Sermon Cloud

www.mhbrink.com

1/27/08

Agree to Disagree

The great online resource of the Wikipedia describes "agreeing to disagree" as “a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognize that further conflict is unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree.”  Another British website says that by definition, agreeing to disagree “comes late in a discussion or relationship--late enough that (1) neither wants to break off dealings entirely, (2) they've found an area of disagreement where each has tried to convince the other, and (3) they recognize that these efforts won't work. They set aside an irreconcilable difference to maintain a civil dialogue.”  Whether you’ve ever used the phrase or not, either you’re very good at persuading other people to your viewpoint, or you’ve done this before.

I know there’s nothing profound about this statement, but you’re different from me.  You have different preferences, different experiences, and different view points than I do.  I haven’t been where you’ve been.  I haven’t seen what you seen.  In short, you’re one person and I’m another.  There are probably some things you and I could agree on – maybe even many things.  But undoubtedly there would be some things we disagree on.  Perhaps we could enter into discussion for a while and I could persuade you to my viewpoint on a thing or two, and you could persuade me to your viewpoint on a thing or two, but likely there will be some things we simply will have no possibility of coming to agreement on.  And in this situation, we have three options.  We could either continue trying to convince one another, regardless of how fruitless the debate may be.  And likely, over time, we would only get more and more frustrated with each other.  We could vow never to enter into relationship with one another ever again. Or we could agree to disagree.  We could respect one another’s viewpoints, even while recognizing neither one of us is going to be persuaded to the other’s viewpoint.

While it is likely never anyone’s first choice, this last option is sometimes the best option.  It is an option that is probably most useful, as I see it, in family and church relationships.  Why is that?  I think it’s because it’s only necessary in relationships that are important to you.  For instance, maybe you see someone on the evening news that says something you don’t agree with – maybe they have a political viewpoint you don’t agree with – you could enter into a debate with the person over written correspondence or through phone calls.  You could argue back and forth for a few weeks, but the likelihood of that person significantly persuading you or vice versa is quite small.  So, you could eventually agree to disagree with that person.  But more than likely, you don’t have a relationship with the person you see on the evening news, so it’s easier just to dismiss what they say and move on with your life.  It isn’t worth the effort of a debate and the eventual resolution of agreeing to disagree.

But family (both biological family and church family) are hopefully made up of pretty strong relationships – relationships that are more important than any small disagreement or squabble.  You may get together with family over Thanksgiving to watch the big football game.  You may cheer for one team while your Uncle Tom cheers for the other.  You may compare the stats of each team, each trying to convince the other that your team is better, but, in the end, you likely will not be able to come to any ultimate decision.  You then have two options.  You could either disown your Uncle Tom – vowing never to speak with him again… a rather drastic decision over something like a football team preference.  Or you could agree to disagree.  You could continue to cheer for your team, and he could continue to cheer for his, but you can still maintain a very good, strong relationship with your uncle.

The same may be true in the church – perhaps even about positions significantly more important that whether you’re a Michigan or Michigan State fan.  But it seems to me that scripture would argue that even on these more important positions, it may sometimes be better to agree to disagree.  Let’s look together at some verses that make me think this may be the case.  This evening’s scripture passage is I Corinthians 1:10-18.

1 Corinthians 1:10-18 (NRSV)

10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. 12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.

18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Verse 10, on a first read, seems so absurd, it’s almost laughable.  Has Paul ever been involved in church relationships?  “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.”  Excuse me?!  In my research on the internet I came across a Dr. Ken Matto whom I disagreed with on several things, which I will get to more in just a bit, but one thing he said was all too true.  “If you put 3 Christians in a room you will get 4 opinions. Not everyone is going to agree with everyone on points of doctrine.”  Dr. Matto probably wrote this with a bit of sarcasm intended, but it’s often all too true.  So long as the church in Corinth had more than one member, it would seem inherent that there would be disagreements.  Disagreements and churches seem to go hand in hand.

But why is this?  Are church just full of disagreeable people?  Are Christians just people looking for a good fight?  I don’t think so… or at least I hope not.  After all of the teaching we get about loving, I would hope we don’t fight just for the sake of fighting.  I don’t think most Christians fight, or argue, is disagree just because it’s something fun to do.  And looking back over Christian history, we see many people who gave there lives because their viewpoint was different from someone else’s.  It would seem there’s something more to the strong stances people take than simply a disagreeable demeanor.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I think that most Christians stand by their beliefs so strongly because they hold their beliefs so close to their hearts… because they see their beliefs as being very important… very significant.  People hold so tightly to their stance in the church because, unlike Coke verses Pepsi or Michigan verses Michigan State, you beliefs regarding Christianity can have eternal consequences.  Your beliefs affect your actions.  And if you believe certain things about Jesus Christ and his will for your life your going to live your life differently from someone who doesn’t believe the same things you do.  In short, most people’s beliefs about their faith are very important to them, and can not be easily swayed in one conversation with one individual.

This is a good thing.  Scripture warns against being led astray by false doctrines, something which would be hard to protect against if you allowed your core beliefs to be swayed by any doctrine you heard.  But at a practical level, what this means is the church is full of people who are individuals who made up one body.  The church is full of individuals.  Individuals who have not had the same experiences… have not seen the same things… have not learned the same things.  And so, as individuals, there are bound to be disagreements.  But the church is made up of one body, and as Paul argues in our passage, as one body, we be united in mind.

O.K., so this leaves us in a bit of a conundrum.  The church has people who disagree with one another, but scripture tells us to be united.  What then should we do?  Well, I said earlier that it seemed to me that there were three options.  One, we could continue trying to convince one another, regardless of how fruitless the debate may be.  And likely, over time, we would only get more and more frustrated with each other.  In short, we could keep fighting.

While he doesn’t put it quite this way, it seems to me that this is the stance Dr. Matto, the gentleman I mentioned earlier, would want to take.  He says, “If two Christians are debating a point of Scripture, and if one does not have the answer to a question, they will normally say something like, "Let’s agree to disagree." I have heard this many times myself when bringing points to other believers. I started to ponder this saying and have come to a conclusion, that when a conversation or disputation is left with "agreeing to disagree" truth suffers another blow.”  “Basically when someone hits you with an ‘Agree To Disagree’, they are literally saying, "I will believe what I want to believe, and you believe what you want to believe." When someone uses an Agree To Disagree, they are being spiritually smug in thinking they have stopped an argument or debate. What really happened, is that person is truncating their own spiritual growth and development by choosing to remain where it is the most comfortable and palatable. The true gospel is an offense, even to Christians since it zings us also. If I was to define Agree To Disagree in one statement, it would be, "The avoidance of truth." How many times have you heard, "don’t rock the boat?" The true gospel not only rocks the boat but it overturns ships. If you are a person given to Agree To Disagree philosophy, you are really hurting yourself spiritually. How do you expect to grow if you set the standard of what you will believe rather then God? The answer is simple, you won’t!”

I can respect Dr. Matto’s point at one level.  Agreeing to Disagree should never be the first, immediate option.  In an ideal world, it would be nice if we would never have to agree to disagree.  But I’m afraid that Dr. Matto’s stance is built on a false premise.  I believe that Dr. Matto’s stance assumes that with enough discussion… with enough debate… you and I will eventually be able to agree and our faith will have matured because of it.  The problem with this stance is that history has simple shown that Christians don’t work this way.  God loving… God fearing Christians have been debating this or that for over 2000 years, and there are still any number of things Christians disagree on.  It’s not that these God fearing Christians haven’t gone to Scripture and searched for the truth.  It’s that they’ve searched for God’s truth and come to different conclusions… different interpretations.  We could continue to debate, the route Dr. Matto would seem to want us to take, avoiding agreeing to disagree at all costs, but it seems to me that rather than continuing in our faith by continuing in debate, that continuing in unfruitful, excessive debate is one of the devil’s main tools to distract us, get us stuck where we are, and keep us from focusing on what we hold in common and what we find to be most important.

So, it seems to me, that endless arguing is not only not what Paul encourages the church in Corinth to do, but it also is not what is most beneficial to you, me, and the church as a whole.  Well, then what about our second option.  Our second option is that “we could vow never to enter into relationship with one another ever again.”  This is the “I’m taking my ball and going home” approach.  It’s seems rather juvenile, but it’s an approach the church has often taken.  The first significant split took place some 1500 years ago when the Western Catholic church split from the Eastern Orthodox church.  They argued, couldn’t come to agreement, and decided to end fellowship with one another.  But it didn’t stop there.  Some 500 years ago the Protestants split from the Catholics.  And there have been any number of splits in the church since then – splits that continue to this day.  Two groups can’t see eye to eye, and rather than continue debates (and likely continue hurt feelings), or agree to disagree, they go off on their own and end fellowship with the first group.

Not only does this not seem like a very Christian attitude, but it also doesn’t seem to be Paul’s encouragement in scripture.  Paul want the church to be perfectly united in mind and thought.  Seems to me to be difficult to be united by dividing.  It’s one option, but probably not the best option.

So finally, what is our third option.  Our third option is to agree to disagree.  This may not seem like a great option.  And it certainly isn’t what I would suggest is a first option, but in time it seems to be the best option.  Why is that?  Well, let’s look again at this evening scripture.

Paul, and God, wants us to agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among us.  It quite clearly seems like our first attempt ought to be to try to come to an agreement.  But any Christian who’s been a Christian for more than a week knows that agreement is not always possible.  So how can we continue to grow in our faith, continue the mission of the church, continue in relationship with one another, and at the same time not allow our beliefs to be swayed by any and every individual that comes along?  It seems to me that we need to agree to disagree.

By agreeing to disagree I don’t get bogged down in one topic, debating it over and over in circles, to the detriment of the rest of my spiritual walk… let alone the mission of the church.  By agreeing to disagree I recognize that you and I likely will never agree on a given issue, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still walk side by side in our faith and work together in the mission of the church.  I don’t know if perfect unity in the body of Christ is ever truly possible.  We seek God’s truth, but sometimes you’re going to interpret God’s truth one way, I’m going to interpret it a different way, and we probably will never know God’s absolute truth until we meet him face to face.  But by mutually agreeing to move beyond our differences we can walk together as we both grow in our faith and we can walk together as we continue of the mission of the church of proclaiming the good news of the gospel to the world.

It seems to me and this evening’s passage, though, that there is one notable exception.  There is one thing we can never agree to disagree on.  There is one thing we can never negotiate on.  That one thing is that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to salvation.  Paul received a report that the church in Corinth was divided among Paul and Appollos and Cephas and Christ.  Paul came to preach Christ.  Christ is the one common denominator.  “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”  To those who are perishing, that is those who are not saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, the message of the cross is foolishness.  In other words, they will inherently be in disagreement with Christians, but we can not therefore see their stance as being as viable as our own.  You and I and everyone else on planet earth may be in disagreement on many things, and agreeing to disagree may be the best way for us both to move forward.  But we have to hold secure on the certain belief that God is the one and only way to Salvation.  ON this, scripture is clear, and we must be perfectly united in mind and thought.

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Amen