Quarreling About Words

                 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:14-15)

           Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. (II Timothy 2:23)       

         For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (II Corinthians 2:3-6) 

        They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. (Acts 26:23) 
  

          No quarreling about words…. I can just hear the comments. “Hey, Karen, see here? No quarreling about words. You’re being a ba-ad girl. Arguing is a no-no.”

           My response to anyone who would say that to me is, “Then by all means, stop quarreling with me about them.” The passage goes on to tell us we’re to present ourselves as “a workman…who correctly handles the word of Truth.” The passage in II Corinthians tells us that we are warring (isn’t that even stronger than quarreling?) and that our weapons of warfare have the purpose of destroying fortresses of speculations. Further, Scripture tells us in a number of places in Acts that Paul spent whole days explaining, declaring and convincing. 

          The word Paul uses in the first of today’s passages appears nowhere else in Scripture. It’s a compound word made of the terms for word and for quarrel, conflict, fight. Luke never describes Paul as quarreling over words, but he repeatedly describes Paul as explaining and trying to convince. Paul sees no connection between tearing down strongholds and arguing about words. 

          So, what are we to make of this? One of the first steps in argument is to understand the subject, and a key to that is to define the terms involved. So, let’s look at the English word argue

1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view; persuade someone to do or not to do (something) by giving reasons
2. exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.

         Etymologically, the term comes from one of two similar Latin terms, one meaning “prattle” and the other meaning “make clear, prove, accuse.” It seems clear to me that the word “argue” is used to mean two things that contradict one another.

             Paul told Timothy not to quarrel, conflict or fight about words. That sounds like the second definition. Luke describes Paul as explaining, persuading, convincing. That sounds like the first definition. It seems to me, then, that as long as the argument fits the first definition, there is no problem with it. Some people describe this as a conversation that throws light on the issue. We are to argue in this manner, and Paul sets an example for us. When the discussion becomes more about heat than light, that would seem to be where Paul’s admonition to Timothy comes into effect. 

          And here is where I run into trouble. I can speak very forcefully on a subject while completely calm. My goal is to shed light. I often encounter people who are very quickly, very emotionally involved. While I am arguing in the first sense, they are arguing in the second. Some people even assume that I am arguing in the second sense as soon as I disagree with them. It seems then, that I have two challenges. The first is in discerning when I am moving from sense one to sense two, which is not always easy. The second is discerning from which sense the other person is approaching the conversation and ending it if they are arguing from sense two.