Our world is filled with so many opinions. If we share a view on anything today, especially on social media, we will be met by a flood of agreement and disagreement from various contributors – some helpful and some unhelpful. Because of the ‘noise’ it can cause many will not share their views publicly anymore – I completely understand that.

However, healthy discussion should be a part of a well functioning community. It opens up our world, makes us more inclusive and allows us to keep leaning. It gives space for people of all backgrounds, ages, and stages to communicate and grow together. So, in this post I’d love to think about how can we can share opinion and learn to agree and disagree well.

I’ll start with my number one rule and what I believe the foundation to any healthy conversation should be;

While we can disagree about someone’s choice, opinion, or worldview we must agree on their essence, value and worth.

I haven’t always done this well at all but I believe it is fundamental to health in this area. As a follower of Jesus I must recognise that human beings are divine image bearers of Christ. That means that everyone I lock eyes with, regardless of their theological stance, is worthy of love and should be treated as valuable and precious to me. Who they are is not, or should not, be in question. This is where agreement is vital

However, what someone does or how someone does something can and will cause disagreement. This should be expected. With 7 and a half billion people in the world from different ethnicities, countries, religious backgrounds, cities, family structures, and experiences, we can hardly expect agreement on everything. If the truth be told, we should be surprised we agree on anything. Disagreement, therefore, is normal and is a helpful part of learning.

So why doesn’t agreement and disagreement as we experience it not always appear healthy? Here are 4 things which I hope are helpful

• Mixing up action and essence – I first heard a pastor talk about this years ago. Our essence is who we are and our actions are what we do. As we have discussed we are 99% of the time talking about actions – “I don’t think we should do that” “this could have been done better.” The problem is we often take an action and convert it into an essence. For example, we watch how someone is raising their child and rather than agreeing or disagreeing with their action we conclude they are a bad parent, that their essence is wrong. We get very protective of our essence! So much so that even when someone comments on our actions we convert them into an essence statement. For example, a colleague questions a piece of work we completed and instead of accepting the feedback on that level we decide they are making a comment on our character or our intelligence, which will make us very defensive. Its vital we learn to distinguish these whether we are in the ones delivering or receiving the feedback.
• All or nothing – this is a growing challenge in our world and one which social media is increasing. The premise of it is this – “because we agree (or disagree) on this thing, I will blindly accept (or ignore), with everything you say on any topic.” This is super unhealthy as far as I’m concerned. There are lots of leaders and pastors who I believe do a wonderful job in certain areas and on certain topics but l think do a poor job in other areas and on other topics. I believe its fine to accept that. I don’t need to ‘cancel them’ because I disagree, and I don’t need to ’crown them’ because I agree. Understanding and defining that will help us in so many ways.
• The departure of empathy – the ability to feel someone else’s pain is a dying skill but it is a crucial one to gain especially in the area of disagreement. The reason it is dying is because we rarely truly listen to those we disagree with. We are so concerned with winning and convincing that we rarely listen to the other side. One thing I’ve realised is that when I truly listen (with my eyes and ears) I will begin to at least understand and/or feel their point of view regardless of whether I agree or not. Disagreement is so much more amicable when empathy is used in the process.
• Our need for conclusion – too often in these conversations we need to resolve something that can’t be resolved. Of course there can be resolve, but often we are discussing complexities that have many different ‘rights’ and fewer wrongs than we’d like to admit. One thing I have learnt is that we aren’t good with mystery and grey areas but we must learn to live in the tension. Sometimes there isn’t one right answer and remembering that in any discussion will help us navigate it better. The challenge of this is that even though there isn’t one right answer, often only one decision can be made. If we are the one making that call its important that people know that we understand the tensions involved. When good people can trust that you’ve taken these things into account they can usually live with a conclusion they wouldn’t have chosen.

What it we began to distinguish between our own and another’s action and essence? What if we stopped blindly agreeing with or completely cancelling someone because of their point of view on one topic? What if we brought empathy back to the centre of our conversations again and what it we were able to live in the tension when no conclusion is available?

We could go on and on with this post but we will stop here. I believe the ability to do this well will be key in what is becoming a more polarised cultural landscape. I’ll remind of us of the quote we opened with – While we can disagree about someone’s choice, opinion, or worldview we must agree on their essence, value and worth.