Why we cannot ‘agree to disagree’ with the Left

I sat next to a successful business leader at a dinner recently. Our conversation turned to the bitterly divided nature of our politics and culture. He lamented this polarization, and the often mean and disrespectful ways people treat each other, especially online.

“I’ve never engaged in social media,” he proclaimed proudly, as if abstaining were the solution to our national malaise. He also fondly looked back at Ronald Reagan as the example of a statesman who adhered to principle whilst engaging opponents. At the twilight of his career, this businessman longed for a more bipartisan and congenial past.

I share his respect for civility. Treating others with dignity is essential, rooted in the truth that every person is created in the image and likeness of God, and is therefore worthy of respect. That divine image, no matter how marred by sin, grounds our commitment to due process, equal justice, and legal representation for all.

But civility, while necessary, is not sufficient. Why? Two reasons.

First, our worldviews are now profoundly incompatible. As John Stonestreet has observed, we often describe the same issue in completely opposite terms. The other side calls it “gender-affirming care,” but we call it mutilation. The other side calls it “reproductive health,” but we call it the killing of an innocent unborn human life. Our side prizes colorblind meritocracy; the other side dismisses it as privilege.

These differences aren’t minor policy disputes or disagreements. These are issues in opposing moral universes. These are not objective moral positions with room for compromise. How can we “agree to disagree” when one side says the sky is blue and the other insists it’s green?

With our differences so binary, it’s hard to imagine we can even say that we can “agree to disagree.”

Second, objective truth itself has been replaced by identity and emotion. Shortly before his passing, theologian Voddie Baucham noted that we no longer argue from philosophy or moral reasoning, but from “lived experience.” To question someone’s beliefs or otherwise subjective opinions is now seen as questioning their very identity.

Saying that transgenderism is wrong now earns you the label “transphobic” and is deemed unworthy of engagement. And in this new moral calculus, words that offend identity are treated as “violence,” justifying real violence in response. Responding to them with real violence becomes logical and justified. The latest example of this, of course, is Charlie Kirk, whose alleged murderer confessed his motivation for committing the act was to silence a viewpoint that he deemed “hatred.” He said, “some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

And in the U.K., it is now against the law to pray silently outside an abortion clinic; officials view even quiet prayer as a threat to women.

No amount of civility can bridge this divide. Only redemption and revival can. 

God’s people need a spiritual revival that gives them the courage to speak the objective truth, love enemies, and hold conviction over social and personal comfort.

So how do we move forward?

First, reject the myth that civility alone can heal our culture. It’s often used as a weapon to shame Christians into silence. Yes, we must speak truth in love, but biblical love compels us to speak objective truth, not to suppress it.

Second, civility is good. But courage and truth are better. Christ-followers should not believe that politeness alone can heal our culture. Many use civility as a tool to silence people of faith. We must speak truth with love because real love never hides the truth.

This conflict is spiritual, not only cultural. Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. There are actual enemies of the Christian faith who want to see us silenced, either temporarily or permanently. 

Yes, we face real opposition. But we do not need to fear it. God calls us to stand firm, speak truth clearly, and live faithfully according to His Word.