Imagine two women. Both have experienced something horrific. One of them, a mother, has lost her child in a school shooting. The other was raped in a car park, a few feet away from her truck. Suffice to say, both of these women have the absolute right to be upset. They have both experienced an injustice no one should ever have to go through. It is essential that both women receive compassion, and both have a right to be heard. The problem is, they both fall on opposite sides of the gun control debate.
While hypothetical, both of these women are based on real scenarios. The mother, of course, could be based on any number of mothers who have been affected by mass shootings, but the rape victim is based on one particular girl I read about who was raped not only a few feet away from her truck, but from the firearm she left inside it because she entered a "gun free zone".
It is 100% impossible to please both women. If you advocate gun control, you will upset the rape victim. If you advocate gun rights, you will upset the mother. If you stay neutral, you will upset both. Both of these people have valid feelings, but they cannot both have the right view on gun rights. Now, I do have very strong opinions on this issue myself, but for purposes of this article, I'm going to pretend I don't, and instead ask, how would you discuss the gun issue if you knew both people would hear what you had to say?
The obvious answer is to bite the bullet (no pun intended) and stand on the side of the one with the most rational view. This will inevitably offend the other. But even if the other has very real, valid feelings, their view is wrong, their arguments are likely very weak, and so it is illogical to side with them.
The same is true for virtually every issue. There are strong emotions on both sides, and many of them are likely valid. We could be talking about politics. We could be talking about theology. We could even be talking about petty squabbles between two or more of your friends. Valid feelings, unfortunately, do not make valid views.
Because of this simple fact, emotions make terrible drivers. They also make terrible navigators. Rather than having any power to guide a discussion, emotions should be relegated to the back seat, where, if necessary, they should be given the ability to distribute snacks when the car is no longer in motion.
Having taken the car analogy too far, it's worth noting that the one with the most valid feelings in any scenario is, of course, God. Unlike us, God knows all, God sees all, and God owns all. For this reason, the easiest way to determine truth isn't to ask who has the saltiest tears, the loudest wails, or the curviest frown. Rather, it is to ask what does the word of God say? "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). No one has a monopoly on emotion, but God has a monopoly on truth. Therefore, to follow Him is to find the right answer, even if that upsets "the other side".