We’ve all been there: Casual chitchat at a social event morphs into a discussion about whether taxes should be raised on the wealthy. Or why gun control is or isn’t a good thing. Or other hot-button topics come up, like climate change, homeschooling or vaccines.
The person we’re talking with may emphatically state his or her views on the subject. Trouble is, what the person says is the exact opposite of what we’ve been told, understood or experienced.
Different opinions
There’s nothing wrong, by itself, with disagreeing. Everyone has different life experiences, which lead to unique perceptions, opinions and beliefs. We can’t be expected to always see eye to eye with the people we interact with. We can respectfully disagree.
Intellectually, we may know that. But if someone challenges us on something we’re passionate about, or states something as fact that we believe with all our heart to be untrue, it’s hard to not get worked up emotionally.
We might react by dogmatically declaring why we’re right, disparaging the other person’s views or attacking him or her personally—all of which escalate conflict. At this point, we’re not simply disagreeing; we’re also being disagreeable.
Once we’ve let ourselves get into this mind-set, our aim becomes winning a debate. If the other party doesn’t see things our way, we get angry, causing the other person to go on the offensive. It can turn into an ugly dispute with both parties yelling and raising their voices to try to be heard. Each person walks away feeling frustrated and upset.
Avoiding arguments that generate strife
Throughout the Bible, we’re told not to engage in these kinds of disagreements. Paul admonishes us, “Avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife” (2 Timothy 2:23). Verse 24 continues, “A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all.”
Galatians 5:20 lists contentions as one of the negative works of the flesh.
On biblical and doctrinal topics where there is only one right answer, the Bible does not say Christians are supposed to force the truth on others who have not had their eyes opened to this truth.
That being said, there are many opinions where there is room for healthy disagreement. In this situation there’s a respectful exchange of opposing ideas. Both sides of an issue feel heard and valued. Each party gains a better understanding of the issue at hand, and the relationship is preserved.
The Bible tells how to disagree without being disagreeable
The Bible spells out how to have a healthy disagreement—how to disagree without being disagreeable.
If we’re honest, most of us can think of times when we didn’t consider biblical instructions on this topic and instead got pulled into very heated disagreements. In the end, feelings were hurt, relationships were scarred, and nothing was solved.
What a different outcome we could have had, and can have in the future, by following these six biblically based principles:
Choose your battles
We live in a “speak your mind” culture. If we overhear others discussing the latest political controversy, we don’t think twice about jumping in and giving our opinion, even if it’s a dissenting view.
If someone says something on Facebook we think is wrong, we believe it’s our right and responsibility to correct the person online.
Surely, there are times when this is appropriate. But very often we should just let it slide.
We must discern whether or not we should “answer a fool according to his folly” (Proverbs 26:4-5; see our online article “Proverbs 26: When Should You Answer a Fool?”).
If someone is spouting off nonsense that could cause serious damage if not addressed, that deserves a response. On the other hand, if the matter isn’t really important or is just a reflection of a different opinion, or if the other person is expressing very strong views and doesn’t seem open to other perspectives, the wisest course may be to keep silent.
Rarely are we going to be able to change others’ opinions by challenging them intellectually; doing so may only start a quarrel.
Furthermore, if we’re continually voicing contrary views, that, too, can irritate others. There’s no reason to contradict people on unimportant things. If we’re going to express dissenting opinions, it should be for things that really do matter.
Be gracious
We can be correct about an issue, but if we present our case in a combative manner, we’re still in the wrong. That means no insults, name-calling, ridiculing, raising your voice or shouting. Don’t be condescending, too assertive or tell the other person, “You’re wrong!” These things only bring intensity and hostility into the discussion.
Admittedly, I felt offended and shot back with my own less-than-kind words. Soon we were talking over each other and not hearing what the other was saying.
Things wouldn’t have escalated if I would have remembered to respond gently and disagree politely.
We must be kind, courteous and pleasant in our interactions with others (Ephesians 4:1-2, 32), even when they vehemently disagree with us and even when we feel hurt.
Disagreements can’t intensify if the individuals involved are truly gracious. Even if just one person is being courteous, the other will often follow suit.
True, he or she still may not come to agree. But he or she may at least be willing to listen to us and learn why we think the way we do.
Listen more, talk less
We should listen more than we talk, and we should be willing to hear another person’s viewpoint. James 1:19 tells us, “Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.” Proverbs 1:5 adds, “A wise man will hear and increase learning.”
Often we do just the opposite. Rather than listen, we’re thinking about what we’re going to say next and trying to figure out when we can jump in and make our point. Or we might monopolize the conversation, frustrating the other person because he or she can’t get a word in.
Give the other person time to voice his or her ideas, without interrupting. Really try to understand the other person’s standpoint. This says we value his or her perspectives and reduces tension.
If we’re unsure what the person is trying to say, we can ask questions for clarification. Sometimes we make assumptions about what others think. We need to make sure we truly disagree with them, before confronting them.
Think before you speak
The last part of James 1:19 warns us against being rash. If we strongly disagree with someone and blurt out whatever first comes to mind, we will often rub people the wrong way. Take some time to think through exactly what to say and how to say it.
If we see a social media thread we strongly disagree with, rather than immediately write a response, we should give ourselves time to let our emotions calm down. This may help us see that this isn’t something worth voicing our opinions on. Or, if we do decide to say something, it may help us see how to share our information in a way that’s not offensive. (For more information, see “Before You Post on Social Media.”)
Proverbs 29:11 sums up this principle well: “A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back.”
Look for common ground
Disagreements heat up when the opposing sides see no common ground. But if we can agree on something, even a minor point, it will help us see the other person as a friend and not a foe. Usually there’s something the other side said, believes or values that we can concur with.
The point to connect on may be that we’re on the same team. The apostles practiced this principle. Paul, Peter and Barnabas didn’t always see eye to eye about how to do God’s work (Galatians 2:11-16; Acts 15:30-41). Yet they still saw each other as working toward the same goal, referring to each other as “brother.”
Remembering our common hopes and dreams can motivate us to treat others with love and respect.
Sometimes the information we disagree about comes in the form of unwanted suggestions.
When my sons were young, a neighbor often shared unsolicited advice about how to raise them. I didn’t always agree with her ideas, but I could usually still find a hidden nugget of wisdom in what she said.
At the very least I could see she liked my kids and meant well. Focusing on that helped keep those exchanges from turning into arguments.
Act in humility
The purpose for discussions should be to gain a better understanding of a particular topic, not to prove we’re correct or boost our egos (Philippians 2:3).
If we shift from trying to point out something another person might not see or understand to convincing him or her we’re right, friction is inevitable (Proverbs 13:10).
We might think we’re better informed than the person we disagree with, but the truth is, we may still be able to learn something.
A few years back, my youngest son was taking some advertising classes in college, and we got into discussions about whether particular ads were effective. When we didn’t agree, I automatically thought my views should trump his, since I had a degree in advertising and had worked in the field for many years.
But then I stepped back and realized he was right much of the time. He had exposure to some new ideas that weren’t addressed back when I was in school.
Others may have some helpful insights, thanks to their unique experiences and backgrounds. We should always approach disagreements with humility, willing to be shown another aspect of the topic we hadn’t thought of.
When we encounter differences of opinion, we must make peace a priority. Romans 12:18 says, “As much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.”
Granted, there’s no guarantee that by following these principles, all of our disagreements will end agreeably. We can’t dictate how others act.
However, we can and must strive to learn how to disagree politely and avoid being disagreeable ourselves.
But is the unity of the body of Christ one of those doctrines we jealously guard? The unity of the church is one the objects of Christ’s death (Eph. 2:14). This, as much as anything else, is what the New Testament calls us to cherish and uphold. Therefore, our zeal for theology must never exceed our zeal for our actual brothers and sisters in Christ. We must be marked by love. We must, as my dad always puts it, pursue both gospel doctrine and gospel culture.
In the New Testament, humility is the pathway to unity. For instance, Paul’s exhortation to the Philippians about “being of the same mind” (Phil. 2:2) is followed by his appeal to “in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3), in imitation of Christ’s action toward them in the gospel (Phil. 2:5–11).
Or consider Paul’s appeal to unity in Romans 14. The presenting issue in this chapter is a conflict over Jewish food laws, but the principles Paul invokes could apply to many other issues as well. His overriding concern in this chapter is that the different convictions held by Roman Christians not be a source of division among them. Thus, the “strong” and the “weak” are called to mutual acceptance.
Specifically, amid their differences of conscience, Paul calls them to be welcoming (Rom. 14:1), not to quarrel (Rom. 14:1), not to despise each other (Rom. 14:3), and not to pass judgment on one another (Rom. 14:3, 13). Paul even calls the Romans to let go of their rights and adjust their practice in order not to violate the conscience of a brother:
If your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. (Rom. 14:15)
Today, as well, there are plenty of issues over which Christians will be tempted to quarrel, despise each other, and pass judgment on each other. Instead, we must resolve “never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Rom. 14:13). Like Paul, we must even be willing to make sacrificial adjustments for the sake of our unity with others in the body of Christ. If maintaining the unity of the body of Christ is not costing you anything—if it doesn’t hurt—then you probably are not adjusting enough.
1. Be Honest
We must be transparent about our convictions, even if it causes disruption in our vocation, church life, or relationships. Painful as that is, it’s not worth searing your conscience by misrepresenting yourself or your views. Some people seem to “adjust” their convictions with every new context.
Whatever other nuances may be involved in how you think about representing your views in the context of ordination or employment, the fact remains that lying is sin. Therefore, when a doctrinal statement requires your affirmation “without mental reservation,” it means without mental reservation.
2. Be Tactful
Honesty is not the same as volunteering your views at the earliest possible moment, regardless of context. There are times to be quiet; there are times to answer only the question you are asked. For instance, when you are sharing the gospel with someone, or when you are seeking to build a Christian friendship, there may be topics you don’t intentionally bring up in the initial stages of the conversation or relationship. That is not necessarily compromise; it often reflects wisdom.
3. Be Gracious
Kindness and civility are becoming scarce these days. More and more, outrage is the norm. Therefore, we can testify to the gospel by speaking with kindness and moderation as we navigate our theological disagreements.
Go out of your way to show love and respect to the other person, even when that person infuriates you. Doing theological triage is an opportunity to live out Jesus’s words in John 13:35: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
4. Be Trusting
God is sovereign over even your doctrinal changes. He’s looking out for you. The hairs on your head are all numbered. You can trust him to guide you and take care of you.
pray without saying anything. And, not all matters warrant correction. We’re all imperfect and in process. God Himself is patient with us, not confronting us all at once for every area where we fall short. So, we wonder whether a particular matter calls for correction, or whether we should just bear with the person. That’s one reason that I have called this the gentle art of correction. It requires waiting on the Lord and applying biblical wisdom to know when it’s right to correct or when to remain silent.
e should correct those who are in opposition to the Lord. He gives us four guidelines:
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
1. Correction must be done wisely.
Some issues are not worth dealing with. Paul writes (2:23), “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.” He is talking about those who were getting into fruitless doctrinal controversies in the church. Perhaps the best commentary on our text is 1 Timothy 1:3-7:
“As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.”
Some doctrinal controversies are clearly important and worth defending vigorously. Paul went to Jerusalem to argue strongly against the Judaizers, who said that circumcision is necessary for salvation (Acts 15). Paul contended against Peter, whose behavior compromised the gospel on this matter (Gal. 2:11-14). Jude 3 appeals to us to contend earnestly for the faith. So Paul does not mean (in our text) that all doctrinal controversy is wrong.
Rather, he is talking about pointless issues that have no bearing on salvation or godly living. “Speculations” infers that these were matters on which the Bible is silent. I might add that while we should not get into these kinds of foolish and ignorant debates, we may need to confront the argumentative spirit of those promoting them. Some people like to argue because it feeds their pride to prove their point and to put down others. But Paul’s point is that it is futile to argue over speculative matters where the Bible either is silent or unclear.
Here are some questions to ask to help determine if an issue is a foolish and ignorant speculation to be avoided or a matter requiring biblical correction:
*Is this person involved in clear disobedience to God’s Word? Maybe he is doing something that I don’t like, but there is no command in the Bible against it. Also, some things fall into a gray zone: they may be inadvisable, but they are not clear sin. Use discernment!
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
*Is a major doctrinal issue at stake?Some doctrines are essential to the Christian faith. If you deny them, you have left the faith. Other issues may be very important for one’s view of God or man or how to live the Christian life, although they are not essential for salvation. Again, you must know Scripture and exercise discernment in light of how serious the matter is.
*What is your goal in this issue? Do you just want to argue and prove that you’re right, or are you concerned about godliness and love? Quarreling or winning an argument does not lead anyone to Christ nor does it build up your brother in true godliness. If you must correct, your aim should be to help your brother grow in the Lord. Correction must be done wisely.
2. Correction must be done in love.
Paul gives one negative and three positive terms. Together, these qualifications add up to biblical love.
A. Correction must not be quarrelsome.
You can’t effectively correct if you are antagonistic. The most effective correction takes place when the other person knows that you love and care for him. If you go to “set him straight” or “prove that he’s wrong,” but do not show genuine concern for him, he will probably not adopt the viewpoint that you’re arguing for, even if it is biblical.
Also, you must determine before you go to the other person that you will not get into an argument, because often the one in sin will counter by attacking you or your motives. If you allow yourself to be drawn into that kind of quarrel, you cannot be effective in the ministry of correction. You can be firm and unwavering without raising your voice or losing your temper. This applies also to husbands and wives. You can talk with your mate about a problem that concerns his or her behavior without yelling, arguing, name-calling, or attacking. In fact, these things are sin because they do not stem from biblical love.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
B. Correction must be kind to all.
The Greek word means “mild” or “gentle.” Paul uses it (1 Thess. 2:7) to refer to his own behavior, comparing himself to a nursing mother tenderly caring for her own child. We often think that to be effective, correction must be stern. But Paul says that we must be kind. Husbands, do you correct your wives with the tenderness of a nursing mother? Parents, do you correct your children with the same kindness you show to a nursing infant?
C. Correction must be patient when wronged.
Often when you try to correct others, they will respond by attacking you. They will falsely accuse you of wrong motives or they will bring up shortcomings in your behavior to try to divert matters away from their own sins. If you are impatient when wronged, you lose the ability to correct effectively.
D. Correction must be done with gentleness.
This word is often translated “meekness,” but that conveys weakness, which is wrong. The word is used of Moses (Num. 12:3), Jesus (Matt. 11:29; 21:5), and Paul (2 Cor. 10:1), none of whom were weak, timid men! It is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23), and is also used in Galatians 6:1, which talks about the need to restore with gentleness those who are caught in sin. The word was used in secular Greek to refer to a horse that had been broken. It was strong and powerful, but in complete submission to its master. So the biblical word may include behavior or speech that is very strong at times. But the gentle person is sensitive and completely submissive to the Master’s will. He is not acting out of self-will. He is truly “the Lord’s bond-servant.”
Thus, correction must be done wisely and in love.
2. Correction must be based on God’s Word.
Paul says that the Lord’s bond-servant must be “able to teach.” The word “correcting” (2:25) is the word for “child training.” It refers to giving instruction, correction, or discipline to a child. The standard for all such teaching is God’s Word of truth. In other words, we should never attempt to correct by saying, “I think,” or, “in my opinion, you’re wrong.” My opinion carries no weight. God’s opinion what matters!
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
You must be careful here, because it’s easy to mix up your opinions or your way of doing things with God’s clear commandments. They may not be one and the same. We sometimes inherit certain views from our upbringing or from cultural notions about right and wrong.
For example, I’ve heard people say to children who are rambunctious in a church building, “You shouldn’t behave that way in God’s house!” But, church buildings are not God’s house! God’s people are His house, but the building is just a convenient place where the church gathers. It may be that the children need to behave in a more subdued manner in a group setting, but God’s house has nothing to do with it. To view this building as a sacred place is to confuse a cultural idea with a biblical truth.
The same thing applies to what is appropriate attire at a church service. The Bible commands us to dress modestly, but it never says that we must wear a suit or dressy clothes when we gather with the church. Some argue that if you were going to meet the President, you would dress up, so you should do the same when you come to meet with the Lord. If that is so, then you’d better put on your suit before you have your morning quiet time! I actually heard a lecture in seminary where the professor used Titus 2:10, which urges slaves to “adorn the doctrine of God” in every respect, to argue that as pastors, we should wear a suit even when we went to the local hardware store! He was misusing Scripture to try to support a cultural value! Biblical correction must stem from biblical standards of truth and morality.
When you offer correction, emphasize that obedience to God’s Word is the only path to blessing. I often ask, “You want God’s blessing in your life, don’t you? You can’t ask God to bless your life when you are living in violation of His Word.” Your correction must offer constructive help that shows the other person practically how to live in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord. As the one offering correction, you are subject to the same biblical standards. So you should be able to point to your life as an example and show the one in sin how to apply the Bible in daily life.
Thus correction must be done wisely and in love. It must be based on and in accordance with God’s Word of truth.
3. Correction must be done in the awareness of spiritual warfare.
Paul says that those in error are “in opposition,” that is, in opposition to God and His truth. He adds (2:25-26), “if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”
We often see things only from the natural plane, but God’s Word teaches that there is a constant spiritual battle raging on the spiritual plane. We are struggling against “the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). At bare minimum, this means that it would be utter foolishness to try to talk to men about God before we first have talked to God about men. Prayer must permeate this whole process of biblical correction.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
There are several interpretive matters to consider in these verses. First, is Paul referring to believers or to unbelievers who need this correction? The fact that they need to come “to the knowledge of the truth” would point to unbelievers, since Paul uses that phrase consistently of unbelievers in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 2:4; 4:3; 2 Tim. 3:7; see also, Titus 1:1). On the other hand, in 1 Timothy 3:7, Paul says that an elder may fall into the snare of the devil, the same term that he uses here. Also, the verb “held captive” means to capture alive. It’s as if Satan captures believers as POW’s to use them for his purposes. So, it may refer both to believers and to professing believers. The test of the genuineness of their faith is whether or not they respond positively to correction. If someone professes to know Christ, but persists in heretical teaching or godless behavior, his claim may be suspect.
Another issue is the correct translation at the end of verse 26. The Greek pronouns are ambiguous. Some say that it is the servant of the Lord who takes captive the erring one, so that he may do God’s will. Others say that the devil has captured him, but they escape so that they can again do God’s will (NASB, margin). But most scholars understand it to mean that the devil has captured them to do his (the devil’s) will. Probably either the second or third view is correct. The person in serious doctrinal error or disobedience to God’s Word has fallen into Satan’s snare and is being held captive by him. Satan’s evil will is opposed to God’s holy will. Since we are fighting against this powerful evil enemy, we must put on the whole armor of God, which includes prayer (Eph. 6:10-20).
Note also that while we should exhort those in sin to repent, at the same time, God must grant repentance. Scripture is clear that both are true (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 11:18). “If perhaps” shows that we cannot be sure in advance whether God will grant repentance or not. If He grants repentance, He will be glorified by the person’s turning from sin to Christ. If He withholds repentance, He will be glorified by His justice in condemning the person at the judgment because he refused to repent. You’ve got to hold both of these truths in tension.
How do we know if the person truly repents? Paul says that he will come to “the knowledge of the truth.” This means more than mental assent. It points to experiential knowledge, evidenced by a change of thinking and behavior. His life will conform to God’s Word, both in doctrine and practice.
Also, he will “come to [his] senses.” The Greek word means to return to soberness after being in a drunken stupor. Satan drugs his captives so that they do not think clearly. They are spiritually dull. When God grants repentance, they begin to think clearly. They often will say, “I was so deceived!”
Finally, he will “escape from the snare of the devil.” Paul uses this phrase of elders that lack a good reputation with outsiders, thus falling “into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:7; see, also, 1 Tim. 6:9 on the snare of the love of money). A snare traps an animal. Sin and false teaching trap people and enslave them. When God grants repentance, they are freed from sin and are able to continue in obedience to His Word, which is the only true freedom (see John 8:31-36).
Conclusion
Probably every one of us who is walking with Christ would not be where we’re at today if other brothers and sisters had not corrected us in love. We all need this ministry from time to time, because we all are prone to get off the path.
If you are a cleansed vessel, fleeing from sin and pursuing godliness (2:20-22), then you are called to practice this gentle art of correction towards those who are flirting with or already have drifted into serious doctrinal error or sin. I want to give you some gentle, but firm correction by saying, “Do it!” Gently correct those you know that are in sin or error. Do it wisely. Do it in love. Do it in accordance with God’s Word. Do it prayerfully, being aware of spiritual warfare. But do it! Do it because you love God more than anything and you love your brother or sister as you love yourself.
- Is this a difference in semantics? That is, are our positions substantially the same (we believe the same things), but we are using different terms to express our common belief?
- Is this a difference in substance? That is, is my position substantially different from the other person’s?
- Is this a difference in emphasis? That is, are our positions the same, but what we emphasize or accent about our positions is different? Do we have different instincts or different assessments about various dangers and temptations concerning our position?
So, how might an understanding of these kinds of differences bring light to the empathy debate in particular, and help us pursue unity in our differences?
Semantic Differences
I believe we have more agreement over empathy than we often acknowledge. For instance, I have been advocating for Christlike care for suffering people that seeks to enter into their pain in order to help them — while remaining tethered to the truth. The real question, then, is what the best term is for that Christlike orientation. My argument has been that compassion (or sympathy) is the best term, one derived directly from the Scriptures (1 Peter 3:8; Hebrews 4:15; 10:34). Others disagree, and think that empathy is the better term. But either way, if we’re agreed on the concept itself, then the difference is a semantic one, not a substantive one.
Now, semantic differences can be significant. They might create confusion. Some have criticized my arguments on empathy on precisely these grounds. These critics share my substantive concern but think that defining empathy as I do and talking about “the sin of empathy” is confusing to people. They’ve suggested I use a term like “sinful empathy” or “untethered empathy” or “ungoverned empathy” to distinguish the bad kind from a good and valuable form of empathy.
And while I intentionally used the provocative phrase in order to arrest attention and provoke thought (just like one might even seek to recover the word hedonism for Christian use), I’ve also been clear that I’m not hung up on the particular word. I’ve criticized the phenomenon without using the term empathy (“Dangerous Compassion”). And I’ve commended certain understandings of empathy, both in my own writing and in the writing of others. Therefore, untethered or ungoverned empathy seems to me to be an excellent term for the danger I’m encouraging us to avoid.
The main point here, however, is that it’s crucial to distinguish semanticdifferences from substantivedifferences, and that to treat a semantic difference as though it were a substantive one is often to misrepresent someone.
Emphasis Differences
The same is true of differences in emphasis. For example, in my writings on empathy, I’ve especially focused on the danger of total immersion in the pain of others such that we lose touch with truth and allow other people to steer our emotional vehicles. I have attempted to help people realize when they are being manipulated by the sensitivities and pain of hurting people. Some critics, however, believe that a more pressing danger is the kind of aloof sympathy that simply utters the words “I’m sorry that you’re hurting” but never takes risks to actually help the sufferer. In this case, different assessments of the more pressing danger lead to different emphases. With any given issue, we each have to ask, What is the need of this hour?
“Different instincts and emphases, rightly governed, can help us maintain a full-orbed embrace of Christlikeness.”
Different assessments of the need (or danger) are frequently owing to different personal experiences and backgrounds. If you’ve seen or experienced emotional blackmail in the name of empathy, or if you’ve seen Christians divided because some have adopted the logic that “I’m hurt; therefore you sinned,” then you’re more likely to be aware of that danger and thus emphasize the need for a deep respect for objective truth and goodness in our efforts to help. On the other hand, if you’ve seen or experienced callousness and empty words of compassion in the face of real suffering, or you have detected a fearful unwillingness to enter into the pain of others, then you’re more likely to be aware of that danger and thus emphasize the need for intentional efforts to weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn.
And differences in emphasis, of course, can also be significant. In the long haul, they might actually lead to substantive differences. We can lean so far in different directions that we wind up with different positions. But as I’ve stressed to my students, they don’t have to. In fact, rightly governed, different instincts and emphases can help to ensure that a church, or a pastoral team, or a school maintain a full-orbed embrace of Christlikeness.
Different emphases among those who mutually respect one another and who value the different instincts of the team can be of great benefit to a church. The pastoral team that I serve with has precisely this sort of mutual respect. We make better decisions precisely because we bring our different instincts and leanings into the discussion, all while sharing the same fundamental convictions.
Where We Disagree
Personally, I’ve found the debate surrounding empathy and compassion to be very illuminating. Good-faith critics have helped me to hone arguments, identify various fault lines, and, as a result, (I hope) provide more clarity to parts of my arguments that confused some. Bad-faith critics have served my sanctification in other ways. More importantly, though, I hope that this specific debate might equip us for future disagreements (of which there will be many).
In all of this, our goal as Christians must be to practice Golden Rule hermeneutics. As hearers and readers, we ought to listen and read with clarity and charity, seeking to understand authors on their own terms. We should assess whether relevant differences are matters of substance, semantics, or emphasis, and represent others with faithfulness and care. Likewise, as speakers and authors, we ought to speak and write with clarity and charity in our various contexts, seeking to be wise, courageous, and compassionate in our speech.
What should Christian leaders and members do when they are not uniform in some matters, particularly important matters involving things like “race” and racial injustice or politics and voting? For those interested to maintain unity where there may be significant disagreement on important ethical matters, here are 12 things to apply from Romans 14:1–15:7. (I apologize in advance for the length. But, hey, I’m only blogging here once per week!)
1. Know Whether You Are Weak or Strong in the Faith (Rom. 14:1)
“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables” (Rom. 14:1–2).
“Weak” and “strong” have nothing to do with how long someone has been a Christian or their theological system itself. It has to do with their conscience and whether their conscience allows them freedom where Christ’s word actually grants freedom or whether their conscience creates rules and restrictions in place of the freedom Christ’s word allows. The person “weak in faith” develops rules and considers breaking those rules a sin, even though it’s not. The person “strong” in faith enjoys the freedom Christ gives with a sense of Christ’s approval. The difference between the two groups show up in their practices—not in their formal theology. One makes rules to restrict legitimate freedom, while the other enjoys the freedom Christ gives.
If we would have unity where we lack uniformity, then the weak and strong in faith must not quarrel with each other. Rather, they must understand each other and themselves. We must stop to ask: “According to the Scripture, am I weak or strong in faith? Am I enjoying the liberty of Christ, or am I making rules and restrictions where there are none biblically?”
Knowing we are “weak in faith” provides opportunity for us to be free in Christ. But the difficulty is that the weak in faith often believe themselves to be strong precisely because they have rules that appear correct to them. The failure of others to obey the rules of the weak only reinforces the sense of rightness in the weak. Until we examine whether we’re weak or strong, and until teachers in the church teach members these categories, we will “quarrel over opinions” and miss opportunities for unity amid difference. Moreover, we’ll miss important opportunities to bear unified witness against the evils of our age. Determining whether we are weak or strong is the first discussion to have on the way to unity. Everything that follows depends on this first issue.
2. Recognize the Difference Between Disputable Opinions and Moral Commands (Rom. 14:1)
Romans 14–15 does not address cardinal issues of Christian theology (i.e., the Trinity, the crucifixion, the deity of Christ, and so on). Nor does it address clear moral teaching of sin and righteousness (i.e., Rom. 1:18–32). In cardinal doctrine and moral imperative there can be no difference of opinion without distorting Christianity itself.
Romans 14–15 addresses “opinions” (Rom. 14:1), or as the NIV renders it “disputable matters.” The particular opinions in Rome involved dietary preferences and observance of special religious days. Church members in Rome were judging and condemning one another over these opinions. But the gospel and Christian morality did not ride on such things, which is what made their judgments so egregious. These were areas of Christian liberty wherein Christians of like precious faith could and did disagree. These areas of disagreement necessarily involved the individual conscience, and no two consciences are exactly alike in these “disputable matters.”
So if the church wants unity where it does not have uniformity, it must distinguish between the indisputable and the disputable. A significant amount of consternation in the church today is a failure at precisely this point. What really is a non-negotiable of the Christian faith—either in terms of doctrinal teaching or moral imperative—and what is a “disputable matter” or “opinion” (which is not to say such matters are unimportant, just that they are matters that admit difference and sometimes ambiguity)? Once we figure out whether we are strong or weak on any given topic, then distinguishing clear biblical command from personal opinion is the second discussion to have on the way to unity.
3. Refuse to Despise Those Who Differ from You (Rom. 14:3)
“Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.” Those who enjoy their liberty to eat are the ones strong in faith. Their conscience allows them more freedom in eating without feeling like they’re sinning. Those who abstain are the “weak in faith.” Their conscience will not allow them to eat meat without feeling guilty of sin.
The Bible does not say, “Let the strong convince the weak to change their mind.” It does not say, “Let the weak convince the strong to give up meat.” I think this text implicitly disallows resolution by an act of power.
Instead, the Bible says, “Stop judging each other critically.” The Bible says, “Do not despise a person whose conscience is different from your own.” But how often do we hear Christians call into question the salvation of other Christians over differences of opinion about topics involving liberty? The Bible confronts our tendency to usurp God’s role in judgment in these matters. The Bible says, “Stop despising each other.”
The reason we should stop judging people over opinions and disputable matters is because God has alreadywelcomed them. How can we condemn those God has already accepted in the gospel of Jesus Christ? If we need a rule in these matters, let it be the rule to never despise those who differ from us on opinions. Let us know whether we are weak or strong, discern the difference between clear biblical command and personal opinion, and then refuse to despise those who differ.
4. Leave Judgment to God (Rom. 14:4–5)
“Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
Our disputes over opinions do not stop with the topics of dispute themselves (i.e., eating or celebration days). Another opinion often follows closely—opinions about whether those we disagree with are truly Christians. It’s a common temptation. We soon hear ourselves wonder or see others say or write, “I’m not sure they’re really Christians.”
But our fellow Christians are not ourservants to judge. They do not belong to us. We did not save them. They belong to Another, to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our brothers and sisters will each appear to their true Master who alone will decide whether they stand or fall.
Notice the assurance. Our brothers and sisters will be upheld because it is the Lord who makes them stand! We should stop being so quick to wonder whether somebody is saved simply because they differ from us on a disputable matter. We should be far quicker to look at one another as people saved by the blood of Christ who belong to their One Master—Jesus the Lord.
If we are tempted to make a judgment of others in opinions, let it be the judgment that God is able to save them on that great and terrible Day. Let the certainty of God’s salvation be the emphasis, rather than a passing and tepid admission inserted while argument and innuendo suggest the opposite.
5. Be Fully Convinced in Your Own Mind (Rom. 14:5)
“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”
Again, the Bible does not require one side to change their opinion and join the other side in “disputable matters.” What the Bible requires is that we know what we’re talking about. “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” If we’re going to have an opinion, make sure it’s an informed and sound opinion. Opinions can be and often are wrong; so we need to get things right and settled through sound reason as best we can.
Everyone should be fully convinced in their own mind, but that doesn’t make every opinion equal in validity, accuracy, or helpfulness. In a lot of conversations between Christians about race and racism, the conversations are set up so that there are winners and losers and so that every opinion is seen as equally valid. But, friend, that’s a trap. There are a lotof ignorant opinions out there about race and racism. Some of the loudest people have never read a book on the disputed subject. They haven’t listened to others. The debated topic is not an area of study or expertise for them. They’re simply repeating what they heard their favorite pundit say or, worse, making up a perspective in the midst of a Twitter rant.
There’s a better way, a way that leads to acceptance and welcoming. That’s when we: (a) allow others to have their views, (b) learn from the views of others, (c) do our homework by reading multiple sources from different angles on the issue, (d) test every view by the word of God, and (e) then arrive at fully formed opinions that convince us.
People who are fully convinced in their own minds find they have even more freedom, because they’ve informed their conscience. They don’t feel a need to force uniformity, because they know what they know. And because they’ve done the work to become “strong in faith,” they can usually recognize and help other people on the path to fuller freedom by extending them grace to keep making their way.
Worry about your own thinking. Do the homework and be fully convinced for yourself.
6. Honor the Lord in Your Practice (Rom. 14:6–9)
“The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God. For no one lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end, Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”
Another temptation we face on the way to unity when there is not uniformity is the temptation to judge the motives of others. Their difference in opinion can arouse our flesh. We not only judge whether they are Christians, we add to that an assumption about what motivates them. At least, we can be tempted to tell ourselves “the other side” does not want Christ’s glory. “If they did, they would not hold that opinion, right?” the flesh asks.
As verse 7 says, “None of us live to ourselves.” We all live and die to God and for God. All of life should be lived in respect and reverence for Jesus. So whichever path you take, according to your conscience, do it giving thanks to God, knowing your life and your death belong to him.
Every Christian fully convinced in his or her conscience will do or not do a thing for the same motive—to honor the Lord. We should charitably assume that of our brothers and sisters who differ with us in gray areas. We should be convinced that we ourselves are trying to honor the Lord. And we should be convinced that in these disputable matters our brothers and sisters are trying to honor the Lord.
When we look at our brother or sister who has a different view than our own on racial issues or politics or homeschooling or the country’s history, do you remind yourself that they are taking their view to honor the Lord because they live and die for him?
7. Think of Your Own Judgment (Rom. 14:10–12)
“Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
“So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.” In context, that means we will have to answer to God for the opinions we hold and the actions we take based on them. Sometimes people act as if there’s no accountability for opinions. They act as if they can think anything they wish without consequence. But the God who knows our every thought will lay those thoughts bare before the universe. We will give an account for every idle word (Matt. 12:36–37). There is no free speech before the Lord.
If we really took our own judgment seriously, we wouldn’t be worried about judging others. We would be too concerned about our own appearance before God to get too worked up about disputable matters other people believe. The question becomes: What account will I give for the thoughts and actions I hold?
8. Resolve Not to Be a Stumbling Block (vv. 13–16 and 20–21)
Romans 14:13–16 and 20–21 hold two ideas in tension. On the one hand, they teach that “nothing is unclean in itself.” In other words, all these things that are not sin are permissible to participate in. We have freedom to eat or not eat and to celebrate or not celebrate certain days.
On the other hand, we must recognize that we should use our freedom to express love to others. Or to use the language of verses 15 and 20, we should not use our freedom in a way that “destroys the one for whom Christ died” or “destroys the work of God.” It’s that serious. The unloving use of freedom by the one with a strong conscience actually grieves (v. 15), destroys (vv. 15, 20), and trips up (v. 21) the weaker brother or sister who does not yet understand freedom in Christ. The rules of the “weak in faith” keep them safe from freedoms they’re not strong enough to enjoy. The strong should not harm them by flaunting freedom.
There are times when the loving thing to do is to limit our freedoms so we do not undo the work of Christ in others. Is that an active principle in our conversations with church members with whom we disagree? Are we each resolved not to be a stumbling block?
But we need a qualification here: If you’re the person who would try to use this “weaker brother principle” to control others, a bigger need for you is to go back to strategies 1–7 recognizing yourself as both the weaker in faith and perhaps sinfully manipulative. Why would you want to bind your brother or sister’s conscience to the rules you have made for yourself when they are not your servants but God’s? (See 1 Cor. 10:29b–30.)
9. Embrace the True Nature of the Kingdom (Rom. 14:17–19)
“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.”
The kingdom of God is about God the Holy Spirit working genuine righteousness, peace, and joy in a person. This is the secret to peace and edification in the church. Peace doesn’t come by legalistic rules (Col. 2:20ff). Edification doesn’t come by binding other people to our restrictions of conscience. Peace and edification come by living in the freedom-giving Spirit of God and receiving those who do. We will find peace with each other, and we will build each other up when each of us resolves to seek the filling of the Holy Spirit and live lives that bear the fruit of the Spirit. God accepts that kind of life and so do men and women (v. 18).
So when you think of your political and racial positions that lie in gray areas, and when you think of your conversations with others: Are you calling them to obey manmade rules, or are you calling them deeper into life with the Holy Spirit? A life of righteousness, peace, and joy.
10. Keep a Quiet and Clean Conscience (Rom. 14:22–23)
“The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”
Some things should be kept between the individual Christian and God. One of those things is “faith.” Paul does not mean saving faith. Here “faith” refers to matters of personal conscience—what we believe to be right or wrong where the Bible does not give us clear command or teaching. The Bible teaches we should keep those things between us and God.
When we obey the faith we have, we have no reason to blame or judge ourselves for wrongdoing. By contrast, if we do things against our conscience, against our personal “faith,” then we sin. So, if your conscience won’t allow you to vote a certain way in a disputable matter, don’t vote that way. If your conscience won’t allow you to take a particular policy position in a disputable matter, then don’t take that position.
Obey your conscience until your conscience is shaped more by the Word of God and the freedom Christ gives. This is important, because no person’s conscience perfectly overlays God’s Word. We always have need of informing and reforming our conscience according to God’s Word. So we must be committed to keeping a clean conscience, and that is work that only the individual Christian can do for him or herself.
11. Build Up Your Neighbor (Rom. 15:1–3)
“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’”
Paul comes back to the “strong” in faith, those who don’t have a lot of rules but enjoy their freedom in matters of opinion. The strong have a unique obligation. They must be patient and accepting of the “failings of the weak.” It would be easy to say, “I’m the one that’s free; you need to get free too!” But freedom is not to be used for selfishness. Freedom is to be used to please or bless our neighbor for their good. We want to build up our neighbor in the faith—that means bearing with the weak who often don’t even know they’re weak.
Our pattern for that is Jesus. On the cross, they insulted Jesus, spat on him and mocked him—not because of his own sin but because of ours. What was Jesus doing as they reviled him? He took our reproach and judgment so we could be free through his sacrifice. That same pattern should be at work when it comes to the “strong” accepting the “weak” in the body of Christ. If we judge ourselves to be “strong,” then we should lovingly and sacrificially—like Jesus—endure and bear with the weak.
What would it look like for you to do this with someone you understand to have a weaker conscience than you do?
12. Make the Church’s Harmony and God’s Glory Your Explicit Goals (Rom. 15:4–6)
Unity does not last by chance. Harmonious relationships do not come with a snap of the finger. Unity and harmony require that we actively and prayerfully work for them.
In my opinion, there’s only one reason worthy enough of all the hard work it takes for weak and strong to live in unity where there is not uniformity: When we work together for unity and harmony it results in our glorifying God the Father. The greatness of God is seen, in part, through the harmony of the church. God’s glory is the ultimate goal of the Christian life. God has attached his glory to weak and strong welcoming or accepting one another despite their differences in matters of opinion.
If Honor Is My Motive
In my flesh, I care too much about my opinions and too often believe them to be correct to sacrifice them for the “lesser” views of others. And there are times when the disagreements are so sharp and the issues too important to keep me unified with those who differ.
Only when my view is dominated by the praise of the One who saved me at great cost to himself am I willing to enter into his suffering for the sake of accepting or welcoming “the other.” I need Jesus before me if I’m going to live this way. If his honor is my motive, and he is honored in the church’s harmony, then I need to apply these 12 things (and more!) to my part in maintaining unity when there is not uniformity.
How about you?
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment