I am certainly not the first to make the observation and perhaps not the most eloquent. However, the nature of the discussion is so vital to our times that we really must look at it again. What do we do with disagreements?
The question almost prevents us from uncovering helpful solutions. Every disagreement can have dozens of variables that prevent us from having a simple, straightforward formula of action. Even when we look at disagreements biblically, we find a discernment matrix more than an if/then formula. This is a problem for many in our current cultural climate. Somewhere along the way, we have lost the appetite for conversation and the art of disagreement. We have settled for soundbites, snapshots, and hot takes. All of these are catalysts of conflict rather than hallmarks of dialogue and refinement among friends.
As I have considered this subject in recent months, I have realized that a pathway forward may be tenuous and shifting, depending on the particular context. Disagreements vary based on the nature of the relationship, the significance of the matter at issue, and the degree to which the disagreement is publicly known. In each of these considerations, the Bible provides principles. I hope over the next couple of paragraphs, you will discover value, with me, in learning how to construct a matrix to aid in the art of disagreement. Finally, we will consider together when, in rare cases, it is appropriate to terminate the relationship.
As a pastor, I live in the church space. The Christian community is close to my heart. It is part of me, and I am part of it. So, I am particularly grieved when communities of believers are at odds. In fact, it is rare that more than a few weeks go by without someone asking me (in one form or another), “Should I leave my church over this?”
Here is a helpful set of questions to guide us.
Is the issue situational, relational or doctrinal?
What we want to understand here is whether this issue, however frustrating, is a one-time event (situational) or part of a recurring pattern indicating a deeper systemic problem. For example, I was once passed over for consideration as a deacon (long before I was ordained as a pastor). That hurt. I was actively serving in various areas of the church, financially supporting the mission, and backing the leadership. Yet, when the votes were tallied, I wasn’t on the list. Ironically, the fact that I’m bringing this up now shows I wasn’t ready then… because I had too much of myself in focus. If I had confronted the leaders or decided to uproot my family and leave the church over feeling slighted, I would have missed out on many good things that followed. Not to mention the lessons the Lord taught me through that disappointment. Sometimes God places us in uncomfortable situations to crush sin in our lives or to build resolve in our stance. You don’t have to dismiss situational concerns, but you certainly shouldn’t be enslaved by them.
In cases of relational problems, the Bible is very clear. Matthew chapters five and eighteen both guide believers to resolve relational conflicts. When there are issues, someone must take responsibility to address them and find a solution. Unity within the family of God is a gift, but it requires vigilance to maintain. Honestly, not everyone is willing to work through difficult situations. At least give it your best effort, and then try again. We want to be able to say with the Apostle Paul, “If possible, as much as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” (Romans 12:18).
What about doctrinal issues? The answer is, it depends. Is the doctrine primary, secondary, or tertiary? A gospel issue or a distinctive of fellowship would require a more stringent response than a tertiary or preferential matter. For instance, I would never tell someone to break fellowship over a Bible translation or a style of music. Those are clearly preferential matters (unless your church believes in only conducting services in the original biblical language—Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic). [And please don’t send me a note on why you think the KJV is somehow doubly inspired and everything else is a hot mess. I disagree, but we can be friends if you’d like. It will not be a problem for me.]
Some issues are not central doctrines but still are important to our fellowship. My Methodist friends baptize by sprinkling and do not hold to a view of eternal security that I believe the Bible teaches. I love my Methodist friends, but I cannot join them in formal Christian community when we disagree on secondary but essential matters of doctrine related to identity and community. It would be wrong for me to affirm that doctrine by joining that community, and it would be just as wrong to join and seek to cause disagreement or sway others to my view. I may try to win folks over with a cup of coffee between us, but it is not ethical to enter that community just to try to change it. Please, don’t hear more than I am saying. I do not believe for a second that this applies in mission work, for instance. By definition, missionaries live cross-culturally and aim to influence the beliefs of their neighbors. This is different from a confessional Christian community—the church.
With disagreements on primary doctrines, there is little room for ongoing fellowship. If the issue concerns whether Jesus is the only way of salvation, the preferred way, or the most recent way…we have no room for disagreement. On gospel matters, complete agreement is necessary to experience unity.
In both of the latter matters, however, there may be a step that needs to occur before leaving. Based on the biblical relationship, God’s Word teaches us that we should address the matter directly with the involved parties. Let me give a goofy example that totally fabricated.
Jodi and I recently joined a church in our community. We attended the new members class and interviewed with the pastors. We discussed what we observed and reviewed our doctrinal affirmations as a church. Nothing was disagreeable. However, imagine that next week, one of our pastors claimed that we should handle snakes by faith, asserting that they cannot hurt us as followers of Jesus? Or imagine that our pastors required all leaders to practice glossolalia (speaking in tongues) as a sign of confirmation based on their new reading of the book of Acts. I can assure you that my relationship with snakes is such that if you see me picking one up, you should interpret it as a cry for help or a sign that I am being held captive. As for speaking in tongues, while I do not forbid it in church (1 Corinthians 14:27-28, 39-40), I have never practiced it. The Bible considers it a responsive act to a specific prophetic revelation from God if it occurs as a sign, and then with fairly detailed circumstances surrounding it (like a sign for unbelievers present and interpreters when it happens publicly). Yes, some of my more charismatic friends smile when I talk this way, but I believe we are still friends.
If my pastors announced that this was going to be new doctrine our church would affirm, I could not stay in the church. However, before deciding to leave, I would have a conversation and seek understanding. I need to understand my pastor’s reasoning as well as he does. I need to know what prompted the change in views and whether the entire church will accept this new emphasis on snake-handling and speaking in tongues. I plan to try to make my case privately with my pastors and, prayerfully, we will seek the Lord’s guidance together. Is this a new thing the Lord is doing? If so, can we agree on it? What’s certain is that I am not meant to leave quietly without speaking up. Wait. What? Chris, are you saying that you have to make a fuss as you leave? Of course not. But if I plan to leave my church family, I am not going to make up a story about “God just moving us along.” I will need to speak with grace and humility, but I also have to admit that the doctrinal direction of my church seems to be shifting toward a new and biblically unsupported stance. That last part is key.
We should never leave our family over preferences. Period. We should never go over doctrinal (primary or secondary) without a humble and grace-filled conversation and a genuine attempt to come to unity on the matter. Our objective must be agreement and that will necessarily require movement of the part of one or both parties.
One biblical reason will be sufficient to make the point.
Acts 18:24–28 (NASB95)
24Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures.
25This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John;
26and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
27And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace,
28for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
In this case, a powerful evangelist and gospel communicator, a preacher named Apollos, was preaching an incomplete version of the gospel. He was doing the best he could with what he knew. Priscilla and Aquila recognized the mistake in his preaching and spoke with him, helping him see a clearer understanding of the doctrine. Apollos learned the gospel more accurately and began to preach a better message. He did this because a couple was willing to engage him in a conversation about a different understanding of the gospel. As a result, Apollos’ ministry continued to grow, and God used him in even more powerful ways… because a couple was willing to have that conversation.
What if they had simply ignored it? What if they had moved on to Second Baptist Church of Ephesus and said that the Lord “dried up their brook” at First Baptist? Apollos would have kept teaching an “almost” gospel, and the Kingdom’s progress would have suffered.
So, here is the deal: Conflict is uncomfortable. It is also biblical and necessary. One day, we will all be in heaven and see things clearly. There will not be one disagreement in heaven. Until then, we must operate with humility and be willing to engage in conversations that lead toward restoration and unity, which result in our being made holy. That’s true in the church. It is true in marriage. It is true among believers at large (though to a lesser degree, based on the nature of the relationship).
This last part is huge. In fact, it is the most important part of this entire article. Our relationship with Christ requires certain things from us, and our relationship with others drives us to work practically toward unity, reconciliation, and conformity to the image of Christ.
Can we change the world and, with the waving of a wand, return the entire culture to the art of conversation and disagreement? Probably not. What we can do, however, is embrace this ourselves and seek to spread it in the corner of the planet for which we are responsible. This is biblically faithful, relationally practical, and God-honoring. It is also one of the keys to experiencing a better existence in our time in this world.
Recent Comments