How to Be Persuasive in Areas of Disagreement
How to Be Persuasive in Areas of Disagreement
In reading through theologian Gavin Ortlund’s helpful little book entitled The Art of Disagreeing, I was encouraged by several practical and biblical suggestions he made regarding how to increase overall persuasiveness when we are engaged in a disagreement with someone else. Below are those points with some brief explanations.
- Be honest about your thoughts and feelings
Often, we try to be so objective in arguments that we leave no room for the human touch. We don’t show our weaknesses. We are scared to reveal where our intuitions and feelings come in. We shy away from admitting where we have doubts or questions.
Ortlund states, “Be human. Be honest and free and relaxed, as much as you can. As appropriate, provide the other party with information about your background, your experiences, and your feelings about the topic. This requires vulnerability because you are making visible your subjectivity rather than relying on impersonal logic alone. Vulnerability breeds trust. It’s astonishing how frequently you can win people over with a loving, sincere, transparent expression of the values that determine your thinking.”
- Be generous in your praise
If we’re honest, some of us come across more as Dobermann watchdogs waiting to pounce on any perceived flaw or deficiency in our opponent’s argument, rather than friends eager to find areas where we do agree. Instead, we should look for what’s commendable about this person and their perspective (this isn’t the same as wholesale agreeing with them).
Orlund states, “It helps the other party not feel on the defensive by showing that your disagreement with them is measured, not wholesale….Just as the best rebuke comes only after many words of encouragement, so also the most persuasive expression of disagreement comes after identifying areas of common ground and agreement.”
- Help your opponent save face
In some ways, this is the flip side of the same coin in the last point. In the previous point, we maximize points of agreement. Here in this point, we attempt to minimize the impact of poor arguments by the other person. In other words, it’s ok to help them see where their perspective may be lacking, but we want to make it as easy as possible for them to recognize this. In order to do this, we can’t distract from that aim with our own ungodly speech or behavior, because this will almost inevitably provoke defensiveness. Ortlund provides this example:
“You are disagreeing with your brother about how healthcare should be regulated, and he provides an absolutely horrendous argument to support his view. Instead of saying that his argument is horrendous, you say, ‘That was not the best argument I’ve heard you make for your position.’ This can be disarming because (a) it avoids directly calling his argument bad, and (b) it implies that your brother has made good arguments in the past.”
- Clarify points of disagreement (instead of assuming them)
This simply means being curious, asking questions, and trying to accurately represent their view. This is simply the golden rule lived out. Ortlund helpfully says, “[S]teelman the opposing opposition. “[S]teelman the opposing position, rather than strawman it. In other words, put the best possible construction on it, such that the other person feels satisfied with how it has been represented, and only then embark on disagreement.”
Tim Keller says something similarly wise and effective: “Never describe the view of an opponent in a way he or she will not own. Rather describe their view so they say, ‘I couldn’t have put it better myself.’ Only then should you proceed to refute the view. If you caricature your opponent — you persuade no one.”
- Assume the best of the other person
Regarding interpersonal relationships, 1 Corinthians 13:6b states, “Love believes all things.” This isn’t saying to be gullible. It is saying that our default ought to be to give the benefit of the doubt to others. This can be especially difficult to do in the midst of a disagreement or argument. It can be tempting to caricature this person; to make them one-dimensional, as if one feature of their personality is the sum total of their entire being. But have you ever had the same thing happen to you? Of course you have. We know it is extremely painful when others inaccurately interpret our actions or words and assume wrong things about us as a result.
Ortlund states, “[W]e tend to experience disagreements personally….For this reason, it often helps in the course of a disagreement to reiterate your deepest goals and desires….You want to act in a way that makes clear that first and foremost, you are for the truth rather than against them personally.”
- Appeal to what they care about in order to further the conversation
In other words, tactfully use the good things they care about as leverage to make an emotional appeal. People will typically listen to something that is connected to what they are emotionally invested in. For example, consider how Nathan the prophet confronted King David following David’s stealing of Bathsheba and murder of Uriah (2 Sam. 12:1-14). Nathan did not lead off with “You are the man!” Instead, he appealed to something David already cared about (i.e., justice and protecting the weak) in order to continue the dialogue. “Speaking their language” is an act of love that also helps us to be more persuasive.
This post is the ninth in a series deriving from the “Staying Friends Through Disagreement” seminar that took place at Rocky Creek in April 2026. If you’d like to receive the PDF note packet and audio version of that seminar, you may email allen@rockycreek.church.
