Differences of opinion, how do you deal with them?

Introduction

One thing has been on my mind for a long time: how to deal with differences of opinion. I find it particularly interesting to read forum posts from readers on news portals, especially on controversial topics such as the coronavirus. One thing stands out: Everyone always knows exactly what's going on and often enough those who think differently are idiots.

It is very rarely written: I don't actually know exactly what's going on and am therefore careful with my judgements. No, almost everyone is spouting their absolute truth. The reader columns of Welt-Online are particularly impressive. That is often enough a completely different world for me.

I find that disconcerting. I also have my views on some topics and perhaps I am sometimes as I have just criticised. But I don't really want to lose this humility that I don't know everything. Yes, often enough nobody really knows and you should therefore be careful and drive by sight.

Fittingly, the Bible already says in Romans 12:16; LUT

Don't think you're clever.

The New Life Translation writes here

Don't imagine you know everything!

I almost like this second variant even better.

In the same chapter of Romans it says further ahead (Romans 12:2; ELB):

Do not be conformed to this world.

I like this seemingly old-fashioned formulation. Of course, the world does not mean the planet, but the standards and behaviours that prevail in this world. Of course, you can't be unfair and assume that all people have the same standards and behaviour.

Here, too, everyone probably has slightly different ideas about what it means to be "conformed to this world".

But this expression "uniform of this world" struck me in the question of dealing with different opinions in this world. How is it in the "world" and how should it be?

I don't want to grumble about the world out there, but I would like to look at a positive example from the Bible.

The dispute

It begins in Acts 14, where the apostles Paul and Barnabas visit a church in Antioch, in present-day Syria, and report that people who are not Jews have decided in favour of Jesus Christ in many places and have founded churches in these places as a result. They then stayed in Antioch for a long time with the church there.

Now the dispute begins in the next chapter, in Acts 15, 1.2a; NL

1 Meanwhile, some men from Judea came to the city and began to teach the believers: "If you do not observe the Jewish custom of circumcision according to the teaching of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 Paul and Barnabas strongly disagreed with this view, and a heated argument ensued.

Some Jewish Christians claim that you have to be circumcised, otherwise you can't be a Christian. And Paul and Barnabas disagree with this. And it seems to be quite a fierce dispute and both parties are obviously very convinced of their opinion.

For my purposes today, it is not important what the dispute is about. It could also be a completely different dispute. There are many issues on which people can disagree. These can be professional issues. For example, I've had arguments at work about which programming methods to use and where to use them. Craftsmen may argue about which type of wood is best in which situations. A roof truss, for example, what kind of wood should it be carved from ;-) There may also be different opinions. Such things are also often linked to experience. You have some good or bad experience and form a judgement from that. But how do you deal with it when a decision has to be made and you have different opinions?

This can also be a problem for parents if they disagree about parenting and educational measures.

It is of course right to have an opinion and to defend it, and that can also lead to a dispute.

But what do you do if you get stuck?

The dispute and what next?

In our Bible text the following happens (2b):

Finally, Paul and Barnabas, accompanied by some men from Antioch, were sent to Jerusalem to discuss this issue with the apostles and elders.

If you can't agree, it's certainly not wrong to ask others, especially experts. And this is a theological question, so you can ask the other apostles. And the elders in Jerusalem have also been around for quite a long time, some of whom knew Jesus as a man, so they might already know.

Of course, you can also take the view that I'm right anyway, so I don't need to ask anyone. But you can't live and work together like that.

Or you only surround yourself with like-minded people who always agree with you, the so-called filter bubble or echo chamber. This bad habit is becoming more and more widespread. People no longer expose themselves to the opinions of others in order to scrutinise themselves and learn something new. After all, it's much nicer when everyone agrees.

Or are you just ranting in forums because you know exactly what's going on anyway and others haven't informed themselves enough? Someone posts something clumsy or unintentionally wrong and a shitstorm pours over them.

Some people do things like this on purpose to provoke a shitstorm in order to present themselves as "alone against the rest of the world".

Have you ever taken part in a shitstorm? On Facebook or Twitter? Actually, I have a problem with being part of a storm of sh... .

How did Paul and Barnabas actually do this on the way to Jerusalem? (Acts 15:3; NL)

On the way, they stopped off in Phoenicia and Samaria to visit the believers living there. They told them - to everyone's great joy - that the non-Jews were now also being converted.

Something is missing here, isn't it?

Why does it not say here: On the way they stopped everywhere and discussed this question with all the believers and explained to them in detail why these men from Judea who demanded circumcision were wrong.

They were right, then they have to share their opinion with everyone. The truth must get out.

That could have caused a similar shitstorm. If they had spread this dispute in enough places, then perhaps people from every community would have travelled to these men from Judea and given them a piece of their mind. That would have made a significant contribution to establishing the truth.

But that is not how Paul and Barnabas acted. They were certainly convinced that they were right, but they were humble about their knowledge and prepared to be questioned. I think this attitude is something that is missing in our world.

The solution?

(Acts 15, 4.5; NL)

4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were welcomed by the whole church, the apostles and the elders. They reported what God had done through them in the meantime. 5 But then some of the Pharisees who had come to faith stood up and declared that the gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law.

The dispute is not swept under the carpet, but it is properly categorised. The more important one comes first. God has worked, people who are not Jews have found Jesus Christ. That is more important than all the disputes.

I think that generally applies. The dispute must not be swept under the carpet, but it must be properly classified and prioritised.

Often enough I have also experienced people saying, "Never mind!" But it didn't matter, it smouldered because one of the people involved was unable to resolve a difference of opinion in a constructive, adult manner. I think some people have never learnt that in their lives.

That's why you can't suppress an argument, but you still have to try to properly assess its importance.

What happens now? The experts sit down together:

6 The apostles and church elders then sat down to decide on this issue. 7 After much deliberation, Peter finally stood up and addressed the assembly:

Sitting down together and discussing things at length doesn't sound like fun. Often enough, it isn't.

Maybe that's why some people prefer the alternative of "annoying in silence" rather than "arguing".

The experts do not make their decision in a secret crony club but involve the community. Peter gives a brief explanation:

"Brothers, you all know that some time ago God chose me to proclaim the good news to other nations so that they might believe. 8 God, who knows the hearts of men, proved that he also accepts them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he also purified their hearts through faith.10 So why do you doubt God's way by placing a burden on them that neither we nor our ancestors could bear? 11 We believe that we will all be saved in the same way as they were, by the grace of the Lord Jesus."

Apparently the apostles and elders have already formed an opinion, which they present with arguments. That's because I say that doesn't seem to be the right approach here.

You want to take people with you and that is the right thing to do.

Years ago, I once worked in a company that had a "Research and Architecture" department. They came up with some great ideas and made specifications for the developers. But the developers ignored these guidelines. Thinking up great things but not taking the people with you doesn't work.

You could now play the authoritarian card, but that doesn't work either if such employees can easily find a job elsewhere.

Continue in the text:

12 Then everyone fell silent. They listened attentively as Barnabas and Paul recounted the signs and wonders that God had worked through them among the gentiles.

Barnabas and Paul emphasise with their experiences what Peter has said.

And then the church leader of Jerusalem "James" comments on this:

13 When they had finished, James stood up and said, "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Peter has told you how God first sought out the gentiles to choose for himself from among them a people who would bear his name. 15 This conversion of the gentiles is in accordance with the prophets' predictions. Thus it is written: 16 'After this I will return and restore the fallen kingdom of David. Out of the ruins I will rebuild it, and I will restore it, 17 so that the remnant may seek the Lord, including the gentiles-all those I have called to myself. Thus says the Lord, 18 who made all this known long ago.' 19 Therefore I am convinced that we should not make life unnecessarily difficult for the gentiles who turn to God. 20 However, we should write to them and tell them not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, to avoid all fornication and not to eat blood or the flesh of animals that have not been bled. 21 For many generations these precepts from the Law of Moses have been preached Sabbath after Sabbath in the Jewish synagogues everywhere."

The decision itself is not important today, but a few points in this speech are.

He again gives reasons for his opinion. He does not use the killer argument "God wants it this way", but speaks of his conviction. That does carry weight, but it is only his conviction for now.

And he also takes another aspect into consideration that others may have overlooked. After all, there were Jews in every town at that time who were to be won over to Jesus. That is why the church was not supposed to submit to Jewish law, but a few points that would have made it unnecessarily difficult for Jews to find Jesus were to be avoided.

The men from Judea, who demanded the observance of the Mosaic Law, were fundamentally wrong, but their opinion pointed to the possible sensitivities of Jewish people, who were also to be won over.

And so it can of course be the case that an opinion is fundamentally wrong, but that individual points are still worthy of consideration. Normally, the other person is not an idiot. He may be wrong, but hopefully he has given it some thought and you should at least consider it.

All in agreement?

What is the result? (Acts 15, 22; NL)

22 Then the apostles and elders and the whole church in Jerusalem appointed some men to send with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch in Syria to report on this decision. The men who were chosen were two of the leaders of the church - Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas.

What is important here is: "and the whole community"

Somehow everyone is involved. Whether everyone was enthusiastic about this decision? I don't know, probably not. The congregation in Jerusalem was also quite large, they couldn't all sit around a round table. With such large numbers of people, you always have to somehow solve organisational challenges, which they certainly had to do back then.

But the whole congregation took part in the selection of the messengers and thus obviously backed the conviction that James described as his. Apparently, the vast majority were convinced.

They send the letter, which says the same thing that James said, with an interesting addition in Acts 15:28; NL

For by the Holy Spirit we have decided

Apparently they were sure that this kind of decision-making was spirit-led.

"By the Holy Spirit", you would expect a vision or prophecy, wouldn't you? But the Holy Spirit promotes fellowship and wants to bring the church together. Therefore, even an exhausting discussion can be spirit-led.

This encourages the recipients of the letter and makes them very happy.

Summary

Let me summarise.

Don't think you're clever, don't think you know everything.
Do not be conformed to this world, especially, as today's message, in dealing with differences of opinion.
Differing opinions can lead to a dispute, that is completely normal.
If you are stuck in a dispute, it can be useful to hear the opinion of others.
You shouldn't broadcast your opinion to the world at will and thereby escalate the dispute. A shitstorm never really makes sense.
A dispute must not be swept under the carpet, but it must also be properly categorised.
Counselling can be lengthy and exhausting, but it is also a way of the Holy Spirit.
It is important to involve those involved and not make decisions over their heads.
In this case, the result was encouragement and joy.