Disagreeing Well Podcast Episode

As Christians disagree with each other and even with non-Christians, I would hope there would be a difference in the posture of humility versus ego. And at the end of the day, if the world is saying what I desire more than anything is to be right the Christian would say, “I desire to be Christ-like, and I can contend for the truth, but if I contend for the truth in a way that is not Christ-like, I have failed.” And so that ought to be a difference we see in the way Christians disagree and non-Christians.  

Welcome, everyone, to Breaking Bread, the podcast brought to you by Apostolic Christian Counseling and Family Services. Excellent, as always, to have you along. Welcome Joe Gerber and Brian Sutter into the studio. It’s great to be here, Matt. Yeah. It’s great to have you here. Joe, it’s been a while. It’s been a minute. And it’s great to have you back. Thank you.  

All right, guys. I’ve thought about this topic for a long time, okay? So, it’s been in the noodle for a while trying to figure out how to do it and I just think it’s super important. 

And so let me start it this way. I don’t know if we’re more prone to disagreement than past generations. Humans are humans, right? But it certainly has been my experience and observation that our disagreements are on more display today. I’m wondering. Sure. Which I think makes disagreement at a bit of a crisis, right? 

If you think of social media, cross-cultural travel, and the ways we do life and put everything on display. For example, print on T-shirts. It wasn’t a thing 50 years ago, but now you can print a lot of things on T-shirts. Yeah. You know what I’m saying? Sure, yeah. And you make self-expressions about things. And we take those and we make some sort of calculations and judgments about them. And so, the question I guess I have is how do we steward this area of our lives, and that is this, this reality of being in disagreement with some sphere of my world? Make sense? 

And let me even back up to simply say, as I was preparing for this, I realized that I was working under a presupposition, and that was perfect agreement is not possible. You see what I’m saying? Oh, okay. Yeah. And so, then I started re-questioning that. Maybe I need to rethink my presupposition. 

Is agreement possible? And I guess if it’s not, then we talk about this thing. You know what I mean? So anyway, thoughts on that, am I too far off in how I’m reading the room? Certainly, I wouldn’t say so. It is a fascinating thing in the day and age that we live in that the amount of information we have access to and therefore the number of opinions that we have access to, you’re like, “Wait, I didn’t even know I was supposed to have an opinion about this.” 

And before you know it oh, they’ve got a good point and there are just a lot of things that you can get wrong that you didn’t even know were out there at this point. Yeah, I just would make an observation. I think in today’s world, and I don’t say this negatively, I feel like more people feel entitled to have an opinion than perhaps in the past. 

So maybe in the older days, we would delegate our opinion-making to somebody who we felt could speak on our behalf. So, for example, a church’s opinion might be spoken by the pastor, or maybe a village’s opinion would be spoken by the mayor. Now, I think we’ve all got a sense that I have an opinion, and I’m entitled to share it. 

The other part of that is the instant access to just put it out there, and those Proverbs that talk about being slow, not being rash in our speech are just being pushed against. I can instantly share my opinion and just blast it out there for people to see. So, I think those two pressure points make it feel like disagreement is at a zenith. 

That’s interesting. And maybe it is, maybe it’s not, but it sure seems like it. Joe, I’ll even parse your comments into two different buckets. You have the societal system or philosophy of opinion which is interesting and I would need a historian to speak to this, right? 

But there was a day when people couldn’t vote. That was a thing, and they couldn’t vote for actually very thoughtful and societal reasons. That person doesn’t know enough to vote. Exactly. So, now it is assumed or understood that everybody does have that agency. So, that’s category one, and then we have the mechanism for opinion broadcasting. So, I think those two come together to articulate our time, right? Yes. And even in that, like the mechanism of the internet allowing for expression of ideas, there’s something about when you’re in person with somebody, if you disagree, there are just general rules that you tend to operate by more faithfully than when you get out on the web. 

Those tend to disappear and that really ramps up the intensity that comes with disagreement. Okay, so you’re really speaking of the sphere that we’re disagreeing in or maybe the mode that we are taking. I’m going to speak to some of those. In person, what’s at play, and in those other spheres, what’s not at play? 

In person, generally you’re much more aware of the other person’s response and humanizing them and being thoughtful and gracious in how you respond and go about that. It just tends to level you out a bit. When you’re sitting on your phone or on the computer, you’re not really thinking about the other person, and if you are, you generally are thinking of them as an enemy or something to attack and then that puts you in a very different mindset and then you start to assume this is just how you do disagreement. 

Instead of just having a reasonable conversation, you attack and go after. So, there are a lot of things to talk about with that. All right. So, let’s just talk about the pieces of it. All right. The humanizing aspect is huge, right? I think there’s something to say there. But this idea of becoming an enemy, let’s linger here. What is it about disagreement that turns us sour on another person? So, I don’t know if you’ve had this experience. You’ve got maybe a friend or maybe a neighbor, and you’re getting along really well until all of a sudden, you smell this, “Ah, they don’t agree with X, Y, or Z,” right? 

And all of a sudden, that now colors the way I view that neighbor or that acquaintance or that coworker. And it becomes a bit of a mental label. Is this just me speaking, or is this a human experience? Yeah, I think so. And it just makes me think of going back to some of the pre-suppositions that we start with. If you start with the assumption that we’re supposed to agree on everything, then when a disagreement shows up, it’s like, “Wait a second, this is a major problem. We have to deal with it.”  

And I think maybe a few generations ago, again, I’m not a historian, so I don’t know, but I wonder if there were different assumptions and that disagreement could be like, “Oh, that’s interesting. I could probably learn something here.” But instead, we’re in that interaction with neighbor, and it’s like, “Oh maybe we aren’t on the same team.” 

It starts to generate that, and before we know it, we can be in a pretty dark place. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think sometimes we assume that disagreement instantly creates distance. It need not – with the right posture. As Brian said, this is an opportunity for me to hear someone with a different perspective and maybe learn from them. 

But if we’re not careful, I think our impulse is to say, “Oh, disagreement, there’s distance.” But we need not have that posture. We can choose which posture we want to have towards disagreement. Can we go under the hood of the distance? I would love that, because I think that’s very easy to see, Joe, and I relate to that. 

What’s driving distance? Is it something that we think? Is it a misunderstanding of the way I should be processing this? Is it some deep-seated something about myself? If we could go under the hood of that, what is the distance maker of disagreement? I would defer to Brian on this. I would say it probably is different for each person. 

For example, if I were to disagree with you, Matt, and sense some distance there, what’s generating that distance for me might be different than somebody else. For example, maybe for me, it’s I think all people should think the same way. We don’t see the same way. What’s wrong with us? That could be the distance maker. 

Maybe somebody else is thinking, “Oh, if this person disagrees with me, it implies I’m less educated or don’t know as much, and I feel attacked.” So, I would think what’s driving the distance probably depends on the person. I think that makes a great deal of sense, Joe. And I think too, sometimes, depending on what you’re taking in as far as information, let’s say you’re online and you’re listening to debates or you’re watching people of differing opinions interact in the public forum, a lot of times today that does get pretty heated.  

Yeah. And if that’s like, “Oh, this is how I handle disagreement,” then you may move that direction as well. I think there can be lots of different factors that create that distance, whether it’s our own insecurities, our assumption of how to handle disagreement, what it means that somebody would disagree with us, lots of different things. 

Yeah, I would agree with that. There’s a phrase I heard that’s really been helpful to me. To disagree with someone is not to disrespect them. Now, you can be disrespectful in your disagreement, but simply to have a different opinion on various topics is not to disrespect someone, nor should we be perceived as being disrespected because someone has a different opinion. 

I think, unfortunately, that’s an underlying, “This is offensive. I’m offended you’ve disrespected me,” simply by giving a different opinion. It’s not healthy for societal or personal dialogue, I don’t think. That’s really good, Joe, and I want to press this a little bit further and ask you to respond to this. 

Teach us a little bit about how to respectfully disagree. What would be some of the articles that you think are important, first to set that type of mindset up and then what are the mechanics of that? Are there things that we should be saying it? Are there ways to carry my disagreement in a way that’s respectful? 

Yeah, that’s a great question. I think from a posture perspective, a way to avoid feeling disrespected or threatened or offended by disagreement is to assume a posture of humility. To say, in any conversation I’m having with someone about any topic, there are things I don’t know. 

I could be wrong, and I have an opportunity to learn from this particular person. That posture of saying, “I don’t know everything. We see through a glass darkly,” makes me say, “There must be a reason why the neighbor across the fence sees it differently. I wonder what it might be.” Maybe curiosity is a posture as well that lowers the temperature on disagreement. 

So, it’s just really a posture towards saying, “What can I learn?” And not thinking we know everything already. I think that really diffuses the threat of disagreement. I really love that humility, Joe, and I’m going to push you a little bit more and simply ask for more clarity, and that is this. If I’m in disagreement, can I only learn from that disagreement insofar as that other person is right and I’m wrong? Or is there learning for me even when they are wrong and I am right? Does that make sense? Because I think we’re with you with the first one, like obviously, if I’m wrong and they’re right, and I can listen, I’m humble. 

But very often we think we’re in the second category because, who doesn’t think they’re right? You know what I mean? Yep. So, take us in that second situation. Do you follow me? Yeah. I think even in a situation where I’m pretty convinced I’m right, and maybe I am right, I would still say there is absolutely a lot I can learn from the other person who holds a perspective different than mine that’s even wrong. 

Number one, I would learn what’s under the hood for them to hear their story. That’s just human connection. So yeah, they might be wrong. Again, like you said, most of us think we’re right most of the time. There’s that humility that softens that. But even if we are right, I do think we can learn a lot because maybe their perspective, though wrong, helps me see blind spots. 

Maybe their reason for sharing their perspective actually uncovers, “I haven’t really thought about that.” Now, I’m still right. But maybe my foundation wasn’t quite as strong as I thought it was. So, in either case, we have an opportunity to learn from the other person, and if they’re respectfully disagreeing it is an opportunity for us to sit and dialogue, which is healthy and valuable. 

Yeah. One of the things that comes to mind with what you’re saying there, Joe, is we can be in a posture of curiosity or humility. I think Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect of “I disagree with them or I don’t like them, oh, I probably have something to learn from them. I need to get to know them better.” Is that what it is? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. You get to know them better, and even if we disagree and are on the right side of the fence and say, “How did they get there?” “How can I understand their experiences?” It’s just a really good thing to move towards. I love that. And as you guys just were talking about this need to learn how to carry our correctness, I think, is what I heard from there. Again, we’re talking about this situation where we happen to be right. 

Yeah, and we’re in disagreement because they’re wrong. But you’re saying there is something to learn from that other perspective, and sometimes it’s being content learning “Oh, I need to think about this,” but it’s also, “I think something that we learned from that is, how do I carry my rightness?” 

Because that is part of the stewardship of living well, I think. Which highlights then that a lot of times it’s not just about coming to the right conclusion. It’s about how do we love our neighbor? And that’s a part of where we move towards loving them, whether it’s in our rightness or our wrongness, and that being a core thing that we don’t want to lose sight of. 

Be quick to listen, slow to speak. It’s just an opportunity to connect as opposed to distance, even with those who are maybe wrong. What are the items that are high-stake items? I think we know how to disagree about flavors of ice cream, right? 

Don’t give me too much credit, Matt. Yeah. He might be willing to go to war. Yeah. Okay. I know some people who really like pumpkin-flavored ice cream but let me just tell you something. They’re way off. Yeah, I agree. Okay, we are in Morton. Yes. But there are, obviously, things that ratchet up disagreement, and so let’s honor those in this moment. How would you categorize some of these things, and I don’t know, where would we go with that?  

One thing that comes to mind that’s a helpful picture for me is if you think of a pyramid and you divide that pyramid into different sections, the base of the pyramid, let’s say, is what we would call from a biblical perspective, absolute truth. 

And the further you are towards the base of the pyramid, the more likely that those disagreements are going to have strong emotions, strong opinions, and really do matter. As you move up and you’re talking more about things like group norms, like this is just how things are done within a particular group. 

You move up to the next category, maybe something like how things are done within a particular household, and then you move up to the peak of the pyramid being preferences. Maybe that’s where the ice cream example would fall. And the further you go up, generally we have more flexibility. 

Exactly. We tend to have more flexibility and “Oh, okay, we can land in different places and be okay.” As we move down, that’s where it starts to get more personal and difficult to do that well. And I think it’s a really important skill to be able to discern as we disagree with someone which kind of thing it is. 

Because if there’s misalignment, and what I think we’re talking about is preference, and someone else holds this particular thing as a deep conviction, that’s going to create a lot of friction. So, for example, if you’re talking to someone about faith and they are fully persuaded that religion can only be like a kind of ice cream, it’s just a preference, and you think that your faith actually makes claims about absolute truth, it’s going to take some time and listening to get to the place where you say, “Ah, I see where we’re disagreeing here. You think religion is this kind of thing. I think it’s further down on the pyramid.” 

And discerning where those things are not lined up is critical to coming to some sort of peaceful end to a conversation perhaps. And I think that’s an excellent observation, both just the layers there and your example. Maybe one of the skills to disagree well is to first try to make sure we’re on the right levels. 

And if somebody is holding to something super sacred, it’s not helpful for me just to blow it off. I have to get there myself. Why is this so sacred? And to find that common appreciation for, “Okay, this is really meaningful,” I think probably goes a long way in being able to sort out emotions. 

And I think, too, hopefully that helps regulate our own emotions, right? Joe, you’re speaking to knowing where I’m seeing this on the pyramid. I think you’re speaking, Matt, to recognize the other person and where they’re putting it, and if they’re seeing it that this is a base of pyramid thing, and I’m like, “Wait, this is preference,” that mismatch is going to cause difficulty. Totally agree.  

Actually, I see this in my family and my kids. And that lens is really helpful for me. They look at me like, “Dad, what?” “Calm down, dude.” And we’re talking about the same issue, but we’re on different levels. I guess I’d say it this way. What is one person’s preference is someone else’s non-negotiable. And until those are discerned, and neither one is right, it’s just going to be a hard conversation.  

Okay, can we go into the church now? Because I think this is a really important conversation to have within the church. All right, so now we’re all at the bottom level, right? Again, there are different levels to the things that we’re concerned about, so the conversation we’ve had prior is still super important and bears itself on the church. But dare I read 1 Corinthians 1:10. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together with the same mind and with the same judgment.” 

Does that explode everything? So, we have a call to the Scriptures to this, I don’t know, do I call that agreement, or is that something else? And when we talk about our faith, we’re talking about something very sacred, and we have disagreements among believers, very deep ones. 

So, where do we go here? I think my initial impulse, Matt, is to say I wonder if what 1 Corinthians 1:10 is calling us to isn’t so much a unity that’s derived from perfect agreement on everything, but it’s actually a unity based on different things. I think we can be unified by various things within the church, one of which would be agreement or assent to particular common truths. 

But if we think that agreement, perfect agreement, is the basis of our strong unity, I’m afraid we’re going to be sorely disappointed with church life. Because we’re not the same people. And so, I think Scripture does call us to really tight unity, but in Christ as the basis, not perfect agreement on everything. 

That’s a very brittle, fragile unity. Yeah, that’s not a sure foundation. It’s Christ and him crucified. So, identifying where the unity resides is critical if we’re going to flourish in our church life. Yeah, 100%. If you think of the context Paul’s speaking into in the early church, you’ve got Jews and Gentiles coming together. Vast differences. Yeah. Can you imagine the levels of disagreement? Talk about preferences. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. Unbelievable. Yes. And deeply held things going on there. And so, I think you’re right that it’s talking about something that’s deeper than some of those other pieces. 

Whereas the disagreements that come up, expose who we are, and then if we can bring those to Christ that unite us, then it facilitates humility and “Oh, okay maybe step back.” We have to steward agreement. It’s one thing to steward disagreement. That’s what we’ve been talking about. 

That’s what this whole podcast has been talking about. But we have to steward agreement well. What does it mean for me to agree with a person? We can almost sell ourselves too quickly and get our eye off the ball with the agreements that we strive for. Is that fair? I think if I’m hearing you correctly, Matt, what you’re maybe suggesting is that just as we can put too much emphasis on a potential strain caused by disagreement, we can elevate agreement as if it is the basis for our unity. Yes, in other words, what I’m saying is we tend to think that it is easier, and it probably is, to love someone and be united with someone with whom we agree than we disagree. 

I think what we’re saying is disagreement and agreement, while valuable and helpful, ought not be the basis for our unity. And I love that part. So, we tend to drift to those who agree with us because we feel they’re easier to love, easier to serve, and actually Scripture and Jesus would challenge us. 

Anybody can love those who are just like them. But what about those who love their enemies? So, I think maybe we put too much of a premium on the power of agreement, and we overstate the strain of disagreement. Let’s just love, serve, converse, and come to truth. Maybe that’s what I’m sensing you’re saying there, Matt. 

I don’t know. You’ve said it really well. Oh, I love that. Yeah. I think that’s so profound. And the thing that it makes me think of, Joe, is that if I can remember that it helps me see that I want to be in a church with those that I agree with and those that I don’t. That’s really important for me, and I want to enjoy the agreement, but also to value the disagreement and not to see either of those as the ultimate pursuit. 

Yes. But they both have potential to help me continue to move towards and celebrate Christ. Beautiful. Joe, let’s go tactical, okay? Let’s bring some of those practical things to bear on this conversation. Yeah. So, I think whenever I’m in disagreement, there are just a few things at least that are important for me to try to model and try to live out. 

Again, whether I like it or not, disagreement can create distance if we’re not careful. I think prefacing our opinions by something like this, I could be wrong,” or something like, “Maybe I’m seeing this wrong, but could you help me?” I think language really matters when we are in disagreement because if we’re saying the right things and meaning it in our heart, it doesn’t create distance. 

So, just the words really matter. Can you give us the opposite? Because I really like that. What would it look like not to do that well with some of those words? Yeah. I’ll be honest, whenever I’m in conversation where there’s a disagreement, I don’t like using the words, “I disagree with you.” Now, clearly, I do, but I don’t like those. Those words seem just slightly abrasive to me. “I disagree with you.” So, that is a phrase I don’t particularly like to use. It might be something like this: I disagree with you about this, but I wonder if we’re not aligned on this particular point.” 

So, I think softening language that’s always expressing, “I don’t know everything. Help me understand,” is just really tactical, but it is a tactic that flows out of a posture of humility and let’s learn together. So, I think language really matters. One thing that makes me think of there, Joe, that I just agree with so much, is it sounds to me like you’re suggesting encouraging us to use tentative language. 

Yes. And I think tentative language does tend to help that be able to be massaged well. Yes. Whereas when we move into more definitive or declarative, that’s going to ratchet up the intensity versus the tentative. I like that. Tentative language is critical to disagreeing well. 

And it’s so easy then to belittle the other position. Yes, or actually the other human. For example, to say if you believed then,” or “If you loved God…” Those are heavy-hitting words, right? Yes. Yeah. Also, I think a tactic is to really take the time to make sure when you’re conversing with someone that you are listening and discerning where the real disagreement is. 

I think many times we are talking with folks and we’re sensing we’re not aligned, but where we think we’re in a disagreement actually isn’t the case. We need to stop, maybe work our way down a couple levels and to say, “Oh, I think I see where we’re not on the same page, and it wasn’t what we thought it was 10 minutes ago.” 

Taking the time I have found, to try to get to a place where we both agree, “Oh, here’s where we’re not aligned,” is a super helpful tactic. And then, as we’ve talked about, what category is this? Is this a conviction disagreement? Is it a preference disagreement, or is it one person’s preference and one person’s conviction? 

Taking the time to figure that out, I think is super helpful, and so those are some tactics. Another one I’ve heard recently is we have the tendency to straw man those we disagree with, so pick the weakest part of their argument and attack it, versus the steel man, where you say, “Let me give you the strongest version of what I hear you saying.” 

And that’s an honorable thing to do for that person. It feels respectful. So, there are just some tactics. Again, it’s not all tactics, but just language, posture, taking time to make sure. I have found to be really helpful tactics. That’s good in disagreement. Yeah, I really like those. 

I think those are really good. Another thing that you may think about if somebody’s coming at you with some intensity is to maybe view yourself as, “My goal right now is to be a bit of a sponge.” Maybe there is a lot of emotion coming, and right now I just need to absorb and absorb. 

There’s probably more to this and if I can sit here long enough then that maybe would bring another tactic of just being able to stay present. Even for myself I’m a people pleaser, and so if things start to get heated, I’d just as soon leave. And nope, you need to just stay present, listen, try to stay engaged. 

Those can be helpful for me. I really love that. And you mentioned emotion. One lesson that I’ve learned is that I have to steward passion. I can get passionate. And then that passion can shut down conversation because a person might not feel like they can meet the passion with the opposition, or they don’t feel like I’m going to be able to listen to it because, look, he just got worked up about it, right? 

And I have tried to be a student of those instructors who have been able to control their passion and present ideas in a way that invites disagreement and conversation and questions rather than closes it down. I find that passion closes down conversation. I don’t know. That’s been my experience. 

Yeah, and I think that passion, high emotion, while understandable, doesn’t always create that safe space for conversation and disagreement, and so we do need to steward it, be sensitive to it. And I remember a conversation where sometimes we don’t anticipate the strength of the emotion coming. I remember getting into a conversation years ago with someone. 

They were really coming on very strongly, and sometimes when we’re met with strong emotion, we respond with strong emotion, and after a while, I was sitting there making arguments that I said, “I don’t even believe this.” I was defending things I didn’t even believe just because it felt confrontational. 

Yeah. That’s not wise, what I did. But it happens if we’re not prepared for strong emotion. We become baited not to let them have the last word. Yes. And that’s why that conversation lasts five hours. But yeah, not wise to meet strong emotion with strong emotion, like the absorb posture, but I think one of the really important qualities that has helped me is maybe growing up and getting experiences, seeing the complexity in just about everything. I have a daughter who was given a project as part of a debate class, and she had the issue, but she wasn’t assigned the position. That was going to be given to her later. “Be ready. On Friday, you’re going to debate, and I’ll tell you what side you’re supposed to take.” Wow. And it was so good because it forced her to come up with a steel man for both sides. What a great experiment. And she had such a good sense of the complexity of the thing. 

It’s so easy to build an argument, a one-sided argument, because you really don’t want to see that other side in all of its power. Anyway, it was a good lesson for me because I just watched it. That’s a great exercise. Oh, that’s so good. Because I think as humans, we like things to be really clear-cut. We want them to fit into nice little categories and boxes, and you start to live a while, and this gets messy pretty quick. 

This has come out already in a number of ways, I think, but let’s go ahead and pull it together as we close this conversation, brothers. If I go back to my opening comments, we live in a world of disagreement. For all the reasons that we’ve stated, we have to steward this, Christian and non-Christian alike. What should be a part of the Christian’s posture and life, living out this particular area? 

Because, let me be honest, sometimes I can’t tell the difference. And that says something, doesn’t it? As believers, we should carry disagreement differently. What would be some of those things? I don’t know if this speaks exactly into what you’re asking there, Matt, but I think for us to just, to recognize that as [00:32:00] followers of Jesus, having truth of the scriptures, like we, we know at the base of reality what is true, and that should give us great confidence. 

When we’re in this space where there’s disagreement, at the end of the day, if it matters and if truth is going to come to light, that’s going to come out on our side. And we don’t have to panic about that. We don’t have to get fretful or defend. Truth is on our side. 

Brian, are you saying that I don’t have to have the last word? Are you letting me off of that? I hope so. Which is awesome. Yes, it is. I think there’s something about it that’s really settling. That’s good. Yeah. That’s a great point, that the more confident we are in our faith, the more peaceful and relaxed we can be in disagreement, because we know at the end of the day, at the base of reality is Jesus Christ. 

I think, too, as Christians disagree with each other and even with non-Christians, I would hope there would be a difference in the posture of humility versus ego. And at the end of the day, if the world is saying, “What I desire more than anything is to be right,” the Christian would say, “I desire to be Christ-like. 

And I can contend for the truth, but if I contend for the truth in a way that is not Christ-like, I have failed. And so, that ought to be a difference we see in the way Christians disagree and non-Christians. That’s really excellent. Thank you, brothers. And to our listeners I know that disagreement has to be a part of your world, and hopefully this conversation has elevated our faith into a place where we might live with disagreement and agreement well as Christ did and does. 

So, thank you, each one, for being here.