If we don’t understand a person’s view, we should ask for clarity. And when we get that clarity, we should take them at their word. In sum, we should just follow the golden rule when we disagree with others: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matt 7:12). Truth be told, engaging in disagreement with fairness is hard work. It takes time, and intellectual energy, to really understand your opponent’s argument in a way they themselves would recognize. This is why so few do it. In a Twitter (X) culture, it’s much easier to use quick jabs and witty one-liners than to really try to understand what a person thinks and why they think it.

In the 2020 Apple TV breakout hit, Ted Lasso, there’s a remarkable scene in the local London pub where Ted challenges the show’s nemesis, Rupert Mannion, to a game of darts. Confident that he can beat this silly American who knows nothing about British culture, Rupert quickly ups the stakes with an aggressive bet. Ted agrees and the game is on.

Rupert quickly discovers, however, that he has underestimated this bumbling “aw shucks” football coach. While Ted threw darts with his right hand in the warm-up session, it turns out he’s really left-handed. Rupert also learns something else he didn’t know: Ted grew up playing darts with his father. They played together every week for nearly seven years.

Before Ted seals his unexpected (and for Rupert, humiliating) victory, he gives one of the most memorable speeches of the show. Reflecting on how others have misjudged him his entire life, Ted says,

All them fellas that used to belittle me, not a single one of them were curious. They thought they had everything all figured out. So, they judged everything and everyone. . . Cause if they were curious, they would have asked questions.

Ted’s core lesson here—be curious—is one that I often share with my seminary students. In particular, it’s a lesson that applies to how we engage in disagreement with others. Rather than simply standing back judging “everything and everyone,” I encourage them to be intellectually curious. Why does this person believe this? What are the reasons for their view? How can I learn from this person, even if I fundamentally disagree?

But this is not just a lesson for seminary students. It’s a lesson for all Christians, particularly as the evangelical world is undergoing what is arguably an unprecedented level of fracturing and in-fighting. More intellectual curiosity would mean that we really want to understand another person’s view and why they hold it (beyond just giving us ammunition for our forthcoming rebuttal).

So, what would happen if the evangelical church expressed more intellectual curiosity with one another? I think we would discover four things:

Not Everyone Has Nefarious Motives

For years now, Christian theologians have rightly lamented how genuine intellectual debate is increasingly rare in our postmodern (or post-postmodern) world. Indeed, one might argue that, in certain quarters, it is not even allowed. Arguments have been replaced with declarations—usually statements about the goodness or badness of the other side. And these declarations are often laced with moral accusations that the other side is bigoted, or narrow-minded, or discriminatory, or what have you.

While evangelicals have typically been at the forefront of resisting such a trend, I wonder if in some ways we are now participating in it. One might argue that now it’s evangelicals that sometimes seem uninterested in intellectual engagement and are quick to make declarations about the goodness or badness of the other side. If a person disagrees with us, then that person is just a compromiser, or a liberal, or a fundamentalist, or what have you.

But this is where intellectual curiosity comes in. If we are curious, and genuinely listen to our fellow Christian, then we might discover that they are not in league with the devil or hard-hearted rebels who refuse to follow the “plain” teachings of Scripture. Indeed, we might learn that they love Jesus, want to follow his Word, and actually have arguments for the beliefs they hold.

Now, this doesn’t mean that everyone we disagree with is well-intentioned. And some doctrinal differences are so severe that they are worthy of serious rebuke. Rather, the point here is simply that not all differences fall into this category.

Read More