Many Christians are deeply engaged in the ongoing dispute over the interpretation of Genesis 1 and its concordance with scientific progress of the last 150 years. Participants run the gamut from geologists, astrophysicists, theologians, and scholars of ancient Hebrew to gym coaches and English majors. Arguments for and against various positions simmer endlessly - usually civil, sometimes not. For a moment, let’s set aside the merits of the various positions. What about the partisan in this affair? What moral hazards confront him or her? How one approaches this matter could be of greater moral significance than which position one embraces.
Let's stipulate the obvious. We are commanded to love one another. Intentional deceit or willful misrepresentation of the other's position is lying, and always wrong. But suppose we faithfully honor those principles. Might we still be morally culpable? Possibly. Let's consider four moral pitfalls of partisanship. In fact, these principles apply to any hot topic: denominational divisions, eschatology, even [especially] politics. So they are well worth examining.
Pride is thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought. (Romans 12:3) It does not merely spill into the intellectual realm; it pervades the intellectual realm. Fields like geology, astrophysics, and ancient Hebrew are rarefied complex domains in which few can legitimately speak with authority. The number who profess expertise vastly exceeds the number of actual experts (the Dunning-Kruger effect). Outside our own field, we all do the only thing we can - we choose which experts to believe. But then, in whom is our faith? The expert? Or the one who picks the expert?
One thing worse than being wrong is being both wrong and supremely certain. No one can be right 100% of the time. For a host of reasons, it is humanly impossible. We cannot choose not to be wrong. We can choose not to be arrogant.
The solution to pride is intellectual humility. Intellectual humility is nothing more profound than accepting the obvious: our knowledge is limited, we are all biased, and we are all capable of being wrong about almost anything.
Moral grandstanding is a form of self-promotion through which we try to assert our “superior” virtue to impress others. (“Who cares what other dogs think?” - the Spaniel) The imagined virtue may be our love of truth, faithfulness to Scripture, integrity, or courage. It can lead to the phenomenon of "ramping up", where we try to outdo one another in our devotion and commitment. This was a defining trait of the Pharisees in Jesus's day, and is explicitly sinful. (Matthew 6:1-4) In the Christian community, grandstanding is a far greater danger among passionate followers than among the apathetic and disengaged. When the disciples engaged in it, they were rebuked by Jesus (Matthew 26:6-13).
Pride creates in us a desire to rule over others, along with the conceit that we can and should. External force is an obvious example, but emotional manipulation violates the same principle and is far more common. We may feel our position is so obviously right that our means are justified. Well, so does the other side. Suppression of dissent, intimidation, shaming, or simply ignoring the other side are various forms of controlling behavior that erupt from our reservoir of pride. Equally pernicious is the practice of advertising one’s position as the more virtuous, encouraging yet others to grandstand.
How do you respond to others with an opposing viewpoint? Do you inquire why they believe the way they do? Do you seek to understand their strongest arguments? Are you listening for the purpose of understanding, or are you mentally planning your counterattack? Do you address their argument or do you impugn their character? If you are a church leader, do you foster an environment where people are free to express disagreement, or where they are intimidated into silence? Do you take it for granted that everyone present shares your opinion (false consensus effect)? False consensus plus enforced silence are mutually reinforcing. The appearance of agreement is merely an illusion when opposing voices are silenced, but leads to greater certainty among those in power.
Creationists of various flavors are quick to judge secular evolutionists. Theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists may perceive young-earth creationists as ignorant, naive, or foolish, while the latter may view the former as sell-outs, heretics, or traitors. Both may judge the other as obstinate, though the distinction between stubbornness and conviction depends largely on one's point of view. Having been on both sides, I guess that makes me all of the above. However, I really don't feel like a stubborn, ignorant, foolish heretic. In fact, I rather resent the accusation. Some exceptionally intelligent individuals embrace a young-earth position. Many devout believers with unimpeachable Biblical credentials do not.
We could equally apply this in the political realm. Republicans and Democrats are not stupid and [most] are not evil. (“Well, actually Bassetts really are pretty stupid.” - the Spaniel) There’s actually good evidence that too much intelligence leads to polarization and inability to compromise.
Regardless of your position, it would be wise to take a moment and reflect on your own stake in the subject. Are you able to admit you could be wrong? (Intellectual humility). Do you advertise your position to impress your peers? (Moral grandstanding). Do you pressure others into agreement or silence? (Manipulation). Do you struggle to respect those with whom you disagree? Do you impugn their motives? (Judgmentalism)
Have you witnessed any of these behaviors? Let us know in the comment section below!