Introduction:
There’s an old joke that says:
“We all have a toxic person in our life, if you can’t think who that person is, it is probably because it’s you!”
‘Toxic personality’ is a familiar label in a culture. Its usage is so wide in meaning, that it can be used to describe anyone who does anything you dislike, from not giving up your seat to an old person on the bus to being a genocidal maniac.
But the sentiment at the core of the label, is like toxic chemicals: (often slowly) dissolve, corrode, destroy, tear-down; a toxic personality within a social situation (over time), dissolves, corrodes, destroys and tears down other people.
Paul, in our passage today, is going to talk about toxic people. His word for it will be (14) ‘quarreling’ or ‘quarrelsome’ personalities. The word ‘quarreling’ means to fight, to attack, to tear down.
But he will use the idea of ‘toxic’ behaviour - in a really specific sense. In verses 14,16,23 he highlights that the behaviour that will do the most damage: dissolving, corroding, destroying, and tearing down - is people using words harmfully.
In fact the battle over what comes out of our mouths as a church community is the central obsession of Paul in these verses.
The example he gives (16) of the toxic consequences of toxic words, is that the ideas these conversations conveyed spread throughout the body of the church like gangrene - which is the rotting of infected flesh that leads to at best the amputation of the diseased body part and at worse death of the whole body.
Paul wants to talk about it in the second half of chapter 2, because he’s flagged in chapter 1 that the ‘good’ talk of the gospel spread through his family like morning sun on a summers day that resulted in him becoming, not only a Christian, but a Christian with leadership responsibility.
Then in chapter 2, Paul has flagged there’s a leadership crisis and we need more people to spread the sunshine of the gospel throughout the church and the world through ‘good’ talk. And he’s listed the character criteria of people who will do that.
But now he flags the church, that running parallel to the ‘good’ talk of the gospel that spreads like sunshine bringing life and joy, within the church there is the ‘bad’ talk of toxic words that is also spreading through the church, dissolving, corroding, destroying, tearing down, that which was once alive and healthy.
The stakes couldn’t be higher!
Point 1: How do you spot a toxic person?
In (14) the warning against ‘quarreling about words’ is likely to refer to men and women in the church having long running, and passionate disagreement about theological issues.
What type of issues is Paul talking about?
Most-likely in this instance it is issues that relate to preferences within church rather than central core Christian beliefs, because Paul says here, that those conversations have no value, and yet in other parts of scripture he is very clear that ‘distortions of the message of the gospel should be challenged and that is everyone’s responsibility to call that out when they see it.
[Verse references].
Here he is talking about conversations of spiritual nature that bear the fruit of discouragement rather than encouragement.
The simple test he offers to discern if this is a toxic conversation (14) is the fruit of ongoing time with this person, on this repeated conversation topic, leading your faith and confidence in God’s provision of the gospel, and of the church growing or shrivelling?
Verse 15, is evidence that it is conversations of a spiritual topic that Paul has in mind, rather than general disagreements, because he is cautioning everyone to be really really careful in their handling of scripture - which suggests that in Ephesus the Bible was being weaponised to win arguments about these niche topics.
The phrase ‘to present yourself to God as one approved’ is the discernment alert to every believer to not shoot your mouth off to make a point by harnessing a regiment of Bible verses, snatched out of their scriptural context, unresearched, unreasoned and un-prayed through before launching them like military drones into the conversation.
Lest, you encounter the Lord Jesus, and he says to you, ‘Matt, I gave you my precious words of life, and yet you found a way to shape them into weapons of torture.’ If Jesus has that conversation with me, I will feel ashamed to my bones, and Paul would spare us of that moment.
So clue #1 for spotting a toxic person is that consistently, time with them on their repeated spiritual topic errodes your confidence that God’s message is good, and the provision of his church is good.
Second clue #2, is that toxic people can rarely stick to a specific hobbie-horse.
What I mean is, they may begin by launching a precise attack at this doctrine, or that aspect of church life, and often things aren’t black and white, and there is often at least a kernel of truth in what they have been moved to outrage about, however the grumbling will spread, and like unchecked ‘gangrene’ it will grow worse, leading the person to launch rocket attacks at multiple locations in the church or its teaching. A trajectory that once started, unchecked, leads to making an enemy of the gospel, the church, and God himself.
That’s Paul’s point in (18) with Hymenaeus and Philetus. The phrase ‘departed from the truth’ combined with the description of ‘gangrene’ suggests that this was a slow burn toxicity that eventually led to them flatly denying core teaching of scripture.
For them, and notice he names them, most likely because they were known former members of the church, ‘let’s call a spade a spade!”, these guys weren’t denying that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, neither were they denying we will be resurrected from the dead, they were most likely claiming that the promises of the Gospel that we will be made one day perfect in Christ, without fear of death or tears or illness or sin, should be an expectation today for ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ Christians.
So of course, for those in the church who still struggled with sickness, depression, worry - what could they conclude other than they weren’t really believers, that God had not chosen them, that they had been abandoned on the Titanic of this life whilst others had safely escaped.
Of course Paul says, the ultimate consequence of this toxic leak was that it ‘destroyed the faith of some’.
Let us be painfully sober about this. The former members of this church who made a decision to turn away from Christ and the teaching of scripture, people who many of us have counted close friends who we have dearly loved, none of them abandoned Gospel Christianity overnight.
In every case it was a slow journey marked by a growingly obsessive focus on niche verses, or small moments of pain within the teachings or life of the church.
Chances are, if you had been in Ephesus 12 months before Paul wrote this letter to the church, and you spoke to Hymenaeus and Philetus, and said ‘fellas are you thinking of denying that the resurrection of the dead is a promise for when Jesus returns in the future?’ - they would have laughed in your face, as an impossibility!
Point 2: What if you are a toxic person?
There’s nothing like a talk like this to make you feel paranoid.
As an adaptation to the old joke: “We all have a toxic person in our life, if you can point the finger at who that person is in your life, it is probably because it’s you!”
If you are thinking ‘I wonder if I should be worried?’ sit within the discomfort of that thought a little longer.
It can be difficult to self-diagnose, as i said, most complaints, quarrels, grumbles have a kernel of truth at their core. Afterall, the Isrealites who grumbled in the desert, really didn’t have much food and water to fill their bellies.
And the question, you’ve all been thinking: ‘What if there really is something wrong, are we just to keep silent, are we to say nothing lest we sin through being discouraging?’
Is it permitted to talk about ‘this’ but not about ‘that’. These issues we can debate, but those issues we must keep to ourselves?
No that’s a reductionistic approach to this passage, rather than a wise approach that requires discernment.
The NT is full of instructions to have hard conversations, in fact in this very letter (3:16), Paul will say that scripture is brilliant for:
‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.’
Look the diagnostic tool in this passage, to discern whether you are providing the ‘good’ talk of Gospel sunshine or the ‘bad’ talk of gangrene, is right there in (22):
22 Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
In other words, some practical application:
Before you open your mouth to criticise or be controversial about a doctrine, ask yourself:
Who am I serving?
Does this conversation honour the person I’m talking to, by treating them appropriately?
That’s what ‘righteousness means’ - right treatment of another.
- Meaning, I might have a legitimate concern about a theological doctrine or aspect of church life, but is this person,
- this specific person,
- the most appropriate by virtue of their maturity
- and role in the church,
- receive my considered insights?
Or do I want to talk to them because,
- A) They are there,
- B) They will probably agree with me,
- C) I really just want to vent and I don’t feel strongly about this to do something about it!
Before you open your mouth to criticise or be controversial about a doctrine, ask yourself:
How am I loving this person?
Based on the conversations I previously had with this person, will what I’m about to say further erode their confidence in the goodness of the gospel message and the goodness of God’s provision of the church, or will it increase it?
That’s a ‘faith, love and peace’ consideration from (22).
Before you open your mouth to criticise or be controversial about a doctrine, ask yourself:
What am I known for?
If my comments about the goodness of the gospel message and the goodness of God’s provision of the church when laid alongside my criticisms of the church and my theological quarrels, was a smaller pile - I have a problem.
It’s not to say, my criticisms and quarrels were illegitimate - but I have problem that needs to be addressed.
If we all have a problem, then the remedy is (19), God knows who are his, even when we have been toxic - the forgiveness we have received by Jesus' death on the cross is sufficient.
Secondly, we mark that we are the genuinely his, by our ability through the Spirit, to confess the sins of speech and to repent. That is, do all that we can, in the power of the Spirit, to be those who are known for our encouragement more than our quarrel.
Point 3: What do you do if you have a toxic person in your life?
This might be the most controversial point of the talk, for the application to those of us who struggle under the burden or the fire of quarrelling or toxic personalities, is to see our hearts broken in compassion and love for them.
Look at (24) 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
Don’t give fire for fire. Instead, the response is ‘to be kind to everyone’, not just those who are easy to get along with.
But here’s the real kicker: ‘not resentful’.
If you have been the receiver of wave after wave of criticism, either to your face or from third parties, (and it always gets back to you eventually), the response can be put up a wall and protect yourself.
Withdraw from the difficult person, and brew upon the great wounds and injustices that you have received. Have a million conversations in your head with that person, where you win and they are shamed.
Yet Paul’s instruction in these verses can be summarised by: ‘stick with them and be full of compassion’.
Do we see how Paul, incredibly, describes toxic people in (26), they are those who have been human trafficked by the devil. He says they are ‘held captive’. And that should move your heart to be filled with compassion for them.
How is this?
Cognitive anthropologist Pascal Boyer puts it like this:
we sometimes use controversial events as litmus tests to see who is really on our side. If you express the right amount of outrage, then I know you’re part of my group. But if you don’t, then maybe I need to question where your loyalties really lie.
In other words, some Christians who exhibit toxic behaviour are struggling with a sense of loneliness and isolation, they are struggling to apply to themselves the vibrant promise that God is always with them. And they’re pain in the darkness expresses itself as discouragement.
I guess, in that light, in makes sense that Paul’s instruction to us is to be ‘gentle’ in our handling of that person.
To be present, but not withdraw.
To speak, not to quarrel, but to see the gospel focus restored.
Conclusion:
