Loving and Listening to Those with Whom We Disagree

Following Jesus in Political, Social, and Cultural Disagreements Without Surrendering Truth or Conviction

Disagreement is unavoidable.

Christians will encounter people who disagree with us about politics, government, morality, education, economics, healthcare, religious liberty, immigration, criminal justice, taxes, public safety, social issues, and many other subjects.

Sometimes those disagreements will be minor.

Sometimes they will involve deeply held convictions about right and wrong.

Sometimes we will believe that another person’s ideas would cause genuine harm.

How should followers of Jesus respond?

We are not called to abandon truth in order to avoid disagreement.

Neither are we permitted to abandon love because the disagreement is important.

Jesus said:

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” – Matthew 22:39 (NASB 1995)

Our neighbor does not stop being our neighbor when he votes differently.

She does not stop being our neighbor when she supports a policy we oppose.

He does not stop being our neighbor when he misunderstands our position.

She does not stop being our neighbor when she strongly disagrees with our Christian convictions.

Christian love is tested precisely when loving another person becomes difficult.

Listening Is an Expression of Love

Listening does not mean agreeing.

It means taking another person seriously enough to hear what he or she is actually saying.

James wrote:

“But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger.” – James 1:19 (NASB 1995)

That instruction is especially valuable in a divided culture.

We often do the opposite.

We are quick to speak.

Quick to become angry.

And slow to listen.

We hear the beginning of someone’s statement and immediately prepare our response.

We interrupt.

We assume we already know what the person believes.

We place the person into a political category.

Then we respond to the category instead of the individual.

Christian listening begins differently.

It says:

“Help me understand what you mean.”

Two adults with different perspectives listening respectfully to one another during a thoughtful conversation.

Listening does not require agreement. Christians can hold firm convictions while treating people with whom we disagree with dignity, patience, and love.

Listen to Understand Before Listening to Answer

There is a difference between hearing someone’s words and trying to understand the person.

When someone explains a political position, ask yourself:

What is this person actually concerned about?

What does this person fear may happen?

What good does this person hope to accomplish?

What experiences may have shaped this concern?

What facts does this person believe are important?

What does the person believe I may be overlooking?

You may ultimately disagree with the person’s conclusions.

But understanding how someone arrived at a conclusion can make the disagreement more accurate and more productive.

Ask, “What Leads You to Believe That?”

This is one of the simplest questions Christians can learn to ask.

Instead of immediately saying:

“You’re wrong.”

try:

“What leads you to believe that?”

Then listen.

Perhaps the person has personal experience you have never considered.

Perhaps the person has information you have not seen.

Perhaps the person has misunderstood something.

Perhaps you have misunderstood something.

Perhaps you both have incomplete information.

Or perhaps, after understanding the argument completely, you will still strongly disagree.

Listening does not guarantee agreement.

It improves understanding.

Make Sure You Understand Before You Criticize

Before challenging someone’s position, try describing it back.

You might say:

“Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying.”

Then summarize the person’s position.

Ask:

“Is that an accurate description of what you believe?”

If the person says no, listen again.

A useful goal is to understand the position well enough that the other person can say:

“Yes. You understand what I believe, even though you disagree with me.”

Proverbs warns:

“He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.” – Proverbs 18:13 (NASB 1995)

We should not refute arguments people are not actually making.

Do Not Assume Everyone in a Political Group Believes the Same Thing

Political labels can be useful shorthand.

They can also prevent us from seeing individuals.

Conservative.

Liberal.

Moderate.

Progressive.

Libertarian.

Republican.

Democrat.

Independent.

Socialist.

Capitalist.

Traditionalist.

Labels may describe something about a person’s political philosophy.

They do not tell us everything that person believes.

Two people belonging to the same political party may disagree significantly about taxes, spending, immigration, foreign policy, criminal justice, education, healthcare, or the proper role of government.

Before assuming someone’s beliefs because of a label, ask.

“What do you believe about this particular issue?”

Let people speak for themselves.

Define Terms Before Arguing About Them

Political conversations sometimes become heated because people use the same word differently.

Freedom.

Justice.

Equality.

Rights.

Socialism.

Capitalism.

Democracy.

Nationalism.

Patriotism.

Discrimination.

Extremism.

Reform.

Fairness.

Someone may use one of these words differently from the way you understand it.

Before arguing over the label, ask:

“What do you mean when you use that word?”

Then discuss the actual idea.

This is especially important when discussing political or economic philosophies.

Do not assume that everyone using a term understands it identically.

Define the proposal.

Examine what it would actually do.

Then evaluate it.

Listening Does Not Require Moral Neutrality

Christians sometimes worry that listening respectfully will communicate approval.

It does not.

Jesus listened to people without endorsing everything they believed or did.

We can say:

“I understand why you believe that, but I still believe it is wrong.”

Or:

“I appreciate you explaining your position. My convictions lead me to a different conclusion.”

Or:

“I understand your concern. I agree that the problem is serious, but I disagree about the solution.”

Listening demonstrates respect for the person.

Agreement concerns the idea.

Those are different things.

Loving Someone Does Not Mean Agreeing With Everything

Biblical love is not the absence of disagreement.

Paul wrote that love:

“does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.” – 1 Corinthians 13:6 (NASB 1995)

Love and truth belong together.

If we genuinely believe a policy would harm people, love may require us to oppose it.

If we believe a law is unjust, love may require us to work for change.

If we believe an ideology undermines human dignity or liberty, love does not require pretending otherwise.

If we believe government is exceeding its proper authority, we may say so.

If our religious convictions prevent us from supporting a policy, we may explain those convictions.

But the person advocating the policy remains someone we should treat with dignity.

Separate the Person From the Idea

This principle can transform political conversation.

A person is not identical to his political opinion.

An idea can be wrong.

An argument can be poorly reasoned.

A policy can be harmful.

An ideology can have destructive consequences.

A claim can be false.

But the person presenting it remains a human being created in the image of God.

We can therefore say:

“I strongly oppose that idea.”

without saying:

“I despise you.”

Christians should learn to attack bad arguments without attacking human dignity.

People May Have Good Intentions and Still Be Wrong

Political discussions often assume that if a policy produces harmful consequences, everyone who supports it must desire those consequences.

That does not necessarily follow.

Someone may support a policy because he sincerely believes it will reduce poverty.

You may believe it will increase dependency and make poverty worse.

Someone may support a regulation because she believes it will protect people.

You may believe the regulation unnecessarily restricts liberty.

Someone may support a criminal-justice reform because he believes it will produce greater fairness.

You may believe it will threaten public safety.

Someone may oppose that reform because she worries about victims and community safety.

Another person may believe the existing system itself produces injustice.

People can desire good outcomes and disagree profoundly about how to achieve them.

Evaluate the policy carefully without automatically assigning evil motives to everyone who supports it.

But Good Intentions Do Not Make a Policy Good

The opposite mistake should also be avoided.

Sincere motives do not guarantee good results.

A person may genuinely want to help people while supporting a policy that ultimately harms them.

Government decisions should therefore be evaluated by more than intentions.

Ask:

What does the policy actually do?

What evidence supports it?

What has happened when similar policies have been tried?

What are the costs?

What are the benefits?

What unintended consequences may occur?

Does the government have legitimate authority to do this?

What liberties may be affected?

What alternatives exist?

Listening respectfully to someone’s intentions should not prevent careful evaluation of the results.

Learn to Find the Point of Agreement

When a conversation becomes contentious, ask:

“What do we agree about?”

You may discover that both people want:

Safe neighborhoods.

Strong families.

Good schools.

Affordable healthcare.

Economic opportunity.

Justice.

Religious liberty.

Responsible government.

Help for people experiencing poverty.

Protection for children.

National security.

Honest elections.

Fair treatment under law.

You may agree about the goal while disagreeing about the means.

Identifying the shared goal can make it easier to discuss the policy disagreement.

Then Identify the Real Disagreement

After finding common ground, ask:

“Where exactly do we disagree?”

Perhaps you agree that healthcare costs too much but disagree about government’s role in reducing costs.

Perhaps you agree that immigration laws need improvement but disagree about enforcement.

Perhaps you agree that schools should provide excellent education but disagree about curriculum or parental authority.

Perhaps you agree that people experiencing poverty need help but disagree about which programs are effective.

Perhaps you agree that communities need public safety but disagree about criminal-justice policy.

A precise disagreement is easier to discuss than a general political battle.

Ask What Evidence Would Change Someone’s Mind

A useful question is:

“What evidence would cause you to reconsider your position?”

Then ask yourself the same question.

If the answer is:

“Nothing could ever change my mind,”

the discussion may no longer be about evidence.

Christians should hold firmly to truths clearly revealed by God.

But many public-policy questions involve facts, predictions, economic consequences, scientific evidence, or practical judgments.

When those facts change, we should be willing to reconsider how a principle should be applied.

Be Willing to Learn Something

Listening becomes meaningless if we enter every conversation convinced there is absolutely nothing the other person could possibly teach us.

You may discover that one statistic you have repeated is inaccurate.

You may learn about an unintended consequence of a policy you support.

You may discover that an opponent’s position is more nuanced than you assumed.

You may hear about an experience you have never personally encountered.

Learning something does not require abandoning your convictions.

It means having enough humility to recognize that no human being understands every issue completely.

Be Willing to Say, “I Don’t Know”

Political discussions often pressure people to have immediate opinions about everything.

We do not have to.

You may say:

“I haven’t studied that enough to have an informed opinion.”

“I don’t know whether that claim is accurate.”

“I need to read the legislation before deciding.”

“I haven’t heard enough evidence yet.”

“I don’t know the answer to that question.”

That is not weakness.

It can be intellectual honesty.

Do Not Let a Political Conversation Become a Contest

Sometimes we stop trying to understand and begin trying to win.

We wait for the other person to make a mistake.

We search for the clever response.

We want the people watching to think we won.

Christian conversation should have a different purpose.

The goal should be truth.

Understanding.

Wisdom.

Faithfulness.

Love.

Perhaps persuasion.

But not humiliation.

Paul instructed:

“Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.” – Colossians 4:6 (NASB 1995)

Notice that Paul says each person.

People are not arguments to defeat.

They are people to whom we speak.

Watch Your Tone

The same words can communicate very different things depending upon how they are spoken.

Sarcasm can turn a legitimate point into an insult.

Mockery can destroy trust.

Eye-rolling communicates contempt.

Interrupting communicates that the other person’s thoughts do not matter.

Raising your voice may cause the conversation to become defensive.

Sometimes the problem is not what we said.

It is how we said it.

Ask:

“Would I speak this way if Jesus were visibly sitting beside me?”

Because He is already Lord over the conversation.

Do Not Use Contempt

Contempt goes beyond disagreement.

It communicates:

“People like you are beneath me.”

That attitude is spiritually dangerous.

We may believe another person’s argument is foolish without treating that person as worthless.

We may believe someone’s political philosophy is deeply mistaken without mocking his intelligence.

We may believe a public leader has acted wrongly without celebrating personal suffering.

Christians should resist the temptation to enjoy humiliating political opponents.

Do Not Call People Names

Name-calling usually contributes very little to understanding.

Instead of labeling a person, identify the concern.

Rather than:

“You’re a communist.”

say:

“I am concerned that this proposal would give government too much control over private economic decisions. Can we talk about that?”

Rather than:

“You’re a fascist.”

say:

“I am concerned that this proposal concentrates too much power in government and threatens individual liberty.”

Rather than:

“You hate poor people.”

say:

“I am concerned about how this proposal would affect people with low incomes.”

Specific criticism is more useful than insults.

Do Not Mock Someone’s Intelligence

Political disagreements can tempt us to assume that anyone who disagrees must be ignorant.

But intelligent, informed people sometimes reach different conclusions because they weigh evidence, risks, priorities, governmental authority, or moral considerations differently.

Instead of:

“How could anyone be stupid enough to believe that?”

ask:

“What evidence leads you to that conclusion?”

Then evaluate the evidence.

Do Not Treat Every Disagreement as Proof of Bad Character

Character matters.

But disagreeing with you is not itself a character defect.

Someone may disagree with your tax policy without being greedy.

Someone may disagree with your spending priorities without being uncaring.

Someone may disagree with your healthcare policy without wanting people to suffer.

Someone may disagree with your national-security policy without being unpatriotic.

Someone may disagree with your education policy without hating children.

Someone may disagree with your criminal-justice proposal without opposing justice.

Evaluate character using actual evidence of character.

Do not use political disagreement as the evidence.

Recognize When a Person Is Speaking From Pain

Some political issues are personal.

Someone discussing criminal justice may have lost a family member to violent crime.

Another may have a relative who was incarcerated.

Someone discussing immigration may have immigrated legally after a long and difficult process.

Another may have a loved one facing an uncertain immigration status.

Someone discussing healthcare may be caring for a seriously ill family member.

Someone discussing military policy may have lost someone in war.

Someone discussing school policy may be speaking as the parent of a struggling child.

You may still disagree with the person’s policy conclusion.

But knowing the human story can help you respond with compassion.

Do Not Use Someone’s Pain as a Political Weapon

When someone shares a painful experience, listen.

Do not immediately turn it into proof that your political position is correct.

Sometimes the loving response is simply:

“I’m sorry that happened.”

There will be time to discuss policy.

A person’s grief is not merely evidence for an argument.

Listen Especially Carefully to People Directly Affected

Public policy can look different from a distance.

When considering prison reform, listen to victims of crime, law-enforcement professionals, formerly incarcerated people, correctional workers, families, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others who encounter the system directly.

When considering education, listen to parents, teachers, students, administrators, and taxpayers.

When considering healthcare, listen to patients, physicians, nurses, caregivers, researchers, and others affected.

Listening to experience does not mean allowing personal experience alone to determine public policy.

It means recognizing that responsible judgment benefits from understanding how policies affect real people.

Listening Does Not Mean Accepting Every Claim as True

Personal experience deserves respect.

Claims about facts still need verification.

Someone may sincerely believe something that is inaccurate.

You may sincerely believe something inaccurate too.

We can say:

“I believe that experience happened to you, but I would like to investigate the broader claim before reaching a conclusion.”

Compassion and evidence are not enemies.

How to Talk About Issues You Are Passionate About

Some issues matter to us especially deeply.

Prison reform.

Taxes.

Government spending.

Education.

Religious liberty.

Healthcare.

Public safety.

Immigration.

Abortion.

Poverty.

National security.

You do not need to apologize for caring.

But passion should motivate preparation rather than hostility.

Research the issue.

Understand which level of government controls it.

Learn what current law actually says.

Find proposed legislation.

Read competing arguments.

Examine evidence.

Listen to people directly affected.

Contact appropriate officials.

Attend public meetings.

Support organizations working lawfully on the issue.

Ask candidates specific questions.

And explain your concerns respectfully.

Passion combined with knowledge can become constructive civic engagement.

How to Respond When Someone Criticizes Your Christian Beliefs

Political discussions sometimes become religious discussions.

Someone may say:

“Your religious beliefs shouldn’t influence your politics.”

You might respond:

“Everyone brings moral beliefs and values to public questions. My Christian faith shapes mine. I don’t expect you to accept my conclusion merely because I believe it religiously, but I do ask that my convictions receive the same freedom of expression as yours.”

Or someone may say:

“You just believe that because you’re a Christian.”

You might answer:

“My faith certainly influences how I understand this issue. I’m happy to explain both the biblical principle and the public-policy reasoning behind my position.”

Christians need not be embarrassed that faith shapes conscience.

Neither should we assume that simply quoting Scripture settles a public-policy argument for someone who does not recognize Scripture’s authority.

Learn to Give Public Reasons

When discussing policy with people who do not share Christian faith, it can be useful to explain how a conviction relates to concerns they can understand.

For example, religious liberty can be defended from Christian conviction and also by explaining why protecting conscience helps maintain a free society.

Concern for human dignity can be rooted in the image of God while also being discussed through equal treatment under law.

Concern about government power can arise from a biblical understanding of human sin while also being explained through constitutional checks and balances.

Christians do not have to hide biblical convictions.

We can also explain their implications in ways our neighbors can understand.

When the Other Person Will Not Listen

Listening should be mutual, but it will not always be.

Someone may interrupt repeatedly.

Mock your faith.

Call you names.

Misrepresent what you say.

Refuse to allow you to finish a sentence.

You can remain calm and set a boundary.

Say:

“I want to hear your position, and I would appreciate the opportunity to explain mine too.”

Or:

“I’m willing to continue this conversation if we can both speak respectfully.”

If that does not happen, you may end the conversation.

You are not obligated to remain indefinitely in a hostile argument.

When You Need to Walk Away

Ecclesiastes says there is:

“A time to be silent and a time to speak.” – Ecclesiastes 3:7 (NASB 1995)

Wisdom includes knowing which time this is.

A conversation may need to end when:

No one is listening.

People are shouting.

Personal insults have replaced discussion.

Someone is threatening another person.

The conversation is damaging a relationship without accomplishing anything useful.

You are becoming too angry to respond appropriately.

You have already explained your position clearly and nothing new is being discussed.

You can say:

“I think we should stop here for now.”

That is not cowardice.

Sometimes it is wisdom.

Disagreeing With Friends

Political disagreement can test friendships.

Remember why you became friends.

A political opinion is part of a person.

It is not the whole person.

You may need boundaries around political conversation.

You may decide:

“We have discussed this several times and neither of us is changing our mind. Let’s enjoy our friendship and talk about something else.”

Not every friendship must become a continuing political debate.

Disagreeing With Family

Family disagreements can be especially difficult because relationships are long and memories are deep.

Parents and adult children may disagree.

Spouses may disagree.

Siblings may disagree.

Grandparents and grandchildren may disagree.

Before turning every gathering into a political debate, ask:

“Does this need to be discussed right now?”

Sometimes the answer is yes.

Sometimes love means changing the subject.

Do not sacrifice years of family relationship merely for the satisfaction of winning one argument.

Disagreeing With Other Christians

Christians sometimes expect everyone who reads the same Bible to reach identical conclusions about every political policy.

That expectation is unrealistic.

Scripture gives clear moral teachings.

But applying those teachings to modern tax rates, budgets, regulations, healthcare structures, environmental policy, foreign affairs, sentencing laws, and many other questions requires prudential judgment.

Two Christians may agree that government should pursue justice and disagree about which policy will accomplish it.

Two Christians may agree that we should care for people experiencing poverty and disagree about which government programs help most effectively.

Two Christians may agree that government should protect people and disagree about the appropriate balance between public safety and liberty.

We should distinguish disagreement over clear biblical truth from disagreement over the wisest application of biblical principles.

There Are Times When We Cannot Agree to Disagree Quietly

Some issues are serious enough that Christians should continue advocating for change.

If you believe a law violates fundamental human dignity, you may work to change it.

If you believe a government policy violates religious liberty, you may challenge it.

If you believe a school policy harms children, you may address the school board.

If you believe government spending is irresponsible, you may advocate for reform.

If you believe criminal-justice policies are unjust, you may work for change.

If you believe a public-safety policy endangers people, you may speak.

Loving people who disagree does not mean becoming politically passive.

It means engaging without hatred.

We Can Work Together Where We Agree

Political disagreement does not always prevent cooperation.

Two people may disagree about national politics but work together to stock a community food pantry.

They may disagree about taxes but volunteer together at a school.

They may disagree about immigration policy but serve families in need.

They may vote for different presidential candidates but work together to improve their neighborhood.

Finding areas of cooperation reminds us that political disagreement does not have to define every human relationship.

Do Not Let Politics Become Your Identity

When political identity becomes central to who we believe we are, disagreement feels like a personal attack.

Christians have a deeper identity.

Paul wrote:

“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” – Philippians 3:20 (NASB 1995)

We may be Republicans, Democrats, independents, or belong to another political tradition.

We may be conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, or difficult to categorize.

But none of those identities should outrank:

Follower of Jesus Christ.

Political parties change.

Coalitions change.

Candidates come and go.

Christ remains Lord.

Pray for People With Whom You Disagree

Jesus said:

“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” – Matthew 5:44 (NASB 1995)

Most political opponents are not actually our enemies.

How much more should we pray for them?

Pray that God gives them wisdom.

Pray that they seek truth.

Pray that they recognize mistakes.

Pray for their families.

Pray for their health and safety.

Pray that God changes their minds where they are wrong.

And pray that God changes your mind where you are wrong.

That last prayer requires humility.

Remember What the Other Person Should See in Us

The ultimate question is larger than:

“Did I win the political argument?”

Ask:

“What did this person see of Jesus in the way I behaved?”

Did the person see honesty?

Courage?

Patience?

Humility?

Self-control?

Compassion?

Fairness?

Truth?

Grace?

Or did the person see the same anger, contempt, mockery, exaggeration, and hostility that already fill political culture?

Jesus said:

“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” – John 13:35 (NASB 1995)

Christian citizenship should look Christian even when the disagreement is political.

Practical Application

Choose someone with whom you disagree about an important issue.

Before explaining your position, ask the person to explain his or hers.

Do not interrupt.

Ask what experiences or evidence shaped the person’s view.

Summarize the position back and ask whether you understood correctly.

Identify something you genuinely agree about.

Identify the exact point where you disagree.

Ask what evidence might cause the person to reconsider.

Ask yourself what evidence might cause you to reconsider.

Research disputed factual claims before continuing the argument.

Avoid assigning motives.

Avoid labels unless they are accurate and necessary.

Do not mock.

Do not insult.

Explain your convictions clearly.

If the issue requires civic action, pursue that action lawfully and respectfully.

If the conversation becomes hostile or unproductive, know when to end it.

Pray for the person afterward.

And ask God whether there was anything you needed to learn.

Questions for Personal Reflection

Do I genuinely listen to people with whom I disagree?

Do I interrupt because I am already preparing my answer?

Can I explain an opposing position accurately?

Do I assume someone’s beliefs based upon a political label?

Do I define important terms before arguing about them?

Do I confuse listening with agreement?

Can I love someone while strongly opposing that person’s ideas?

Do I separate people from their political positions?

Do I assume bad motives without evidence?

Do I recognize that good intentions can still produce bad policy?

Can I identify common ground?

Can I identify the precise point of disagreement?

What evidence could change my mind about a public-policy question?

Am I willing to say, “I don’t know”?

Do I try to understand or merely win?

Does my tone communicate respect?

Do I use contempt, sarcasm, or name-calling?

Do I listen differently when someone is speaking from personal pain?

Do I know how to explain my Christian convictions to someone who does not share my faith?

Can I set appropriate boundaries when another person becomes hostile?

Do I know when it is time to stop an argument?

Have political disagreements damaged relationships unnecessarily?

Do I allow room for Christians to disagree about matters requiring prudential judgment?

Can I continue advocating strongly for an issue without hating people who oppose me?

Do I pray for people whose political beliefs trouble me?

Am I willing to ask God to correct me too?

When people disagree with me, can they still see the character of Christ in me?

A Prayer for Love and Understanding

Father, thank You for creating every person in Your image. Teach us to listen carefully to people with whom we disagree. Keep us from assuming motives, misrepresenting arguments, using contempt, or treating political opponents as though they have no value. Give us courage to hold firmly to truth and humility to recognize when we may be mistaken. Help us distinguish between listening and agreement, between loving a person and approving an idea, and between biblical truth and our own political judgments. Teach us to ask good questions, understand before answering, speak graciously, and pursue change without hatred. Give us patience in difficult conversations with family, friends, neighbors, church members, candidates, and public officials. Help us know when to speak, when to listen, and when to walk away from an unproductive argument. May our political engagement never become more important than our allegiance to Jesus Christ. Let people see His truth, grace, courage, humility, and love in the way we treat those with whom we disagree. In His name, Amen.

Christian Citizenship

Christian Living