When "Agree to disagree" is Dangerous

 

And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’ “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”  Mt 25:45–46 NLT

In controversial topics, we are taught that in order to be civil in the communities in which we participate, that it is polite and respectful to "agree to disagree".  This is often used to de-escalate a disagreement that has emotion attached.  Devoted Coca-Cola drinkers will rarely agree that Pepsi products have more flavor, and so thanksgiving gatherings will often agree to disagree when a guest breaches generations of etiquette by bringing a two-liter bottle of Pepsi to a Coke family gathering. The point is that when the topic is trivial and no one has the potential of being harmed, it is appropriate to go the "lets agree to disagree" route.

However, what if someone at the same thanksgiving meal made a statement that disrespected or dehumanized someone.  Let's say that the host of the meals begins to tell racist jokes, and a guest responds by saying that they are uncomfortable and disagree with the racist implications of the joke.  It is not appropriate to agree to disagree because the consequences may lead to further racist treatment and ultimately violence.  

I visited the beautiful nation of Rwanda in 2013 and heard the experiences of the survivors of the Rwandan genocide with 1 million souls killed in 100 days.  In the Genocide Museum in Lilongwe, the story is told of the genocide that begins 100 years prior to the actual violence.  What becomes apparent, is the use of language to dehumanize and degrade precedes and ultimately justifies horrific violence.  Part of human nature is that it is more difficult to be violent toward someone we fully humanize. Yet if we allow our consideration of another to be objectified as a "thing" to be manipulated rather than a person to be cared for, violence comes easily.  

In American history, to be called the N-word, was slang for "Negroes" that was purposely altered to objectify African Americans which helped to normalize the cruelty of chattel slavery.  Its offense, and its implied dehumanization is not something that should be tolerated.  When we say that we "agree to disagree" we are saying that we disagree, but I can tolerate the difference. There are situations in which intolerance is the right thing to promote, in order to advocate for the well-being of others.

Jesus evaluated his follower's life not by how often they prayed, read the Bible, went to worship, or how generously they gave in the offering. While Jesus promoted all of those things, he ultimately evaluated their lives by their ability to love their neighbor in tangible ways, with particular sensitivity to those who are most marginalized in any context (Mt 25:45-46 above).  Jesus celebrates those who are "peacemakers" (Mt 5:3).  Those who bring shalom into places where it does not yet exist.  Shalom, often translated as the word peace in most English translations, is better understood as an environment of flourishing.  Not just the absence of conflict but the presence of security, acceptance and significance in life.  

Yet, most often what we attempt to do in "agreeing to disagree" is peacekeeping, not peacemaking.  This makes a huge difference:

"Well, peacekeepers are defenders of the status quo.  They're working to keep things as they are.  Whether in war or law enforcement or the church, a peacekeeper is someone's whose job is to stop conflict.  There can be huge value in this, and it can even sometimes be part of peacemaking.  But peacekeepers can also be a powerful force against the movement toward shalom because peacekeepers are preoccupied with lack of conflict.  Which means that if movement toward shalom is going to cause discomfort, awkwardness, trouble, conflict or unsettled emotions, the peacekeeper is going to step in to say, hey, we don't need that.  Its harmony at the expense of true peace." --Kathy Khang and Matt Mikalatos in Loving Disagreement.

True peace results when there are just and righteous relationships between people.  Relationships which recognize the dignity and worth in another. Privilege, which means prioritized access to resources required for flourishing based upon something inherent (like race, gender, etc), often produces a lens that makes it difficult to understand the dehumanizing implications of a statement or policy.  For example, a policy that seeks to deport millions of people who lack documentation may seem like a policy that is simply enforcing current laws.  However, if you actually know someone who lacks documentation, including those born in the US, people fleeing violence or abject poverty, or have been waiting in the years long asylum processing, then you begin to realize that the implementation of that policy is cruel.  In this example, if you do not know anyone who would be affected, or it doesn't affect you personally, then it is easy see mass deportation as an immigration reform policy that can be agreed upon or disagreed, but not important enough to warrant conflict.  But when we realize that millions of families to whom you have compassion, will be disrupted and that we do not actually have a functional system of immigration, it is no longer something to be tolerated.

In our avoidance of conflict and the feelings that that come with compassion, such as the deferential fear that occurs when we confront something that is otherwise culturally acceptable and popular, we avoid participating in the mission of Jesus. 

"Why do we race past our pain and anger and grief when they are what fueled Christ's compassion?  Why do we silence grief when God incarnate paused to feel it?  Why do we push down our protests when Christ himself prayed through his?  Why do we attempt to be holy without allowing ourselves to be human first?"--K.J. Ramsey in The Lord is My Courage

 I just want to encourage you to understand that when people are involved, Jesus expects to prioritize love of neighbor.  "Agree to disagree" is fine when it inconsequential.    But when people are involved, Jesus is looking to see if you will speak up for the "least of these".  Ultimately, Jesus wants communities of faith where a culture is built based upon embodying Jesus' ethic of love. That radical ethic assumes an interconnectedness and interdependency of all neighbors.  This connection means that what affects your neighbor, affects you.   Culture is not only built by what we value, but also by what we tolerate. If you tolerate racism, xenophobia, sexism, violence, greed, exploitation or any other source of evil, it becomes part of your culture. 

If you are a follower of Jesus, I want to encourage you to take Jesus at his word in peacemaking. As the President of the American Psychological Association Dr. Thema Bryant states:

"Truth telling will cost you.  Tell it anyway because your silence will cost you more."