How Christians Can Stay Engaged in Hard Conversations
In a time when people can’t talk about hard things anymore, Tyler McKenzie offers practical ways Christians can engage with courage, clarity, and self-control. He argues for embodied conversations over digital conflict, grounding moral convictions in Scripture, and pursuing unity without abandoning truth.
- Refuse to tap out of hard conversations, even when the discourse is toxic.
- Prioritize embodied, in-person engagement over digital mediums for significant topics.
- Speak truth with enemy love, aiming for unity and accommodation where possible.
By Tyler McKenzie
Two central questions are driving this article. The first is philosophical: “Why is it that people are unable to talk about hard things anymore?” The second is practical: “How can Christians be different?” The ideas I provide below are my best effort to answer the second more practical question while offering comments along the way that hint at the first.
In a time when people can’t talk about hard things anymore, how can Christians be different?
We refuse to tap out of the hard conversations.
This is the exhausted posture that most people have chosen. “I’m out! No thanks! Don’t have the emotional energy to deal with all the crazy!” I get it. It’s not that you don’t have opinions, it’s that you aren’t interested in engaging in a “no-holds-barred, anything-goes” street fight in the comments section. Controversial conversations have become so toxic and zero-sum, especially online, that most Christians have tapped out.
I believe we must choose to never tap out. Tapping out of the conversation means letting the bullies win. The Word of God has something to say about the controversial issues of our time. How out of touch does the church look when sexuality, race, politics, ethics, and more are being debated on the news, on social media, and on the family-text thread, but we are silent. We have Jesus, the way, truth, and life. We have the Holy Spirit who can produce fruit like kindness, patience, and self-control as we speak into the controversy. We can and should be the first and best at speaking to this stuff.
It’s not an option just to disengage while false teachers scream false claims. Not only would that be an abandonment of our commission, but truth is too important. If the truth sets people free, then falsehoods put people in chains. Tapping out allows bad actors to bully our communities (and often the emerging generation) into living against the grain of reality. If you live against the grain, you get splinters!
The biblical perspective is that God is the Creator and Designer. God has a vision for how he wants his world to work. To flourish, we surrender to his reality. When we speak out to discredit false teaching, it’s not that we are being closed-minded know-it-alls. It’s that we love people and want to see them live free.
We prioritize embodied domains over digital mediums.
God could have created humans without bodies, but he didn’t. As a point of comparison, he could have created us like angels who whisp around (do angels whisp?) in the spirit realm. Instead, we are embodied creatures. One of the major theological deficits modern people have is an appreciation that God put us in physical bodies. Through medicine and technology, it seems like we increasingly try to live in denial of them.
That said, a good rule of thumb would be that the more significant a conversation is, the more important it is to have in person. As our world becomes increasingly digitized, most people spend their entire day living through online mediums. Digital mediums pull us into a relational ecosystem that operates with an entirely different set of realities and rules. For example, in the embodied world, you have the luxury of facial expressions, tone of voice, and micro-observations that facilitate understanding in conversation. In the online world, it’s usually just written words. In the embodied world, anonymity is far less normal or possible in hard conversations. It would be weird for you to confront a stranger and berate them over a hot topic. That’s totally normal online.
I have had this weird experience the past few years. I have watched some of my dear friends develop two versions of themselves: an online version and an embodied version. The embodied version is who I grew to love at first. They don’t take themselves too seriously. They aren’t looking for a fight. They don’t even talk that much about politics, theology, and culturally hot topics. They are just . . . them. On the contrary, the online version is different. They are aggressive, snarky, and polarized. They are riled up by petty grievances and relentless over their pet peeves. They post things that they know will be hurtful to people they care about. They seem despairing and obsessive. What makes this weird is that I befriended the embodied version of them (and still enjoy that version of them), but the online version of them is unbearable and has made clear how they really feel about some of my beliefs.
We form our moral beliefs by Scripture rather than popularity and inclusion.
Andy Crouch argued that people today form their beliefs, not based on an honest read of Scripture or a sober assessment of right vs. wrong, but on inclusion and exclusion. “What will get me celebrated? What will get me canceled?” Then they live accordingly. The problem is obvious. We will never think clearly about truth if we immediately dismiss as false anything considered culturally out of step.
That said, as we stand on Scripture, it is important for us not to be intentionally adversarial. The strongest cultural apologists are those who demonstrate how Christian beliefs are good and beautiful. How does the gospel fulfill the longings, heal the wounds, and rehumanize the people of our time? When we can present God’s way as good, there is persuasive power. Unfortunately, sometimes that will not be possible. In those moments, we must be prepared to face the shame storm, lose friends, or be canceled.
We strive to love enemies as much as we strive to speak truth.
One of the most charitable things we can do is make a good-faith effort to acknowledge the best-case representation of others’ positions. That means not only resisting unfair caricatures but actively refuting them. That means refraining from resorting to logical fallacies. That means resisting the urge to speak hastily before we have enough information.
Enemy love also means minding our tone. Are our words loaded with rage, snark, and sarcasm? Are they crafted to embarrass others and rile our base? Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit. If we don’t have control over our anger, we should wait to engage in heated conversations. Anger is powerful. We get angry at people who say foolish things. We get angry at people who come at us. We get angry when we see online influencers who spin and sensationalize (the Oxford Word of the Year this year is rage bait. Look it up!). It is rare that we are able to channel our anger toward holy ends like Jesus.
As Christians, we can’t fight fire with fire. Fire doesn’t extinguish fire. Water does. We have been given cross-shaped means for combatting evil. At Jesus’ first coming, he exemplified the way of enemy love and called us to follow. At Jesus’ second coming, he promises that there will be justice and judgment doled out in a way that is satisfying. Vengeance is God’s someday, not ours today. The idea that we should stop being empathetic, abandon civility, or punch back because we only have two cheeks and can’t “turn the other cheek” anymore, undermines our core eschatological beliefs.
We choose accommodation rather than division as much as possible.
This one is likely my most controversial point. We must be the sort of people and create the sort of churches that flex our unity muscle more often and in provocative ways. The Restoration Movement, most of all, should yearn to see truth and unity coalesced in our midst by the Holy Spirit. How would it look for us to choose accommodation rather than division more often?
Every church (and every person) has to choose the issues on which they will allow for disagreement and those on which they will draw the line. I’ve written on this before (see https://christianstandard.com/2023/05/gradations-of-unity/). Pretend we could draw four concentric circles. In the center circle, we place the essential beliefs of our faith (beliefs to die for). In circle two, we place denominational distinctives; that is, core beliefs we see as affirmed in Scripture but various denominations have split over in interpretation (beliefs to divide over). In circle three, we place beliefs that are ambiguous enough to not break fellowship over but still should be wrestled with (beliefs to debate). In circle four, we place beliefs that my dad always called “recreational theology” (beliefs to delight in). Every church must do the hard work of prayerfully discerning what goes where.
The problem is that too many are pushing issues into circle two (or even circle one) that could realistically be placed in circle three. It makes me sad when we break unity over positions that are essential to us but not to God. Until we begin to be more thoughtful and tolerant about our gradations of unity, our tribes will get smaller and the evangelistic potential of our unity will remain untapped.
Can’t we all agree that there are many issues in which both sides have strong arguments based on Scripture? Accommodation is a practice where each side agrees to forego getting everything they want so that missional solidarity and Christian kinship will not be broken. It’s uncomfortable. It may even feel like compromise. But might this be what unity requires?
Most debates don’t end with a clear winner. Persuasion, if it ever happens, usually happens slowly over time. More often than we allow, the best outcome of an argument is accommodation between both sides so we can live in peace together. By accommodation, I do not mean you back off what you believe. I mean you respect what others believe by creating space in your circle for them to believe it.
It is easy for us to accommodate one another when our divergent beliefs don’t significantly impact communal practice. That is why you will see many churches whose congregations are mixed on beliefs like divine providence, the end times, Israel and the church, creation and human origins, sanctification and Christian maturity, or spiritual warfare. However, as beliefs move out of the ideals realm and into the realm of practice, they are harder for us to accommodate. Issues like women in leadership, spiritual gifts, political engagement, ordinances/sacraments, and worship style are examples that churches struggle with.
On a personal level, I have done the work to come up with my own opinions on these issues. I trust that my beliefs are right; otherwise I wouldn’t believe them! That said, I’ve also done enough work to know that many who disagree with me are not idiots. They love the Bible and can make strong arguments for their practice. My prayer is that we work harder to create avenues of accommodation rather than walls of division. This will not be comfortable, but unity is worth it.
Tyler McKenzie serves as lead pastor at Northeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He also produces a fun Bible podcast for parents and their kids called “the Preacher and the Piano man.”
Author: Tyler McKenzie
Tyler McKenzie serves as lead pastor at Northeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He also produces a fun Bible podcast for parents and their kids called “the Preacher and the Piano man.”
