I was watching one of only a few Religious YouTube channels I peruse— Gospel Simplicity. In this one, the creator was communicating about what he liked about the Catholic church. It should be noted that the creator is not Roman Catholic. He is actually Anglican. He likes to bring together dialogue between Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians. I greatly respect that. But looking in the comments, I did note that some Catholic viewers responding with hopes that the creator would stop delaying and just get on with converting to Catholicism. As I said, this was Catholic viewers, but one could also imagine some Protestants, uncomfortable with a fellow Protestant giving any credit to the Catholics, saying about the same thing. (Probably if I read the comments more closely, I would indeed find Protestants doing this.)

I suppose it should shock no one that we live in divided times (as if division hasn’t been with us since the very beginning of human history). It can be hard to say something nice about another group. One may almost feel an obligation of putting a little dig in with every nice word. I have been there. I was a member of one Protestant faith tradition who lived with members of another Protestant faith tradition— one which often seemed to be bothered that not everyone agrees with them. I tried to be a nice guest, refusing to be drawn into arguments about “who got things right.” For many years after, I had run over in my head what I should REALLY have responded with. It was only many years later that I realize how great it was that I kept my mouth shut. After all, there is nothing inherently wrong with others disagreeing with me, and me with them.

But agreeing, or failing to actively disagree can be misread. For the Gospel Simplicity channel, the host/creator does speak positively about other branches of Christianity, but he has also spoken in a carefully thought out why he embraces the faith tradition he does.

Some time back an acquaintance of mine, a friend of a friend, was sharing his unique take on a number of doctrines. While I disagreed with much of it– sometimes strenuous disagreement– some small bits of his beliefs I could resonate with. I decided to express positively where we shared agreement and only vaguely challenged him in areas of disagreement. I don’t feel bad about that but that half-hearted response led to me getting all sorts of notes and updates. Ideally, I don’t want to affirm or attack. But the middle ground can lead to the other person deciding that we are very much on the same team. Hoping I won’t have to speak too forthright.

There are times that being nice in interreligious encounters is simply the right thing to do, even when there may be misunderstanding. One day a couple of JW evangelizers came to our house. My wife was friendly but still rejected the conversation. Three days later two others came to talk. She was told that the others had felt that her response was positive, even inviting. But it still was not a mistake. I have heard from others that JW and Mormon “missionaries” are inoculated with the belief that unbelievers (with respect to their own worldview) are going to respond negatively, even hatefully. Apparently Evangelical Christians are especially prone to reinforce this presumption. But undermining that presumption is good. St. Paul apparently was grieved at the idolatry of Athens, yet the religiosity of members of the Areopagus was responded to with generosity of spirit. Christ’s conversation with the Woman at the Well follows a similar track.

Somehow embracing a gentle positive response while still clearly embracing one’s uniqueness seems to be the right strategy. However, if that was easy, everyone would do it.