We try to have a
discussion, where we try to listen with respect to different views.
We speak of healthy debate, where we can learn the weak points of our
own arguments and the strengths and weaknesses of the other side. We
tell married couples that they should keep the flow of communication
wide open. That does happen sometimes. Sometimes, it’s fun to
have a little intellectual joust, as long as we don’t take
things personally.

Usually these high
ideals turn into nasty arguments fairly quickly. Usually, people get
hurt, and they clam up. When we argue we want to win; we don’t
want to give in; we want the other side to admit that they are more
than mistaken, but wrong. We are right; we are superior; we win.

We argue about trivia.
We mistake trivia for the important and raise it to the level of
principle we want to impose our sense of right on others. This comes
into play when we are frustrated with something else and are looking
for an excuse to start a fight.

We argue about
important things.

Religious arguments are
dangerous. We are attached to our religious beliefs. When we argue
about religion, we are touching on deep parts of ourselves. Paul has
a radical solution to arguing in church. The first time that I recall
reading this passage, I was in my twenties. I had to read it again as
I could not grasp what Paul was saying. Paul does not tell us to try
to win even important arguments. He does ask us to consider if
through the eyes of Christ it is worth it. Then he goes further. Let
the other side win, even if you think you are in the right. The eyes
of Christ shine on the mistaken as well as the advanced. We sometimes
say that it takes a big person to admit when they are wrong. Here,
Paul says it takes an even bigger person to know you are right and
still grant the argument to your opponent, if you don’t think
it harmful. If your opponent is not as wise as you, bear in mind that
you are not to hinder their growth as a Christian. If they are not at
your level, and they follow your lead, it could be a slippery slope
for them. At first this sermon was called live and let live. Paul
won’t settle for that. It takes humility to be able to admit
that we are wrong, and even more to admit that someone else was
right. It takes an immense humility to be able to cede the field.
This is not to say that Paul did not draw lines on important matters,
but he wanted to be clear what was worth an argument and what was
not. Does it really matter? Does it harm someone?

In our time, people
argue about the proper method of baptism. The Amish don’t like
photographs as they see them as graven images; the Jehovah witnesses
see the flag salute as idolatry. People wouldn’t play cards,
not only because of gambling but because the cards had picture son
them. We argue about the style of music appropriate to church.

The closest I’ve
come to Paul’s point of view comes with church comfort levels.
Some folks will never interpret the Bible as I do, because they are
uncomfortable with the open-ended readings I prefer. Some folks
require closure, a clear answer. In the same way, someone with a
liking for gray areas is not ever going to be comfortable in a church
that gives one bible quotation as an answer, the only answer to a
question before them. Even if you win the argument, what have you
gained? When you crush someone in an argument, or get crushed, it is
more than a point of view being disrespected, but they feel
disrespected. Paul asks yus to be bigger people, to listen and act to
build up each other.