June 18, 2012

Agree to Disagree: 4 Ways to Know its Time to End Discussions

by Clint Archer

Cults don’t foster independent thinking or dialogue. Just agree with the leader, drink the Kool Aid when he tells you and everything will be fine. Christianity, on the other hand, encourages people to engage their minds and ponder truth for themselves.

Jesus’ teachings were characteristically cerebral and logical. He pointed out inconsistencies in the Pharisees’ applications, appealed to the OT as a source of authority, challenged misaligned motives, and dismantled  arguments with a flourish (and yes, often punctuated with a miracle).

Because of this liberty, some Christians acquire a taste for theological blood-letting. They get embroiled in extended discussions, which slip into an abyss of disagreements, that implode into a vortex of spiritual paucity.

You’ve all met the seminoid who charges into arenas of theological debate like an eager matador, arrayed in the splendor of his own preparations, and toting a red rag to taunt any equally bovine opponent he can find.

The question is: When is it right to persevere in theological repartee  with a goal of convincing someone of your viewpoint, and when is it better that you call the time of death, pull the plug, and move on?

Last week we examined steps to discussing theology amicably. But here are 4 principles for determining whether a discussion has a chance of being profitable or whether its time to shut things down.

Agree to disagree…

1. If your shared authority is not the Scripture.

When a judo practitioner engages a kung-fu fighter, the bout rarely ends well for the judo guy. Why? Because in judo there is no punching or kicking or engaging the face; in kung-fu you’re allowed to use your feet and fists. The opponents aren’t following the same rules.

Paul was able to debate with the Jews at Thessalonica, and prevail, because they both recognized the authority of the Scriptures, which Paul consistently used to “reason with them,” (Acts 17:2).

He commended them for this very virtue in  1 Thess 2:13 ”you accepted it not as the word of man, but the word of God.”

 

2. If you do not share a common hermeneutic.

When you sniff incompatible hermeneutics, it’s time to hit the eject button on your chat. Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpreting the Scriptures. If one side of the discussion is employing a literal, historical-grammatical set of rules for understanding the Bible, while the other side is relying on experience or tradition as a validation of truth, or perhaps a reader-response system, then both sides will be frustrated and the dialogue will devolve into wrangling about words.

One example in the NT is the Jewish sect of the Sadducees. In Matt 22:29 ”Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.’”

Although the Sadducees used the OT Scriptures, they used a liberal approach to interpretation which Jesus bluntly calls ignorance.

 

3. If the person you’ve engaged doesn’t want to understand.

They might not want to agree with you, but if you can tell that a person is genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint, I reckon the talk is worth continuing. It is understanding that brings change.

This takes wisdom. Often the signal of willingness to learn is if the person asks sincere questions they are grappling to understand. On the other hand, you can usually tell if they are just waiting for you to finish your spiel so that they can launch their rehearsed riposte.

Paul recognized that different folks need different strokes. Sometimes you need a whiteboard, sometimes a stick.

1 Thess 5: 14 ”And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.”

 

4. If the discussion keeps derailing.

I’d agree to disagree, and gently implement an exit strategy, if the original issue keeps being derailed into irrelevant tangents. If a person doesn’t wait for a topic to be resolved, but keeps bringing up new topics that then spawn even more red herrings, it may be an indication that this discussion is a runaway train, off its tracks, and heading nowhere fast.

Paul warned his buddy Titus 3: 9 “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.”

 

I hope these help. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. But if I cut you short, now you know why!

Clint Archer

Posts Twitter

Clint is the pastor of Hillcrest Baptist Church. He and his expanding troop of Archers live near Durban, South Africa (and pity anyone who doesn't). When he is off duty from CGate, his alter ego blogs at Café Seminoid, clintarcher.com
  • Dave Johnson

    Thank you Clint!  To encapsulate   … “Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.  Let your speech always be with grace seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person.”    I think you’ve unpacked some of the meaning of … “conduct yourselves with wisdom …” with these Scriptural examples.

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Thanks Dave. Paul Tripp has a great book on speaking with wisdom, called “War of Words.” As James said, master the tongue and you’re perfect.

  • Guy

    Spot on. I have encountered all four of these in discussions with my unsaved, Catholic family. I now let our conversations lie where they are in order to not damage the opportunity to have a civil conversation.

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Thanks Guy, it’s always good to hear the theory successfully  tested in the field. 

  • Greg

    Clint, would you apply this to unsaved family members as well? When do you still present the gospel, even though they don’t want to hear it?

    • Truth Unites… and Divides

      Great questions, Greg!!! 

      As an addendum, what if you have family members and friends who refuse invitations to go to church (so that kills the opportunity to hear the Gospel from someone else), and you’re the only one whom they regularly have contact with and who will be bold enough to share the Gospel with them, only to experience rejection in various forms, and you have to shutdown the discussion per the four principles that you provide?

      Answer:  Pray for them!

      Possible result:  The answer to your prayers for their salvation is “No” and some of your loved ones go to Hell. 

      I have heard that some pastors have deceased parents, deceased siblings, and even deceased children who they think rejected Christ and are living eternally apart from Him.

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      I think there’s a difference between presenting the gospel and fielding honest questions about it, and discussing points of doctrine. I wouldn’t debate doctrine with unbelievers, only the gospel. But again, if the questions are antagonistic and not sincere confusion, then I’d say my bit (get the clear gospel in there) and implement a polite exit strategy asap. Then back up the presentation with love and patience and other adorning of the gospel. Great question.

  • elainebitt

    Thanks Clint!

    #2, 3, 4 are a given in most eschatological debates. Yikes!

    Just occurred to me that we have seen that happened here. =)

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Good point. Now we’re accountable!

  • Jackyeowe

    Great article Clint. I have been added to many groups on FB and seldom enter into the dialogue because it seems to me to be endless wrangling. 

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Great decision. FB is not the best forum for theological debate. Face to face is always best, as you can communicate your patience and compassion and empathy better in person. These are essential parts of loving your neighbor (even one whose ‘wrong’!)

  • Mike Lively

    Thanks Clint for this post.  Your bang on with your comments!  

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Let’s agree to agree on that! Thanks brother.

  • Busdriver4jesus

    3 of these seem very good and profitable… but I would echo elaine’s concern about eschatology.  Can dispensational and covenant folks interact profitably just using #1, 2, and 4?

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Eschatology is almost always a hermeneutic issue, not a lack of desire. I know of folks in both camps who have tried hard to understand each other’s views, but it boils down to giving precedence to OT interpreting the NT, or the NT interpreting the OT. Michael Vlach’s blog theologicalstudies.org is a goldmine on this topic. Thanks for your input. 

  • http://scripturethoughts.wordpress.com/ Lynda O

    Yes I’ve seen it a lot with eschatology discussions, but in a similar way with many other doctrinal issues, since a lot of it comes down to people not really believing what God’s word says and preferring to believe something else (#1). Creation and Calvinism/Arminianism are also big hot-button topics sometimes at blogs.  Your points are so true, and I’ve seen it too many times over the years, and learned after a while not to continue in discussion especially in dealing with #3 — they just don’t want to understand.

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Yeah, and often people have their “pet” doctrinal issue they want to debate, but not to learn, only to teach. It’s good to be ware of being that person!

  • Woody Bailey

    When the other person says that God told them this or that was so, your discussion is over.

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Totally. That falls under not taking Scripture as your common authority. It’s hard to disagree with “God told me.”

  • MarkO

    “…to know its time to END discussions.”
    So Clint, I sense that you are telegraphing to us that you are a cessationist, right?

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      Ha! This article applies to discussions in all languages!

  • Pete

    Did Jesus just agree to disagree?

    • http://www.clintarcher.com/ Clint

      My policy is that whichever one in the discussion is infallible and omniscient is the one who doesn’t need to agree to disagree!