Of Rhinos & Hedgehogs: The Need for Kindness and Courage in Relationships

In reading a little book by Gavin Ortlund entitled The Art of Disagreement, I was helped by a metaphor he utilized to convey how disagreements express themselves through various personalities. Broadly speaking, two animals represent how individuals often respond to conflict with others: rhinos and hedgehogs. We have certainly all been in both these categories at times, but most of us could locate ourselves primarily in one camp.

Rhinos are individuals who have never found a disagreement that they didn’t mind jumping into headfirst. They charge. Disputes do not intimidate them. They are happy to give their two cents (and perhaps even more). Courage is not something they lack. On the other hand, hedgehogs are more intimidated by dissension. If there’s disagreement, they run the other direction. They would rather everyone just get along. They like harmony.

These are primarily differences in personality, not a moral issue. But of course, it can become a matter of character if those characteristics begin to dominate. For example, there may be times when rhinos may feel like charging, but it’s actually best to slow down. And for hedgehogs, there may be times when they feel like retreating, but it’s actually best to speak up. To make matters more complicated, we are all prone to see the strengths of our own tribe and the weaknesses of the other. If I’m more like a hedgehog, I’ll be tempted to think of a rhino personality, “Why are they always so opinionated? They lack tact, and they don’t care about others’ feelings.” If I’m a rhino, I’ll be tempted to think of a hedgehog personality, “Why are they so afraid? They have no guts.”

The reality is that both rhinos and hedgehogs have some work to do. Those who are naturally bold (rhinos) need more kindness and humility, and those who are naturally cautious (hedgehogs) need more courage. I love this quote by John Piper: “It seems to me that we are always falling off the horse on one side or the other in this matter of being tough and tender — wimping out on truth when we ought to be lion-hearted, or wrangling with anger when we ought to be weeping.” None of us are perfectly balanced.

Here are two helpful litmus test questions for guiding our decision-making when it comes to knowing whether or not to engage in an argument:

1. Is the disagreement crucial to the cause of the gospel?
2. Is a disagreement likely to be productive?

Regarding the first question, there are times to engage and times not to engage. In Galatians 2, Paul considered Peter’s actions (suddenly disengaging from Gentiles when fellow Jews came near) as absolutely crucial to the cause of the gospel. Peter’s actions conveyed that Jesus plus something else was necessary for salvation, rather than faith alone in Jesus alone. In other cases, Paul believed certain disagreements were not worth giving any attention at all. For example, Titus 3:9 – “Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time.”

Regarding the second question, wisdom must be combined with what is objectively true. If you have already engaged with another person on a divisive issue (e.g., abortion, the existence of God, etc.) and they have clearly not been receptive – perhaps they’ve even been mean and bombastic in response – then it may actually be unhelpful to engage about that topic further. We do not possess the ability to change another person’s heart.

This post is the third 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.