On Monday we talked about worship wars. Between the comments on the post and the many comments I received on Twitter, it is safe to say a lot of people disagreed with my overall premise of the “worship wars” not being a bad thing for the church. Rather, I argued, they are needed in order for the church as it currently exists to reach long-term health.
Disclaimer (every good blog post has one)
Let me first say, too many people have too many opinions which do not help the church become a healthy place. I’ve run into a long list of Christians over my short lifetime who argue for extra-Biblical things, such as how we worship, with more passion than they ever show toward volunteering with youth or serving the poor. This is sad.
When our opinions of how we “do” church trump our enthusiasm to work out the mission of the church we have gotten our priorities completely flipped.
I don’t want to draw more attention to the worship wars than they’ve already been given. With that said, I believe there is a place for this conversation, but I don’t believe it needs to be or should be the focus of churches or its members.
A Conversation is Better than None
I will continue to argue that worship wars are not bad for the church, because I have this one over-arching premise and truth:
Disagreement is better than apathy.
Rarely do I get too frustrated by someone who disagrees with me, because I know they care. I might not agree with them or their way of going about things, but I do know they care. It’s always better to have a church of people who care instead of apathy. Disagreement opens the door for a conversation, apathy runs away from a conversation.
Apathy will kill a church.
People who care, even when they disagree, are far better to spend time with than apathetic people.
Churches can handle disagreement by painting a vision, by engaging hard conversations, and by leading people. Apathetic people are still people and still deserve consideration but they are much more difficult to work with. They need constant motivation for engaging in the first place. They’re an entire step behind (or ahead, depending on how you think about it) someone who disagrees with the direction of the church.
Next time a conversation takes place and disagreement is clearly on the mind of someone in the conversation, keep in mind that they care and they simply need to be given a vision and direction. Their disagreement means they care. Their disagreement means they’re invested and want to be a part of the change. They’ve implicated themselves. Once that conversation ends, find the apathetic person because they won’t ever come to you.
Do you see any positives in people who disagree with you?