The New Testament is clear and persistent when it comes to the unity of believers. In the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus, he prayed that his disciples would be “perfectly one” as modeled by the unity within the Trinity (John 17:23). The Apostle Paul pleaded with the believers of Corinth saying, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). The expectation has always been for Christians to become less and less divisive and more and more united as an expression of Christian love.
Unfortunately, disagreements and dissension are commonplace in our local fellowships. It is perhaps no exaggeration to say we may be living in one of the most divisive and polarizing times in American history. A quick perusal of our social media feeds proves that much. From politics and public policy to theological matters, disagreements abound. However, a unique characteristic of modern quarreling is that it appears that disagreements often lead to demonization and conflict often leads to caricature. That is, ideas and beliefs are not necessarily disputed for their veracity, rationality, or viability. Instead, a moral judgment is made upon the individual as they are criticized or demonized for a position that they hold.
“How could she possibly hold to that view?”
“Yes, we are on the right side of history!”
“You can’t be a Christian and vote for that political party!”
“He is not only wrong, but he is also stupid.”
Ideological positions, now, are pregnant with moral import as individuals are grouped into large and often stereotyped parties, and we view those who oppose our favored position as ignorant, unintelligent, or worse, evil. Given these turbulent waters, how can Christians engage with fellow Christians who they disagree with in a manner that honors the Lord and exemplifies Christian unity?
Here are two principles to keep in mind:
1. Focus on the Person, not the Position
As mentioned above, it is not uncommon for us to group individuals into a larger, stereotyped party based upon a certain position that an individual might hold.
“Oh, he’s clearly woke…”
“He must be a super-fundamentalist…”
“She’s one of them progressives…”
These claims may or may not be true. Nevertheless, by simply conflating a person with a pigeonholed position, we lose the individual and replace them with featureless generalities. We look at an individual and lump him or her into a certain group based on their gender, race, socio-economic position, religious upbringing, political affinity, education, and so on. As a result, we view them as a distorted amalgamation of caricatured traits, rather than a unique soul created in the image of God with a distinct history and experiences that may have influenced their ideological formation. However, once we view people as individual unique souls who share our faith in Christ, we may see that there are more important things we have in common ground than not. It is easy to demonize a group of nebulous, faceless opponents, but much more difficult to do so to a fellow brother or sister in Christ you come to know as an individual.
By viewing people as unique persons, it may help us develop the habit of viewing a situation from their perspective, which leads us to the second principle…
2. Identify the Perceived Good of the Opposing Position
Consider this: what is it that makes an ethical dilemma a genuine dilemma? For example, is it really an ethical dilemma to consider whether or not it is okay to torture babies for fun? Clearly not! The only response is that it is always, at all times, morally deplorable to do so. And if anyone were to argue for the contrary, we would surely institutionalize or incarcerate the individual. There is no dilemma here because there is only one good that can be readily and clearly perceived by any properly functioning rational or moral agent.
However, consider the ethical dilemma surrounding issues like abortion, capital punishment, or border control. Perhaps the reason for the divisiveness surrounding these issues involves individuals on both sides fighting for what they view as a perceived good in principle. This is what I mean.
Take a look at abortion. The goods that are being fought for are clearly stated in the names of the primary parties: pro-life and pro-choice. Life and choice are two, in principle, goods. In principle, life is good when compared to death. Likewise, in principle, the freedom to choose is a good when compared to the complete loss of choices. In other words, it is better to be alive than dead, better to have a choice than no choice.
In the case of capital punishment, the goods that are being fought for are the preservation of life on the one hand and the upholding of justice on the other – two independent motivations that are good when compared to their contraries. Lastly, when you consider the debate surrounding border control, the goods being fought for on one side is national security while the other fights to express Christian love and compassion for their neighbors – once again, two motivations that are good when compared to their contraries.
On a side note, I am not suggesting that whenever Christians encounter an ethical dilemma, we have to simply throw up our hands and withhold judgment. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that by identifying the perceived good of another’s view that we are necessarily condoning their position in full, for an in principle good can and ought to be trumped by an all things considered good. To that effect, I do believe that there is a way for Christians to navigate ethical dilemmas in a manner that is true to Scripture and faithful to our Christian traditions; perhaps, this can be a topic for a future post.
Once we begin to see people as individual persons with distinct histories and experiences, we may be able to understand why, from their perspective, they are motivated to hold their position. It is more likely than not that the person you disagree with is not disagreeing with you due to ill-intent or malice. I think it’s safe to say if the person you are engaging with is a believer, they are holding their beliefs with good intentions. They are genuinely fighting for what they perceive is a good that ought to be preserved.
Will these principles help resolve every Christian disagreement? No. But these principles may help Christians arrive at the proper headspace to engage those who they disagree with and cultivate common ground, identify common values, and make progress in arriving at truth together.