Don't Be That Guy

I cannot tell you how many times I've endured the frustrating process of arguing with someone who disagrees with me without actually understanding what I believe. You've seen it, too, I'm sure. They'll say something silly like, "You Christians take the Bible literally, so why don't you believe Jesus was a door? He said He was." An extreme, perhaps, but you get the idea. Or they'll tell me, "You believe that God chooses whom He will save, so why evangelize?" Not so extreme that time. Over and over I will tell them that my position is A, and they will tell me why B is wrong and C is right. "But ... I agree that B is wrong." "Irrelevant!" Sigh. And then I read this:

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion (Prov 18:2).

In my rush to be "holier than thou" (because, if we're honest, most of us rush to that), I point and I say, "See? That's what I'm talking about!" And it is. They aren't trying to understand. They're trying to express their opinions. And I feel smug ... for just a moment. Only a short time because, as it turns out, most of us stand equally guilty.

I remember some time ago arguing (I'm using the term "arguing" here and in the first paragraph simply as a reference to debating, not necessarily fighting) with someone about baptism. He told me that infant baptism was right. I told him it wasn't. The truth was that I had never actually examined the position for paedobaptism. I knew the position for believer's baptism. Why look any further? So I stood convicted myself of taking no pleasure in understanding, but simply expressing my own opinion. When I became aware of this, I realized that I needed to understand. So I spent some time examining the evidence. What were the arguments? Where did they come from? Why were they held? Who held them? I got so familiar with the position that I could actually defend it because I did understand it. Now, keep in mind, I didn't agree with it, but I finally understood it.

I found that that perspective gave me some benefits. First, it gave me a better relationship with those with whom I disagreed on the subject. They were no longer a lunatic fringe believing nonsense without reason. I didn't think they were right, but I could see why they thought they were and it wasn't outlandish. Second, I could actually address the arguments rather than simply express my own opinions. "I know what you're saying. I understand. Now here's why I disagree." And the "here's why I disagree" would be more accurately targeted and, thus, more possibly effective. Finally, it gave me better footing for myself. Having swept away opinion and guesswork, I could now see where they stood and where I stand and be more certain of what was right. Indeed, sometimes that meant that, after all was said and done, I was not right. But being corrected isn't a problem, is it? Well, not for me.

In my experience it is fairly common for people to live out Proverbs 18:2. "Understanding? Irrelevant! I'm just here to explain why you're wrong!" You know, along the lines of that whole "Someone is wrong on the Internet" idea. But I would be remiss in suggesting that it's always "them". In too many cases, it's "us". It is the Creationist who hasn't fully examined the Evolutionists arguments but still rises to refute them. It is the Apologist who hasn't carefully understood the skeptic but still thinks he has the weapons to defeat him. It is the biblical literalist who isn't really understanding the position of the "not-literalist" but think that by handing them the Bible they should be able to come to an agreement ... with us. We all, I think, have a tendency to take less pleasure in understanding and more pleasure in expressing our opinions because the fundamental premise of the sin nature is foolishness. And arguing foolishly isn't a good idea. It is neither effective nor moral.

Don't be that guy.