Today begins a series of posts expounding on our “Five Themes” for Greensboro, first articulated publicly by Wade Burleson on his blog. I am writing this series as a way of giving more depth and texture to each individual point and to keep the thoughts before us. I am sure we will all be harkening back to them as time goes on and the SBC draws nearer. I am also sure that the events within the SBC over that time may add to the color of the themes and help us to direct them more specifically.

The first theme is: “The establishment of a framework for the free exercise of principled dissent.”

Of course there are several factors that make this theme relevant. Not the least of these is the principled dissent in which Wade Burleson finds himself and the reaction of the Board of Trustees of the IMB to that dissent. Most know that the original reaction was caustic and produced a motion by the Board to ask the SBC to remove Wade from its ranks over his dissent. For further background I refer you to Wade’s blog, Marty Duren’s blog and to my post, A Clumsy Retreat. Look to the posts of January and following on Wade’s blog and Marty’s blog.

There is another relevant issue within the folds of this controversy that might illuminate us. I think that we are seeing the mechanisms of the Conservative Resurgence looking for new targets. Put simply, there exists, within the structure of the SBC, a war machine that was very effective at taking over the convention, but was never dismantled. Left without an enemy, the targeting system now locks in on any who stick their head up and dissent from those controlling the entities of the convention.

Moderates have, for years, decried the fact that such a war machine exists and they have taken some level of satisfaction in pointing out that Conservatives are now “reaping what we have sown.” You can see that readily by reading through the comment sections after each post on Wade’s blog. Unfortunately, I think they are right. We are now targeting conservatives if they disagree on “non-essential” doctrines instead of moderates over the inerrancy of the Bible.

I had a professor in Seminary who said, 15 years ago, that there were people on both sides of the controversy who were fighting and not seeking peace because they held more sway in wartime than they ever did or would during peace. I think we are seeing that lived out today.

Finally, it is not just dissent that must be tolerated, but principled and public dissent. I have repeatedly mentioned my concern that the plan of action within the IMB BOT will be to silence public dissent. This may take the form of a policy that members of BOT will have to publicly support any action taken by the majority or remain silent. Since we know that Wade was not allowed to speak to the policies in question during the IMB Board’s sessions, and we know that he was also not allowed to speak in his own defense when accused and summarily placed before the SBC for removal, this would have left him no recourse whatsoever. In fact, if these kinds of policies were in place, Wade would have had to publicly support his own removal or at least remain silent. To have violated such policies would actually have given the Board REAL LIVE EVIDENCE of his breaking the rules and leading toward his removal. If you were to be a member of the “silenced” minority, you would have no voice in any arena.

In fact, we need to be vocal against any such policies being enacted, but we also need to be proactive. At the convention this year, we need to adopt a resolution that promotes public dissent while existing within the framework of humble and gracious discourse, based on one’s understanding of Biblical principles.

I take solace in the statement Tom Hatley made, and was reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, indicating that no one was for silencing dissenters. I am hopeful that he is true to his word and would not allow such a thing to be implemented. If it should happen, however, these words will certainly come back to haunt all who support such a policy.

In the meantime, everyone should be calling or emailing the Board members RESPECTFULLY supporting the right to publicly dissent. If such a policy were to be enacted, I have no doubt that it would be overturned by the convention, but the damage that could take place in the meantime could be devastating.

[UPDATE]

Greg Hicks posted this comment on Wade Burleson’s blog and I am reposting it as is here:

Greg Hicks said…
More evidence that public dissent IS the issue: Don Kirland, Editor of the Baptist Courier (www.baptistcourier.com/198.article) notes in a January 28, 2006 article, “James Guenther, a Nashville attorney who counsels both the Southern Baptist and South Carolina Baptist conventions, has… offered his opinion that what he termed ‘minority reports’ are inappropriate once trustees have made their decisions concerning institutional business.” This is consistent with Chairman Hatley’s remarks quoted in the TimesDispatch article by David Ress (February 24, 2006): “If you want to be a critic, you need to ask if you should be on the board; if you want to be an internal critic, criticize internally.”

This statement by Chairman Hatley stands in stark contrast to his statement quoted in the Arknsas Democrate Gazette in a story released on the 25th of February. “We’re not against his blogging or anyone else’s communication in public.”

Which will it be? Don’t think this is not a critical issue and that “minority reports” will always be allowed. I submit that the opposition to public dissent is lining up its ducks and this WILL BE AN ISSUE in the March meetings. If you have an opinion, you must voice it now.

Posts with related content

• No Related Post

TAGS: None