The Need for Discernment

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι.

Paul is wrapping up this short letter with some commands to Titus.  This is the first of three verses about the kind of person who gets involved in μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις, or "foolish controversies."  The δὲ in there is the weak adversative that we translate "but."  Incidentally, the difference between this word and the stronger αλλα is one of the good reasons to study Greek.

Any conservative reader of Scripture will of course agree to this.  But this is where the discernment comes in.  What is it that makes a controversy μωρὰς (from which we get our word "moron," and in this case I do not think this leap is an exegetical fallacy) instead of essential?  We all agree that the gospel is primary.  When we get to Jude we'll see an extremely clear command to contend for the faith.  How do we decide whether or not it is a vital doctrine or one that is μωρὰς?

Personally, I use salvation as my filter.  Is this something that someone needs to understand in order to be saved?  That's a bit nebulous though.  Does someone need a perfectly-articulated understanding of the Trinity?  Maybe or maybe not, but I would consider Christology to be pretty important.  Relegating Jesus to "a God" as the Arians do is a problem.  Relegating him to Lucifer's brother as the Mormons do is a problem as well.  Do we have to get Jesus right?

This is where discernment is vital.  I think that at the core we need to simply recognize that we are sinners who desperately need a savior.  We need to recognize that there is absolutely nothing we can do to merit our salvation and trust completely on Jesus' finished work on the cross.  If we agree on that as the core then some of the questions I asked above get answered pretty easily.  It does matter who Jesus is because we have to understand Him as fully God (the perfect sacrifice) and fully man (representing us).  We recognize the Holy Spirit and His work in salvation.  This covers the Trinity pretty well.

It's tough to do this though and I fear that I may have missed something.  But what I don't want to do is elevate any secondary or tertiary doctrine as primary.  I will fight you long and hard over the gospel.  I will fight very hard over God's sovereignty in electing and preserving His saints.  I won't fight quite as hard over the mode of baptism.  I will hardly lift a finger over eschatology.

We all need to determine where we put various doctrines.  How many things are in the core that must be believed?  How many do we hold with a fairly tight grip, but can let go of when pushed?  And how many do we hold with a very loose grip?

Thoughts?

What to Teach

Titus 2:1 But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.

1 Σὺ δὲ λάλει ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ.

Paul continues his instruction to Titus.  He just finished describing the folks who do not teach sound doctrine and have no use for it.  Although the word δὲ is a weak adversative, it is one nonetheless.  Paul is setting up a contrast between those who are doing the wrong thing and how Titus should act as a pastor.

What does it mean to teach τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ?  There are a few glosses for the word ὑγιαινούσῃ.  The general idea is that it speaks to something that is healthy.  In other words, the doctrine that Titus is to teach should be healthy, like a healthy person or a healthy tree is healthy.  The word "sound" is good too.  You get the sense that the doctrine he is to teach is sound like something that is built well.

This is a vital truth for anyone who calls himself a Christian.  Certainly he should always teach sound doctrine if there are opportunities to teach.  It also means that we should be discerning as we are taught doctrine.  Read your Bible and make sure that what you are teaching is sound.  If not, then there is a problem with that teacher.

Every teacher is going to make a mistake here and there.  None of us is like Paul with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit behind us.  However, we should still be sure to do our best to teach sound doctrine.  We also should expect our pastors to do the same.  Let us be discerning with this.

How can we be discerning?  We need to read our Bibles!  Know what it says.  Be ready to look things up to check.  How can we discern if we don't know the standard?

Pure Works

Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

15 πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς· τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις. 16  θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται, βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι.

I remember listening to a debate in my apologetics class regarding good works.  One classmate made the point that Mother Teresa never did anything good because she did not have a regenerated heart.  This is a controversial statement for two reasons.  The second is that most people assume that she was a Christian because of her works, though that is debatable based on her writings and what she professed.

The other is this notion of what is "good."  The point my classmate made was that apart from the blood of Christ none of our works are "good" in the sight of God.  He is right about that, but he took the argument too far.  If an atheist gives food to a starving man it is still an intrinsically "good" act.  The starving man would certainly think so.  However, it is also true that this act is not going to change the atheist's standing before God.

What's the point of this?  Why do we worry about what is καθαρος?  This has great bearing on our evangelism. Let's say you have a coworker who does not profess any faith in Christ.  As far as you can tell, He has no place of prominence in his life and he is living for himself.  He comes in one day and proudly talks about how he served at a homeless shelter over the weekend and how he felt like that was a good thing that he did.  How do we respond?

This verse gives us a clue.  We can commend him for volunteering as that is a good thing.  Many people were likely helped by this act of service.  However, if we are to remain true to the gospel we also have to make sure that he does not try to reassure himself by the merits of this work.  Why?  Even something selfless like that does not tip the scales of merit in his favor.

Life is not about good works.  It is about Christ's perfect work.  Then we respond based on that work in our lives.  We need to keep the order straight, amen?