Disagreement Is God’s Plan
by Paul Annala | 8 June 2023 |
I would guess that you disagree with some of the things that the Seventh-day Adventist Church, or some of its members, says or does.
That’s probably why you are reading Adventist Today.
We often view our disagreements and differing opinions as failures. If we really would read the Bible and really take our faith seriously and really follow Jesus, then all our differing opinions would disappear, according to our logic. From there the step is short to substituting ‘we’ with ‘you’, and the blame game is on. You’re not taking your faith seriously enough! You’re not using the correct method for interpreting the Bible! You’re proof-texting! You’re too conservative/liberal! You’re letting contemporary culture influence you! You’re ignoring science! You’re bringing in aberrant theology!
But is disagreement a failure? What if disagreement among us believers in fact is part of a Divine plan?
The two-edged sword
Through the Bible we learn about God and His plan for salvation. But that’s not all. The author of Hebrews wrote:
“For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires.” (Heb 4:12, NLT, emphasis added)
How can the Word expose our innermost thoughts and desires? Let me illustrate with an example.
The four Gospels have somewhat differing accounts of what happened on Easter morning when Jesus rose from the dead (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18). Which women were exactly at the grave? How many men dressed in white were there? In what order did the events exactly happen? There are discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, at least in the details.
Somebody will conclude that these discrepancies disprove the reliability of the resurrection, while somebody else will conclude that such discrepancies are to be expected in authentic eyewitness accounts, and thus prove its reliability. No amount of sincere Bible study will ever solve this issue! My conclusion will say more about me than it will about God. The two-edged sword may expose me either as an open-minded searcher or as a predetermined skeptic.
God could have ensured that the resurrection accounts in all four Gospels were consistent in every detail. But He didn’t. I believe God had a purpose with that, one of them being to expose “our innermost thoughts and desires”.
Now, if that’s possible in the resurrection account, why couldn’t that be possible elsewhere? Maybe God has a purpose with not giving clear-cut answers to every historical, doctrinal, or behavioral question at hand. Perhaps God is intentionally withholding some answers, so that the Word can reveal our innermost thoughts and desires.
Let me bring this one step closer to each of us. When someone else’s understanding of the Bible is at odds with what I think, we start discussing. That discussion might reveal some truths about God or the Bible – but it will probably also reveal some truths about me. Why do I disagree? Am I trying to hide personal prestige behind a fig leaf of theology, science, or logic? Am I open for the possibility that God may want to give me new insights, or do I already “know” the answer? How am I addressing my opponent? What assumptions might I be making about my opponent’s faith and motives? The way we engage in discussion may reveal something about our innermost thoughts and desires. Pray that it will bring glory to God.
A training-ground for love
But there may be more to the Divine plan of disagreement. Romans chapter 14 provides a case study.
“Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables.” (Rom 14:1-2, NLT)
Ancient Rome was a polytheistic culture. Animals were sacrificed to pagan gods in the temples of Rome. Sometimes the sacrifices were eaten in the temple in pagan worship, possibly in conjunction with prostitution and other abhorrent practices. And after that, some of the sacrificed meat might end up at the local food market.
Now imagine Mrs. Laura Liberal, a member of the Christian church in Rome, going to the market to buy meat for dinner. Some of the meat came from the pagan temples, some didn’t, and you couldn’t know which was which. As Mrs. Laura Liberal is reaching out to grab a nice filet, Mrs. Sylvia Strict, also a member of the church in Rome, walks by. “Are you going to buy that meat? Don’t even think about it!” she exclaims. “But it’s only meat. What’s the problem?” asks Mrs. Liberal. “Of course it’s a problem! You can’t eat meat that has been sacrificed to pagan gods. No true follower of God can do that!” says Mrs. Strict loudly. “Oh c’mon, don’t be so picky,” replies Laura Liberal. “Do we believe in those pagan gods? No. Do they even exist? No. Are we at their temple worshipping them? No. It’s only meat!”
Use your imagination to figure out how the debate continued, and how it affected Sabbath School and church board meetings in Rome. This wasn’t a minor philosophical question. It affected everyday life. You could argue it was about worship and obedience to the First Commandment. This, if anything, was an issue that should require the setting up of a Task Force on Suitable Meats, or at least a statement prayerfully voted by EXCOM!
But Paul doesn’t call for a Jerusalem Council II. (On a side note, he appears to ignore at least part of the decision the first Jerusalem Council gave in Acts 15:29.) It’s as if he shrugs his shoulders and says “both are right”.
“Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. […] Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God.” (Rom 14:1-2,6, NLT)
Paul doesn’t settle this by doctrine, but by behavior and attitude. Notice what he says:
Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. (Rom 14:3, NLT, emphasis added)
Paul hits a tender point here. “Don’t look down on,” he says to Mrs. Laura Liberal. And he says that to me, as I lean toward the progressive end on the Adventist scale. It’s so easy for me to look down on those who are strict and conservative.
And to Mrs. Strict and her fellow conservatives Paul says: “Don’t condemn”. I know the Apostle hits a tender point there too, because condemnation is what we progressives receive from time to time from some of our conservative brothers and sisters.
Love, in the biblical sense, is not mushy feel-good feelings, but work and attitude. Love can grow through training and practice. In many places in Scripture we are exhorted to love each other.
“Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds us all together in perfect harmony.” (Col 3:14, NLT)
“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7, NIV)
Ultimately, according to Jesus Himself, love is the defining characteristic of His followers.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35, NIV)
Since love is of such importance to God, then it shouldn’t surprise us that God prefers loving behavior over homogeneity. Nor should it surprise us that God uses these situations, perhaps even provides them, so that we may grow in love. We may therefore see our differences not as failures, but as a Divine training-ground for growing in love.
Humility university
Our differences may be God’s way of revealing something about ourselves, and having to manage our differences may be a God-given opportunity to grow in love. But maybe God uses our differences in one more way: To help us grow in humility.
Humility might not be on the top ten list in current society, but it certainly should characterize Christ’s followers.
“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” (Col 3:12, NIV)
“Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.” (1 Pet 3:8, NIV)
Our differing opinions are not necessarily the result of aberrant theology, adapting the Bible to fit our personal preferences, lack of commitment or faith, or some of the other malpractices we accuse each other of. Often, they are caused by our limited knowledge, but instead of acknowledging these limits, we keep on arguing.
Did Jesus possess a prelapsarian or postlapsarian human nature? What is Christ doing in heaven as our high priest? Why did Jesus have to die? How does inspiration work? How should we understand and interpret Daniel and Revelation? We may have strong and differing opinions on these and a thousand other questions, but let’s be honest for a moment: we don’t know for sure. I may prefer A over B. I may opine that the case for A is stronger than for B, but in the end I don’t know. Maybe it would suit us well to make the words of Job ours:
“I was talking about things I knew nothing about, things far too wonderful for me…. I had only heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes. I take back everything I said, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance.” (Job 42:3,5-6, NLT)
The opposite of humility is arrogance. The assumption that we have (almost) all the answers makes us arrogant—or as Paul puts it, “Knowledge makes arrogant” (1 Cor 8:1, NASB), while the path of love forces us to admit “all that I know now is partial and incomplete” (1 Cor 13:12, NLT). Admitting that we don’t know isn’t a failure; on the contrary: Maybe God wants us to acknowledge and accept the limits of our knowledge, so that we may grow in humility.
Plan or perspective?
I called this essay “Disagreement Is God’s Plan.” I don’t know if God has such a plan, and I am even less sure if my summary does any justice to it. I leave it open for debate whether God in that case would actively cause or merely passively use our disagreements. I just wanted to catch your attention and share a perspective on differences within our faith community.
You might think I’m a postmodernist beyond redemption, and that I’m relativizing all truth. I’m not. I firmly believe there are absolute truths. I believe in a loving God, the Creation, the Fall, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He will come again. I believe Jesus is the way and the truth (John 14:6). But subordinate to these big and absolute truths, there’s a lot of smaller stuff that we call truth. We use these minor truths to draw spiritual and denominational borders. Perhaps we as humans need such structure, but in that case let these borders be more descriptive and less exclusive, embracing the Apostle Paul’s vision that
“The Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God, and others will approve of you, too. So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up” (Rom 14:17-19, NLT).
Paul Annala writes from Linköping, Sweden. He’s married, has two children, earns his living as a software designer at Ericsson, and is active in his local church.
