Silence isn’t peace — it’s just surrender in slow motion

Blaze Media recently published my opinion piece “Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script.” In the days that followed, readers left thoughtful and reasonable comments.

But when the Christian Post republished the same article, the comment section there sparked a firestorm.

If God the Father had been willing to 'agree to disagree' with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place.

If you don’t have time to read the article or browse the responses, here’s the short version:

The piece centers on a conversation I had with my friend Jeffrey, who strongly dislikes President Trump. Over the four years of the Biden administration, Jeffrey never once criticized Biden or his team — no matter how egregious their actions. Yet, barely two months into Trump’s return to office, Jeffrey was already taking shots at him. And he did so during what had been, until that moment, a relatively uneventful phone call.

To be clear, I didn’t bring up the topic of the president. I knew it was a sensitive subject for Jeffrey. But during a conversation about a recent movie, he found a way to insert his objection to Trump’s deportation policy, calling those deported “asylum seekers.” He also declared that Trump was “bad for democracy.”

I pushed back gently, noting that America is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. Jeffrey agreed.

When I pointed out that an open border has led to sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and violent criminals infiltrating small towns, he said he didn’t support any of that. But then he quickly ended the conversation with, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

Trump broke the truce

I found that well-worn phrase — “agree to disagree” — strange in this context. It suggests any disagreement, no matter how serious, can be casually brushed aside. Sure, my wife prefers chocolate ice cream, and I prefer vanilla. On that — and countless other minor things — we can “agree to disagree.” But when the stakes are higher? When lives are at risk — even the future of the nation? People should articulate and defend their positions.

After my “agree to disagree” article appeared in the Christian Post, commenters there came after me. Apparently, I wasn’t being a good Christian because I stirred the pot by bringing up Donald Trump — “the great divider,” as some called him. Never mind that I didn’t bring up his name. My friend did. But I wasn’t about to let his cheap shots go unchallenged.

In the original piece, I asked whether my friend — a faithful Christian — also sees his allegiance to the Democratic Party as an “agree to disagree” matter. Can a Christian’s loyalty to any political party cloud his judgment on what’s clearly right or wrong?

Jeffrey said he opposes sex changes for kids and drag queen story hours. But when it comes to deportation, he sees Trump’s second-term policies as domineering and out of bounds.

Disagreeing isn’t a sin

On critical issues — like the devastating effects of open borders — silence is complicity. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned, “Silence in the face of evil is evil. Not to speak is to speak.” When others looked the other way — or “agreed to disagree” — during the Nazi rise in 1930s Germany, Bonhoeffer stood firm. He was one of the few pastors who refused to be silent.

Today, the American left censors, cancels, and silences anyone who disagrees. Leftists expect us to “agree to disagree” but only if we’re the ones doing the agreeing — and the disagreeing. That demand for submission is part of why the country now finds itself in such dangerous and unstable times.

In my earlier article, one line struck a nerve:

It’s hard to imagine these days that the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ can be mentioned in the same sentence.

That line sparked outrage. One commenter at the Christian Post wrote: “Nothing ends discussions — or even friendships — faster than questioning someone’s salvation over their political party.”

But here’s the problem: That’s not what I said. That commenter assumed I questioned my friend’s salvation. I didn’t. Within the context of the article, it’s clear I questioned his wisdom — something entirely different.

Jesus didn’t flinch

A few years ago, it was trendy to wear wristbands with the initials “WWJD?” — short for “What Would Jesus Do?”

But I always thought the better question was “WDJD?” — “What Did Jesus Do?”

Without knowing the Gospels, we risk projecting our own preferences onto Christ. We imagine He would act just like us in any given situation. But if we read scripture and study His words, we begin to understand how He actually responded — and how we should, too.

Nowhere in the four Gospels does Jesus “agree to disagree.” He never split the difference. He never wavered. He always led from a position of authority.

Take His encounter in the Temple. Jesus didn’t debate the moneychangers. He didn’t issue a polite warning. He flipped their tables and drove them out (Matthew 21:12-13). He didn’t scold them and promise to check in again next Sabbath for a follow-up heart-to-heart.

Jesus didn’t agree to disagree. He made it unmistakably clear: God’s house would not be defiled.

Oswald Chambers, in his classic devotional “My Utmost for His Highest,” ends the March 24 entry with this piercing line: “You may often see Jesus Christ wreck a life before He saves it.”

He cites Matthew 10:34, where Jesus says, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

That doesn’t sound like someone looking to “agree to disagree.”

Debate or dodge

One commenter tried to compare disagreement to a hung jury — where jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict. But that analogy falls apart under scrutiny. Hung juries don’t arise from casual disagreement or an early vote. They happen only after jurors rigorously examine the evidence, debate the facts, and dig into every detail.

A jury doesn’t begin deliberations by taking a straw poll and calling it quits. It doesn’t return to the judge after a 7-5 split and declare, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

A fair trial demands serious discussion — so should any conversation where truth and justice are at stake.

If God the Father had been willing to “agree to disagree” with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place. We could have gone on living however we pleased — hurting others, being hurt, and suffering the consequences. Jesus might have shown up just to stand on the sidelines, shaking His head as we destroyed ourselves.

Consider the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the law required her to be stoned. He could have done what Pontius Pilate would do later — wash His hands of the situation. He could have said, “The law is the law,” and let the crowd do as it pleased. Agree to disagree, right?

But Jesus didn’t do that. Instead, He delivered a mic-drop moment that spared her life. Then, He told her, “Go and sin no more.”

Compare that to what happened when Jesus stood before Pilate. Pilate, faced with the mob, knew Jesus was innocent. But instead of standing up to the crowd, he caved. He agreed to disagree — and sent Christ to the cross.

When it comes to sin and judgment, “agree to disagree” is just cowardice dressed up as compromise. Jesus never did that.

You posted, didn’t you?

Some readers of my original article accused me of sounding self-righteous for taking a firm stance with Jeffrey. But I don’t believe we should compromise — or “agree to disagree” — on matters of real consequence. That’s why I laid out the facts clearly, whether Jeffrey knew them or not.

There’s more to be said, but let me end with this:

A surprising number of commenters on the Christian Post insisted that we should always “agree to disagree,” even on major issues. But every one of those comments proved my point. Not a single person “agreed to disagree” with me. Instead, they made sure their dissenting views were heard — some twisting my words, others going straight for personal attacks.

If they truly believed in “agreeing to disagree,” they wouldn’t have commented at all.

So who’s right about the value of “agree to disagree”?

Well, it appears it's debatable, after all.