The Art of Disagreeing in Public: 5 Important Points to Remember

Phil Monroe

Public disagreements are quite common these days—especially those taking place on blogs and even newspaper articles on the Internet. Read the comments that follow many e-articles and you will find a wide range of responses, from thoughtful to ridiculous.

Sadly, the conversation, if we could even call it that, amongst the varieties of Christian counselors in the 1980s to mid 1990s was not a great example of careful listening or speaking. Instead, communication usually contained accusations, misperceptions, and anecdotes presented as fact. My own experience of being the only biblical counselor in training at an integration-oriented doctoral program led me to my first public attempt to build conversational bridges between those two groups (Monroe, 1997).

I think we can agree with the old Virginia Slims line, “You’ve come a long way, baby,” in that these kinds of mean-spirited conversations are rare today. The recent Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS) national convention brought authors Ed Welch (biblical counselor) and Mark McMinn (integration approach) together on stage—as friends and conversation partners and not as combatants.

And yet, there are disagreements to be had. Whether you wish to disagree in person or on a website, consider these five reminders as ways to keep the first and second greatest commandments:

1.      Listen first. Give the benefit of the doubt. Validate.

Unless a person clearly states that they are giving a full-orbed defense of an idea, recognize that what they say or write is only a portion of their beliefs or ideas. When we make a point, we usually do so to highlight something that we think has been neglected or needs emphasis. Just because we emphasize this one thing, doesn’t mean we think the point we just made is the ONLY point to make. Example:

Speaker: Biblical counselors only focus on point out sins.

Response A: Well, integration oriented counselors rarely think critically about the presuppositions behind their baptized secular theories.

Or, a better response?

Response B: True, sometimes biblical counselors have ignored psychological research and other explanations for problem behaviors. How might we both address the problem of how hidden presuppositions shape views of human problems?

Notice in this simplistic example, the B response validates the speaker’s response and extends the conversation into new areas. If you really want to engage in dialogue, go even further: discuss what seems to be important to this other person. Find out why they defend their point of view. What assumptions, values, or concerns lead shape their ideas.

2.      Be able to summarize your opponent’s point as they would.

Can you articulate the other’s position in such a way that they would agree, “Yes, that is my opinion”? If you cannot, you have not listened well enough. Go back to step one.

3.      Raise concerns without using the slippery slope technique.

Disagreeing is a good thing—when done well and for the right purpose. Start raising your concerns and bolster, where possible, with some kind of data. However, work hard to avoid anecdotal “evidence”, the slippery slope argument, or taking their points to the extreme conclusions to illustrate the problems of the point. Further, engage the person to help you understand how they might handle a concern you raise.

4.      Put forth an alternative idea.

Put forth your alternative position in a way that still treats the other as kingdom citizens or guests. Do this especially if YOU are a guest on their turf (website or in person). It is not wrong to tell another their beliefs do not appear to jive with your understanding of the Bible but be sure to back up your viewpoints with real data. Avoid all slanderous, libelous labels. They do not help promote understanding.

5.      Recognize when to bow out with grace.

Not every comment, belief, position, or question is an invitation to a conversation. We need to know when the other person is not interested in dialogue or listening (or when we really aren’t open to it either) and gracefully back out. That said, there are many times when emotions are high because of prior wounds or battles. You might try to find out where the emotional energy is coming from. It may be someone with your position or title hurt them in the past. If so, you may be able to validate those hurts and re-engage the conversation at a later time. There are other times when you cannot move forward and so then find your exit.

Following these steps should help us disagree with and love others at the same time. They won’t remove all strife or attack. I had an experience once where I was talking to a very large crowd about some theological concerns I had with a particular counseling-type model. In the audience were both supporters and detractors of the model. I did my level best to represent the ministry in a way that was faithful to what they did and said about themselves prior to my critique. I found places where I affirmed their ideas. While I did have a couple of supporters of that ministry thank me for my care during the talk, many more were vicious in their attack, one even threatening. Some desired further dialogue. Some only wanted to destroy. Ironically, some who agreed with me attacked me in print for being too nice to heretics.

Sometimes, when you exhibit Christian character in dialogue you get shot at from both sides. These steps won’t avoid attack, but I believe you will sleep easier knowing that you listened, loved, and spoke in a manner that honors God.

Reference

Monroe, P.G. (1997). Building Bridges with Biblical Counselors. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 25, 28-37.

 

Phil Monroe, PsyD

Biblical Seminary