After I wrote my post earlier today, I continued to think about why I want the people with whom I agree to hold opinions with which I will always agree. I think naming it as not wanting conflict is not fully right. Granted, conflict isn't my favorite, but (if you know me well) you have to admit, I'm pretty confrontational. No, conflict isn't the real issue. As I thought (and I may have to think more about this particular issue), I came to the conclusion that the reason why I want such a standard is because of fear. I don't want to get hurt in the mix of things. In other words, if I expect us to generally be in agreement about things, I am more prone to put my guard down, and then, if you (whomever the second party happens to be) say something far afield from where I expect you to be, I am more likely to get wounded. I think more than avoiding conflict, it's avoiding getting hurt.
Case in point, the example of the people at my church who walked out. In a sense, I had let my guard down. I had exposed myself, my passions, and my convictions in that particular worship setting. And I was wounded. Never in my life, would I have imagined church people walking out on me. Never. Maybe I should have, but that isn't the point. The point is, I trusted them to receive a service of worship, prayer, and healing that joined our two congregations (including the spanish speaking congregation THEY had started) and they (at least those 7) didn't. And it hurt.
So, if you are one who knows you differ from me on something, the sentiment I hope to express here is not that I don't want conflict (b/c you can probably bet your shorts that if it's there I will attend to it), or that I will disregard you for holding a differing opinion, it's more about me creating my own awareness about why the case of Hays (or others that are similar) was so troubling for me.