How Should Christians Disagree With Each Other?

1) Lovingly. Say I have a disagreement of some substance with Bob Christian. But let's say Bono, the Queen of England, and the general secretary of the UN all go on TV one day and say, "We think Bob Christian is a snappy dresser, has a great three-point shot, and is an all-around great guy." And then they all shake his hand, on camera. That might have some effect on how I relate to him: I might be less ready to criticize and take the gloves off, given the people who've affirmed him.

But imagine the Son of God, God of God, Light of Light, through whom and for whom all things were made, before whom the heavens and the earth tremble--imagine him saying of Bob Christian, "Bob is a sinner and deserving of death, but I love him and have suffered in his place. I give Bob my righteousness, and, although he is not totally healed of his sin, I accept and am delighted in and am completely happy with Bob. He's my friend, and I so strongly identify with him that any wrong done to him I take personally, and any kindness done to him I take personally." Wow. That would have a huge impact in how I relate to Bob: how hesitant, and with what trembling, should I criticize or accuse or confront someone whom Christ has died for! Sometimes you do have to confront, of course, but it is always done against that background.

2) Directly. Prov 25.9-10 says, "Argue your case with your neighbor himself, and do not reveal another's secret, lest he who hears you bring shame upon you, and your ill repute have no end." I want to confess and repent that I'm just terrible at this - I have a bizarre readiness to criticize other Christians behind their back, and a bizarre unwillingness to say these same things to Christians directly. It's flat-out not biblical. I'm trying to make a rule: never criticize anyone unless I have talked to that person directly about my criticism. And if I'm not willing to do so, then I don't say it to anyone else. I guess one good thing about this is that it weeds out the trivial criticisms; you don't criticize someone directly unless you really need to.

3) Hopefully. Love believes all things, hopes all things (1 Cor 13): and that's not sentimentality, but a deeply reality-rooted belief and hope, because, no matter how much Bob Christian might be misguided, he has the same Holy Spirit that I do, and has the same promises from our Divine Physician that all his sin and confusion and misguided zeal or whatever will finally, totally, be healed and eradicated. So every disagreement is hopeful.

4) Tolerantly. There's a lot of goofy, meaningless talk about tolerance today that's not very meaningful to me. What I mean here is, although there are some disagreements which are intolerable--some in which we can't simply agree to disagree (such as disagreements over justification by faith between Catholics and Prodestants)--there are some disagreements which put neither party beyond the bounds of classic evangelicalism (like Calvinist/Arminian). This does NOT mean the disagreement is meaningless; but I don't have to persecute my Arminian brothers, even despite the depth and importance of the disagreement.

There's doubtless much more to say about this, but I think that's enough for now.

Part of the reason why I'm writing this is that it's been my observation that it never occurs to some Christians to ask how you disagree--in their minds, there is no "how." I think (I think) it comes out of a certain view of truth, or at least partially so: truth is truth is truth, is obvious and open and translucent and ready-at-hand, so when other Christians aren't in truth, you draw a line and say, "Here's the truth, and here's error: pick your side." The practice of the gospel, one to another, never occurs to them; you just go after people and accuse without hesitation. Ministry becomes a matter of running around, stamping out fires, keeping everyone faithful.

Of course, there are times when you have to draw lines. And I'm really not trying to pigeon hole anyone here. I remember having a debate with a Christian who, though solidly Evangelical, was pretty much in disagreement with me about everything you can be, theologically and philosophically. And at the end of the debate, he said to me, "Eric, the fact that you were willing to openly argue with me about this makes your friendship even more precious to me." I almost started crying--what an awesomely beautiful, Christ-like response. And the glorious thing is, that sort of response is not unusual from my friend: he's one of the most humble, sweet, easy people I've ever met; but he's a thousand miles away from being soft--very strong convictions. And I thought, I agree with this guy about very little: but that's the sort of man I want to labor with, pray with, and can affirm. Yeah!

Why is it that deep evangelical conviction is mixed with the wonderful sweetness with some, and profound acrimony in others? I don't know. But the warning about the leaven of the Pharisees comes to mind: a little yeast that infects the whole, and renders it ugly.