A column I wrote last year for the Baptist and Reflector initiated emails from two readers, neither of whom were happy with a particular comment I’d made. The contents of both notes were the verbal equivalent of being taken to the woodshed.
I thanked each for taking time to write. “I am always open to hearing from you,” I responded. “Iron doesn’t sharpen iron without a few sparks. Hopefully, we might have the opportunity to connect in person at some point (and maybe involve coffee in the conversation).”
One responded saying he’d “very much enjoy a cup of coffee” with me. It took months, but we eventually had a delightful lunch and talked through my comments, and about a million other things. He is 20-plus years my senior, but we found a lot of common ground and very few differences.
The other demanded I cancel his subscription. I don’t believe he liked the idea of coffee, at least not with me.
I’ve now done it again. Apparently, some people aren’t enamored with my column, “Have You Read the BF&M?” that appeared in the June 24 issue of the B&R. The grapevine reports some read the column as a negative commentary on the “Truth and Unity Amendment,” presented by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler, but I don’t know for sure. No one has contacted me directly. I’d welcome that discussion.
And that’s the subject of this column. I wish we could recapture the spirit of rigorous conversation about important issues without it getting personal. Unfortunately, that’s not the trend in the United States. A study by the University of Chicago found that only 30% of respondents recognized the phrase “Address the argument, not the person.” People are quick to attack a person’s character rather than engage their reasoning. Disagreement becomes personal, and dissenters become enemies to be silenced.
Many pastors live the tension. A 2022 Barna Group study found that “political divisions” was a top-three reason most-cited by pastors who were burned out and on the verge of quitting. The fallout isn’t worth it. They aren’t just watching civil discourse erode; they are directly awash in its consequences.
Columnist Peggy Noonan wrote in a June 2024 Wall Street Journal article, “We Are Starting to Enjoy Hatred,” that “We don’t mind disliking each other now. We like it. We’re enjoying the estrangement.” One reason people enjoy political hatred, she wrote, is that it lets them feel “immersed in a warm bath of righteousness.”
Intelligence without humility can breed arrogance. My observation is that there is a determined absolutism of perspective by many that leaves no room for discourse, agreement, or learning; no elevating the conversation in pursuit of mutual understanding. Some assume the strident position of “I am right; we can’t both be right; therefore, you must be wrong.”
Their rhetoric is punitive rather than engaging. Anyone can react, and at times, seemingly everyone does regardless of where on the spectrum their opinions fall. Our culture is awash in mindless, thoughtless, belligerent, pompous reactions to ideas with which people don’t agree.
And social media shovels the coal that increases the heat of social discord.
We can, and should, do better as disciples of Christ. We’ve got to be mentally and spiritually on guard to avoid being sucked into the vortex of “enjoying the estrangement.”
The Bible is replete with examples of rigorous discussion of ideas for the purpose of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17) so that one person sharpens another. Job wished to argue his case before the Lord (Job 13:3); Paul reasoned in the synagogue and marketplace (Acts 17); the Bereans were commended for “examining the Scriptures” when confronted with Paul’s teaching (Acts 17); and the Lord invited engagement when he said, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).
That is the invitation. We can disagree and debate with civility if we do not fear ideas, for no idea is worth the defense if it cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny.
Reasoning together is achieved when our motivations are in seeking understanding rather than correction.
And here’s the challenge. I doubt we’ll agree on everything I write in these columns, but I do hope they invoke introspection and conversation rather than reaction with no meaningful resolution. So, let’s be different. Engage our minds. Think. Talk.
Come, let us reason together …and let’s include the coffee. B&R