Dissent is something normal. But it can also be the wrong reaction. Dissent can be painful. Dissent does not always have to do with the one contradicted, but with the one who opposes. Those who point the finger at others sometimes only reflect themselves. That’s what this post is about.

Approval and dissent

It’s remarkable what you trigger when you step outside with your understanding, when you go “public” with text or videos or in some other way. That’s true for anyone who does it – no matter what the subject. It doesn’t have to be on a website. Anyone who asks the pastor of his congregation sensitive questions in a personal conversation, for example, can sometimes experience direct headwind. Anyone who speaks critically about perceived abuse is readily blocked immediately. Even those who may only be evaluating ideas different from those tacitly accepted in the community may feel the wind from the front. Suddenly you become a reference point for all kinds of reactions. What other people tell me coincides with my own experience: The opposition often comes “out of the blue”. The insight here is that people do not like to be disturbed in their own thinking.

On the one hand, reactions are intentional and wonderful, because one has consciously stepped outside. If one is met with silence, that would be much worse. Of course, this includes the risk of not being understood. And: Whoever steps outside does not have to be in the right. Even I don’t understand everyone right away – unfortunately. Anyone who expresses an opinion will immediately find himself challenged by other opinions. I may be unintentionally doing someone an injustice with my portrayal. However, I want to take this risk, because I rejoice in the life and grace of God and I want to exchange ideas about it – without any claim to divine faultlessness.

Some of the reactions:

But these are not the only reactions.

Only it is striking how many want to sharpen my face, in the full conviction that they are the right correction for my “erroneous views”. Those who step outside with personal questions often have the same experiences. Dissent often follows posthaste, especially from people who consider themselves “proper believers” but judge others to be “false believers.”

Only it is striking how many want to sharpen my face, in the full conviction that they are the right correction for my “erroneous views”.

From this corner then come denunciations, insinuations, as well as helpless rejection, demarcation or even exclusion from community activities or the community itself. Occasionally this degenerates: I am denied faith, I am accused of demonic possession, and other such things. Why? It is helplessness. As soon as you try to call a spade a spade, you obviously shake the world view of others.

Some feel personally attacked in their worldview by a critical discussion. Others even think they have to protect the world from me – one witnesses the birth of a modern crusader. This happens particularly quickly where people think in pigeonholes, in categories of right/wrong. Since this kind of black-and-white thinking is most pronounced in evangelical circles, people in these circles are most likely to run into distress and opposition when serious questions arise. What are possible triggers for this type of reaction? We take a closer look below. For the moment, it can be noted:

Approval and dissent can be close to each other. Both are real.

Fellow soldiers and crusaders

There are other reactions as well:

That is a tragedy in itself. But I understand it well. How nice it would be, could you find a comrade-in-arms! Everyone wants to experience understanding and acceptance. That’s why ideas and thoughts are sometimes submitted to me, in the quiet hope that I might be inspired by them. I can understand that, even if I don’t share the enthusiasm or follow the inference. I am often too sober for such teachings. As the saying goes, “If you’re open to everything, something is not quite right”. No one can go along with everything that is brought to him.

Courage for the gap is therefore needed, in love and with understanding for the otherness of the other person. We do not have to approve of everything and are therefore far from having a self-righteous attitude. Sometimes a clear demarcation is needed, especially when there is an encroaching response. Sectarian thinking may and should be called by its name.

Whoever resists during these two reactions, that is, whoever does not become a comrade-in-arms and whoever does not independently climb the scaffold after the first threat, will experience immediate opposition, slander and all the other things that have already been mentioned here above. That’s where the selfish goal of the action quickly becomes apparent. It is not uncommon to be immediately placed in the ranks of “fake Christians” for not supporting the noble goals.

These things don’t happen on the Internet alone, of course. It’s just that the thresholds there seem to be lower than when you’re sitting directly across from someone in a conversation. I get the most blatant reactions from people I don’t know and who don’t know me.

Because these experiences drag on endlessly, I am now no longer squeamish about blocking Twitter accounts, blocking YouTube comments, and the like. Some allow themselves to put people on a mailing list without being asked, and then bombard them daily with unsolicited messages. Then all the frustration is projected outward and, amazingly, these people do not respond to any personal inquiries. They can no longer be reached personally, despite several requests, which is especially tragic. I also radically turn off these reactions. I have set up an email filter called “Reli-Spam” for this purpose.

Others think it is outrageous that you are not allowed to post comments and try to challenge me via chat services or otherwise. It almost seems to me that some contemporaries can only feel themselves when you can talk about others in massless self-righteousness. Here, too, there are then short block noises until silence returns. The calm, wherein again can be properly exchanged with other people – even with different understanding.

Living with contradiction

Life is demanding. It is often necessary to form an opinion so that you can take the next step. Those who try to find answers to questions of life and faith cannot just get stuck in questions. A fruitful debate also requires the courage to accept something – even if it is only a provisional hypothesis – as an answer. However, if one is in a black and white thinking environment, then one quickly gets into the devil’s kitchen – gladly also disguised as a Christian.

A little courage of one’s own opinion is already enough to experience rejection from others. Those who find the courage to reorient themselves in the most difficult situations in their lives, who have experienced abuse in one of its many forms and free themselves from it, will automatically be confronted with contradiction. One could have clapped from sheer enthusiasm, but one does not. Instead, people react out of fear, scent danger and issue warnings. The more conservative the view, the stronger the reaction. For those who have not yet gone through such development processes, new considerations are first of all “extreme” views that are quickly met with rejection.

Opposition is also experienced where old structures are broken up and what should not be is put up for discussion. Contradiction here is merely the attempt not to allow a serious argument in any case, because this brings with it the danger of change. It is better to leave everything in the familiar world view.

The dissent therefore tells first of the speaker’s defense, more than of the thing that is opposed.

As different as the reactions are, they also reflect the diversity of our humanity. We don’t all think alike, and we don’t have to. Opposition is primarily a reaction of the opponent. The dissent therefore tells first of the speaker’s defense, more than of the thing that is opposed.

Dealing with other opinions

I have been actively engaged in some theological issues for about 40 years. These issues are important to me. Of course, these are not the only important issues – they are not pet projects. The dispute made me read and compare everything I could get my hands on. I have considered a wide variety of interpretations and arguments, examined texts in detail according to the Greek and Hebrew text, while reading in context. Nevertheless, everything I think remains only my personal understanding.

Meanwhile, it seems funny to me when people oppose me with arguments that I already got to the bottom of 30 or more years ago. It is not uncommon for people to assume that I have not read the Bible properly. One cannot imagine that one’s internalized “biblical teaching” may not be so biblical upon closer examination. Arrogance is the result – people think they have to correct me quickly, but fail to recognize the legitimacy of the argument. Dealing with other opinions must be learned. This can only be done with humility and honest questions.

Living with dissent is therefore demanding. An example: If someone thinks, for example, that the Bible teaches that man has an “immortal soul,” then I oppose this view by pointing out that the idea is not found in the Bible. This is not an opinion, but a statement. I determined this by taking the trouble to look up all 800+ Bible passages naming “soul” and examine them in context. An immortal soul is nowhere mentioned. On the contrary, there is talk of “dead souls” and the like. My opposition is the result of a serious argument.

If we disagree, there may be a valid reason. However, this does not mean that anyone else must or can share this view. Maybe the sockets are missing for the plug I pass. Perhaps I also lack the sockets myself to be able to classify the plugs handed to me. The last thing happened to me more than once. It has sometimes taken me years to recognize views as valuable and “true.” This also applies to contexts in the Bible. I needed time.

However, we do not have to agree on everything by hook or by crook. Let’s listen to what Paul has to say about different religious assessments:

“Have thou the faith which thou hast for thyself in the sight of God! Blessed is he who does not need to judge himself in what he considers approved.”
Rom 14:22

“Brothers, I do not yet consider myself to have grasped it. But I do one thing: I forget what is behind me and reach out to what is before me. In this way I chase after the goal, after the prize of God’s calling above in Christ Jesus. Now all of us who have matured may be mindful of this; and if you are otherwise minded in anything, God will reveal this also to you. Meanwhile, in what we overtake others, we should be of the same mind, to follow the basic rules according to the same guideline.”
Phil 3:13-16

So is it important to be right? Of course not! Is it important to critically question yourself? Certainly! It is simply part of it that we – each for himself – form our own opinion, our own understanding. This also applies to questions of faith.

Dealing with different opinions is not about either rejecting or approving something. Paul points out that we have our faith before God, and before Him alone. There is no need for projections onto other people. Relaxation is the order of the day. He estimates himself in such a way that he, the apostle (!), has not grasped it so far. But he reaches out because he wants to take hold of what he has been called to do. This is the attitude of faith that does not get stuck in black and white thinking, but humbly leaves room for God’s work. Paul has always taken a clear stand, but he does not emphasize his knowledge, but refers to Christ.

That is how I would like to handle it.

Deepening

• They say you are still not free if you cannot laugh heartily at yourself and your findings. How do you interpret this?