Can You Love Them If They Don’t Agree With You?
why we want people to share our opinions
Do you ever feel uncomfortable when someone you love doesn’t agree with you? When they argue with your opinion or choices, does your adrenaline rise like mine? I feel like the first thing I have to do is convert them to see things my way. Like if I don’t, then there is something wrong in the universe, like an anomaly in the space-time continuum is about to go supernova. (words that sound like how I feel, even though I really have no idea if I used them right.) But, it is human nature, this feeling, isn’t it? And it’s fueled by the part of us that longs for safety.
When someone agrees with you, your nervous system can relax. Agreement tells your brain, “This person is aligned with me. The universe is safe. Nothing is going to explode; all is well.” But disagreements, even small ones, register as uncertainty, and the nervous system treats uncertainty like an emotional supernova; far more dramatic on the inside than it looks on the outside. So we instinctively push for consensus, not because we love control but because our wiring confuses agreement with safety.
We humans feel most comfortable with a coherent inner universe. So when someone sees things differently than us, it creates a sense of internal disorganization—like noticing a picture frame hanging just a little crooked—and you want to straighten it by bringing others over to your viewpoint. Agreement is social glue:
If you think what I think, I feel less alone.
And that sense of not being alone equals safety. This is why disagreement feels so agitating. Our need for safety runs deep. And in order to feel safe, the mind seeks predictability, and we equate predictability with control. Spiritually, we even mistake that control for truth. So when someone diverges from our view, it doesn’t feel like a simple mismatch of opinions; it feels like instability. Which then threatens our sense of connection and our illusion of control. Obviously, we all want harmony, but we also want our internal map to be the same map everyone else follows. And in moments like these, we instinctively trust our own experience above any other mapmaker’s.
Theologically, this might just be the residue of original sin—our first parents wanting to see the lay of the land for themselves and draw the map from their own experience of it. In Eden, the temptation wasn’t the fruit; it was the promise of omniscience, the ability to define right and wrong for ourselves. And the human heart still has a taste for that kind of authority.
When people disagree with us, it reminds us, uncomfortably, that we’re not sovereign over them. And when our sovereignty feels threatened, desire turns into demand. As James says, “You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.” That’s us doubling down, hoping our logic, even if heated, will relieve the discomfort.
And because opinions are rarely just opinions (they’re identity statements), disagreement can feel like your identity is being questioned. That’s why debates escalate so quickly at the table. We’re rarely fighting over facts; we’re fighting for self-coherence, safety, belonging, and our dignity.
If the real desire underneath our defensiveness isn’t dominance at all but closeness, belonging, and the hope of feeling safe with the people we love, then this instinct is our downfall, because the harder we try to force agreement, the more the very connection we’re reaching for slips through our fingers.
But there is a different way to handle this incessant need to have everyone we love following the same map. And it begins with grace, an understanding that the work isn’t to make them see what you see, but to stay present with them, patient and grounded, even when they don’t.
The answer isn’t that we need to get better at persuading; it’s that we need to get better at releasing. To stop seeking a sense of safety by forcing agreement.
We have to learn to trust that connection can survive differences and that love can hold together through the internal storm of intellectual, political, and even theological disagreement.
Which means we have to be willing to surrender the urge for shared thoughts and matching opinions, because having everyone see the world the way we do isn’t what creates closeness; it’s what keeps closeness from happening. The moment we release our grip on other people’s preferences, we make space for real love.
When Scripture speaks of being ‘of one mind’ or ‘one spirit,’ it’s not calling us to identical opinions or matching viewpoints, but to a shared posture of humility and love in Christ. It calls us to share the same purpose; to aim our lives toward Christ and toward one another in love, even as we see the world differently. Recognizing that connection doesn’t require conformity, and that belonging isn’t contingent on agreement, is how we build relationships that can breathe the rarefied air of disagreement without suffocating.
Whether the issue is politics, parenting, personality preferences, lifestyle choices, or the way someone loads a dishwasher, the spiritual task is the same: stop trying to manage another person’s inner world. That’s an attempt to take over God’s godness. Let God be responsible for the unseen architecture of another person’s mind, and let yourself be responsible only for how you love them. Their inner life, choices, and preferences, even opinions, are not your job!
I’ve been thinking about this so much that I ended up writing a whole book and workbook on it, which will come out next year. More on that soon!
Field-Testing: Human Sovereignty
“Where do the conflicts and where do the quarrels among you come from? Is it not from this, from your passions that battle inside you?You desire and you do not have; you murder and envy and you cannot obtain; you quarrel and fight.” (James 4:1–2)
Why we’re testing this passage:
Because this verse exposes how quickly the desire for inner certainty turns into the demand for control.
1. Start with the conflict
Where does this passage say our conflicts and quarrels come from?
What emotions are described here?
What is our relationship with these emotions that leads to the quarrels?
2. Examine the passion and desire
What are some passions and desires that tend to lead to quarrels?
Where do you notice envy or unmet longing showing up in your closest relationships?
How do those desires manifest in your communication, relationships, and feelings?
3. Define peace in context
The passage right before this passage is telling. Let’s take a look: “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” (James 3:17–18)
How does this passage contrast the one we just looked at?
What does the passage tell us about the way to peace in our relationships?
4. Test the practice
Now, apply verses 17-18 to your disagreements with the opinions of others?
How might being impartial affect your anxiety and your relationships? The dictionary says impartial means: without favoritism, bias, or personal agenda; capable of seeing or judging without being swayed by preference, fear, or self-interest.
How do you feel about being impartial the next time someone disagrees with your opinions?
Field Note:
The real test is whether we let God govern our desires or let our desires govern everyone around us.
You really nailed it with this one
"We have to learn to trust that connection can survive differences and that love can hold together through the internal storm of intellectual, political, and even theological disagreement." So well said. Love your thoughts on this timely topic.