Likeminded Disagreement

This past weekend my wife and I got together with some seminary friends and their wives for a cookout. At some point in the evening, all the men congregated and the conversation, as it inevitably will, turned to things theological. It didn't take long for a small disagreement to erupt among two of our party in particular. An innocent bystander and friend of both men, I listened with interest as they discussed the issue with relative detachment while at the same time obviously caring about their respective points of view. Holding such conversations is indeed a challenge if one is trying to be Christian about it, especially when it involves matters of deep conviction. I'm happy to report that both my friends handled themselves well, and the rest of the evening continued without the proverbial "elephant in the room."

But what about issues where we see a Christian brother as blatantly wrong or leading others astray? What about someone who holds a different view on a topic particularly dear to us? In the past, I've often retreated from such discussions. I don't like arguments, and have never yet been able to convince the other party that I'm right anyway. Is there any profit then to dialoging, or should we just remain mute on all points controversial and merely discuss things we agree on?

Taking the latter course would make conversation extremely boring if not utterly profitless. It seems to me that I will never have it all down pat, nor will anyone else. Desiring to hear the insights of others is a mark of spiritual maturity and intellectual humility. All God's children have the Spirit and are part of Christ's body: therefore, all have some ministry to the rest of the body. Consequently, I think it's important to discuss the things of God, including those things that may be controversial. But this must be done within the boundaries of like-mindedness spelled out in the NT. Romans 15:1-6 for example follows on the heels of Paul's discussion about Christian liberty and considering one's brother in the exercise of it. His main concern is the end result of glorifying God (15:6). The injunction is to receive one another (i.e., those with whom one disagrees) in the same way Christ received us (15:7). I think this point of receiving Christian brothers as Christ received us provides a much-needed perspective in times of disagreement. Christ didn't receive us because we were perfectly right or totally like him in every way. He received us in grace, despite our differences.

Perhaps we should imitate our Lord in the treatment of our Christian brothers (!). A fine line exists sometimes between righteous zeal for truth and self-justification: but perhaps the difference is humility of mind (Philippians 2:1-4), which focuses on the good of the other. Whenever we lose sight of the other's welfare, we have erred. We must seek the good of the other party in any disagreement: such was certainly Paul's contention in the area of Christian liberty (Romans 14, esp. verses 15, 19-21; 1 Corinthians 8:9-13). Paul was willing not to eat meat ever again if eating it would cause another brother to sin. How many of us demonstrate such care of others and self-restraint in a disagreement? Perhaps the greatest priority is love, without which any wisdom or knowledge is merely an annoying trumpet or jangling cymbal. As the old adage goes, "People will never care what you know until they know that you care." After all, we aren't even attracted to Jesus because of his superior knowledge, but because of his infinite, self-sacrificing love. To be like him, we must love others and accept Christian brothers in grace.

So then, do we merely cave in and falsely concede the opinion of the opposing party? Hardly. Christ many times put up with his disciples yet rebuked their misconceptions. He did the same with his Jewish opponents. So the apostles opposed false teaching, instructing those who, by their misconceptions, opposed themselves. Christian dialogue is a necessary means toward spiritual maturity: even the apostles themselves needed this (e.g. the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 concerning Gentile inclusion in the Church as equals of the Jews). In conclusion then, I would suggest that open yet humble discussion should not be avoided. Instead, it must be pursued when a matter of dispute arises in the interests of learning what is true in the other perspective and seeking some level of agreement. I believe the like-mindedness of which Paul spoke, however, does not concern the issue at hand. Rather, I believe his idea of like-mindedness concerned the way in which opponents view one another (Rom. 15:5). As Christ himself said, the one who is not against us is on our side (Mark 9:40). Believers are all on the same team. As teammates, we are to face the common enemy, not view one another as enemies. Indeed, those whom Paul specifically commanded to be ostracized were division- and offence-mongers (Rom. 16:17-18), whom he labeled as self-serving rather than Christ-serving. Let us then serve Christ by seeking the good of the other. Let us endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3).