Agreeing to Disagree?

Families are famous for their silence. Silence on painful topics, silence around fault lines, silence to keep the peace. Silence often feels like a small price to pay to keep the family together. But silence is also limiting. It prevents healing and can hide the truth.

Until this past year, the church I attend has been silent on the topic of homosexuality. While the culture exhibited a seismic shift on the topic with the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, we said nothing. Finally, in winter of 2016, we had an adult-Sunday school series exploring the Biblical view of homosexuality, but only a minority of our members attended.

Two things at least are needed for unity: a shared understanding of how to read the Bible, and effective, church-wide teaching on the topic. Even our limited exposure to the topic showed that the former is lacking, and the latter simply can't happen unless we are all learning together. Our church is currently between pastors, making this impossible. Without unity our church can take for granted a certain irrelevance, since we can't speak with a single voice on a topic so central to our culture. More importantly, without unity we can't effectively minister to the same-sex attracted in any form, and our church remains for those brothers and sisters a dangerous place. What gay man or lesbian woman would be safe sharing deep thoughts and feelings not knowing where our church stands?

Without unity, do we just agree to disagree? While the discussion within the Church is recent, having arisen in response to rapid cultural change, the question of what it means to “agree to disagree” is ancient and addressed by Scripture. In the Bible there are certain beliefs and behaviors which are considered so serious that they would prevent one from inheriting the kingdom of God. For instance, in Galatians 5:16-26, Paul gives a list of vices, the opposite of the fruit of the Spirit, which characterize those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul speaks with the same gravity of the resurrection, which he considers indisputable, a matter on which believers cannot simply agree to disagree. 

In contrast to this are certain religious behaviors. In Romans 14, Paul discusses choice of special diets and setting aside of certain days for special religious observance, concluding that the Roman believers should do as their consciences dictate, not passing judgment on others and being “fully convinced in their own mind” regarding their behavior. These matters may be placed in the “disputable” column; reasonable, sincere believers may disagree about them and choose different paths.

The church is to treat differently the beliefs and behaviors in the “disputable” column from those that are indisputable. A primary concern for disputable matters is not offending what Paul calls a “weaker” conscience. Believers who recognize that meat sacrificed to idols is still just meat are told not to eat that meat if it would lead a fellow believer to do something which would offend conscience or cause them to sin (1 Corinthians 8). The things in the indisputable column, however, are taken very seriously. So, for instance, believers can disagree about whether to eat meat previously sacrificed to idols, but they can't disagree about idolatry itself. When some believers in Corinth allow forms of fornication forbidden in the Old Testament law (much as homosexual activity is), and even treat them as an indication of freedom in Christ, Paul insists on excommunication with the hope of repentance (1 Corinthians 5-8).

So where does that leave us? Well, Paul places homosexual behavior among those vices which characterize those who will not inherit the kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; see also 1 Timothy 1:8-11). These vice lists are worth reading. One is hard pressed to find even a single behavior on those lists which has ever been considered for the “disputable” column. Rather, Paul himself treats homosexual behavior quite differently from the special religious observances of Romans 14. For Paul this is not a disputable matter. This is a crucial difference between women in office and homosexual practice: nowhere does the Bible support the latter. It's wrong to argue, as some do, that they are parallel issues; the Bible treats them entirely differently.

The fact is, though, that there are sincere and loving believers in our church family who point to scholars who interpret Scripture differently. As these brothers and sisters in Christ read it, loving homosexual relationships are not condemned. Despite this, we aren't back at square one; there are four things we can still conclude:

First, since the Bible, by a straightforward reading, takes homosexual activity so seriously means we must too. However we read Scripture we must recognize the eternal stakes (as Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). If we get this wrong, the effects could be devastating. All sides must recognize the gravity of the topic.

Second, we can't rely upon experts to do the Bible study for us. These passages are not esoteric, and there's no excuse for not reading the key passages carefully, in context. This should serve as a warning to each of us, regardless of our position: we are responsible, not for collecting scholars who support us, but for interpreting the Scripture. There is no excuse for failing to read the relevant passages carefully, in context.

Third, if your chosen church has a functioning governing system (as our does), then work within that system. In our denomination that means following the biblical and historical position which forbids homosexual activity but calls us to love and welcome and minister to all who seek to put themselves under the authority of Scripture. 

This requires some balance. On the one hand, we want to encourage an atmosphere of open discussion and inquiry. On the other hand, we are bound not to teach those things contrary to the denominational position, nor enact policy which opposes it. In fact, we should not be embarrassed to teach and preach the straightforward reading of the Bible on this topic if we do so with sensitivity. 

Fourth, whatever position we hold, we must treat all members with love out of respect for Christ. There are those in our church who are scared of censure and feel isolated in what’s meant to be their refuge from the battering world. I have talked to those on both sides of this issue who feel afraid to speak openly on this topic for fear of angry responses. This is something we can and should change, and there's no better way than deliberately reaching out to those who disagree with you, to ask them why they believe as they do—not to argue, but to listen, one-on-one. This simple act is profoundly counter-cultural and can be a witness to the watching world.