Our culture does not know how to handle conflict. Rather than the environment of spirited public debates that accompanied much of church history, disagreement of modern times is often seen as an infringement on our very worth as human beings. We are so draped in insecurity and pride that we do not have the capacity to think through critique in a way that doesn’t automatically assume the worst about the character of the critic, let alone the critique itself. The church community then becomes a mechanism of same-thinking friends and eggshell conversations disguised as an application of “grace.”

Scenario:

Christian A meets Christian B for lunch. Small talk ensues, with the discussion ranging from Lebron’s Batman mask to being persuaded by their wives to get a minivan after the second kid. Both are big into hip hop, so the discussion turns toward music. Both A and B discuss the most recent releases and what gets the most spins in the non-minivan. Christian B then comments on Lecrae, stating that he wasn’t sure if he could get down with his recent philosophy and decision to collaborate with “secular” artists. Christian A asks what he means by that, but as B begins to articulate his point, he gets an important call from work and has to cut lunch short. Christian A uneasily says goodbye to B and stays to finish his lunch. While still in the restaurant, A accesses his Twitter app, and tweets:

Christians can be such Pharisees. The Church needs to get out of the box to reach the lost instead of staying in their comfort zones. #SecularVsSacred

Hours later, Christian B plops down on the couch after work. He scrolls through his Twitter feed and finds A’s tweet from earlier in the day. Upset, he updates his Facebook status:

That moment when being a real Christian means you’re a Pharisee. #NeedANewCircle

A Crippling Effect

This scenario is all too familiar in the 2014 makeup of interpersonal relationships. The social media phenomenon has had a crippling effect on common human interaction.

The “like” feature capitalizes on a culture saturated with affirmation-junkies and narcissistic neediness. Countless passive-aggressive barbs are tossed over an online landscape while two individuals in a Starbucks don’t have the guts to share their opinion of each other’s viewpoints.

As sojourners in this fallen world, the church has fallen prey to some of this. Disagreement is part of the human experience. As Ruth Bell Graham, wife of world-renowned evangelist Billy Graham, once said: “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.”

However, our community seems to carry an unrealistic expectation based on an unhealthy interpretation of Acts 2:44. This blissful perspective of the church in Acts having “all things in common” can lead to an unbalanced approach to disagreement. Some pastors have used this as leverage to control members with an authoritarian leadership model. Some Christian media outlets have done so in disallowing opportunity for topics to be viewed alongside opposing views. Rarely do we see well-respected leaders spend time engaging in charitable public debate on Scriptural differences.

Face to Face?

Whether intentionally or passively, we impose a non-biblical standard of walking in agreement as a qualification for genuine relationships.

[Editor’s note: This article is incomplete. The source for this document was originally published on raanetwork.org – however, the original URL is no longer available.]