The Danger of Demonizing: Truth and the "Other Guy"

Though we would all like to think that we are "just being reasonable" in holding to our own particular beliefs, the truth is that, no matter what you believe, there will always be many, many intelligent people out there that disagree with you! If you are anything like me (or most radio talk show hosts), this poses a persistent and irritating problem - namely, how to account for these people and their aberrant beliefs. Certainly you can ignore those who disagree with you, or simply choose not to think about the fact that they do disagree, but chances are that sooner or later you will have to come to grips with the difference and decide both what you think of "the other guy" (i.e. what his "problem" is), and how you are going to deal with his disagreement. Holy Wars and Abolitionist Movements aside, I believe that most of us have already, in fact, made several of these subtle decisions in our minds and are already experiencing, to some extent, the (good or bad) consequences of our own particular choices. I do not think, however, that we have always made the right decision with regard to the treatment of our fellow contender!

As far as I can tell, we have three options regarding what we think of those who disagree with us - we can choose to believe that they are intentionally ignoring the truth because of a character flaw in themselves (i.e. their pride will not let them tolerate the idea), we can sympathetically insist on their ignorance of the truth (i.e. they simply haven't heard that one compelling argument for the idea), or we can (perhaps too humbly) assume that the other person must disagree because she or he knows more about the subject than we do (i.e. their vast scientific research must have offered compelling proofs for the validity of the idea that I am simply not aware of).

Of course, all three of these options have their own unique faults and virtues, and it would be easy to argue that most of our actual encounters with the people that hold to these opposing beliefs actually evoke a complicated mixture of two or even all three of these responses in us. Obviously, we will not always consider other people experts in every field of belief, just as we should not consider all people to be willfully ignorant of the truth! More often we will listen to disagreement with a kind of sincere curiosity, aware of the many factors that play into both our own and the other person's beliefs and assumptions. I think that this is healthy... Most of the time charity will require us to hold on to our own beliefs tentatively, knowing as we do that though we must act on what we believe to be true, we are often mistaken about the details of our understanding through our own faults and ignorances! All too often, however, I feel that we do not offer all people this "benefit of the doubt".

Where most of us tend to get into trouble is where our deep and cherished beliefs (those that we consider to be vitally important) come into question. Here we feel that we must bare down and refuse to give up ground. Here it is that zealots on both sides put their feet down and start enlisting soldiers for the Crusade... and to some extent this makes sense! If there is anything that is too important to budge on, it is certainly the fundamental basis of our thought and action (such as the existence and nature of God and/or our origin and purpose as human beings). Over such things even "rational" Atheist writers like Hitchens and Dawkins take the gloves off and prepare to relentlessly pummel the opposition without prejudice to education, vocation, or background. If a wrong idea, after all, is causing thousands of people to perish in futility, isn't it worth fighting? If a source of revelation about the nature of the world seems to present itself clearly and articulately to our understanding, aren't we somewhat justified in our adamant insistence that our opponents attend to this source? Occasionally this kind of relentless zeal even spills over into inter-denominational Christian debates, with proponents on both sides refusing to budge.

My wife and I have been bemoaning the poor treatment that many of our High Church leaders have been giving Low Church Evangelicals as of late. Of course, when we ourselves sat on the other side of the fence we bemoaned the grief that Evangelicals gave the High Church leaders with equal distaste, but thankfully the humility of my wife has always pointed us toward our own faults first! On both sides it seems that a certain "demonizing" tends to occur, where we begin to downplay the role that ignorance or differing perspective plays in an opponent's beliefs (even zealously held beliefs), and defensively begin to feel that our opponents are wicked masterminds - orchestrators of destructive and manipulative conspiracies - instead of people that are fighting for what they believe to be important. This rendering of our brothers and sisters can hardly bring about any good! Even if a person is truly wrong in their beliefs, the humility of our Christian faith certainly demands that we first react to our brothers and sisters with kindness and charity, knowing that we ourselves were rescued from a pitiable ignorance and wickedness of heart by the unmerited grace of God! Orthodox Christians especially ought to feel no personal entitlement when it comes to correct personal knowledge, begging the Lord as we do to let us not "judge our brothers" but rather to "see our own sin". In every case, charity demands that we see those with opposing views as honest seekers of the truth - fellow men and women who hold to their beliefs out of the same mixture of sincerity and ignorance that motivates our own understanding. When we do this, we frequently find that particular issues are not as simple and "straightforward" as they seem to be upon first glance! People with radically different perspectives than our own have, in fact, rather strong and compelling reasons for believing what they believe, and if these reasons seem rather less compelling than our own reasons for believing the opposite, we must nonetheless allow these reasonable persons the uniqueness of their particular backgrounds, training, and values.

This, of course, plays into the second part of our original question, which was how we ought to deal with those that disagree with us. There are, without a doubt, people who are mistaken about very important things. The existence of multiple perspectives by no means invalidates the existence of absolute truth... it only complicates our understanding of it! Like others of my own faith, I feel that we must, as witnesses of the revelation of God, stand firm in our belief, both that He exists and that our purpose is to be united to Him in His body, which is the Church. Outside of this understanding I can make no sense of the world or our purpose here. This belief does not, however, preclude my imagining the circumstances that would lead a person to believe the opposite! It is my duty as a Christian - indeed as a human being - to treat the Atheist with the same respect and kindness that led me to the Church of Christ in the first place (including a genuine sensitivity to the person's fears and hesitancies), knowing as I do that my own beliefs are shaped greatly by my encounters with other people. If wickedness is leading a person to ignore the truth, then no amount of hatred or forceful argumentation will change their mind, and they ought to be loved or even pitied rather than abused, as they are victims of their own sin and no worse than any of us in our own sin. If sincere ignorance is keeping a person from knowing the truth, then stern rebuke and "straw man" lampooning is only a great cruelty that will sooner turn that person away from the faith than draw them to it. If superior understanding is leading a person to disagree with you, then you make yourself ridiculous by refusing to listen to their perspective! In any case, it is safe to assume that every person has sincere (or at least understandable) reasons for believing what they believe... and before we "demonize" them, we ought first to see what has led them to their conclusions!

As Christians we need fear no truth. The great saints of our faith had the humility and wisdom to see that "innovations" like the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than representing a departure from the belief in one God, actually affirmed that belief and helped to deepen our understanding of the Godhead. St. Paul had the good sense to trust the vision of the Lord that He received, to turn from his zealous persecution of the Christians (inspired as it was by his admirable zeal for God!), and to accept the very doctrine that had led him to persecute the Church in the first place. As firmly as we hold to our articulations of the truth, we have lost our way if we come to the place where we cannot undergo a similar roadside conversion...