Each of Solomon’s proverbs is made up of two clauses that balance one another. The second clause strengthens the first by repeating it in different words, expanding it in some way, or balancing it negatively. Today’s proverb compares two ways to related to strife: to avoid it (that’s the honorable thing to do) or to quickly jump in (that’s foolish.) I like the TEV’s way of putting it: “Any fool can start arguments; the honorable thing is to stay out of them.”
It certainly is not wrong for people to have differing views on various issues. An opinion is the result of looking at something through the prism of one’s total experience up to that point. We come to every issue with an ideology formed by the values of those who have nurtured us plus our personal experiencesin life. That is who we are and since every person’s life experience is different, we think somewhat differently on a wide range of ideas. Where the problem arises is that we tend not to be open to learn from one another. As time passes the issues on which we differ tend to become more important and it is increasingly difficult to find common ground. This is where strife enters the scene. Solomon says that it is an honorable thing to avoid strife, that is, not to get caught up in arguing the superiority of one’s own position.
I have a somewhat questionable view of debate, especially when it becomes part of the procedure by which we elect our president. And why is that? It’s because the goal of debate is not to arrive at truth, but to win. All else drops by the wayside if I win, regardless of which side of the debate I’m on. My hope for a president is not that he/she will be skillful in manipulating the facts so as to win the assent of the majority. I would hope that of the various candidates, the winner would be the one whose plans for the nation most closely approximate what I believe are best for the nation as a whole.
If “fools insist on quarreling” (NLT) then the wise thing to do is to approach differences of opinion in a more steady and thoughtful manner. On a national basis that means that both parties commit themselves to developing a joint understanding of what the people want and what will be best for the nation as a whole. Then that central concern can be discussed from various points of view and our representatives can put into play the strategies most likely to achieve that goal. Pie in the sky? Perhaps, but that is no reason to give up the dream.
On a personal level it is much the same. People of good faith should come together to achieve that which is best for both sides of every issue. To “win” an argument with another is one step away from the best solution. Solomon is right, it is better to work together than to wage a war of words.

1 John 5.1-5
As John begins to drawn his letter to a close we find him using the word “love” five times in the first three verses of the final chapter. We learn that those who love the father will love the son (v. 1),  that it is by loving God that we know we love his children (v. 2), and that love is the keeping of his commandments (v. 3). A question keeps coming up as to the meaning of love – put simply, is it a noun or a verb? Is love a relationship that expresses itself by loving acts or is it the acts themselves? Perhaps it is only a question of semantics, but it is worth pursuing.
        Verse 3 gives us the clearest definition and it says that love is keeping his commandments. The point is clearly made by the translation in the NJB – ”This is what the love of God is: keeping his commandments.” Granted, the common point of view is that love is a relationship that expresses itself in acts of kindness, but here it is understood not as something you have but as something you do. I believe the difference is significant. Love calls for involvement, for action. To love your friend who has just had a heart attack is to get up and rush him to the hospital. It is not feeling bad about the unfortunate turn of events but doing something about it. If you were that person how would you want your friend to react?
        I’d like to turn for the moment to another book written by John for help on the distinction. John 3:16 says that “God so loved the world that he gave . . .” In almost every translation the little word “so” is understood as expressing the intensity of God’s love; he SO loved the world. But the Greek text rules against that and understands the verse to read, “For this is how God loved the world: he gave his one and only Son (Mounce in GEINT: cf. also the Holman Bible). When it comes to loving and giving one doesn’t produce the other but they are one and the same.
        I emphasize this point because of the philosophical tendency to move from action to its cause. When truth becomes something to talk about rather than something to do, its basic purpose has been derailed. God wants us to “love another” which is not to think about the other but to do whatever is appropriate for them in the immediate context. In the case of God his love was not a tender feeling but an act – the giving of his Son to die for us. Let’s keep the emphasis where it belongs.