Disagreement VS Wickedness
Emotions neither prove nor disprove facts. There was a time when any rational adult understood this. But years of dumbed-down education and emphasis on how people “feel” have left too many people unable to see through this media gimmick.
-Dr. Thomas Sowell
I had a friend who recently posed a question to me about figuring out where I can disagree with other people and still be friends with them, and what would be a deal-breaker to me. This was something I had to think about and consider. After all, there are people whom I vastly disagree with and we are fine, and then there are people whose positions are very similar to my own whom I cannot stand.
After taking some time to process this, I realized that the difference was not a matter of agreement per-se, but a matter of whether the other person is reasonably honest in their conversation with me.
I have always held to two principles that have guided my life. To seek that which is True and to seek that which is Good. (I capitalize those words here on purpose.) It came as a shock in recent years to learn that other people do not always care what is True. As Proverbs tells us, a fool does not care about understanding, but only about airing his own opinion [Proverbs 18:2].
We see this in our time with people who want to talk about “my truth” instead of “the truth.” Even the most observable facts are disregarded in favor of personal preferences.
We live in an age of incredible access to knowledge. My smartphone can tell me almost everything I want to know, like the Magic Mirror in Snow White. Yet, far too many people do everything they can to insulate themselves from opposing views and basic knowledge, (especially in highly academic environments). In modern culture, Echo chambers and cherry-picking abound. Reason is abandoned in favor of an epistemology based on emotion, rather than based on fact and logic. The fool wants to exalt his opinion, without caring what is actually and objectively True.
An Early Memory
When I was about 7 years old, in 1996, a friend on the school bus asked me who my family was voting for. I said “Bill Clinton” since I knew he was the president at the time and I liked seeing him on TV. The friend told me that we should not vote for him. I asked why not, and my friend told me, “He lets doctors kill babies before they’re born.” I was horror-struck. This was the most awful thing I’d ever heard.
When I got home I told Mom and Dad what I’d heard, and Mom told me that she and Dad knew and reassured me that she and Dad were voting for the other guy. She also wisely explained that the women this is happening to are going to the doctor to have this done, which cleared up some confusion I had. She was not justifying the evil, only clarifying.
The reason I bring this up is to show that even at that early age, I knew that murdering babies was wrong. Every part of that sentence on that bus made things so much worse.
“He lets doctors” — Doctors, the people you go see when you are sick to make you better.
“kill babies” — Babies, the youngest and most helpless human beings there are. Those that need to be protected the most.
“before they’re born.” — What do you even say to that? The most defenseless of the most defenseless …. who ought to be protected and never harmed.
Doctors were killing not only people, but babies, and to make it worse, these were babies who were not even born yet.
I was a young child, and I knew that this was evil, and it shocked me that this was happening.
Far too often, I see people, including those in supposedly “Conservative” churches, either defending this practice or brushing this great evil under the carpet. After all, voting for a president who allows the murder of babies is politics, and at “this church” we want to have “unity” — we don’t want to be distracted by all of that politics stuff. We have to go get pizza for teenagers. Because pizza is more important than side issues like who you feel like voting for, and whether the want to sacrifice babies to the baals.
And in our culture, empty platitudes are thrown around, such as “A woman’s right to do what she wants with her own body.” As if another person’s body were her property. Or “Just a clump of cells.” As if a baby with lungs, a heartbeat, and a brain, sucking its thumb, kicking, and tasting amniotic fluid, were a mere tissue sample.
In the case of something like abortion, the rights of at least two individuals come into play. On one side of the equation, an individual is incurring serious risk. Pregnancy can result in permanent bodily injury or even death in some cases. On the other side, an individual (the baby) is necessarily being subject to violent force that will result in their death.
Since a pregnant woman has typically chosen to have sex and is responsible for the consequences of her own actions [she consented to sex, and ergo to the consequences of sex], any argument that she ought to be allowed to have a baby’s life ended must demonstrate compelling justification for such an action far beyond any mere inconvenience.
Cases of rape, medical complications that threaten the life of the mother, etc. obviously need to be addressed and can be addressed elsewhere, but the exceptional “what if” does not negate the typical principle. In other words, asking “What about X” does not apply to the majority of cases where “X” was not a factor.
I often hear pro-abortion advocates use the phrase, “A woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.” In response to this mantra, opponents will ask, “What about the baby’s right to live?” But typically, in my experience, the individual reciting the mantra ignores the obvious question, conveniently covering up half of the equation with smoke in their own mind.
In Spanish, they have a saying, “You cover up the sun with your finger.”
Like the slavers of old, who argued for “a man’s right to do what he wants with his own property” while ignoring the serious violation of human rights involved in slavery, this mantra seeks to conjure up a feigned moral indignation in order to justify an injustice.
The problem goes far beyond abortion, as evil as that is, and gets into the realm of ignoring the moral law that God has made obvious. People ignore obvious moral standards so that they can protect their sin. It's covering up the sun with your finger. That sort of willful moral blindness is itself evil, even if modern Christians try to excuse it as “disagreement” while making a plea to human ignorance or the perceived need for “unity.”
Fortunately, there is hope in this area. In this video, people who are “Pro-choice” are shown a presentation by a former abortion doctor explaining how abortions are performed and immediately become Pro-life on camera.
Abortion is sadly not the only area where people have chosen to ignore the facts so that they can suppress the morality that God has made obvious to everyone. I remember Dr. Thomas Sowell expressing amazement, saying that he never thought he would see the day when grown adults were seriously talking about abolishing the police. The idea that we should abolish the police is a position so irrational on its face that any competent adult proposing such a thing can rightly be disregarded as an evil person.
The same can be said of those who excuse the rioters who set urban communities on fire, killing innocent people and destroying property. I don’t care how upset someone is by whatever perceived injustice they heard about on TV, you don’t set fire to buildings, especially with children inside. And those who excuse such behavior are sons of the Devil.
Seeking Truth Or Raising Smoke?
The question then comes down to whether someone is seeking Truth or whether they are trying to obfuscate and confuse the matters at hand.
If someone has a disagreement, then there are questions to consider. Is this someone who wants to establish verifiable and demonstrable facts in science, history, theology, politics, and other areas, or is this someone who wants to disregard facts in favor of feelings, opinions, or postmodernism?
“Your scientists might say that, but a lot of people feel that the Moon is made of cheese.”
This is not to say that people won’t have honest disagreements about things, but the question is whether or not someone is making a genuine attempt to find the truth of a matter, or if they are instead choosing to float around in a sea of emotion-based opinions.
Whatever someone feels about the O.J. Simpson case does not override the facts that can be demonstrated one way or the other.
As Ben Shapiro says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”
Dealbreakers
I am reminded of C.H. Spurgeon who said that he would sit down with a man of any creed, but he would not sit down with a slaver. Were he alive today, there is no doubt in my mind that he would be disregarded by many of our modern seminaries and churches for being “divisive.”
I am also reminded of the warning in scripture, “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one” (1 Corinthians 5:11).
The word “reviler” here is translated as “slanderer” in some other translations.
I would be willing to have at least some form of discussion with just about anybody, regardless of their views. But this policy is not a blank check.
I have a number of extended relatives, for example, who have decided that whenever they get together with me or my parents, they immediately want to start debating politics while using highly abusive language. What they want is not an honest debate or a search for truth. They just want to “be right.” I simply don’t engage these relatives, since they choose not to act like adults. I have not spoken to a number of them in several years at this point, because this is how they choose to behave.
My approach to politics is to be a rational adult. What can I actually prove? Politician X is supposed to have said Y. Do we have a video with the complete context surrounding the quote? Or do we only have one second or less on either side of the offending sentence? Or am I just supposed to take someone’s word for it that this quote is indeed genuine and properly contextualized?
Whether you like a particular politician or not, the facts need to be presented honestly.
On the theological side, I will talk with a man from pretty much any sect, denomination, or religion, but if asked, I will not pretend that differences don’t exist when they clearly do, and I won’t sweep away core doctrines as if they were unimportant.
I will gladly talk with a Muslim who does not believe in the deity of Christ, but if my pastor were to say that this is an unimportant doctrine, then we would have a problem. Clearly, this is an issue of great importance. But that does not mean I cannot talk with a man who has not been persuaded in the same way.
Even on matters of Christian doctrine that are not directly a “salvation issue,” I will not regard them as unimportant. Many people regard a proper interpretation of Genesis as unimportant since one can be saved and still have the wrong view here, but God chose in His wisdom and sovereignty to put Genesis 1–11 at the very beginning of the Bible. So who is man to say that a proper understanding of the Word of God is unimportant? When Christians hold to such attitudes they commit a great sin. Honest misunderstanding and honest debate about many topics are to be expected, but a man, Christian or heathen, who does not care about Truth is in a very dangerous position.
9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
-2 Thessalonians 2:9–12
Differences of opinion are to be expected. One man may have an opinion about any number of topics. But there are factual scientific, historical and logical truths that are plainly obvious; George Washington was a real person, chattel slavery was and is wrong, killing newborn babies is evil.
I write a lot about Capitalism in my articles. But were I to encounter a time-travelling KGB agent who truly and honestly believed in the Marxist cause I would do two things. 1.) Recognize his belief system as evil, and 2.) Try to persuade him.
But I will not do what was once demanded of me. I was once in a Christian ministry where the minister demanded that I qualify any of my statements with “In my opinion…” or “I feel…” Such childish ideas about truth have overtaken far too many men in the Christian Church.
I refused and still refuse to cater to evil men by qualifying my statements in such cowardly language. If I am wrong about something, then I am wrong. But let facts and logic be our arbiters of truth, and may we grow from seeking Truth. I will not say that truth or the Bible are unimportant just to please wicked churchmen.
It amazes me how far we’ve sunk, especially in the last decade.
There are now people who say that we can agree to disagree about burning buildings to the ground in the ghetto with children inside. Such men are murderers. They would do better to tie a millstone around their own necks and throw themselves into the sea rather than to say that we can agree to disagree about the murderous riots built on lies.
The same goes for those who want to agree to disagree on slavery or abortion.
It is one thing to have a real honest disagreement, even about things that ought to have been plain. (I know that I myself have been in error in the past, and I am probably in error in some of my views now — for which I am unaware.) But to say that reality and moral truths are unimportant is to say that we should all hold hands and get along while disregarding Truth.
The idea that the truth does not matter and that we should all “agree to disagree” and just not argue, as men ought to argue, is an idea straight from the pit of Hell. It ought to be regarded as the most evil philosophy ever spoken. Men who refuse to repent even after their error is shown to them in this regard ought to be seen in the same light as Satanic priests. Not a single one of these people should serve in any Christian church.
Disregarding Truth
I’ve had a lot of interesting conversations with people over the years who just did not care what was true, and who wanted to put their opinions and emotions above the facts.
One woman I had a conversation with wanted to ban semiautomatic firearms, and when I asked her if she knew what semiautomatic firearms were, she said she did not need to know what they were, but they were bad and she wanted them banned.
This was someone who was intelligent enough where she ought to have known better. She wanted to ban something but refused to have any understanding of what it was she wanted to ban.
She wanted to ban semiautomatic firearms — but said she did not know and did not need to know what that is.
One might excuse such erroneous thinking, but from other conversations I had with this woman, I saw the same troubling pattern. In this case, she wanted something legally banned, but refused to take the time to learn what it was she wanted banned. This was a willing shallowness of mind.
“Moderate” Christians and Name-Calling
Sadly, I have had Christians call me a racist for not supporting the organization that calls itself “Black Lives Matter,” a Marxist organization that sends rioters to destroy black communities, and promotes sexual perversion.
I have also had Christian friends call me “unloving” because I said that Christians cannot support killing newborn babies. This was in response to a prominent Democrat politician who said he supported aborting babies after they’ve already been born.
I’ve also seen Christians who were “nice” but who immorally obfuscate on issues. Those who want to use “unity” as a means of ignoring what God has clearly said and commanded. These men are people-pleasers and are not serving God. It is one thing to have genuine disagreement and to seek fellowship with Christians who genuinely disagree on matters of theology, but it is entirely another to say that God’s Word is unimportant or to ignore what God has said on history, morality and politics.
Up to a point we may have genuine disagreement about how men and women are to serve within the Church (and clearly there are differences in our roles), but if a Christian denies the existence of gender, they ought to receive Church discipline and be put out of the Church if there is no repentance. Even more so those who want to lecture orthodox Christians on a false “unity” on such matters. Sadly, this is where we are in mainstream Conservative Christianity.
Of course, assessing each situation cannot be done robotically. A flock member may have some genuine deep confusions about what is right, while a wolf may seek to pervert in an area that is subtle. Wisdom and discernment are required.
Honestly Misguided
In the Science Fiction movie, Iron Sky, a group of NAZIs set up a base on the moon, and return to Earth generations later armed with flying saucers. One woman, Renate Richter, a school teacher from this NAZI moon-base, comes to Earth after meeting an African American astronaut. She knows nothing about the history of the Holocaust and believes wholeheartedly that the ideals of the National Socialist party are good and the best thing for humankind, including for people of non-Aryan ancestry. This is a woman who has never had access to the Internet, or to any of the history textbooks or classes that most people reading this article would have taken for granted.
She has followed this evil ideology her whole life, and never known any better.
Now compare this woman to the Christian who knowingly votes for the Democrat party, a party that has brought in the death of far more people than the NAZIs ever did.
Most of these “Christians” have access to all kinds of information. They are not living in some bunker underground on the dark side of the Moon.
And from what I remember of this movie, even this woman was not so brainwashed as to believe that truth does not matter.
I could imagine sitting down with Renate Richter, and talking with her about what the NAZI party has stood for on Earth. I don’t imagine she would change her mind overnight. I imagine that for her, there would be a lot of difficult things to process, and she may get angry and shut down trying to take in so much information that is so contrary to everything that she’s ever been taught.
But if she is a lover of truth, she will be willing to seek these things out and learn the error of the worldview she’s always been taught.
Compare this to an individual on Earth who does not care about truth. Someone who has access to the Internet, but who is willfully ignorant of what abortion involves. If this is a Christian, voting Democrat, then Christian churches ought to practice appropriate church discipline, and show the individual the sin that they are supporting, just as they would if this individual were a party of the American NAZI party, or any other evil organization. We would never allow the later to continue in a Christian church, but the former is just as evil, albeit more popular. Christians cannot have political neutrality on issues like abortion and still be Christian. (All of this should be common sense.)
What do Christians say to God when our sins are laid before us on Judgement Day, and it is shown that we regarded God’s commands as unimportant things not to be distracted over? That God’s Word was set aside as something that causes division. Instead of seeking to understand God’s Word, we merely sang feel-good songs to one another in church.
Operating In Good Faith
I am willing to give people grace and the benefit of the doubt. For me, the most important thing is not that we agree on all matters, it's whether or not I am dealing with someone who is a lover and a seeker of the truth. In Christian circles, do they hold seeking God’s Word above catering to people’s feelings and opinions, or is it the other way around?
I may have an honest disagreement with a good friend, even on very important matters. To me, disagreement is not a dealbreaker. I don’t even agree with myself entirely on a different day. To me what matters is whether or not the other person is operating in good faith towards me and seeking out the truth.
The Bible says not to give that which is valuable to dogs or to throw my pearls before pigs. Those who want to play games, or who want to call me names are not worth my time of day.
Instead, I will focus on relationships with people who challenge me to be better and who want to grow to be better themselves. This will include people who for the moment have all kinds of ideas about things, but who are ideally willing to seek out the facts of a matter and draw their conclusions based on facts and logic, rather than based on personal feelings and whims. Some of these friends will be non-Christians, but those in my closest inner circle will all be Christians who love the LORD and who love Truth. Sadly, many purported Christians do not meet that standard.
Advice From A Pastor
While writing this article, I came across a sermon on the radio where a pastor told a story about a youth group meeting he led. A dad of one of the kids attended a meeting and listened with an intent look on his face. After the pastor’s message, the dad decided to talk with the pastor and ask him a question. The pastor listened, interested in what this man’s question was going to be.
The man asked the pastor if God can do all things, then can God make a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat. The pastor wisely chose not to waste time on this man’s foolish question.
The pastor said he typically heard better questions from the kids, and he chose to spend his time with those kids, because they had genuine questions and genuinely wanted to learn.
He chose to judge properly, not throwing his pearls before pigs or giving what is holy to dogs.
May we all be like that pastor.
Closing Thoughts
There will be many people in my life and yours. Some are worth your time, some are not. Satan will send people in your life just to waste your time, and you don’t owe them anything.
It is possible that someone may agree with all of my theology and politics, yet is still a waste of my time. I am going to run into people in life who are non-Christians, Christians, and people who identify as Christians. It’s important to be especially wary of those in the third category.
At the end of the day, it’s not about whether a person agrees with everything I have to say. It’s about whether this is someone who cares about truth, and is seeking to grow.
I must ask a number of questions. Is this person building me up? Am I building them up? Is there profit for myself or for the other person to be gained, or am I wasting my time talking and spending time with this person?
I could say more, but this is pretty much what it comes down to. And in terms of my close inner circle, this is exclusively for genuine Christ-followers who seek and value that which is True and that which is Good.
At the end of the day, whether someone wants to embrace truth and logic is a heart issue (as ironic as that may sound). We can be like Mr. Spock, and point out the value of logic, and some people will gradually come around to that. But there will be others who want to cover up the sun with their finger, and say “There is no sun.” For those people, the best we can do is pray, and pray for God to give them a heart of flesh in place of their heart of stone.
One final line of thoughts. I’ve come back to this article several times over the years, and writing this article has allowed me to process things more clearly. This article has become a bit of a time-capsule on my thoughts as they have developed.
In summary of all of these principles… My mind keeps going back to the character of Renate Richter, the fictional schoolteacher in the movie Iron Sky who was born on the NAZI moonbase. Ms. Richter lives in a society that has, for generations, embraced ideas that are totally divorced from reality. She has embraced Socialism and Racism because she lives in a culture where these are an unchallenged given. But if such a person is willing to seek Truth and to challenge the ideas that she has always believed in, then it is probably worth my time to engage with such a person, with patience, respect, and gentleness.
As we read in 2 Timothy:
22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant[a] must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
This does not mean that we completely ignore evil within the Church or cater to heretics. The Bible makes it clear that evil ideas are to be rebuked, along with evil men. But it does mean that a teacher must be patient when teaching people. Learning can take time.
Filtering between the wicked and the illiterate will take a large amount of wisdom and discernment.
