conversation (Matthew 18:15). While that passage addresses personal offense, it reflects a broader kingdom ethic: correction should begin with the least destructive, most redemptive approach possible.

We see this principle lived out when Priscilla and Aquila recognized that Apollos was off in some of his teaching. Though Apollos was preaching publicly, they “took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately” (Acts 18:26). They did not go public. They did not stir suspicion. They cared about Apollos as a brother and a leader, and they addressed the issue personally.

Public teaching does not automatically require public correction.

What About Paul Naming Names?

Some object and say, “But Paul named names. He corrected people publicly.”

This is true.

When Paul rebuked publicly (Galatians 2:11–14; I Timothy 1:19–20; II Timothy 2:17), several things were true. The error was established, not speculative. The issue was persistent, not a single misstatement. And the harm was already public and influencing others.

Paul’s public corrections were not first responses. They were necessary responses once the facts were known and the stakes were clear.

The New Testament does not model immediate public criticism based on rumor or distance. It models restraint, investigation, and a desire for restoration, with public correction reserved for clear, ongoing, and harmful error.

Modern social media platforms do not change biblical ethics. The fact that teaching is public does not automatically make every response wise.

Test Teaching Carefully, Not Casually

Scripture commands discernment, but discernment requires effort.

“Test all things. Hold on to what is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21). The Bereans were praised because they examined the Scriptures carefully, not because they reacted quickly (Acts 17:11).

Listening to full lessons, reading in context, and separating disagreement from error takes time. Soundbites and summaries rarely tell the whole story.

It is not uncommon for a single paragraph to be lifted from a larger body of work and used to construct extensive objections, assigning positions the author has explicitly rejected elsewhere in the same document. The fuller context is often available. Clarifications may be stated plainly. Yet they are ignored because engaging the whole argument requires patience.

That is not discernment. It is a distortion.

Faithfulness requires more than finding a sentence one dislikes. It requires the honesty to read carefully, the humility to listen fully, and the discipline to represent another person’s position accurately before critiquing it.

Aim for Restoration, Not Victory

The goal of correction is not to win an argument. It is to help a brother.

Paul instructed that those caught in error are to be restored with gentleness (Galatians 6:1). The Lord’s servant is not to be quarrelsome, but patient and able to teach (II Timothy 2:24–25). Truth handled without love becomes destructive.

A simple question helps here: Is the aim restoration, or reputation damage? Tone usually reveals the answer.

Know When Silence Is Not Faithfulness

There are times when escalation is necessary. Persistent, unrepentant, public error must be addressed for the sake of the flock (Titus 1:9; Acts 20:28–31).

But process still matters. Skipping steps and rushing to exposure can cause damage, even when concerns are real. Faithfulness does not ignore error, but it also refuses shortcuts.

Guard Your Heart While Guarding the Truth

Jesus gave a searching rule that applies here: “Whatever you want others to do for you, do also the same for them” (Matthew 7:12).

If concerns were raised about one’s own teaching, how would one hope they were handled? With fairness or suspicion? With conversation or commentary? With care or with labels?

That question keeps the heart in check.

A Final Word

The church needs people who deeply love the truth. It also needs people who handle the truth wisely.

Rumors divide. Careless accusations wound. Biblical correction strengthens. If something causes concern, do not rush to label. Do not recruit allies. Do not speak before listening. Go to the person. Open the Scriptures. Speak the truth in love.

That is how the church stays faithful without tearing itself apart.

When Would I Split a Church?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 23 Dec 2025 23:10:12 +0000

by Floyd Chappelear
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 1, March 1993

There are a few things that God hates. One of them is "he that soweth discord among the brethren" (Proverbs 6:19). That should be a sobering thought. Being responsible for a division is a terrible thing.

On the other hand, what God desires for his children is to seek peace and unity actively. To accomplish this is no easy task, to be sure. In fact, the Lord says that we must be willing to "endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). Harmony within a church may be difficult to achieve, but it is possible where men and women love the Lord and His church.

In view of the thoughts of the first two paragraphs, one is made to wonder what "issues" one would be willing to split a church over. From my perspective, there aren’t very many.

I would never split a church over a matter of opinion (or one that I perceive as such).
I would never split one over that which I regard as "semantics."
I would never split one to keep a preaching job.
I would never split one over a matter of faith that does not require me to violate my conscience.
I would never split His people because of "respect of persons."

When faithful saints truly love God’s work and His people, they will do all they can to avoid splitting a church. What, then, does this say about those who have few qualms about splitting a church? ’Nuff said.

Why Everything Is Personal Now—and Why Disagreement Is Treated Like Sin

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 18:36:42 +0000

by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

We are living in an age when disagreement is no longer viewed as a difference of thought—it is treated as a moral failure. If you don’t hold my position, you are not just wrong…you are evil, unloving, or sinful. Every discussion is personal. Every debate is emotional. And every challenge feels like an attack on someone’s very identity.

Don’t believe me? Just write an article on modesty, youth ministers, public schools vs. homeschool, homemaking, or parenting, and post it on Facebook. People will absolutely lose their minds in the comments (and some will lose their Christianity). Because after all, if you don’t believe the way they believe—or do things the way they did things—then you are not just wrong, you are on the other team. You are now the evil opponent.

This wasn’t always the case.

There was a time when people could disagree, argue passionately, and still walk away respecting one another. Ideas were debated. Evidence was weighed. Scripture was opened. But today, disagreement is often met with outrage because many people have tied their identity to their opinions. To challenge the belief is to challenge the person. Forget unity, I have to be right!

And that’s dangerous.

When Feelings Replace Truth:

Scripture warns us about this exact mindset. Proverbs 18:2 says, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” Notice the emphasis—truth-seeking is replaced by self-expression. Understanding takes a back seat to validation. Sound familiar?

Modern culture has trained us to elevate feelings above facts. If something feels right, it must be right. If something feels offensive, it must be sinful. How dare you question the way my momma (or my favorite Big-name preacher) does it! But feelings were never designed to be our moral compass.
Jeremiah 17:9 reminds us, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” When we allow emotions to define truth, we shouldn’t be surprised when disagreement feels like persecution.

The Rise of the Self:

Sociologists and psychologists have noted a dramatic rise in narcissistic traits over the last few decades—especially among younger generations. I have preached on this increase in many places. While the exact numbers vary by study, the trend is consistent: people are increasingly self-focused, image-conscious, and intolerant of criticism.

That shouldn’t surprise Christians.

Paul warned Timothy that difficult times would come because “men will be lovers of themselves” (II Timothy 3:2). When self-love becomes supreme, disagreement becomes intolerable. After all, how dare someone challenge me?

This explains why so many conversations feel less like discussions and more like emotional landmines. We are no longer debating ideas—we are defending egos.

“Oh, you didn’t handle Santa with your kids the way I did? Well, let me tell you, you’re wrong, buddy…” And just like that, the person you are talking to becomes “sus” because they hold a different opinion. Church, it really shouldn’t be this way!

When Opinions Become Doctrine:

One of the most sobering developments in modern Christianity is how quickly lines of fellowship are drawn—not over the gospel, but over opinions.
Entire congregations fracture and split over secondary matters. Christians label one another “liberal,” “false teacher,” or “legalist” with remarkable speed. Fellowship is extended or withdrawn based not on obedience to Christ, but on alignment with my conclusions. If you don’t do it the way I do it or believe the way I believe—even on these opinion issues—then you are in sin.

If you don’t affirm my political view, my parenting choice, my career ideology, my theological nuance, or my cultural preference, then you are “on the wrong side of everything—including God.” Sadly, many miss the amount of pride wrapped up in this position.

Scripture is clear that pride does not always announce itself loudly. Often, it hides behind strong convictions and religious language. The problem is not having opinions. The problem is thinking so highly of our opinions that we confuse them with divine revelation.

James warned against this spirit when he wrote, “For where there is envy, strife, and self-seeking, confusion and every evil thing are there” (James 3:16).

We often justify our divisions as “standing for truth,” when in reality, we may be standing for ourselves or our own egos.

A Better Way Forward:

If the church is going to be salt and light in a hypersensitive, self-obsessed culture, we must relearn how to disagree biblically. That means humility. That means listening. That means rooting our convictions in Scripture rather than emotion.

Philippians 2:3 gives us the antidote: “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”

You can still love someone who made choices different from yours! It’s okay! After all, there is the possibility they may be right, and you could learn something from them.

Imagine how different our conversations would be if truth mattered more than winning, and humility mattered more than being affirmed.

Not every disagreement is an attack. Not every opposing view is a sin. And not every challenge to our ideas is a challenge to our worth.

Sometimes, it’s simply an invitation to think—and to grow.

And in a world obsessed with self, that might be the most radical act of all.

Inventors of Dragons

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 21 Nov 2025 21:12:58 +0000

by Jefferson David Tant
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 4, December 1992

In the days of yore, when fierce dragons wandered to and fro on the face of the earth, there was often great fear in the land, as the dragons were wont to capture fair maidens and make them a delicious dessert. But these tales also tell us of the handsome knight in shining armor upon his faithful white steed who would come to slay the dragon, rescue the fair maiden, and come home to a hero’s welcome. And who wouldn’t like to be the knight who won the fair maid’s heart and the admiration of his countrymen?

Such desires are still with us, even in the 20th century. It seems some love to save the church, the bride of Christ, from the fiery dragon. They then return home to the undying gratitude of the multitudes who were endangered. The only problem with this is that there don’t seem to be enough dragons to go around to satisfy some. But there is a solution to this problem — let’s just invent some dragons!

Such a statement may seem far-fetched to some, but from the carryings on of some, I wonder. Some brethren seem bent on rescuing the church from something, anything, whatever it may be. They go to and fro in the land, looking behind this bush, under that rock. They tear their hair and foam at the mouth, trying to find some issue, some problem, some aberration that they can turn into a "brotherhoodwide" crusade.

They then rally their forces around their banner and march off to the battle. They force others to choose sides and declare themselves. If some do not do to the liking of these brethren, they then are written up as being suspect. The dragon-slayers go about the countryside preaching dire warnings against the heretics.

At times, they create division and dissension where none had existed. They alienate brethren where there had been peace. They turn a private, local problem into a public, national issue.

Please do not misunderstand. I firmly believe in contending for the faith, fighting the good fight, and exposing error. And there are plenty of good causes that need our attention¡, but to have the spirit of "looking for a fight" seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of Christ. I have known of young men who have been driven away because a sentence in a sermon outline was interpreted a certain way by a "dragonslayer." I know preachers who have been called into question, had meetings threatened with cancellation, or had support cut off because they had not publicly declared where they stood with respect to the current litmus test. "Brethren, these things ought not so to be."

God forbid that these brethren would have a "Diotrophes complex," and I really do not question their sincerity for the most part, but their tactics pose some unanswered questions.

Brethren, if any of you reading these lines recognize yourselves, please do some honest and sincere soul-searching. Tearing each other down rather than building up doesn’t seem to be the best way to accomplish the mission for which we have been sent.