Disagreements are certainly not foreign to those living in the intensely polarized world of 2023. However, our broad access to voices and information has, oddly enough, resulted in more echo chambers and less wisdom. What I mean is that the vast landscape of podcasts, videos, and content creators allows people living in 2023 to vehemently disagree with the disembodied "them" while only consuming the content of "debunkers" and pundits of their own stripe, never having to actually interact in any real human ways with our interlocutors except to sift their words for flaws. This new form of public "debate" is far from what our forebears ever experienced in several ways.
Once upon a time, when people disagreed on substantive matters of public interest, they invited two of the most mature representatives of each position, and held a moderated debate. The maturity of these representatives was key, as each perspective needed to be expounded carefully and rationally, excluding outburst, personal attack, and cliched catchwords. Immature errors like these would sully the side who indulged in them, making it obvious to those who listened, read, or watched that the position had not merit enough to stand on its own but needed to be propped up by these immature means which appealed only to our most base nature. Today, the reverse phenomenon has been indulged, where those who are most vitriolic and least respectful are lauded as the most authentic, their inexcusable behavior and character being mistaken for deep earnestness or grave concern. In the online disagreement economy, success is merely a matter of recording your seething hatred for others and harvesting likes, comments, and shares from others as immature as they are. The reason that the public makes such mistakes in judging the maturity of these professional disagree-ers is because they have become immature themselves, and they see no incentive towards maturing or requiring maturity in those who represent them.
When debates once happened, it was customary for each party to shake hands both before and after the debate. This was no meaningless formality, but instead required that each speaker viewed their opponent with dignity, respect, and an acknowledgement of their common humanity. Contrast that with today, where debates have decidedly fallen out of favor. Often, those invited to debate refuse the invitation, citing that their proposed opponent argues in such bad faith that they must not even be dignified with an answer, let alone something like the handshake of fellowship. To some extent, those refusing to debate immature interlocutors are not wrong to have high standards of ideological conversation for opponents, but often this refusal is instead wielded to excuse the immature from fair confrontation. In the last American presidential election, after two frankly poor examples of debate, the third was cancelled with both parties walking away from the other, reflecting the footsteps of our current culture as we excuse ourselves from the open air and into echo chambers. Several outlets were quick to foster this division and further erosion of dignified disagreement by downplaying the effectiveness of public debate. Several reasoned that modern debate seemed to have little effect in how the public conceived of the issues, however I suggest that this is instead an indictment of the modern attitudes, methods, and maturity of debate rather than a reasoned critique of the edifice of debate itself.
In my research of early Christianity, I have delved deeply into contemporary first century literature, particularly that of ancient Greek rhetoricians whose textbooks on the arts of rhetoric, logic, and effective disagreement went on to shape cultures forever. In that time, these works were incredibly popular because their culture held mature disagreement in such high esteem that those who were masters of the art were publicly lauded and imitated. These public speeches which engaged the ideas of the time were so effective in engaging the masses that an education in rhetoric was essential not only if one hoped to be influential in any way, but even so that one could defend themselves and hold their own against the carefully crafted words and mature reasoning of even the average opponent. In short, the standard for disagreement then was so high that it demanded dignity, decorum, excellence, bravery, virtue, and a mind honed by careful study of ideas and their proponents and opponents. In other words, debate was once reserved for the most mature; all others evidenced themselves to be otherwise by their lives, behavior, or words and were therefore simply ignored on the basis of their immaturity. Such was the state of mature public discussion in that day that Tacitus records that immature men would adopt children for only the brief period of an election, because the people held that parents evidenced their maturity, and therefore eligibility for election, by their responsibility to raise and instruct children (!). One may recognize a familiar ring in that sentiment from the qualifications for pastors in 1 Tim 3. In fact, all the dimensions of good virtue were considered essential for all those engaged in the public practice of rhetorical debate.
Today it is not so. Today the least mature among us have the loudest voices. Read my piece "A Hole In Our Maturity?" for more information, examples, and resources on this. I recognize that the lament of the state of public conversation is a necessary step in charting a way forward, but I don't wish to stay there. It turns out that merely the ability to critique can itself be an expression of immaturity, an inability to propose meaningful solutions. I see this in my young children when I hear their cries ring from a distance, when scraped knees and stolen toys do not grow into meaningful solutions but remain in the initial grief which they produced. Therefore, I'd like to propose a few meaningful and practical solutions to the mess that is our current, diminished state of disagreement. These solutions should be cultivated at length for oneself first and then petitioned for in others as both a reasonable and biblical standard. These are by no means the only solutions, but simply 3 which I have considered useful for our culture and which I see reflected in Scripture.
3 Hallmarks of Mature Disagreement
Mature Disagreement Is Loving
As each of the hallmarks of mature disagreement, this quality is one which is already a consequence of growing Christian character. Today it is anathema to even show decency to ones opponent, let alone to love them, for we are bound up in fear of cancellation by association. This leads to both organizations and people speaking in frankly horrible terms toward their ideological opponents simply as a way of distinguishing themselves from them. Christ advocated for an approach entirely counter to our current cultural practice, that of loving your enemies (Mt 5:43-47).
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"
Today disagreements are undertaken in order to crush your enemies in service to yourself and your supporters. However, a love of ideological enemies is a mature realization that they are deceived, existing in a state of error which requires a clear exposition of truth and a move of the Holy Spirit to be corrected. As I argued in my piece entitled "Have You Demolished Any Arguments Lately?" the demolishing of ideological strongholds is prescribed by God for the freedom of the captives within them. The impetus for any substantive disagreement ought to be the desire to relieve opponents from errant, harmful, or otherwise untrue perspectives which set themselves against God who is Truth. We ought not to daydream of punishing our opponents with our words or take-downs, for Scripture says "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'” (Rm 12:19). We must remember that we were once enemies of God, darkened in our understanding, but that He showed mercy on us and is renewing our mind. Are we justified in treating others with less mercy than the measure apportioned to us? Surely not, so then we must "repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all." If we are incapable of loving our ideological enemies within the context of disagreement, then we evidence that we are not mature enough to enter the debate in the first place. If you need help loving your enemies first, I suggest routinely praying this prayer "After a Heated Exchange" in order to consistently reframe your perspective and be reconciled to your enemies. I have often turned to daily prayer for enemies until my heart finds relief, so I can tell you from experience that this works.
Mature Disagreement Is Informed
In an information age, we are yet less informed than our forebears were when they came to substantive disagreement. The temptation to view ourselves as wiser than all that came in the centuries before us is itself an evidence of both our ignorance and our immaturity. Scripture cautions, "never be wise in your own sight" (Rm 12:16). The truth is that the dedication to the crafting of a mature mind in the ancient period and long afterward dwarfs our own today. Unfortunately, the ease with which we are able to attain nearly any information through the internet has subtly convinced us that we are all knowing. Though we surely are able to issue opinions left and right, a quick google search arming us with the data we like, does this thereby qualify us to offer informed opinion? In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm from the exciting documentary Jurassic Park, "[they] were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." The access to infinite information simply enables the ignorant to deceive others of their education, while learning nothing themselves nor actually growing in wisdom.
I submit that it is neither the access to nor possession of information which makes one worthy of issuing a wise opinion, but the demonstrated ability for mature digestion and stewardship of information which makes one eligible to issue a worthy opinion. In short, regurgitation is far from wisdom, and in fact stands opposed to it (Prv 15:2). Perhaps instead of being eager to deploy our opinions to any willing to listen, and to many who aren't, we should first ask whether we are as mature as we like to believe. Maturity means being honest when you don't have all the information, and being willing to remain silent and learn instead of attempting to leverage the limited information we have. Before the information age, one needed to actually read entire books to learn someone's stance, instead of reading a tweet or a headline; one needed to listen to an entire speech, not take a soundbite out of context. Mature disagreement means foregoing the façade of being informed which the information age facilitates, favoring instead the serious task of truly wading through issues and ideas patiently. This will often mean passing by some disagreements in silence until you have patiently learned. This is an effort in self-censoring our speech until maturity is achieved, until we have earned the privilege to disagree. Such self-censorship is unfortunately considered a great evil in our society. However, I would suggest that it is the one with the power to wisely censor their own words whose tongue is freer than the one who expels every opinion, even when unwelcome, in an attempt to "speak their truth." Instead, it is wiser to await someone to invite your opinion based on their observation of your maturity.
Mature Disagreement Is Confident
Confidence may be understood as directly opposed to fear, they are antonyms. In the context of modern disagreements, where people intricately tie their very identities to their opinions, being wrong can quickly turn into an existential threat to ones personhood. When existential fear like this is activated by a disagreement, fear can drive both parties to say and do all sorts of horrible things in an instinctual effort of self preservation. Pastor Charles Stover has said "Sensible people disagree amicably, but a fool binds his identity to some aspect of that disagreement." Maturity means realizing that your identity does not lie in the positions you take in a disagreement, and therefore being freed from fearing the existential threat of someone disagreeing with you. If someone is losing their cool in a disagreement, its a fair bet that they are unduly influenced by fear rather than confidence. Such a person is therefore not evidencing themselves to be a mature interlocutor, and we may for that reason limit the amount of influence we allow them to have upon us.
For Christians, who are said to be "in Christ," our identity is a settled matter for which we had little input in the grand scheme. Christians are each of us "new creations" (2 Cor 5:17), the old having passed away. It is no longer we who live, but Christ in us (Gal 2:20), and full and perfect acceptance is already a present possession (Jn 1:12; Rm 8:17, 38-39). Those in Christ have access to a confidence like no other, and this confidence allows them to go through life enduring every sort of suffering and pain which may afflict them. One such affliction that is specifically named is being reviled, which word describes the current state of public disagreement quite well. Jesus says "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven" (Mt 5:11-12). Mature disagreement means being able to confidently express your informed opinion with love, because you have nothing to lose in disagreeing with someone else, but instead by patient and kind engagement with them you stand to gain much, even a brother or sister (cf. Mt 18:15).
Conclusion
If your disagreements do not reflect these basic principles of mature Christian engagement (loving, confident, informed), then perhaps it is not for you to disagree at all with someone yet; perhaps it is instead time for you to learn. Insofar as learning is the process of inculcating maturity in the whole range of ones ideas, actions, and personal character, it may be best for you to simply listen, read, and watch with quietness until you are able to disagree in such a way as to reflect well the above 3 hallmarks of mature disagreement. Let it not be said that I preach what I have not practiced, as I have undergone the practice of quietness as well. Many years ago, when I was convinced I had all the answers and ought to be voicing them at every turn, I made a decision to undergo an entire year of quietness, an effort to abstain from offering opinion until I had cultivated the maturity to use my words responsibly. Proverbs 17:27-28 says "A man of knowledge restrains his words, and a man of understanding maintains a calm spirit. Even a fool is considered wise if he keeps silent, and discerning when he holds his tongue." The point is that that quality of disagreements which brings greater clarity and insight is hard won first by silence and patient learning. Maturity in disagreements is not so dependent upon quick wit and a sharp tongue as many suppose, but is instead bound up in the ability to restrain ones own tongue; this is lost wisdom in our time.
Not too long ago I remember Tim Keller saying something along similar lines when he was asked why he didn't write books at a younger age. His response was essentially that he wanted to ensure first that he was mature enough to say anything worth being heard. It is this maturity which gave Keller's words the measured and wise aspect which many have come to appreciate in him. Those who would similarly excel in wise mediation and thoughtful discourse with long lasting impression must in the same way seek maturity long before speaking. Just as a wine is prepared and aged to the highest standards before achieving a truly remarkable flavor, so it is with the mature voices resonating to bring clarity and quality to the discourse of a generation. We have too long settled for immature disagreement; let us then leave behind childish reasoning and mature in likeness to the full measure of Christlike character.