Disagreeing without Disparaging
I recently made a new friend who is devoutly Buddhist. It was interesting to swap stories of our religious experiences and describe what we think is happening cosmically.
Photo by Edmond Dantès.
We both listened carefully and curiously. There was true appreciation on both sides for the care the other took in describing their worldview.
This experience got me thinking: What goes into doing this well? How do we best navigate such stark differences? How do I honour the honesty of my interlocutor when I find their premises unpersuasive? And is it advisable or misguided to resist the more aggressive models of conflict surrounding us?
One version of religious conviction would have me politely condescend, insisting that my friend is incorrect. I can listen as long and attentively as I like but only for the purpose of more precisely raising my objections.
Another attitude, a more pluralistic one, would have me respect the content of their conviction as equally valid to that of my own. I can say something is “not for me” but I must not suggest I have enough insight to deem their beliefs unlikely or incorrect.
These two approaches make different assumptions about how convictions correspond with reality. There are similar questions about our ability to accurately perceive and interpret reality.
Intuitively, it seems to me that a both gracious and integrity-led course of action lies somewhere between these two poles. Neither pious condescension nor ideological equality ring true.
But what does? How can I best navigate worldview differences with grace, humility, integrity, and spiritual maturity?
TWO COMPONENTS
A possible key to answering my question is found in the contrast between two components of conviction: content and experience.
On one hand, my friend and I both have ideas about what’s going on:
He is confident that deliverance and fullness are found in enlightenment.
I think that atonement for sin and the path to wholeness are found in Jesus Christ.
The content of our convictions are different, even mutually exclusive insofar as they make opposing assertions about reality.
On the other hand, each of us are having experiences that produce and shape our convictions:
We both read ancient scriptures that claim to deliver divine revelation.
We’ve both spent and spend time with other humans who share our current convictions and have left a formative impression on us.
Our lives have changed and improved as a result of our faith in different paths of deliverance. We’ve lived with fluctuating confidence in different convictions and observed the results that range from undesirable to desirable.
While the content of our convictions stand in disagreement with one another’s, we are simultaneously having formative experiences. My Buddhist friend is sharing his honest interpretation of the events he has lived and the results of the choices he has been making.
I don’t see how the content of our convictions can be true in the same way and at the same time. And as I listen to him describe the content of his faith, I do not find it persuasive.
But I can experience sincere gratitude for his willingness and care in sharing about it. I can even appreciate the honesty with which he seeks to interpret his experience and refine the content of his convictions.
INTEGRITY IN TOLERANCE
Some in my circle think conceding this much compromises my integrity. If I believe that they are wrong, admiring the virtue with which someone embraces their mistakenness should deal an injury to my conscience.
On the contrary, it would go against my conscious to presume my experience and understanding of what God has shown me is guaranteed to be more reliable than my friend’s.
I do trust that I’ve been led into the truth by a generous, loving God who desires that his creatures know him and share in the life and wholeness he’s created for us. And I believe my friend and I are on equal footing in possessing equally valid humanity and the agency to to engage with our stories, shaping them and interpreting them.
The bottom line: I am convinced I can honour my friend’s journey whether or not I believe they are correct or mistaken. Appreciating and affirming their honesty does not threaten my integrity.