How to Disagree Agreeably

Thanksgiving provides an opportunity to count the ways God has blessed us over the past year and offer Him thanks in an intentional way. Unfortunately, for many of us, bringing the family together at Thanksgiving can also create a highly volatile situation! When you bring together relatives who deeply disagree about the most foundational issues of life (for example, creation and evolution), conflict can seem inevitable. The good news is that such encounters don’t have to turn into a fight. There is a way to argue with people about important topics without being argumentative. There is a way to disagree without being disagreeable. 

In this article, we will look at seven ways you can improve your conversations with people with whom you disagree. By practicing them, you can turn potentially explosive arguments into productive, meaningful interactions that may even strengthen—rather than sever—your relationships. But before we turn to how to disagree agreeably, let’s briefly examine why this matters from a biblical perspective.

The views expressed in this article reflect those of the author mentioned, and not necessarily those of New Creation.

A Common Temptation

Jesus told His disciples, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). Later, Paul wrote to the Roman Christians, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18). In Galatians 5:22-23, Paul describes the fruit the Holy Spirit produces in a Christian as, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.”

Let’s get real for a moment: when you encounter someone you disagree with (either face-to-face or online), are your interactions with them characterized by peace? Do they show the fruit of the Spirit? Or do they look more like the “works of the flesh” described in Galatians 5:20-21, “…enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions … and things like these”?

Sadly, Christians are sometimes better known for starting fights (or inflaming them) than they are for trying to “live peaceably with all.” It grieves me how often I see Christians debating with non-Christians on social media using bad logic, biting sarcasm, and belittling insults. Even worse, I regularly see Christians doing it to each other! 

At a time where everyone seems to have forgotten how to have civilized conversations about controversial issues, Christians should stand out from the crowd. Our speech should be “salty,” not in the contemporary sense, but in the biblical sense of preserving from decay and giving flavor (Colossians 4:5-6). 

A High Calling

Please understand what I’m saying. I’m not saying that we seek “peace at all costs.” I’m not saying that we should be quiet about our Christian faith and convictions. I’m definitely not saying we should appease people by watering down the truth. We are to proclaim the gospel boldly (Ephesians 6:19-20) and “make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Yet, we are to “do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” (1 Peter 3:15-16).

When we live out our identity in Christ, as those who are loved by God, it demonstrates the reality of God’s transformative power in our lives. It shows the world that we are, in fact, new creations! 

Having established why we should disagree agreeably, let’s consider practical ways we can work towards this goal in our conversations.

Be prayerful

If we were made new creations by God’s power, it only follows that we must rely on God’s power to live out that identity. We demonstrate this dependence when we pray. If you are like me, you probably struggle to have a focused and intentional prayer life. In that case, the potentially difficult conversations you may have at Thanksgiving can be a great catalyst for prayer! Pray beforehand for opportunities to share God’s Word. Pray for boldness to take those opportunities when they come. Pray when you see that door open. Pray when you engage in the discussion. Pray for the person you are speaking to have open eyes and an open heart to receive truth. Pray afterwards that the seeds you’ve planted may grow and bear fruit. 

Be humble

Pride is an ugly thing, but real humility is beautiful to behold. Pride makes you think you are the most important person in the room. Humility causes you to honor others as the image-bearers of God. Pride talks down to others, belittles them, and insults their intelligence. Humility considers them as more important than self and makes sacrifices for their better good (Philippians 2:3). Pride makes you belligerent, uncharitable, and unteachable. Humility results in an openness to correction and admitting mistakes—even when words and actions have crossed the line into sin. Humility is the essential ingredient to having productive conversations with people you disagree with. It turns combativeness into genuine care and compassion for the person you are talking to. Every point hereafter flows from the need for humility.  

Be self-controlled

When you are humble, you learn to forget yourself.¹ You care less about being snubbed or being insulted. As one pastor I heard recently expressed, “if you’re as flat as a piece of paper, getting run over doesn’t hurt.”² You are more concerned about the other person than you are about how they treat you. Consequently, you will be less likely to resort to angry outbursts or snarky comebacks to get your point across. You will be able to control your emotions and focus on listening to the other person and responding carefully, intentionally, and graciously. You will wait until they finish talking rather than cutting in to refute everything they say. You won’t need to have the last word in every conversation. You will measure your words and avoid using inflammatory rhetoric meant to provoke rather than persuade.

Debate the claims, not the person

Speaking of persuasion, it’s important whenever engaging in conversations about controversial issues to make sure that your goal is actually to persuade. Unfortunately, this is where many disagreements go wrong. When one or both parties start targeting the other person instead of their arguments, it can quickly devolve into a series of ad hominem arguments. Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) arguments seek to undermine a person by attacking their character or credibility rather than addressing what they are saying. By refusing to engage in ad hominem attacks, you can help keep the discussion focused on the actual areas of disagreement. Even if your opponent engages in these kinds of tactics, refuse to meet them on their playing field. Demonstrate respect for them by choosing to focus on their arguments rather than attacking them personally. 

If your motive is to persuade the other person, you will want to hear what they are actually saying before responding. You will try to carefully understand their points and understand why they believe what they believe. This will keep you from unintentionally misrepresenting their perspective when you do try to respond. The opposite of this approach is to use strawman arguments. A strawman argument presents a distorted, weakened version of another person’s viewpoint in order to more easily knock it down. It’s like boxing against a cardboard cutout instead of a real fighter. 

If you’ve ever been the victim of a strawman argument (most creationists have), you know how frustrating it is. As people who care about the truth, we shouldn’t misrepresent what other people believe. The best way to ensure that we aren’t strawmanning our opponents is to carefully listen to them present their case. When we accurately articulate our opponent’s perspective and deal with their best arguments—“steelmanning” as opposed to strawmanning—we will likely find them much more willing to hear us out.

Ask questions…

In his book Tactics, Christian apologist Greg Koukl advocates an approach to spiritual conversations that minimizes confrontation and encourages critical thinking.³ He calls it the Columbo tactic after Lieutenant Columbo from the TV show of the same name, who cracks cases using simple questions. Koukl argues that by using simple, intentional questions, we can challenge those with opposing worldviews to assess why they believe what they believe. It’s non-confrontational because it doesn’t come out immediately and say, “Hey, I think you’re wrong about X, Y, and Z!” Instead, it promotes critical thinking by forcing them to explain why they think they are right about A, B, and C. Let’s look at an imaginary scenario to see how this works. 

…to get information…

Imagine that at Thanksgiving, after everyone is done eating, Uncle Steve boldly announces (remember, this is imaginary), “Only people who are scientifically illiterate believe in creation!” Instead of responding, “Oh yeah, here’s a list of 20 Ph.D. scientists who all believe in creation!” you decide to ask for clarification. This is the first use of the Columbo tactic: gathering information. You say, “Hey, Uncle Steve, I’m curious about why you think only scientifically illiterate people believe in creation. Can you explain further what you mean?” 

…to get evidence…

Imagine he responds, “Well, it’s because the scientific evidence for evolution is so overwhelming! If creationists only knew a little bit about science, they would cease being creationists.” Next, you employ the second use of the Columbo tactic. You use questions to place the burden of proof on him for his claim. You do this by asking why he holds the position he holds. You say, “That’s interesting. What scientific evidence for evolution do you find the most persuasive?” Imagine he says, “Shared DNA! I think the most persuasive evidence for evolution is the DNA we have in common with chimpanzees.” You ask another “why” question to figure out what makes this particular piece of evidence most convincing to him. He responds, “Well, it seems the only plausible explanation is that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor!” 

…and to make a point!

Now for the third use of Columbo: making a point. Rather than denying that humans and chimps share DNA in common (we obviously do), you challenge his claim that common ancestry is the only plausible explanation. You might not be able to persuade him that creation is true, but you can at least help move him towards acknowledging it as a possibility. You ask, “Well, do you think it’s possible that humans and chimps were created with a common blueprint? Do you think this could explain the DNA similarity?” If he’s honest, he’ll have to acknowledge that it is indeed a possibility.

If he pushes back that, while this scenario is possible, he doesn’t find it plausible, you could ask, “Why not?” He may point to other evidence he thinks supports evolution, like fossils. Or he might say, “In science, we can only use natural explanations. Creation requires a miracle, so it isn’t natural. Therefore, it isn’t plausible.” 

Uncle Steve has a point with his first and second statements. Science studies natural phenomena, and creation was indeed a miracle. The problem lies with his third statement. You respond, “I think you have some good points there! We can’t use science to study how creation occurred because it was a miracle. I agree with you there! But I’m confused about why you think only natural explanations for past events, like the origin of mankind, are plausible. Can you explain this to me?”

Notice that Uncle Steve still carries the burden of proof for his statements. As you continue your questioning, you will eventually come to the point where Uncle Steve will have to admit that his assertion that “only natural explanations are plausible” is an assumption that he hasn’t proven and ultimately can’t prove. If he’s intellectually honest, he’ll have to acknowledge creation as at least a possibility–which was your goal to start with!

Notice that in this entire imaginary scenario, all you did is ask questions. The conversation flowed naturally. It stayed focused on the arguments the other person was making. It didn’t veer into ad hominem attacks or strawmanning. It actually helped clarify for Uncle Steve why he holds to his position and gently forced him to recognize potential weaknesses in it. It may not seem like much, but you’ve actually accomplished a lot! And by being gracious with your speech, you have kept the door open for further conversations in the future! 

Be firm, but gentle

In our efforts to disagree agreeably, we must avoid being squishy in our convictions. If we are committed to Scripture as our ultimate authority, there are certain things we cannot do. We cannot pretend that Jesus is one viable option among many (John 14:6). We cannot take only some parts of the Bible seriously (e.g., salvation passages) while dismissing others as Bronze-age fantasies (e.g., historical narratives). We cannot sacrifice our convictions about social issues (e.g., abortion, marriage, and biological sex) for the sake of “getting along” with others.

Where we believe God has clearly spoken, we also speak clearly. We can’t dull the edge of the Sword of the Spirit in order to be nice. At the same time, we are called to display the fruit of the Spirit in our speech, being both kind and gentle. We are to speak the truth, but in a way that isn’t intending to cause undue offense.

I confess, this last principle may be the hardest of all to follow. Each of us have different personalities and temperaments. Some are more susceptible to being “overly-nice” while others are tempted to be “overly-confrontational.” We should aim to avoid both extremes and strive to be winsome in our witness. In other words, we should present the truth clearly in a way that is attractive to those who hear us. If we truly believe what we are saying is good, true, and beautiful, then how we say it should reflect those same qualities. As Colossians 4:5-6 says, we are to, “Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Emphasis added.)

Conclusion

In this article, we examined seven ways you can improve your conversations with people you disagree with. We started with our need to rely on God’s power in prayer. Then we saw how humility is the key to handling disagreements well. We discussed how self-control prevents the discussion from getting heated or personal. We also saw that debating the arguments rather than the person keeps the discussion on track. Then we saw how listening carefully and asking good questions can be an effective way to engage those with opposing viewpoints in a non-confrontational way. Lastly, I encouraged you to be firm in your convictions while also being gracious in how you argue for them.

In a perfect world, Thanksgiving would be a time when you simply enjoyed a well-crafted meal with your loved ones. No fights. No conflict. No disagreements. There’s a reason the Bible often uses feast imagery to illustrate the kingdom of God (e.g., Matthew 22:1-14). In some way, our feasts give us a taste of the goodness, bounty, and harmony of the world to come. But on this side of eternity, where sin and false worldviews lead people astray, we must make the most of every opportunity. We must “contend for the faith” (Jude 3)! Equipped with truth and grace, let’s strive to be gracious ambassadors of King Jesus this Thanksgiving.

Footnotes

1. Timothy Keller, The Freedom of Self Forgetfulness: The Path to True Christian Joy (Leyland, England: 10Publishing, 2012).  ↩︎
2. Steve Schwarz, “United in Spirit: Humility,” conference session, October 11, 2025, posted October 11, 2025 by The Anchor, YouTube. ↩︎
3. Gregory Koukl, Tactics: 10th Anniversary Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), 52-114. ↩︎