How can we disagree faithfully?

Wouldn’t it be more convenient if all Christians could agree on everything of substance? How much easier that would make it to speak with one voice on issues that concern us. Just imagine, “A CNN/Newsweek poll shows that 100% of all Christians are in favor of….”

Unanimity would make a powerful statement. Yet history and experience shows that ideal to be out of reach. Christians are as opinionated and fallible as anyone else and we will never all agree on much. People of faith can have strong convictions that run counter to one another.

One source of disagreement is, of course, that we don’t always see eye to eye on how to interpret scripture. Yet, even when we agree on scripture, we can still disagree.

I have seen this issue arise around election time when supporters put forward their candidate as the only real Christian alternative. Those who oppose the candidate are not then merely making a wrong political choice, they are being unchristian, even evil. Yet, you can always find Christians whose faith leads them to support the opposing candidate.

So no matter how much common ground we find, there will always be occasions for disagreement with fellow Christians. Many disagreements are over things that don’t matter, but many other times disagreements arise over matters of consequence. How can we be faithful to our own beliefs while being loving to those with whom we disagree?

First, we must avoid demonizing people with opposing viewpoints. No matter how strongly I am convinced, it does not mean that those who oppose my views are necessarily unchristian. Remaining convinced that a given viewpoint is wrong is one thing, while deciding that those who hold that view are in league with Satan is quite another.

The issue might not be as cut and dried as I want to make it out to be. Even if it is, that does not make the person who disagrees with me a bad person. The other person may after all be uninformed. Truth be told, I might be the one who is uninformed. The one thing that is certain is deciding up front that those who disagree with me are evil will prevent any real dialogue.

Next, we have to be open to meaningfully interacting with people who hold opposing views. Unless we listen well enough to understand why those with opposing ideas are convinced we are wrong, we won’t even be in a position to decide we disagree with them. We have to be open to genuinely hearing those whose views run counter to our own.

I want to apply this bit of theory to the hot-button issue of war with Iraq. Many people who would all describe themselves as faithful Christians hold strong positions on opposite sides of this issue.

My own position is that I am convinced that Iraq does not at this moment pose a clear and present danger to the United States. Iraqi weapons inspectors destroyed more bombs in the 1990s than were taken out by the Persian Gulf War. I prefer to leave that option in play much longer. Iraq has more cause to believe that we are a threat to them than they are to us, so I would be cautious before I spoke strongly about pre-emptive strikes lest it give ideas to Saddam Hussein. I am further convinced that military action against Iraq will fuel anti-American sentiment likely leading to an increase in terrorism against America and its allies.

Notice that everything I wrote above is my political judgment, not a theological one. Theologically, I hold the view that Christians may justify going to war if both the cause fought for and the means of war are both just provided that war is only pursued as a last resort. This theological view combined with my own political assessment leads me to be strongly opposed to war at this time.

How does the theory I started this column with apply here? Many Christians, including our President, are convinced we must topple Saddam Hussein by means of a war against Iraq now. Demonizing people who hold this view as violent warmongers without a shred of compassion will not help them or me. By listening to those who are in favor of war now, I have heard the very real fear, which guides their response. They are convinced that waiting could prove fatal to tens of thousands of innocent people if not more. There have, after all, been times in history when wars really did prevent further bloodshed and increased the peace.

On the other side of this issue, many Christians are convinced that war is not a Christian response and cannot ever be justified. I do not agree with them. Yet, painting pacifists as wimps or worse, claiming that they are pro-Saddam Hussein, is not helpful.

By having remained in conversation with Christian pacifists, I am reminded of how strongly Jesus was on the side of peace. Jesus preferred to die unjustly rather than to even speak of raising an army to force a regime change in first century Palestine. Pacifists point to the surety of death and suffering of innocent people if we go to war. I have to acknowledge that even if I disagree with total pacifism, it is one possible Christian response, a not un-American one either.

In the process of staying in touch with people who hold opposing views, I have had my own views challenged in helpful ways. I have remained in fellowship with people from whom I could have cut myself off by dismissing anyone who doesn’t agree with me as ignorant at best and unchristian at worst. Staying in dialogue with people I disagree with is how I can be faithful even in disagreement. Trying to remain faithful in disagreement also leaves me humble enough to admit that I can be wrong.

            (The Rev. Frank Logue is pastor of King of Peace Episcopal Church in Kingsland.)

previous          Return to Religion Column page         next