Editorial: In a divided time, we must model civil disagreement

The last few weeks have been … interesting.

There’s been a major news story just about every day, and each one has stirred up strong reactions and responses. I know. I’ve had some of my own.

Strong reactions and responses have been warranted, but not barbed responses, particularly not from Christians—no matter how strong our convictions or opinions.

Barbs do more to turn us against and away from each other than they do to win anyone over. Barbs focus us on our disagreements and distract us from who we are called to be. Left unchecked, barbs will grow into daggers, and we will wield the blades to harm one another and to sever our ties to each other.

The world doesn’t need us—the body of Christ—divided right now. We must dull the blades, remove the barbs and disagree civilly. Because there’s important work to be done, work we were commanded and commissioned to do.

Where we disagree

Our disagreements run the gamut. Here are just a few.

The Feb. 28 Oval Office incident, as I’ll call it here, drew swift and charged reactions. And those reactions elicited more reactions, which spurred still more. One we published March 8 sparked a fire among some by making an analogy between Esther’s advocacy for her people and Ukrainian President Zelensky’s advocacy for his.

Every analogy breaks down, and the author knows that. His aim was to bring Esther forward in time, to cause us to consider what we would do if put in her position. Yet, simply making the comparison was a bridge too far for some.

Mid-February, the Baptist General Convention of Texas Executive Board approved an agreement with the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board related to church planting funds. This also generated responses, and responses to the responses, a few of which we published.

Knowing the terms of the agreement now enables individual Texas Baptist churches to make a more clearly informed decision about whether to send funds to NAMB or allocate those funds elsewhere. No barbs needed.

This week and last, Texas Baptist pastors and ministry leaders visited the Texas Capitol to advocate for their positions on various bills under consideration during the 89th Texas Legislative Session.

One of those bills—HB 3—would establish an education savings account program. Hundreds from the general public registered to testify against the bill during a March 11-12 hearing on it.

Rural Republican and reporter Suzanne Bellsnyder commented on X (formerly Twitter): “More than 12,500 public comments over 2,995 pages submitted on HB3. The Comments are Overwhelmingly opposed. A Capitol Insider tells me ‘I have never seen anything like it.’”

Texas Baptists are not all of one mind on this issue. In fact, some of us hold completely opposing views to each other. I’m always glad when we don’t let our disagreement get in the way of working together.

How we disagree

I should clarify that I don’t mean the Oval Office incident was a mere disagreement, or that the tension between the BGCT and NAMB is just a petty little squabble—although some see it that way—or that how public and private schools should be funded in Texas is only a matter of not seeing eye to eye. No, each issue entails serious and substantive matters of difference.

Nor do I mean to equate the seriousness of all three of these issues. They aren’t equivalent. For example, the Oval Office incident is a matter of life and death for millions of people. That’s a very different thing than whether a BGCT church can get money from NAMB to plant a church or whether Texas sets aside public funds for private education.

Rather, I am calling to account how we communicate our opinions and convictions about these things, and how we communicate to and about those whose opinions and convictions are different than our own.

Christians have been at least as harsh as the world. The world has enough examples of people verbally tearing each other apart, without Christians modeling more of the same. What the world doesn’t have enough of are people disagreeing civilly. Christians ought to be the prime examples of how to do that—especially if we say we take Scripture seriously.

Disagreeing civilly

We live in a time of significant and pervasive disagreement. More and more, we seem less and less able to disagree civilly.

As our society polarizes—we hope not to the point of fracture—too many Christians are going right along for the ride. Some are even leading the way. I’ve been accused of that.

Our disagreements are political, economic, social and religious—and that’s just among Christians. Too often, our disagreements as Christians have led and are leading us to division.

Christians, of all people, need to pull back from our divisions. Or at least from the heat and vitriol of our dividing.

Rather than follow Paul’s example and part ways with our co-laborers in Christ (Acts 15:36-39), we need to follow Paul’s instruction to “live at peace with everyone”—if possible and as much as it depends on us (Romans 12:18).

We need to give up the kind of sharp disagreement that resulted in Paul and Barnabas’ separation, and we need to model civil disagreement.

This is a call to all Christians. More specifically, this is a call to Baptists—and more specifically still, Baptists of a Southern extraction—as we continue our own particular disagreements.

The world doesn’t need our infighting. The world needs the good news we are commanded to communicate in word and deed. This doesn’t mean we quit disagreeing—although that would be nice—but that when we disagree, we disagree civilly.

If only it were that easy.

But that’s why we must model civil disagreement, because it can be so hard.

This is not just my call. This is my aspiration. Because the truth is, I have strong opinions about certain things and can air them just as sharply as anyone. Lord, help me.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.