I have been thinking more about "agreeing to disagree", with the whole way we argue and confront one another on matters, great and trivial, and the ways in which we very often hurt one another and exclude each other in pursuit of whatever goals we are trying to achieve. I have been thinking, in short, of what it means to take a stand on principle, regardless of cost, and whether or not there are alternatives to this. As both a Christian and a political lefty, I often find myself agreeing with a variety of things people say who regard my religious faith either as a delusion or as some sign of my intellectual or emotional immaturity or stuntedness, or whatever. Because my political beliefs march hand in glove with my faith - I couldn't tell you which came first, or which shaped the other more, and trying to do so is irrelevant - I find it necessary, at times, to ignore insulting, demeaning, or just plain erroneous talk about "religion" in order to pursue certain common interests. At other times, however, I take a stand, refusing to back down, and call people on whatever particular nonsense or prejudice they may be spouting off about. I will not insult or degrade (except for Sam Harris, who is a joke), but I refuse to budge in certain areas.
Yesterday, I wrote about frequent commenter and fellow blogger Democracy Lover, and our occasional disagreements. I will not deny that they have at times become quite heated. I will also never waiver in my gratefulness for his comments and thoughts, because he is as insistent on his own viewpoints as am I. I have a healthy respect for him, even when I disagree, and I believe and hope the feeling is mutual. We can disagree without ever feeling personally affronted; we can disagree without ever thinking it was necessary to convince the other of their error. We can even disagree and refuse to believe it necessary to come to some kind of fake agreement! The issues on which we disagree are vital to each of us, indeed, for my part I would call them matters of principle, perhaps even first principles. I do not think DL is either sinful or evil or awful, however, because he does not think or believe (in his case, not believe) as I do, because, as I have said many times, I am neither the font of all truth nor the holder of the secrets of the universe. Even in matters as vital as those concerning my faith, and faith in general, I concede I may be as wrong as snow in July, or Bush any day of the year. This healthy (to my way of thinking) skepticism of my own powers of intellect and insight is part of what keeps me from throwing in the towel - I recognize I may be wrong even when i am convinced I am right.
On a larger scale, I feel about taking stand on principle the same way I feel about ideological blindness - once we replace the reality with which we are faced with our beliefs about how things ought to be, and deny reality in favor of the illusional ideal, no matter how appealing aesathetically or ethically or politically, we are on the road to being no better than Bush and his cohorts, who are in such a delusional state concerning our current predicament they actually do the opposite of what people want them to do.
There is also a relevant story here. In the mid-1920's, European theology went through a bit of a renaissance, as a movement towards researches in scriptural studies, new methods of theological thought, and an insistence on the radical differentiation between the divine and the created orders swept over German-speaking (and non-German speaking as well) caught fire and ignited imaginations. As the 1920's ended and the 1930's began, however, cracks began to appear in the great wall of theological union, as political divides began to separate those formerly close friends. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, two Swiss Reofrmed theologians, began to disagree sharply, their disagreements hidden behind turgid, and often barely readable, academic prose. Finally, as the German social, cultural, and political collapse came closer in 1932, Barth removed himself from much of the theological debate in a famous front-page editorial in the journal he started, Zwischen dem Zeiten (Between the Times), entitled simply "NO!". In it, Barth insisted he had nothing more to say to interlocutors on issues of reason versus revelation, natural theology versus revealed theology, because any inch given in this debate only aided and abetted the backers of the new, growing German primitivism and paganism. He completely broke with Brunner, and even when the latter was on his death-bed, and asked Barth for a visit, Barth refused, saying that Brunner's obstnate refusal to deny to natural humanity a capacity for divine understanding was not something that was, for Barth, forgiveable. Barth saw Brunner as an intellectual aid to the horrific paganism of Nazism, which of course was not true. Yet, Barth was taking a stand on principle, and in so doing, missed an opportunity to visit an old friend and see him off.
More than anything else, it is this story that effects me the most. When ideological fervor, and insistence on principle, interferes with human relations; when ideology replaces reality; when principle becomes more important than people, that is where I cease to stand on principle. Perhaps that is my principle - people are more important than ideas. People are more important than beliefs. Real, breathing, thinking, feeling people - even those with whom I disagree on matters of vital urgency and importance - are far more important than those matters. Perhaps it is that, more than anything else, that separates me from s many others. I will bend and even break if another person is hurting or in need or reaching out in an honest way. I will not grant them correctness in their beliefs; I will not concede an inch in any disagreements we may have. But I will be their friend if they need it. I will help if they ask. I will support them as one individual to another if they need anything at all.
Perhaps getting along doesn't necessitate going along, you know?
