There’s a lot we can disagree on.
However, I believe we should be willing to disagree. The conflict can be good for both of us. Conflict can open space for hidden things to be revealed. It can be a place where the transcendent is discovered. For example, in the Christian faith, conflict becomes a space where the lordship of Christ can break through in transforming ways, calling each participant to an ethic of love, which is, after all, the “law” of our faith.
So yes, we should disagree freely, but without the trope of American liberty being invoked (after all, many of us like free speech a lot less when someone says something we don’t like). We can disagree because it’s good.
But disagreement requires admitting that we are choosing to take a side. Taking a side can be good, an exercise in our agency and personal responsibility. But even in taking a side and choosing to disagree, can we at least agree that we should have a human ethic not to harm those on the other side? If we cannot agree with that, the conflict we engage in and the side we take will be mechanized for violence. And violence hurts us all.
The Rev. Fred Liggin
It occurs to me more and more that we live in a society of ideological delusion. What I mean is we too easily claim neutrality. Yet, when we disagree, we naturally stand on the side of our conviction, which is taking a side. We reveal there’s already been a line drawn in our subconscious, and in disagreement, it’s shown. I don’t see anything wrong with that. But it’s what’s on our side of the line that matters. It’s what we are protecting that will determine how defensive or combative I get toward those on the other side.
For example, if I have drawn the line to protect my sense of well-being or what I value and believe protects my way of life, I will be defensive toward anyone or anything on the other side. My emotional and relational maturity (and especially my spiritual maturity) will determine how I do it and handle those on the other side of the line.
But taking sides is natural and inescapable, especially in a world where wisdom and foolishness are at work, where what is false is called true, what is bitter is called sweet, and what is unjust is called just. It’s why the Hebrew book of Proverbs presents two paths: the path of wisdom (defined and determined by God) and the path of folly.
Yet somehow, we have been convinced that taking sides is wrong or divisive. It may be our weariness with disagreements dressed in divisive and demeaning rhetoric. I feel it. But the answer can’t be neutrality or delusions of “meet in the middle,” at least not in matters of love, peace or justice. Sides must be chosen when a group of people’s collective well-being is at stake, or when love and justice are at stake, or when the truth, goodness, and beauty of faithful gospel proclamation and practice are at stake.
From a Christian perspective, Jesus took sides. But, he did so on the foundational ethic of loving both neighbors and enemies. He was working to secure liberation for everyone, which meant naming the anti-love ideologies and actions that perpetuated injustices and harms toward anyone.
The writers of the Christian scriptures took sides on the same foundational ethic and with the same aim of liberation. The Hebrew prophets also took sides, on the same foundation and with the same aim of liberation. They took sides because corruption, injustice, fear-mongering, a blatant disregard for truthfulness and the self-perceived victimization that arises from ideological or theological fragility all require taking a stand on the other side to name and face these ideologies and doctrines as they are. They didn’t seem to give in to the antagonism of the day, heaping one insult on another and labeling those with whom they disagreed with dehumanizing terms (although Jesus and the apostle Paul certainly employed harsh rhetoric specifically against those in power).
All of this said, we must be wise when taking sides, especially with the ideological antagonisms that pour fuel onto the same enemy-making machine we see in today’s political discourse. When I read the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, I am left with no other choice but to take sides. Why? Because we live in a society determined to draw lines. America-born versus somewhere-else-born — that’s a line. Racialized identities — that’s a line. Economic classes — that’s a line. These categories of distinction that work to tell us to whom we belong are, in fact, lines.
Chances are neither you nor I drew the line. But here we are. The policies and legislation passed dictate that we choose a side. Most importantly, how we view ourselves and our neighbors dictates which side we choose. More personally, my Christian faith dictates that I choose a side. I cannot claim neutrality.
So I choose to love my neighbor more than their “legal” status. I choose to figure out how to treat others the way I would like to be treated, or the way I would like my family to be treated. I choose personhood over profiteering. I choose love over fear, which means I have to figure out how to love those who see me as an enemy or wish to do me harm. I choose this because I have chosen to follow Christ, who tells me that this is what it means to follow him. I choose to believe that I am held by a divine love that will not let me go, so I will not let go of love, and I will figure out how to not let go of loving you, dear reader.
So let’s disagree. Let’s hold fast to our convictions. But let’s at least commit to not harming each other or our neighbors. Maybe in doing so, we can figure out how to work for a common good and end up on the same side after all.
The Rev. Fred Liggin is one of the pastors at Williamsburg Christian Church and founder & co-executive director of Faith Community Development & Training with 3e Restoration Inc.
