Like it or not, much of our public discourse takes place on the internet. With online arguments, there is often a relational and geographical distance between participants, which can render discussions more impersonal and less civil.
As we engage with others online, there are serious and legitimate disagreements to be found—even between members of the body of Christ. Ignoring those issues won’t make the disagreements go away; we must address them with wisdom, charity, and biblical conviction.
Of course, online debates are notorious for their foolishness, vitriol, and obstinateness. The cause for some of this can be traced, not so much to real and legitimate ideological differences, but to a misunderstanding of those differences.
When it comes to cultural engagement—especially that of the “hot button” kind—I have found one piece of advice exceptionally clarifying: an article entitled Where Do We Disagree? In it, author Joe Rigney lists three ways to assess where our disagreements actually lie. This can help us engage with others in a more meaningful, fruitful, and charitable way. These three considerations (which I am listing in a different order than Rigney does) can help us determine what kind of difference we’re actually dealing with in a given situation.
1. Semantics
Is this a difference in semantics? That is, are our positions substantially the same (we believe the same things), but we are using different terms to express our common belief?
Feminism. Patriarchy. Racism. Deconstruction. Nationalism. There are a host of terms with a plethora of definitions used by various parties. Understanding what your opponent means by certain words and phrases will greatly reduce confusion. In some cases, and especially for participants with similar theological leanings, this clarification can help eliminate much of the apparent disagreements we encounter.
Case in point: in debating with others on hypersexualized entertainment, I’ve noticed differences of opinion on what the term “sex scene” means. To me, the definition seems clear (what those in the film industry refer to as “simulated sex”), but I evidently still need to grow in how I communicate some of my definitions.
2. Emphasis
Is this a difference in emphasis? That is, are our positions the same, but what we emphasize or accent about our positions is different? Do we have different instincts or different assessments about various dangers and temptations concerning our position?
No one person can be a champion of all legitimate social, cultural, political, and theological causes. As such, we tend to emphasize those issues we feel most passionate about. In and of itself, this is far from an obtuse rejection of the legitimacy of other issues; it’s simply a matter of us acknowledging our limitations and setting our priorities. And as long as we avoid insisting that our pet issues are the only real issues, a difference of emphasis need not be a cause for harsh and heated debate. Driving in our own separate lanes doesn’t necessitate rude gestures; we can share friendly waves and keep moving down our own paths.
Case in point: I disagree with Joe Rigney’s emphasis on the “enticing sin of empathy” (as demonstrated, in part, by the article I’m quoting from). In my opinion, he is emphasizing an issue that I don’t see being a stumbling block to conservatives (his primary audience). I also disagree with some of the terminology he is choosing to use in addressing the topic of empathy.
That being said, my difference with Rigney is not one of content (as if he and I have opposing beliefs). In other words, our difference here is a small one. And small differences don’t deserve red faces and raised voices. These types of differences are often tertiary, and should be treated as such.
3. Substance
Is this a difference in substance? That is, is my position substantially different from the other person’s?
It is here where true differences and serious disagreements arise, where our foundational beliefs and assumptions collide. The dividing line between our positions are not a mere matter of semantics or emphasis, but of substance—we have radically different takes on a particular issue.
Case in point: I’ve debated online with others on issues of abortion, race relations, and entertainment choices where there are differences in substance: we disagree on a fundamental level. (Even in many of these cases, however, I’ve been able to experience charitable discourse that often serves to build rather than burn bridges. These debates also help me grow as an effective communicator.)
Evaluating Our Disagreements
In situations where we artificially inflate our differences—imagining a greater level of disagreement than actually exists—we end up treating our disagreements with more gravity than they deserve. In such situations, we may end up wasting minutes, hours, or even days of our time majoring on minors because we’ve mistaken the minors for majors.
To be sure, not all disagreements are minor, not even among professing Christians. As I stated earlier, there are major disagreements worth addressing. But we aren’t doing anyone any favors when we misconstrue a difference in semantics or emphasis with a difference in substance.
As Joe Rigney puts it,
[O]ur goal as Christians must be to practice Golden Rule hermeneutics. As hearers and readers, we ought to listen and read with clarity and charity, seeking to understand authors on their own terms. We should assess whether relevant differences are matters of substance, semantics, or emphasis, and represent others with faithfulness and care. Likewise, as speakers and authors, we ought to speak and write with clarity and charity in our various contexts, seeking to be wise, courageous, and compassionate in our speech.
When debating with others online, it would behoove us to evaluate what kind of disagreement(s) we are actually dealing with. A better understanding of these disagreements will enable us to better respond with wisdom, courage, and compassion.