Consuming Content With Which I Disagree

          Modern cultural and even certain religious wisdom has often been interpreted as saying that we should not read or engage with sources with whom we disagree; some have even outright proclaimed you should definitely NOT interact with materials that oppose your stance or belief system. If you are among these, you won't want to go near this blogpost since it disagrees with your position! That being said, I DO read and engage with material I know, full well and in advance, I will disagree with; and I wanted to help you learn how to do the same in a safe and productive way and to gain the opportunity to grow yourself through opposing opinions and information. Here are 3 functional points to safely grow yourself using this underrated but valuable tool:

#1 - Identify Level of (Dis)Agreement

Sometimes, you go to sources you already know you have disagreement - on purpose. The reasons are varied, perhaps it's required reading or research for a school project; or, maybe, you are looking for a cultural or educational philosophy that needs answering. Whatever your reasons, we may often find ourselves hesitant or even nervous to crack a book or click play on a video that contains information that we know promotes something we do not; but, at least you already know that ahead of time and can bring certain protections with you to the experience (which may actually be a bad thing - the why's later). The greater danger rests in engaging with content that you don't previously know contains ideas with which you have disagreement. The first and most important step is to identify, through obvious channels, in the process of consuming or even upon reflection afterward, how, what, where and why the disagreement exists. I have identified a 7-level chart (I love charts!) that gathers all the info into one place and will be the basis of this section.

Level 1 - Same Foundation But Differing Opinion

This is in reference to non-essentials. Things like Eschatology or Age of the Earth or how to take care of the poor without enabling abuse of a system designed to help. My personal eschatological stance is Rapture of the Church, Tribulation, Armageddon, Millennial Kingdom, Eternity; but this does not mean that differing viewpoints have no value or contain zero applicable truth. I can read a book or watch a video produced by someone who believes there is no rapture or puts the Kingdom in a different spot on the future timeline than I do and still be edified by their product. Major orthodox agreement, differing non-essentials.

Level 2a - Similar Foundation But Differing Opinion

Here we really start to find some greater points of disagreement. An orthodox Christian (someone who believes in the historical life, actual death and bodily resurrection of Jesus for the remission of sin and subsequent possibility of man to approach a holy God) from a denomination with which I would have disagreement with, who writes history or science from a differing point of view. For instance, an Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or Presbyterian who comes to a topic with their points of view I do not hold, will often produce work that has some biased opinions that I cannot hold. This does not invalidate their work, but the, sometimes subtle/sometimes quite clear, differences will still exist.

Level 2b - Similar Foundation But Differing Doctrine

Some people with whom I find major agreement on essential things, will hold to doctrines that are in complete opposition to the ones I hold. These people are still orthodox Christians (as defined above), but there now exists some significant doctrinal disagreement.

Level 3a - Opposing Foundation But Similar Opinion

We have moved to the next level. This level is filled with people who have a significantly different filter from which to view life; think atheists, materialists, socialists etc. However, there exists some level of agreement on a certain topic that has been expressed.

Level 3b - Opposing Foundation But Similar Doctrine

This level is really the same as 3a, but as I believe doctrine holds a greater importance than mere opinions or points of view, I boost it up a half-level (because, yes, I'm that fussy!)

Level 4a - Opposing Foundation But Differing Opinion

We have now reached a place of total disagreement; and likely the level at which many believers would argue should remain untouched or at least only handled by expert believers in certain fields. These people do not hold to orthodox Christianity and disagree with our point of view.

Level 4b - Opposing Foundation But Differing Doctrine

One-upping physical and temporal ideas, philosophies and viewpoints, these folks believe Christianity is false in all its forms and believe your doctrinal stances are foolish, at best, and possibly dangerous; and, yes, I do read/watch these people. Why? I'm glad you asked. It may feel foolish, like a waste of time, or even opening oneself up to confusion to do this, but I want to contribute an alternate viewpoint to this discussion by providing my reasons for engaging with, even this level, of disagreement.

#2 - Why Engage With Disagreeing Opinions

OK, so now we get to the nitty-gritty; here are 8 reasons why I believe we ought to engage with content in which we find disagreement.

#1 - We need to practice how to disagree agreeably

Our culture has very nearly lost the ability to disagree with one another in an amiable fashion. This is great shame and could very well become a major contributor to the ultimate decimation of western society. Catastrophizing aside, if Christians can't learn how to disagree agreeably, why in the world would we expect anyone else to either. Engaging with contrary ideas in a private session allows us time to think through such material and vent the venom that is often the knee-jerk reaction of our society in a safe place to minimize its negative effects on others. Once our emotions have been privately vented, we can get to the heart of matters and deal with the real issues in mature, thoughtful and productive ways.

#2 - Collect information for rebuttals

It is absolutely impossible to answer an opposing viewpoint you don't know exists. Further, without a thoroughgoing deep-dive into the arguments and opinions of others, there is significant risk of misunderstanding or misrepresenting a viewpoint both in your own mind and in public. Failure to fully comprehend someone's point of view will result in being underprepared to provide a well-reasoned defense against it.

#3 - Helps to maintain critical thinking skills

Critical thinking is vital to holding and defending any doctrinal position or other philosophy or idea. Limiting our engagements to only those with whom we generally agree can lead us to some very real and serious dangers such as a lack of ability to think, reason or argue for ourselves or to find ourselves in a position of simply following people blindly into error, sometimes great error, without question or consideration.

#4 - It is always good to think through the nuances and results of one's own view

One of my favorite logical tools to use in discussing ideas and such with others is Reductio ad Absurdum, or reducing an argument to is absurd or ultimate conclusion, which conclusion may not be obvious if not thought through fully to its ends or results. Looking at features, or consequences of your belief system can show holes or false conclusions in an otherwise good and safe viewpoint you hold. These errors are often seen best from outside your viewpoint; meaning they are most readily available from sources produced by those with whom you have, at least, some disagreement. C. S. Lewis is a favorite author of mine, as is G. K. Chesterton and even, J. R. R. Tolkien; while I don't share some to many of their religious views, their philosophical output and positive, thoughtful and deeply enriching content is well worth the time spent in their company.

#5 - Exposure to ideas you can't see from your viewpoint because of your viewpoint's bias(es)

While I certainly don't have Dr. Richard Dawkins' conclusions from Science, his facts of science are generally sound; in point of fact, I, being a Young Earth Creationist personally, would find disagreement with Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe who believes the Bible but holds to an Old Earth model of Creation (and, yes, he still believes the Bible even if I disagree with him on this!) Men such as these, and a host of others, have opened my eyes to massive assumptions and considerations in my view that I COULD NOT see from my point of view.

#6 - Foster personal growth and development through the ability to correct and balance my views when confronted with new information

I owe many people a heartfelt and deep sense of gratitude I will never be able to repay because of the investment they have made in my life through their books, articles, videos, podcasts, etc. Meny have reached into the dangerously deep recesses of my mind and challenged everything I believe (John Lennox, Frank Turek, Justin Brierly, Greg Koukl, William Lane Craig, J. Warner Wallace, Mark Ward, Brian Edwards, Nathan Cravat, JC Groves, Allistar Begg, just to name a few, and many more who will, of necessity, remain unnamed). I have not been persuaded to my current points of view through passive listening/reading/watching, but these have all given me challenges to many points of view that have honed my thinking and philosophy and even given me the great gift of defining in words what were mere expressions of thought or feeling - and, as it turns out, I have many points of disagreement with every single person named above!

#7 - Helps prevent what could very well be one of Christianity's greatest errors

John 17:11 gives us God the Sons' prayer to the God the Father regarding His followers, the children of God; that they would be one even as they are one. I'm not sure if you have noticed or not, but Christ-followers today do not seem to be focused on fulfilling this remarkable prayer request of the Lord Jesus. We are more interested in finding areas of separation and disagreement than in the finding of ways to promote Christ through unity. I have heard my whole life that doctrine divides, and while that may be true on certain levels (i.e. I don't worship at a Methodist church, for instance), it should divide in no other way. People of differing non-essentials (and many essentials, by the way) love Jesus as much as I do and want to see the world love Jesus as much as we do. A wise friend of mine once told me something I will never forget and has since become somewhat of a life motto for me, "Be more about what you are for, than for what you are against". That's some solid advice. Reading people with whom we disagree may have challenges, but the biggest challenge may well be legitimate challenges to our own opinions.

#8 - People with whom we disagree may actually be right sometimes

I think of Paul quoting Stoic philosophers in his sermons or Jude quoting from the Book of Enoch in his writings and see that even those with whom we would vehemently disagree can still present truth we need to hear and can still find useful. The reason for this is simple; all truth is an expression of ultimate truth which only proceeds from God. All truth is God's truth, even if it emanates from an unlikely source. Unbelieving parents can still impart good truth to their children; unbelieving doctors still have truth in medicine that will actually help us. This is because all wisdom and truth come from one source, the source of all reality - God Himself.

#3 - Safeguards In Wrestling With Disagreement