SHOULD
ALL OPINIONS BE RESPECTED?
In
our current societal discourse in many facets, e.g. political, theological,
cultural, etc., the church should be an agent of unity rather than disunity.
Often, the opposite is true; yet, God calls us to primarily exemplify the unity
of Christ among each other but also to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark
12:31). Jesus’ command here is in the greater context of giving us what to what
he refers as the two greatest commandments. The Greek word for neighbor here, plesion, simply means someone who is
near and does not suggest a specific group of people such as other Christians,
i.e. Jesus implies that everyone is our neighbor. Our love for others is
derived from the greatest commandment: to love God above all else with all our
heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), for when we love God above all
else, our love for others increases because we begin to view others in the same
light as God himself. How then are we to handle dissonant discussions of vital
material among all people in our society? The church is given the
responsibility to love everyone so we are not exempt from that command in any
situation including tense dialogue. The question at work here is this: should
all opinions be respected? I shall argue that all opinions should be respected
in scope but limited in application, i.e. everyone is to be loved, heard, and
even understood while absolute agreement is not necessary. Before continuing,
it should be noted that everyone is different and, thus, possesses different
opinions, which is okay and good. Without diversity, we would not need to have
important discussions as we so often do. We should enter our dialogue with
other believers and even non-believers realizing this fact. To properly engage
in tense dialogue as Christians, I have three imperatives to bear in mind.
Determine the Essentials
In answering the question of whether all opinions should
be respected, we must first determine the essentials. At the core of our
opinions, essentials are usually few and far between, i.e. people are often
more passionate about secondary issues than perhaps they ought to be and not as
passionate about those few issues that matter above all else. What then is
essential? For this discussion, let me suggest that essentials are those issues
which are absolute and from which we must never waver. These are issues that
define us as humans, not as particular religions, denominations, or political
parties. Life, for example, is essential. I will even suggest that issues like
healthcare are not. It is certainly good and important to have informed
opinions on secondary issues; yet, they are still just that: secondary.
Essentials could seem ambiguous; yet, again, I will
clarify that essentials are few and far between; therefore, the chances of an
issue actually being essential are not high. As we engage in cultural
discussions with people, we should understand that we will likely have
disparate opinions from even those within our same affinity circles such as
local churches and political groups. What unites us, however, are those items
that we find essential to humanity. We should not waver from loving everyone;
we should not waver from respecting life; and we should not waver, as
Christians, from proclaiming Jesus Christ as the only way with a love and
respect toward all people. That from which we may waver, are the
non-essentials; essentials, however, once determined must be of utmost
importance.
Determine the Non-Essentials
If essentials are few and far between, non-essentials are
most issues we tend to discuss. I do not intend to negate the importance of
forming a valuable opinion on issues; I do submit, nonetheless, that the issues
which cause the most division in our society are non-essential. Indeed, the
issues about which we find ourselves most passionate are usually non-essential,
e.g. healthcare, immigration, and even the type of government which we have
such as democratic, socialist, etc. These are crucial issues but still
non-essential; thus, there should be room for disagreement and mutual respect
for all opinions, although there often is not. When an issue is determined to
be non-essential, as people of God, it is our responsibility not to engage in
more division. An example of division here is a dissenting response on an
online social media post, which is fueled by our (usually ignorant, immature,
and unnecessary) growing anger over a topic. Keep in mind that most issues are
non-essential. In fact, I would challenge you to find many essential issues
about which people are often upset on social media. When reasoned, we quickly
realize that most of the divisiveness in our society is unnecessary. Perhaps,
the best approach is to usually stay out of these fly-by discussions and to
only have tense conversations in person with a limited group of people. In such
a case, we can clearly express our opinions but also leave room for mutual
respect toward those who hold different beliefs. When we reason what is
essential and what is non-essential before engaging in discussions, it should
affect the way we proceed and communicate (or do not communicate) with others.
Always Respect People
Concluding, we should perpetually respect everyone. This
does not mean, however, that we must always agree with everyone even (and
especially) when it is attempted to guilt us into agreeing. It also does not
mean that all opinions are valid; yet, even one with an invalid opinion should
be respected. The reasons for one’s invalid opinion are vast, e.g.
misinformation, wrong beliefs, family upbringing, etc. There is certainly wisdom
in seeing and hearing another perspective even if you are sure that you will
not agree with that perspective. You could be surprised and change your view,
as happens more often than you may think so at least try to see another side.
We must remember that our disagreement is also an opinion so why is ours more
valid than another’s? It might truly be more valid; nevertheless, it is
impossible to know unless we understand another’s perspective. If, after
hearing another perspective, which requires mutual respect, we still disagree,
it validates our opinion perhaps even more. Enter these discussions with an
open and neutral mind, for that is the only way to begin to see another point
of view. When our opinion is informed then, we should realize the foundation of
what we believe and respect those who believe differently, particularly on
non-essential issues.
I
suggest that respect for all opinions is necessary in scope but limited in
application. In general, most issues which we discuss are non-essential so respect
is vital in those conversations. Essential issues are few; yet, these are the
issues from which we must not waver. In these cases, e.g. human life, any
opinion that blatantly contradicts basic human rights is not worthy to be
respected. Certainly, respect the person; they must know, however, why their
view is wrong. In general, I should caution, however, against engaging in these
conversations unless prompted and among a limited group of people. As people of
God, we are called to love everyone, which also encompasses respecting
everyone. Contrary to popular belief, respect should not be earned; it should
be something that we, as the church, give out of love for Christ. Do not waver
on essential, issues; yet, because they are so few, we should mutually respect
everyone and their opinions on non-essential issues. Should all opinions be
respected then? No, but most should; moreover, all people should be respected.
If we abide by these principles, we might live in a more fruitful and
productive society even among non-believers.
