Disagreement among Church members can be a very difficult thing to navigate. Oftentimes I ask myself “how can I disagree well with this person?” By “disagreeing well” I simply mean voicing clearly the specific points of disagreement so that the conversation can continue in a profitable and unified way.

What is the alternative to disagreeing well? Just go to the comments section of almost any online video or discussion forum. Answers are not given thoughtfully. Answers are given harshly.

I worry that sometimes a worldly spirit of disagreement enters the Church. This worldly spirit emphasizes proving yourself right rather than teaching and being taught by others.

And such a spirit is dangerous for any local Church. Paul says as much in Ephesians:

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Ephesians 4:29, ESV

Even in disagreement, your goal should be “building up” and “giving grace” to the Church member you disagree with.

So, the question of how to disagree well is a vital one for each member of the body of Christ.

Now, a thorough Bible study on this topic would yield a wealth of insight. But for this post, I want to share a tool I personally have found helpful to keep in mind when disagreeing with anyone.

The tool is from one of my favorite non-Christian books of all time: How to Read a Book by Mortimer Alder. The book has a wealth of information and gives essential tools for reading and understanding a text.

For this post, there is a useful section which describes how to critique a book after you have read it. The main point of this section is not just saying “I don’t like the sound of that.” Rather, you learn to specifically and profitably think through where you disagree with the author. It is an incredibly helpful section not just for reading, but for life in general.

In this post, I am going to go through each of the different ways to disagree well. I give a visual aid below for you to reference. I pray this tool will help foster more profitable disagreements in your local Church.

Make sure you understand the other’s position

The first step to disagreeing is to make sure you understand what you are disagreeing with. This may seem like a simple step, but it is often overlooked.

If you disagree with someone without understanding their position, you risk several things.

• First, you might not have an actual disagreement.
• Second, you might misrepresent the other’s position.
• Finally, you might disagree with something that isn’t integral to their argument.

I’m sure you have experienced each of these before. Perhaps after an extended (possibly heated) back and forth with someone, you come to find out that you didn’t actually disagree. You were merely using different terms.

Or perhaps someone has levied critique after critique on your position without bothering to ask whether they were representing your position accurately. This is also called a “strawman” fallacy.

Equally common is someone disagrees with a small, side part of your argument. A conversation over an important issue then becomes sidetracked over an assertion that has little effect on your conclusion.

In each of these cases, when you misrepresent someone else’s position, the conversation can become heated and unprofitable. As a Christian disagreeing with another Christian, the effects can damage your fellowship or witness.

The solution: before you disagree, understand.

To disagree well, understand thoroughly

There are a couple ways to make sure you accurately represent someone’s position.

Restate it in your own words

This is the simplest but maybe most impactful thing you can do to disagree more profitably. Simply say to the other person directly “So, if I understand you correctly you are saying…(Insert position here)…Am I representing your position correctly?”

If you cannot express the other person’s position in a sentence or two, you either do not understand their position or they have not explained their position effectively and clearly.

In either case, until you can restate the other person’s position in your own words, do not start bombarding them with your disagreements.

Ask a clarifying question

Another helpful way to make sure you understand the other person’s opinion is to simply respond with a good question. This has two good effects:

1. It shows you were actually listening and have some level of understanding
2. The question itself once answered will further clarify the other person’s position

Jesus asked good questions all the time. A great example of this is in Luke 20 where Jesus asks the priests and elders if John the Baptist’s baptism was from God or man. The question itself revealed the priests and elders hearts.

When you think you understand someone’s position, ask more questions. If you think you have asked enough questions, try a few more.

Who knows: maybe the very point of disagreement you have with another will be answered simply through asking a question.

What question are they trying to answer

This isn’t something you necessarily have to say out loud to another person. But for your own thinking, it is helpful to frame what another person is saying in terms of what question they are trying to answer.

For example, let us say you are discussing Eschatology with a fellow believer and find yourself disagreeing. After asking good questions and summarizing the other person’s position in your own words accurately, you should think “what are we trying to answer here? What is the question beneath this conversation that we are both trying to answer?”

Perhaps it is how to interpret the 1,000 years passage. Maybe you are trying to figure out what the relation between the Church and Israel is. Whatever the case, knowing what fundamental question you are seeking to answer will help you discern whether your disagreement is meaningful or not.

For example, if in the course of your disagreement over Eschatology the other person made an off statement about the structure of the Church, you should not necessarily voice that disagreement right away. Knowing what fundamental question you are answering will weed out the smaller disagreements so you can key in on one or two major ones.

A lot of unhelpful disagreements in the local Church happen because you focus on every little are you disagree. Focus on the essential rather than the side issues.

Having done all of the above, you are now in a much better position to voice your disagreement. Your disagreement will now be based on the other person’s actual position and will focus on the key disagreements.

Are they lacking important information?

Mortimer Adler puts it like this:

To say that an author is uninformed is to say that he lacks some piece of knowledge that is relevant to the problem he is trying to solve…you must be able to state the knowledge that the author lacks and show how it is relevant, how it makes a difference to his conclusions.

How to Read a Book, pp 154-155

Is there a point the other person makes that would change if they had more information? This is a type of disagreement that often happens amongst believers. Your brother or sister might have a compelling argument, but fail to remember a crucial Bible passage or verse.

The key thing to do here is to lovingly, graciously show them that passage of Scripture. Perhaps even say “how would you understand this passage in your argument?”

Oftentimes, average Christians don’t make omissions willfully. The Bible is a vast and complicated book. You and I can’t hold every single verse in our head. Therefore, you and I need other people in the local Church who will remind us of verses we might have forgotten.

Christians should welcome having our opinions and conclusions corrected by the Word of God. Most often, this correction comes from another believer.

If you are disagreeing with someone who loves the Lord and has a high view of Scripture, there is no reason sharing Bible verses with them should lead to heated confrontation. Do so lovingly. Take them to the Word. And then let the Bible correct their understanding if it needs correcting.

Are they asserting something that is incorrect?

To say that an author is misinformed is to say that he asserts what is not the case. His error may be owing to lack of knowledge, but the error is more than that…The author is proposing something as true or more probable what is in fact false or less probable…This kind of defect should be pointed out, of course, only if it is relevant to the author’s conclusions. And to support the remark you must be able to argue the truth or greater probability of a position contrary to the author’s.

How to Read a Book, pp 155

In the first response, you disagreed because of a Scripture passage which was not taken in to account. In this response, you disagree how a Scripture passage was interpreted in the other person’s argument.

An argument is built off of a series of assertions which are either true or false. Think of them as building blocks in a tower. If one of your building blocks is damaged, it can cause the whole tower to fall. So it is with an argument.

If an assertion is made that is false and it is crucial to the argument, gently show the other person why their assertion is false and what the corresponding true position is.

As previously stated, when talking among believers oftentimes this takes the form of discussing an interpretation of a passage of Scripture. If a Scripture is crucial to an argument and is misinterpreted, you will likely have to address why that interpretation is wrong and what you think the proper interpretation is.

This is incredibly common during the normal life of a Church. It is one reason good hermeneutics (how you study the Bible). That is one reason I developed a Bible study tool to help make sure you properly interpret Scripture.

Any Biblically sound argument is based on sound interpretation of each text in that argument.

Did they make a logical fallacy?

To say that an author is illogical is to say that he has committed a fallacy in reasoning. In general, fallacies are of two sorts. There is the non sequitur, which means that what is drawn as a conclusion simply does not follow from the reasons offered. And there is the occurrence of inconsistency, which means that two things the author has tried to say are incompatible.

How to Read a Book, pp 156

This disagreement focuses not on what information exists or what assertions are made. Instead, this disagreement focuses on how that information or those assertions are strung together to reach a conclusion.

Even though there are countless logical fallacies, Adler’s two large groups (non sequitur and inconsistency) are helpful and memorable. A Non sequitur jumps to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. Inconsistency asserts two contradictory things to be true.

Addressing this type of disagreement in the Church can potentially become the most heated in my experience. In this case, you are not offering additional texts or pushing back on a textual interpretation. You are instead asking “do those texts together lead to that conclusion?“

I think one of the reasons this type of disagreement can become contentious is it is more personal than the previous two. Both of the previous disagreements were focused on the texts themselves. This disagreement is saying “you personally have come to a conclusion by your own mental error.”

Tread humbly and carefully when critiquing someone’s logic. Remember: the goal isn’t to be right or to feel smart. Your goal should be to lovingly correct your brother or sister in Christ for their own edification.

Questions like “does that follow from text?” or “can those two assertions be made at the same time?” are incredibly helpful. But wield them wisely and tactfully.

Is their analysis incomplete?

This type of disagreement is a little different from the previous three. If you have any of the previous three disagreements, you can disregard someone’s conclusion. This final disagreement merely judges the completeness of an argument, not the quality of the argument itself.

Adler explains:

To say that an author’s analysis is incomplete is to say that he has not solved all the problems that he started with, or that he has not made as good a use of his materials as possible, that he did not see all their implications and ramifications, or that he has failed to make distinctions that are relevant to his undertaking.

How to Read a Book, pp 159

For this type of disagreement, it is helpful to remember what question you originally were seeking so solve. Has your brother or sister’s argument answered that question thoroughly? If not, you can help them expand it or address an area that needs more thought.

This also comes in handy when thinking about the application or the “so what” of a Biblical text. If the argument is sound but the implications are not fully explored, help your brother or sister think through them.

The Puritans had useful questions to ask to solve this problem. I recommend you commit them to memory so you can help others in the Church think through important Biblical implications.

It is important to note here that all human’s are finite. No one’s analysis is going to exhaustively represent all of Scripture. Only bring this type of disagreement up if it is helpful for the conversation. Don’t show off for no purpose by expounding a hundred meaningless implications other people haven’t thought of.

I find this type of disagreement most often comes up in leading small group discussion. It helps to restate the person’s thoughts in your own words and then add maybe one other important thing they forgot. Don’t list out everything you may want to add.

One of the biggest blessings of the local Church is sharing our Biblical knowledge with each other. You can know more of the Bible within a community of believers than you can on your own.

Do you like having tools like this? Follow The Average Churchman on Instagram to never miss one.

Check out my previous tool which will help you apply Scripture to your life.