Agreeing to Disagree in the Church

In every church and/or denomination there are disagreements.  Sometimes the disagreements are about seemingly “small” things – the color of the new carpet for the sanctuary, whether to move the worship time earlier in the summer since the church does not have air conditioning, whether or not to place a memorial plague on the new baptism font, or what time the youth group should meet for pizza.  Obviously these small disagreements can also be seen as HUGE issues depending on the nature of the deciders and the emotions behind the decision needing to be made.  I have seen churches make quick work of these decisions and I have seen them become acrimonious and last for months on end.

Then there are the other more difficult decisions churches have to make.  Sometimes they are about finances – whether or not to build or to close or to add staff.  Sometimes they are about outreach – whether or not to provide a food pantry for the community or to do some other hands on ministry.  Sometimes it is about advocacy – whether or not to speak out against an injustice for those who have no voice.  Sometimes it is about pastoral ministry – whether or not to call or ordain a particular pastor or not.  Sometimes it is about theology – what we believe to be the core theological issue related to baptism or Eucharist or how we think of God.  Sometimes it is about scriptural interpretation – whether or not a particular text means one thing or another or several things at once.

In many churches today disagreements are happening on a regular basis.  Some of them are about seemingly small issues that have become big ones.  Some of them are about BIG issues that are sometimes being thought about in small ways.  Some of them are about big issues and deserve a big table to discuss them around.  No matter what the issues are they all have an impact on those involved – either directly or indirectly.

I am part of a UM Clergy group on Facebook that was created to discuss ministry issues and be a network of support for each other.  Unfortunately, it has devolved into a debating group about the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage on too many threads of conversation.  The issue deserves serious and continued discussion, but that is best done in one-on-one and in small group dialogues where people establish relationships and a level of trust so that they can hear and be heard by others in the group.  This kind of anonymous posting on a Facebook wall and then debating by belittling and demeaning others’ points of view has become tiresome and overwhelming.  There seems to be little room for disagreement without denigrating the person who holds a different perspective.  There are times when even asking a question about a post prompts a tirade.   And on occasion I have posted as well – though I think I have tried never to get personal.

There have been significant changes in how we interpret biblical passages regarding slavery, women in ministry and other passages throughout history.  I believe passages related to homosexuality should be given the same kind of intense scrutiny and interpretative perspective. 

In my tradition we hold Scripture as being primary, however we also are called on to use our own reason, experience and the tradition of the church to determine how we come to theological conclusions and often how we interpret texts.  It is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and it is formative to how we as Wesleyans view the reading of biblical texts and the living of our faith lives.  Wesley did not create it – Albert Outler did in his edited work on Wesley in 1964. Outler regrets the term today because it seems to make Wesleyans, and others, think of these four sources as being equal.  And for Wesley they never were.  Scripture was always primary.  But the other sources are vitally important considerations in our theological endeavors. 


The very nature of this quadrilateral means we as Wesleyans have ample opportunity to disagree.  We all read the same Scriptures but the rest of our quadrilateral informs that reading and helps us determine how we come to theological understandings.  Our tradition is varied depending on where we come from, our congregational traditions, and interpretations of our denominational tradition.  We all think differently and reason using differing levels of education, understanding and interest.  Our experiences are as varied as we are - all living unique lives of varying opportunities and possibilities.  All of this means we are bound to come to different theological positions - that allows for the full richness of our denomination.  The fact that we do not all agree is part of who we are.  I never want to lose that.  However, it has become dangerous in some circles.

For many the use of Scripture has become a stick with which to beat others on the head in an attempt to force them to agree with another’s perspective.  For many the use of Scripture has become a way to force others to live out their lives guided by someone else’s archaic understandings of biblical interpretation.  For others it is a grace-filled word of love and grace that opens us up to amazing possibilities.  For still others it is the guide for all things good and noble.  For many it is the Word of God – laid out for us in the Old and New Testaments.

I do not believe we can solve difficult issues by arguing past each other and by pressing our points of view at the expense of relationships.  I do not believe that by belittling others we win points in theological discussions.  I do not believe that the scriptures are weapons.  I do not believe that we make headway by being mean to each other.

I get frustrated with the slow nature of change.  I get tired of trying to get people to listen to other possibilities.  I get annoyed by the reality of exclusion in our churches and in my church in particular.  I disagree with the way many of these texts are used today.  I believe God calls all kinds of people and the church should be open to their gifts for ministry – all of them.  It is God's role to call folks - not mine.  It is my job to affirm those gifts and help nurture and support them.  It is my job to engage those gifts in seminary and prepare those persons for transformative ministry in the world.

You may not agree with me – but I welcome the discussion.  I welcome an open and honest discussion that uses all of our sources as interpretative tools – not just one person’s view of only way to read a text or point of view.  We can talk about carpet color or about the nature of the church or about what we believe the church is calling us to do and be.

So … let’s talk and listen to each other.

Civility is Hard But Necessary!

I am part of several Facebook discussion groups, follow a number of blogs, and read a lot of political and religious websites on a daily basis.  And one thing I have gotten extremely tired of lately is the lack of civility.  Folks on several of the Facebook discussion groups I am part of ask questions and then blast anyone who differs from their opinion.  The discussion on several topics has gotten downright ugly at times.  Now, a disclaimer – I have participated in these discussions but have tried to stay civil.  I believe I have played nice but others might see my participation differently.  I am, after all, a very opinionated person who is not shy about sharing her beliefs, political stances, etc.  But I have tried.  And one glance on political websites or at cable news shows and your “lack of civility meter” will be on full overload.

It is really nothing new.  Even though folks have been talking about the lack of civility a lot lately – (especially before and since the 2008 election) it is nothing new.  In the 1870s political cartoonists used their voice – sometimes in very uncivil manners – to bring down Boss Tweed in New York.  In the 1960 election, the Catholicism of John F. Kennedy was discussed by some in clearly uncivil ways.  Attacking political opponents is a long standing tradition around the world.  But it does seem that civility has taken a decidedly negative turn of late.  Some of it seems politically based, some seems racially based to me (in presidential politics right now), but mostly it is simply differences in ideology and how they view the role of government.

I remember growing up in Texas being told – never discuss religion or politics around the table.  The reason was that arguments would likely erupt.  But my family always encouraged these types of discussions.  And today, the result is politically savvy children and grandchildren … folks who vote, work for their candidates, and make their voices known.  And children and grandchildren who are greatly involved in their churches and know what they believe.  We do not always agree on any of these things, but we try to be respectful of each other.  Even when my son was younger and found out his grandparents were Republicans we took a moment and he called to talk to them about it.  He respectfully asked if they knew the candidate they were backing was against something important to his family.  They talked about how they did not agree with everything their candidate said but overall agreed more with them than the others in the field.  They applauded his inquiry and interest.  And he learned to ask intelligent questions of others about their beliefs and to discuss it in a civil way.

But that is not what I have experienced in some of my web based discussion groups.  There has been some real animosity and lack of civility.  I want to have important discussions and to do that with a variety of people.  I want to have important discussions with folks I disagree with and be respected in that discussion – while I am at the same time affirming their right to be wrong.  Whoops … I meant their right to have their own opinion.  But I seldom get that.  Is it me?  Am I not affirming of other’s opinions?  I think I am.  But I also would guess we all believe that about ourselves. 

So here is my advice to myself and to others.  STOP yelling at each other.  Stop being so entrenched in your own views that you cannot even listen to other people.  Stop  being disagreeable.  Stop being so rigid.  Stop being so mean.  Stop assuming the other person is wrong.

Listen to each other, disagree in love, discuss in a civil manner, and for goodness sake be aware that how you treat each other in these discourses is being watched by the next generation.  I am so grateful that my son learned one good thing from me – to be civil in his discussions and disagreements with others.  And I hope to echo that behavior in my own life – on the web or in person.  

Being civil is hard work – but it is also necessary!