One of the more formative experiences in my childhood came in the 6th grade. We had a teacher who encouraged open debate and critical thinking. Several times during the school year a subject would arise in which there were multiple, strongly held, varying positions among the students. Our teacher would use those times to set up a debate. Students were chosen to represent each position, given time to research the topic, and we would hold a formal debate.

I recall at least two occasions when I was one of the people presenting in the debate. I also recall that when the class voted to see who made the greater case, I won one and lost one. Losing one had the more profound and lasting impact. It taught me that it takes more than simple logic and evidence to make your point. I learned how to accept that people would not always agree with me. I also learned how to continue to be friends with those same people. As I observe the way people interact with those who have contrary opinions, I long for the days when I was in the 6th grade.

I recently read an article describing a recent move by 52 Harvard professors who have banded together to promote academic freedom and promote a campus culture in which all ideas are freely exchanged and people debate those ideas in a climate of respect. It struck me as surreal that in what is arguably the premier university in The United States, professors are having to remind people that the open and civil exchange of varying ideas and positions is to be at the heart of education. They are speaking out against the growing practice of shouting down and shutting out anyone whose ideas do not fit the philosophy du jour.

A few months ago I watched an interchange between two people in which one of them was insisting that you should unfriend a person who you determine to be a racist. The other person in the discussion was insisting that to do so is to begin to go down a path in which you will eventually be forced to isolate yourself from everyone. Today it is unfriend the racist; tomorrow is it unfriend the person who eats meat, or uses the wrong pronouns, or holds a different view on the use of the Oxford comma, or, well just about anything. More than the unfriending, there is the disturbing presence of vitriol, hatred, and even physical attacks that take place in an effort to silence ideas we don’t agree with.

There is a stunning irony in the way some people will shout down and shut out the voices of people they disagree with by calling them Fascists. Isn’t it a hallmark of fascism to do just that?

In effect what we are doing is making an enemy of anyone who holds to a different position on something we consider to be a moral issue. The problem is, you will never agree with someone on every moral issue, 100% of the time. It is simply not going to happen. Instead, you will end up fracturing more and more of your relationships and be the lesser for it.

This past weekend, I was in Oxford as part of a conference that explored various objections to the Christian faith. It was hosted by OCCA, the Oxford Center for Christian Apologetics, and took place in the Oxford Union. The Oxford Union is perhaps the world’s most prestigious debating society, priding itself on being a bastion of free speech and the civil yet passionate interchange of ideas. As I walked around the halls of the Union I observed the photos that celebrated past speakers and debaters. The lineup included such political polar opposites as Ronald Reagan and Yasser Arafat and differing religious persuasions as The Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa to name just a few of the people who have spoken there.

One of the thoughts that I walked away with has been percolating in my mind for some time is this: those who are confident in what they believe yet humble enough to know they are not always right and can therefore learn more, are those who can engage in passionate yet civil conversations with people of opposing views. It is most often those who are actually not confident in their views and how to express them, that are most often threatened by contrary positions and end up responding with louder voices filled with vitriol and personal attacks and wanting to shut down other voices rather than exchange ideas and learn from one another.

When it comes to gently but passionately holding to what you believe to be true, Jesus is the role model. He was regularly challenged by people who disagreed with and even hated him. Yet, time and again, he responded with dignity and wisdom. Occasionally, he had to speak difficult words to people, and faced harsh accusations from others, but he never took their attacks personally; he always kept his focus on the things that mattered. What breaks my heart is seeing people who claim to be followers of Christ and yet by their reaction to people whom they disagree with, it is hard to find evidence for the types of responses that Jesus demonstrated. I think more people need to keep in mind the words of Proverbs 15:1 “A soft answer turns away wrath but a harsh word stirs up anger”. It is possible to be gentle AND strong at the same time. No one was more gentle than Jesus and no one stronger.

I long for a day when Christians will demonstrate the humble confidence of Jesus and not be threatened by opposing views, but actually embrace the conversations that make it possible to exemplify what a Christ-like demeanor looks like.