Agreeing to Disagree--Agreeably
Agreeing to Disagree–Agreeably by Rev. L. John Gable
July 1, 2018
Have you ever noticed that religious people like to argue about religious things, and seemingly the “more religious” they are the more impassioned they get about their particular brand and practice; that the more “righteous” they believe themselves to be the more convinced they are that they, and sometimes they alone, are in the right, even to the point that they are willing to sacrifice friendships and relationships in order to make and maintain their point? Isolation seems not to be too high a price to pay for being “right.”
I love the story Nickey Gumble of the Alpha program tells of the time he was standing on the Golden Gate Bridge admiring the view when another tourist came up alongside him. He heard the fellow say, under his breath, “What an awesome God!” Gumble says, “I turned to him and said, “Oh, are you a Christian?” “Yes, I am a Christian!” he answered, and I said, “So am I!”, so we shook hands.
I said, “Are you a liberal Christian or a fundamental Christian?” He said, “I am a fundamental Christian”, and I said, “So am I”, so we smiled and nodded to one another.
I said, “Are you a covenant or a dispensational, fundamental Christian?” He said, “I am a dispensational, fundamental Christian.” I said, “So am I” and we agreed to exchange Christmas cards each year.
I said, “Are you an Acts 9 or an Acts 13, dispensational, fundamental Christian?” He said, “I am an Acts 9, dispensational, fundamental Christian.” I said, “So am I” and we hugged one another right there on the bridge.
I said, “Are you a pre-trib or post-trib, Acts 9, dispensational, fundamental Christian?” He said, “I am a pre-trib, Acts 9, dispensational, fundamental Christian.” I said, “So am I” and we agreed to exchange our kids for the summer.
I said, “Are you a 12-in or 12-out, pre-trib, Acts 9, dispensational, fundamental Christian?” He said I am a 12-in, pre-trib, Acts 9, dispensational, fundamental Christian?” I said, “You are? You heretic!” and I pushed him off the bridge.
Of course that isn’t a true story, and it certainly isn’t true of Nickey Gumble, but there is more than a hint of truth in it, as it reflects stories each of us have heard or even experienced in which people of otherwise good faith and character argue and churches split over seemingly trivial matters simply because individuals with deeply held convictions refuse to agree to disagree agreeably. Whole denominations have splintered and formed over disputes over matters most would consider inconsequential nuance. Such as, I have a friend who grew up in a denomination which split over the issue of whether it was allowable to sing four part harmony.
This morning we celebrate both of the sacraments we hold dear to our faith, practices one might think are uniting points in the Church, yet to the contrary they have been historic points of division. Baptism? Infant or adult? Sprinkle, dip or dunk? The Lord’s Supper, what exactly did Jesus mean when He said, “This is My Body, this is My blood?” How exactly is Christ present here? Be careful now, the answer you give may well get you thrown off the bridge!
It is the disagreement over issues such as these that Paul is addressing in our lesson this morning because he foresaw the problem: that people who are passionate about their faith, and the rightness of their particular practice of the faith, could easily lead to divisions in the unity of the Church, the Body of Christ. He warns believers, then and now, against anyone “self-righteously” setting their own beliefs and experiences as the norm by which the “rightness” of all other’s beliefs and experiences are judged. To counter such self-righteous judgmentalism Paul makes the case that there is room for differing responses with respect to how each of us lives out the Gospel in everyday life and warns against any attempt to impose uniformity in those matters which may disrupt the unity of the body.
In this particular section of Romans 14 he uses the example of disagreement as to whether it is right to eat particular foods, specifically meat, perhaps it was meat which had formerly been sacrificed to idols, or is it vegetables only, and which days if any are better than the others, or if they are all the same? Those particular issues likely don’t matter much to us today, but there are surely other matters that do, matters religious or partisan or legal, over which we are willing to go to the mat, even at the cost of causing division and sacrificing friendship and relationship, so we need to listen carefully to what Paul is teaching here.
The problem with self-righteousness, that is with being absolutely convinced that our way is the right way and perhaps the only way, is the tendency we have then to make our convictions the standard by which the convictions of others are measured and judged. Paul uses “the weak” and “the strong” language here without really defining what he means by those terms other than to say that the “weak” felt they could only eat vegetables, whereas the “strong” felt they could eat anything. I guess that leaves little doubt as to in which group Paul saw himself standing, but regardless his point is clear when he writes “Welcome those who are weak in the faith, (that is those with whom you disagree) but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.” Paul doesn’t commend either group for the stance they take on this particular issue, but he does condemn whichever of them condemns the other with whom they disagree on the grounds that such judgmental behavior threatens the unity to which the Church has been called. So his advice to both groups is exactly the same: respect the convictions of the other, even when you disagree with them, for to do anything less is to sacrifice the greater good.
This is a call for tolerance and respect for the differences of others, and civility when we discuss and debate them; something we would do well to learn and practice today. He is not saying that good theology doesn’t matter, or that obedience to God is passe; rather he is saying, “Don’t major in the minors!” To the conservative who says these details really do matter, he says, “No, they really don’t, particularly if in an attempt to win the argument over the rightness of your position you lose your relationship with your brother or sister.” And to the liberal who says those minor details don’t really matter at all, he says, “Yes, they really do, how you live really does matter, because each of us as individuals is also part of a larger community.” So, “Welcome one another, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.”
Paul offers three reasons why such condemnation by either group of the other is wrong.
First, in verses 1-4, he argues that as Christians we are servants of God and fellow members of the household of God, or as we speak more generally, we are all citizens of the Kingdom of God, so it is not proper for us to criticize and judge another member of God’s family, another citizen of the Kingdom. If God is willing to accept them, who are we to reject or condemn them?
The second point he makes in verses 5-9 is that our condemnation of another is wrong when both actions, ours and theirs, stem from the same desire, namely to please God. It is a “potato/potato” kind of thing. “Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own mind. Those who observe the day, observe it to the Lord. Those who eat, eat in honor to the Lord. Those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord.” While the practices may differ it doesn’t matter, since the intention is the same, to honor God. To use a phrase from a prayer by Thomas Merton, “If the desire to please God really does please God” then who are we to say that one’s desire is better than another’s.
Which leads to the third and final point Paul makes here about why it is wrong to insist on our own way over against another’s, because, in the final analysis, it is God and not any one of us who is in a position to judge such matters. In verse 10 we read, “Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” To set one’s self up as the judge of another, perhaps the very definition of what it means to be “self-righteous” is a very dangerous business. Jesus taught more about judgment, as we read in our Gospel lesson this morning from the Sermon on the Mount, “Do not judge so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged and the measure you give will be the measure you get”, than He did about nearly any other subject, and invariably He was harder on the religious, the so called “self-righteous”, than He was on anyone else. Simply put, when you are tempted to judge another, don’t! Suffice it to say, in the end we will all be judged and I suspect each of us will have more than enough to worry about with respect to our own conducts without taking on the additional burden of having to deal with the conducts of others.
Is Paul saying simply “live and let live”, “anything goes”, “none of it really matters”? No, of course not. As fellow members of the Body of Christ, we do have mutual responsibility toward one another and we’ll get to that teaching next week, but for now he is making an appeal for tolerance and respect in our relationships with one another in times of disagreement. Clearly the mere fact that God has welcomed each of us by His grace should give us some encouragement to extend a good measure of the same to others.
All of this should make good sense to us as Presbyterians, for it is consistent with the way we are taught to practice our faith. There are eight, so called, “preliminary principles” in Presbyterianism; think of them as being our “bill of rights”, inalienable rights given to each of us in our practice of the faith, and three of the eight relate to this particular issue of tolerance and civility in times of disagreement. The first being, “God alone is Lord of the conscience”, or as Paul writes, “Each of us is accountable to God”, which is to say, ultimately we are all answerable to God and not to one another, much less the Session or the pastor or the Pope, in matters of faith and the practice of the faith. The second is that “truth is in order to goodness”, or “to know the truth is to do the truth”, our convictions cannot be separated from our actions; and the third and final is that “persons of good character and principle may differ”. I’ve always thought that principle should be stenciled on the wall in whatever room the Session or any committee meets, or perhaps it should be tattooed on our foreheads. We don’t all have to agree with one another to prove the integrity or the veracity of our faith; to the contrary, our disagreements may in fact better reflect our desire to faithfully follow the convictions of our hearts.
So, in agreement with the Apostle Paul in his teaching here, “Persons of good character and principle may differ” as long as our desire is for the “truth that leads to goodness”, trusting that ultimately we are answerable to God and God alone as “Lord of the conscience.” In short, when it comes to matters of faith and the practice of the faith, “let us agree to disagree agreeably” lest we sacrifice the greater good, the unity to which Christ has called us. Amen.