'We have
obligations to people who differ from us. This does not involve agreeing with them. We have
an obligation to the truth, and that has priority over agreement with any
particular person. If someone is not in the truth, we have no right to agree.
We have no right even to minimize the importance of the difference.
Consequently, we owe them neither consent nor indifference. But what we owe
that person who differs from us, whoever that may be, is what we owe every
human being--we owe them love. And we owe it to them to deal with them
as we ourselves would like to be dealt with or treated. (Matthew 7:12)
How then
do we desire to be treated? First, we want people to know what we are saying or
meaning. If we are going to voice differences, therefore, we have an obligation
to make a serious effort to understand the person with whom we differ. That
person may have published books or articles. Then we should be acquainted with
those writings. It is not appropriate for us to voice sharp differences if we
have neglected to read what is available. The person with whom we differ should
have evidence that we have read carefully what has been written and that we
have attempted to understand its meaning. In the case of an oral exchange where
we don't have any written words, we owe the person who differs from us the
courtesy to listen carefully to what he or she says. Rather than preparing to
pounce on that person the moment he or she stops talking, we should concentrate
on apprehending precisely what his or her position is.'
Roger Nicole, 'Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us'. Available at: http://www.founders.org/journal/fj33/article3.html
