In The United Methodist Church we are using the phrase “agree to disagree” an awful lot these days. I am not so sure that we understand what it implies though. I am going to try and unpack how we can agree to disagree and how we can not in good conscience do so here. Let’s begin with a simple working definition of the phrase. When we agree to disagree, a few things happen I think. We agree that neither of us is likely to change the mind of another. That is not necessarily a bad thing, simply a recognition. We agree that we both hold an opinion that we think is correct, and we will continue to do so. If you don’t want to, you do not even have to admit the other individual may be correct in order to agree to disagree, you simply have to understand that the opinion is not going to change. This is healthy and useful as well. It is a good tool in interpersonal relationships. We can go down the more negative roads as well though and use agree to disagree as an attempt to replace an objective reality with, hopefully, your own. That is one of the more negative aspects of the phrase and one that is unhealthy and damaging to us. We should be cautious that we are not trying to agree to disagree in this manner. Let me use an example of healthy agree to disagree usage from our own Articles of Religion.
Article XIV — Of Purgatory
The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, worshiping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the Word of God.
Let’s examine what this actually says. First off, we are not claiming here that the Church of Rome are not Christians. We are not claiming that they do not love God, love people, love Christ, etc. We are saying that the United Methodist Church has a pretty strong opinion on the topic at hand. We agree to disagree with Rome about this. Rome may choose not to agree to disagree with us, but that is another matter entirely. Notice that we do not say here that individuals can not pray to the saints or keep a belief in Romish purgatory. We say that this is the belief of the church. A prime example of agreeing to disagree. The church has stated her point, the individual has stated their point and life goes on. Another example may be found in our membership requirements. In order to be a member of the United Methodist church one must be baptized and claim Christ. A person may disagree with this and be of the mind that you should not have to be baptized in order to be in membership. In this too one can agree to disagree with the church, but note that in doing so the church is not required to allow you to be a member. The point being that agreeing to disagree does not always result in you being able to do whatever you want to, in this case, become a member of the church. Note that the church here is still not saying that you are not a Christian, that you do not love people, etc. simply that you did not meet the requirement so the desired effect is not forthcoming.
The stance of The United Methodist church on SSM is well documented by this point. You agree with it or you do not at your leisure. There is nothing in the UMC beliefs that says that you must agree with it after all. The church is willing to allow you to agree to disagree as it pretty much is in all things. The church will, with one exception that I am aware of, allow you to become a full member, it will administer the sacraments, etc. all while allowing disagreement on the matter. If you are a pastor, however, there is a different agreement made. There is a pretty strong argument to be made that the church allows for disagreement on the matter even then, but the church does not allow for you to use the authority granted to you by God through the United Methodist Church, to perform such a marriage or to be involved in an ongoing relationship with a member of the same sex. The church also does not allow for you to be engaging in any sort of (what she considers to be) sexually immoral behavior. She allows for you to disagree with the position, but not to act upon it. The church does not allow you to embezzle funds from her, though she will allow for you to disagree with that. The church does not allow for crime, teaching doctrine that is not in line with her, to undermine the ministry of another, racial or sexual harassment, etc. She allows you to disagree with those stances, but does not allow you to practice them. (In theory at least. It is also well documented that we are not enforcing our standards well across the board.) That is all a matter of agreeing to disagree. The church allows for you to disagree with her, but does not allow for you to always act upon that disagreement. That is replacing the objective reality of the beliefs of the church aside and replacing them with your own. That is the unhealthy sort of agreeing to disagree.
Where we find ourselves is at the crossroads of healthy agreeing to disagree and unhealthy agreeing to disagree. One allows us to move forward together and the other replaces the beliefs of the church with the beliefs of those who disagree. I am not claiming that the church is always right. I am not claiming that there are not points I disagree with her. I am not even claiming that she will not change her mind at some point. I am claiming that while we can, and should, agree to disagree on a wide variety of matters, but we should not be using that as a way to replace what the church has said with what we have decided we want to do. Many disagreed with Jesus, and He even let them, but notice He did not allow them to go and do whatever they wanted. He agreed to disagree with them, yet maintained His teaching and practice. The same should be able to be said of His Bride.