Imagine this: you’re scrolling through Facebook, some big political news has just dropped, and you want to see what people think about it. You don’t have to scroll too far until you find a particularly inflammatory post. You click on the comments and unknowingly enter into an explosive battlefield. Insults are slung like grenades, holes are poked in personalities like bullets, everyone is stupid, but everyone also thinks they’re right.
Maybe you decide to engage. Maybe you passively like a few of the comments you agree with. Or maybe you decide it’s not worth it and scroll on past.
There used to be a term called “civil discourse”. This might actually be extinct in today’s polarizing world. We’re plagued with all-or-nothing thinking; every conversation feels like warfare. We don our armor as we type out our thoughts, strap on our boots when we look over it for the 1000th time, and secure our helmets when we press “post”.
Other times, we change our minds and take all our armor off, deleting everything we just wrote. We just don’t have the energy to start another battle over our words.
We’ve gone from disagreeing about ideas and beliefs to destroying people who hold different worldviews. And we’re presented with an impossible choice: you either agree with everything completely or believe the exact opposite and hate everyone who thinks differently than you.
Nuanced positions, where we take a little from each “side” and create our own special cocktail of ideals, are now impossible to maintain.
How did we get here?
The Death of Intellectual Humility
How did discourse become warfare? What have we lost along the way? I’d argue we’re not able to be intellectually humble anymore. We aren’t able to hold opinions lightly or admit uncertainty. And we definitely can’t change our minds when presented with new evidence. Intellectual humility used to be considered a virtue. But now, it’s seen as a weakness. Like we don’t actually know what we believe. We’re pressured to have an opinion on everything, and if we don’t, we “don’t care” or we’re “passive”.
This shift has fundamentally altered how we approach disagreement.
The Disappearance of “I Don’t Know”
“I don’t know.”
An honest and wise admission of uncertainty transformed into a weakness overnight. Especially with social media, we’re pressured to have confident opinions on every complex issue we come across. We’re expected to read one extreme viewpoint and then look for the opposite. We then have to decide which of the two fits our self-confirmed narratives. Which one feels better to us? Which one is more popular?
When pressured to express our viewpoints on certain topics, saying “I haven’t looked into it enough to have an opinion” feels dangerous. Especially when so many other people have confidently made their stances. Stepping back for thoughtful consideration is almost frowned upon. But confident and potentially damaging viewpoints are rewarded and shared. This is why the most inflammatory posts seem to go viral.
Proverbs 18:2 warns us that, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion.”
We’ve become a culture that values having opinions more than seeking understanding.
And what if you finally decide to take a stance on something only to be proven wrong?
The Fear of Being Wrong
In true science, being proven wrong is more than welcome. This is how research grows and develops. But in our society today, being wrong is looked at as shameful and embarrassing, not educational. As a culture, we no longer value learning. We’d rather be right all the time. Sometimes, when we’re presented with compelling viewpoints, instead of admitting error, we double down on our bad positions. We refuse any new information that could potentially disprove our ideas.
“I hadn’t considered that perspective before” is a foreign phrase, and “Hmm, I was wrong all along” never dares to leave our lips.
Pride convinces us that changing our minds makes us look foolish, when actually it makes us look teachable. It tells us that admitting error is weakness, when it’s actually strength.
Proverbs 16:18 says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
We need to be able to swallow our pride and be open to hearing other viewpoints without the fear of being wrong.
The Courage to Change Your Mind
If presented with new and compelling evidence that does prove us wrong, it feels like we can’t just “switch sides”.
What would people think if I decided to be pro-___ instead of anti-___ like I’ve been?!
Changing our positions on topics is looked at as “flip-flopping” instead of as intellectual growth. Instead of applauding education, we punish people for evolving their thinking. And the opposing side shouts, “No! We don’t want you over here!”
Intellectual growth requires the freedom to be wrong and change our minds.
But we also can’t just change our minds for convenience. There’s a difference between evolving based on new evidence versus switching positions because it’s socially easier or politically convenient. One shows intellectual integrity, the other shows opportunism.
When Ideology Becomes Identity
What happens when we base our entire self-definition on what we believe? Instead of evaluating singular ideas, we feel like we have to choose a prepackaged bundle of ideas that “go together”. And then we slap a label on ourselves, depending on which package we chose. But then, if our ideas change, what does that mean about our identities? Should we just choose to never change our beliefs to prevent an identity crisis?
From “I Believe” to “I Am”
When we sacrifice our identities to our belief systems, we shift our thinking from “I think ___ is true” to “I am someone who thinks ____ is true.” When someone comes along questioning our position, it feels like they’re attacking our core identities. If we base our identities around our beliefs, genuine dialogue becomes nearly impossible. If anyone disagrees with us, it must mean they hate us as a person! How can we have civil discourse when it feels like our character is being attacked?
The Tribal Mindset
“Hello! Would you like Package A or Package B?”
“Ooh, I love this part of A…but, oh, this part of B is beautiful! Can I combine elements from each package?”
“No. You can only choose the elements in A or in B. They can’t be combined or separated.”
“But I only need these elements from A and these from B. Don’t you have a custom package option?”
“Nope. Package A or Package B.”
The same thing happens in society. This all-or-nothing, either-or thinking forces us to choose which camp to set up in. It’s absolutely unthinkable to consider setting up in the woods over there!
With this comes the pressure to agree with everything your “side” believes, regardless if it’s a belief you truly hold or not. We can no longer evaluate individual ideas on their merit. Instead, we’re forced to accept these packaged deals of beliefs—departing from any part of our “tribe’s” belief system feels like betrayal.
And how would that look to the other side?!
It’s no wonder everyone gets so riled up—we’re exhausted from trying to fit into our predetermined, self-selected ideological boxes.
Identity Crisis When Views Change
What happens when our beliefs evolve, but our identities were created around those beliefs? We lose our sense of selves and wonder, “Who am I if I don’t believe this anymore?” It makes sense then why we resist new information to protect our identities. If we’re proven wrong, that means our entire personas must be wrong. By admitting the other “side” is right, we lose ourselves completely.
The Insult Economy
With so many polarizing opinions comes the risk of dehumanizing and vilifying entire groups of people with opposite beliefs. We shifted to insulting and demeaning people based on their views, and we even get hits of dopamine from shutting people down.
Character Assassination Over Arguments
Colossians 4:6 tells us, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”
We are instructed to speak to each other with kindness, love, gentleness, and thoughtful words. But we’ve replaced discussing ideas with attacking the people who hold them.
“All ___ are stupid!” we shout.
We use it as a cop-out; it’s so much easier to call someone stupid than to address their points. Attacking someone’s character seems to be the primary debate strategy. And social media doesn’t help at all. Our algorithms reward personal attacks over thoughtful responses.
If our social media sites value engagement, what will they push? Rage-bait so we get riled up and comment, share, and like? Or thoughtful content that we might all find something to actually agree with?
Our platforms know angry people will engage more, comment more, share more. Thoughtful content then gets buried while inflammatory attacks go viral and fill our feeds.
Dopamine Hit of “Owning” Opponents
Social media platforms profit from our engagement, not our enlightenment. Their algorithms deliberately feed us content that triggers strong emotional responses because angry, outraged users click more, share more, and stay online longer. The angrier we get, the more money they make.
These platforms use sophisticated algorithms that learn exactly what makes us angry and feed us more of it. They show us the most extreme examples of the other side while hiding reasonable voices that might actually help us find common ground.
Unfortunately, “destroying” someone online has become our new Roman arena. We love to scan the comments for the “tea” and read about people getting proven wrong. Our brains can actually become addicted to the dopamine hits we get when fighting with people online. We get addicted to feeling righteous indignation and moral superiority. We convince ourselves we’re doing a public service—educating the masses and making examples of the ignorant.
This can lead to us seeking out bad-faith arguments just to feel intellectually superior. As I touched on in the previous post, Offended By Being Offended, we get stuck looking for things to offend us so we can suit up in our keyboard warrior armor, and let them have it! But this tactic turns serious issues into performance opportunities, trivializing actual problems.
The Bible says in Ephesians 4:29, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building up others according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”
Tearing poor Grandma apart for her beliefs won’t build anyone up.
The Shutdown Culture
Like a mouse backed into a corner, we developed failsafes to use when we have nowhere else to go. When it feels like we’re losing an argument, all we have to do is utter the words “problematic”, “toxic”, “harmful”, or—our special cheat code—“offensive”, and there we go! End of conversation.
Certain phrases like these are used now to end conversations instead of engaging with them. We weaponize terms to slash our opponent’s argument to pieces, ending the whole argument altogether. We completely shut down the very conversations we need to have.
Labeling something as offensive is the ultimate debate-ending move. How can you appeal to someone who is now claiming to be offended by something you’re saying?
Our hearts harden like rocks, our minds made up completely that we can’t even listen to the other side. We can’t possibly hear something they say that we might actually agree with, so we instead just shut the whole thing down.
When we can’t win through argument and can’t end through shutdown tactics, we’re left with an impossible choice: pick a predetermined side or face the consequences of independence.
The Middle Ground is No Man’s Land
In today’s world, we don’t have to be two warring camps. Instead of being forced into Team A or Team B, we can exist somewhere in the nuanced middle with complex, individual viewpoints. We can all set up our own camps wherever we’d like.
But our culture makes this almost impossible.
Punishment for Nuance
Why is the middle ground such a problem? A lot of the time, complex positions get labeled as fence-sitting or even cowardice. Moderates get attacked by both extremes for not being “pure” enough. We’re not allowed to agree with some points from one side and some points from another for risk of being “controversial” or “lukewarm”. But political sides aren’t like Christianity. We won’t be condemned for all eternity for being a lukewarm conservative or liberal.
It’s no wonder some of us choose to not partake in politics altogether. We don’t fit in either box. Sure, we could try to make our own box, but at what cost?
The Traitor Treatment
What happens when you go about your life believing one thing, but then end up changing your mind? Does your old party send you off with a goodbye celebration and the new party welcomes you with love? Probably not. A lot of the time, former allies attack those who change their minds. We’re treated as traitors for ideological evolution or defection. Sometimes, former believers are hated more than lifelong opponents. And the new party wants nothing to do with us. They’ll lock their doors and double down on security to make sure we can’t get in. “No, we believe what you believe now!” we’ll tell them. But it doesn’t matter because we’re from the opposing party.
This punishment reveals something troubling about our motivations. Proverbs 3:30 says, “Do not contend with a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm.“
What “harm” have you been afflicted with by someone leaving your party or someone new trying to join?
The Loneliness of Independent Thinking
When it comes to certain stances on issues, one might always seem more popular than the other. When we think for ourselves on complex issues, we might come up with a different viewpoint and be scared to speak up. We stay quiet because our position might not be trendy, popular, or politically “acceptable”. Being intellectually independent leads to social exile from all “tribes”. But we still get pressured to choose a side, even when neither of them feel completely right. We’d much rather be silent than risk being politically homeless or attacked for being moderate.
This isolation drives people to pick a side they don’t fully believe in or to withdraw from civic engagement completely.
Why This Matters for Our Souls
The Spiritual Cost of Hatred
1 John 4:20 says, “Whoever claims to love God but hates a brother or sister is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother or sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”
We are called to love one another, especially our enemies. Constant outrage and demonization of others eventually affects our hearts. Hatred corrupts our ability to see others as image-bearers of God. When we vilify those who disagree with us, we dehumanize them and strip away the fact that they were also created in the image of God. Jesus’s command to love our enemies has become countercultural. Instead of wishing the best for our enemies, we want revenge, to destroy their arguments, and prove that they’re incompetent in comparison to ourselves.
In turn, this hardens our hearts and leaves us unable to see other people as human beings with their own life experiences and values.
When we’re known more for our political hatred than our Christ-like love, we damage our witness and testimonies to a watching world.
How can we share the gospel of reconciliation and grace when we can’t even have respectful conversations with those who disagree with us?
This spiritual heart problem creates a practical communication problem.
The Lost Art of Persuasion
With this new norm of destroying those who think differently than us, we’ve lost the art of trying to convince each other. True persuasion requires basic respect for the person we’re trying to reach. Name calling and insults won’t persuade someone to consider our viewpoints.
There’s a stark difference between changing minds and changing votes.
Changing votes might happen through tribal pressure, fear tactics, or social conformity—the person goes along without genuine conviction. Changing minds requires patience, respect, and actual persuasion. It means someone has been genuinely convinced, not just pressured into compliance.
If we have contempt and disrespect for opponents, we can guarantee they’ll never want to listen to us. We have to have basic respect for all, otherwise we operate in an unreasonable environment. Trying to have reasonable conversations in an unreasonable culture will get us absolutely nowhere. We’ll be shouting into the void with no one to listen to us.
But what if there’s another way? What if we could reclaim the lost art of respectful disagreement and rebuild our capacity for civil discourse?
The Path Back to Civil Discourse and Respectful Disagreements
How can we disagree with each other without resorting to personal attacks or self-righteousness? The path forward requires both internal and external changes.
Separating Ideas from Identity
Firstly, we need to separate our ideas from our core identities. We must learn how to hold beliefs more lightly while still caring about truth. We almost have to relearn how to interact with each other and how to disagree with someone’s ideas without demonizing them as a person. Instead of saying, “You think this, so you’re clearly uneducated!” we need to shift to “I don’t agree, but I can see where you’re coming from.” Politics change constantly and building an identity on such an unstable, ever-changing foundation will send us into more than one identity crisis. Instead, we need to build our identities on a solid, unchanging foundation.
“For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 3:11)
This mental shift from “I am my beliefs” to “I hold these beliefs” creates emotional space for genuine dialogue and intellectual growth.
Creating Space for Growth
Instead of rejecting others, we need to welcome those who may have changed their minds based on new evidence. We need to reward intellectual curiosity over ideological purity. We can create safe spaces for everyone to say “I don’t know” or “I’m still thinking about this”. Instead of punishing intellectual evolution, we can encourage it and allow ourselves to grow.
How do we practically create this space? We can start by celebrating when someone says “I’ve changed my mind about this” instead of mocking them for inconsistency. We can make it safe for people to admit uncertainty by modeling it ourselves. When someone shares a nuanced position, we can resist the urge to demand they pick a side. Most importantly, we can build communities where intellectual growth is rewarded more than ideological loyalty.
This means checking our own responses when someone evolves their thinking. Instead of “I told you so,” we can say “I appreciate your honesty.” Instead of demanding explanations for past positions, we can focus on current understanding.
Charitable Interpretation & Bridges
“What would it look like if this person was right?”
This is a question we can ask ourselves before dismissing someone’s belief. Instead of automatically demonizing someone and their viewpoints, we can try to assume the best possible interpretation of someone’s position before we critique it. We can replace contempt with curiosity in our approach to disagreement. In doing so, we’re able to build bridges instead of walls. We might even find that we share values with people who reach different conclusions.
Our thinking can shift from “either/or” to “both/and”. Swallowing our pride and agreeing where possible while disagreeing where necessary allows for mature, respectful conversations. It’s not impossible to maintain a relationship with someone on the other side from you. We can “agree to disagree” (and I’m not just saying this to placate anyone). And we can create spaces where people can change their minds without losing their communities.
Instead of thinking “This person is an idiot,” we can ask “What experiences might have led them to this conclusion?” Instead of assuming malice, we can assume maybe poorly expressed good intentions.
What’s Possible When We Choose Respect
The vision of civil discourse isn’t just about being nicer to each other—it’s about creating a culture where truth can actually emerge through respectful dialogue. Imagine conversations where people feel safe to admit uncertainty, where changing your mind based on evidence is celebrated, where disagreement doesn’t mean dehumanization.
This transformation starts with each of us choosing respect over ridicule, curiosity over contempt. Every conversation is an opportunity to model the discourse we want to see. When we choose to engage ideas rather than attack people, we plant seeds of change in our fractured culture.
We can disagree without being disagreeable. We can stand for truth while treating others with dignity. We can be both convicted and humble, both passionate and respectful.
The question isn’t whether we’ll ever agree on everything—we won’t. The question is whether we’ll choose to see each other as fellow image-bearers worth listening to, even when we disagree.
Our watching world desperately needs to see what respectful disagreement looks like. Let’s show them what it means to put away “bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander” and instead be “kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:31-32).
Even in our most heated disagreements.
