2 Very Different Ways of Reading People We Disagree With

I Love to Read 

Ever since I was able to read, I have loved to read. Whether it was the First-Grade-Readers (“See Spot Run”) or elementary school baseball biographies (“The Say-Hey Kid!”), or science fiction when I was in high school, or theologians in Bible college, or commentaries and counselors when I was in seminary, I have always loved to read.

I still love to read. And I still love the feel of a “real” book—paper, not Kindle, not Logos. (I know, I’m a “dinosaur.”)

If you were to see any book that I’m currently reading, you would quickly see dog-eared corners on many pages along with yellow highlighting on almost every page.

I Love to Learn 

I read broadly.

When I read non-fiction, I read people I agree with and people I disagree with. I read people inside my “camp.” I read people outside my “camp.”

I read people from within my theological tradition and people outside my theological commitments. I read biblical counselors, Christian integrative counselors, Christian psychologists, trauma-informed therapist, non-trauma-informed therapists, secular counselors, believing neuroscientists, and unbelieving neuroscientists.

I highlight as many comments in books by authors I disagree with as I do authors I agree with.

2 Very Different Ways of Reading People We Disagree With or Differ From 

I’ve detected two very different ways of reading people with whom we differ. There are two very different worldviews, ways of thinking, ways of learning, ways of approaching content.

Which approach do we take when we read someone who differs with us, or is from outside our “camp” or “group”?

1. Reading to Learn: Do we humbly read to learn from them?

2. Reading to Debunk: Do we read only to spot perceived errors and weaknesses that we will expose in them?

The Erroneous Presuppositions of the Debunking Approach

1. The debunking worldview is an “against-ness” mentality. It’s an “anti” perspective. It’s a mindset of distrust and a hermeneutic of suspicion.

This approach specializes in ideological gatekeeping. It divides “truth” into two camps—those who agree with us, and those who disagree with us. It gives lip service to reading and learning from others outside the “in” group, but in reality the debunking mentality says:

“This person proposes views I disagree with. My approach to their writings will be one of exposing error, critiquing, finding wrongs, and garnering evidence against their views, so I can build a case for my model.”

2. The debunking worldview is a speck-versus-log mindset (Matthew 7:1-5).

“I’m going to scour this writing for specks of error. I’m going to ignore any log-size errors in my own writings and beliefs.”

3. The debunking focus is not an Acts 17:10-12 “Berean” mindset. The Bereans received Paul’s message “with great eagerness” and then examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true.

The debunking framework is more akin to Acts 17:13-15 and the “Thessalonican mindset” of agitation and provocation. The debunking mindset is not emphasizing the sufficiency of Scripture. The debunking mindset emphasizes the arrogant presupposition that says,

“My interpretation of Scripture is sufficient!” 

4. The debunking focus is “an epistemology of certainty.”

“I’m so certain that my view is biblical, that to question my view is to expose your error. I’m so certain that my view is the correct view, that to question my view is offensive to me. I’m so certain of my view that, I have no need nor desire to openly consider your view. In fact, since my view is the biblical view, to openly consider views other than mine is to invite compromise.”

5. The debunking approach follows the adage that we find what we’re looking for. If we’re looking for ways someone might disagree with our preferred, cherished view, then we’ll find it—even if it means quoting out of context, mischaracterizing, misunderstanding, and misrepresenting others.

Rather than reading with an open mind, we read with closed eyes—or eyes open only to see what we want to find. Truth is not easily received by those who have pre-existing false beliefs and hold to them with conviction.

The Reading to Learn Approach

The “reading to learn” approach believes in the sufficiency of Scripture. However, it refuses to believe in the sufficiency of any one person’s or any one group’s interpretation of Scripture.

In the reading to learn approach, the readers humbly recognize that their view is not inerrant, and that they can learn from others. They consistently seek to examine all views—including their own views—under the lens of God’s sufficient, authoritative, inerrant Word. They seek to maintain a humble biblical curiosity.

Today, I’ve collated the different types of questions we ask depending on whether we are humbly reading to learn, or pridefully reading to expose errors in others.

The Types of Questions We’re Asking Ourselves When We Want to Humbly Learn from Those with Whom We Differ 

1. What are some of the strengths of this author’s perspective?

2. What can I learn from this writer’s perspective—even when it is different from mine? What new perspectives and ways of looking at things is this author opening my eyes to?

3. What ideas, even if they are different from mine or new to me, make me go, “Hmm. That’s intriguing. I never thought of it like that before. I’m going to dog-ear this page and highlight these sentences and give this some more thought…”

4. Where do I agree with this author—even if they are from “outside my group”?

5. What sources is this person quoting, and which ones might I want to read?

6. How could this author’s thinking be a catalyst to drive me to explore how my current thinking can better align with Scripture, truth, reality?

7. How might this author’s views challenge my understanding/interpretation of Scripture?

8. How might my understanding/interpretation of Scripture challenge this author’s views?

9. What might I be misunderstanding about this author?

10. If I could talk with this author, what clarifying questions would I want to ask to be sure that I am characterizing their views accurately, fairly?

11. If I could share a meal with this author, which of his intriguing ideas would I want to ask him more about? On what topics would I want to pick his brain?

12. How could I summarize and collate the main things I learned from this author’s writings?

13. If I wrote a review of this author’s writings, how could I fairly and accurately summarize their views in ways they would recognize? How could I provide a fair list of areas of strengths and areas of potential weaknesses/concerns?

The Types of Questions We’re Asking Ourselves When We Don’t Really Want to Humbly Learn from Those with Whom We Differ 

It should be pretty obvious that I prefer and recommend humbly reading to learn—even from those with whom we disagree.

Here are questions that we ask—maybe silently, maybe without even realizing it—when we’re reading to debunk, rather than reading to learn.

1. Where are they wrong?

2. How can I outline and categorize all the ways they are wrong?

3. Where do they disagree with me, with the model I follow, and with the group I align myself with?

4. How can I compare my best arguments against their worst arguments?

5. How can I selectively collate all the areas where their arguments are the weakest?

6. How can I selectively quote them, even out of context, to build my case against them?

7. Where can I garner co-belligerent research (people I normally disagree with) that agrees with me and disagrees with this author, so I can use other “experts” to help me debunk their views?

8. Where can I garner quotes from people I agree with, and use these quotes to help me debunk the views of this author?

9. How can I question their background, their experiences, their associations, so I can use that to help me debunk their views?

10. What Bible verses can I marshal to prove they are wrong and I am right?

11. Which of their quoted sources are so wrong or so unbiblical that I can prove this author is wrong by “guilt by association”?

12. What negative label(s) can I give to them and their writings to expose that they are incorrect, wrong, outside the right group?

13. If I wrote a review of this author’s writings, how could I best outline its weaknesses? How could I best collate sources to debunk this resource and prove that it deviates from scriptural truth and from the accepted views held by my group?

Join the Conversation 

1. What questions would you add to the list of questions to ask when you want to learn humbly from someone whose views differ from yours?

2. What questions would you add to the list of questions people ask if they simply want to debunk and criticize authors whose views differ from them?