The Dissent of Man: Cliff Notes Version

My objective is to determine whether or not I would support such a resolution.

First, what are the issues that the dissenters are addressing?

1) The right of dissent.

2) The extent of the authority given to trustees by the convention delegates to define and enforce church doctrine.

3) The extent of missionary qualifications and missional cooperation.

I see this resolution as primarily symbolic in nature without any measure to insure that the resolution, if agreed upon by the majority, is actually honored by the convention leadership and the agency trustees. The fact that it is such a principled point without the normal safeguards that normally would insure general acknowledgement makes it such a sublime effort and (dare I say) subversive (i.e. Christlike) tactic. Those who are advocating this resolution are not demanding allegiance but requesting a good faith measure completely within the bounds of Christian brotherhood. No one is to be removed from positions of leadership. No one is to be told that they cannot continue to seek their agenda (i.e., the trustees can continue to make up rules by their convention-given authority and others can continue to try to change the rules by principles dissent). In reality, the Conservative Resurgence and the SBC leadership have nothing tangible to lose. In reality, this measure, if enacted, would allow them to continue to pursue their agenda without any realistic restraints ... save for the allowance that other people can publicly disagree with them. And it is for this latter allowance which will cause them to fight tooth and nail to keep this resolution from being successfully approved. This is why, if passed, they will seek to circumnavigate this resolution in the most atrocious and dubious manner.

THEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT ALLOW DISSENT.

They will always try to silence dissent, criticism and anyone who disagrees with them, their goals or their methods.Many of the current Resurgent leadership talk about how true are their beliefs and how certain they are about how right are their beliefs and how wrong are the beliefs of their opponents. However, I have always suspected that they are either uncertain about the validity of their beliefs or they are uncertain about their ability to convince others of their beliefs. Why do I say that? Sure, they talk a good game in expressing their own certainty, but their actions are always the actions of those on the defensive and those somewhat uncertain about effectiveness of truth to make itself known.

- They never want to debate their beliefs with those who disagree with them.

- They are very afraid of allowing people who disagree with them to be heard.

They cannot and will not allow it. To do so would be to undermine all that they believe and all that supports their belief. I actually fear that this resolution, if passed, will do great damage to the Conservative Resurgent movement. But it will do so by methods completely Christlike and antithetical to those employed by the Conservative Resurgence leadership. The only reason that I would not support this resolution is because I am sure that it is going to cause the Resurgent leadership to "stumble".

BP article:

IMB trustee Bob Pearle, pastor of Fort Worth’s Birchman Baptist Church, defended the policy, telling the newspaper, "What we are talking about is that when trustees vote on something, then the whole body needs to get behind it."

One of the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence is currently pastored by Dr. Pearle. Is this a coincidence?

1) Many of the IMB trustees have dismissed Pastor Cole as only pursuing this issue in order to get back at this Resurgent leader. But how could they think that this was Pastor Cole’s agenda if that leader wasn’t involved?

2) When defending the new IMB rules, the lead IMB trustee cites an unpublished article by this Resurgent leader. Of all the sources to cite with regards to these issues, how is it that the lead IMB trustee refers to an UNPUBLISHED article?

3) This Resurgent leader preaches on this subject just at the time when this issue is at the forefront; a sermon which is in complete agreement with IMB policy changes.

4) And, again, one of the IMB trustees (and now Baptist Press reference) is the pastor of this Resurgent leader.Now that I know who is behind all these IMB rule changes I now understand the fear and panic of the SBC leadership over Wade Burleson and his blog. Many SBC leaders do not like blogs because they are practically uncontrolable. They fear bloggers and other dissenters because they themselves know how effective such actions can be because they themselves were successful with them.

Pearle, in rhetorical fashion, asked, "If these so-called Baptist leaders he [Cole] has in mind are silencing dissent, why isn't he being silenced?"

Of course, Pastor Cole is not a IMB trustee and cannot be silenced. However, if he was one, then he could be silenced and prevented from publicly voicing his criticisms. Furthermore, if the majority of the trustees agreed with Pastor Cole, then Dr. Pearle could be silenced and prevented from voicing his complaints about Pastor Cole.

Also notice this: Dr. Pearle states that when a SBC agency makes a decision that the "whole body" should support that decision or remain silent (whether he is referring to the trustees in particular or the SBC in general, I do not know). He says that no one should dissent but then says that no one is being silenced. I can understand how he can believe these two things. He means (I believe), “Dissenters are not being silenced even though they should not be dissenting publicly.” This in of itself from an IMB trustee is more reason than anything to express the need for such a resolution of dissent. Let us assume that Dr. Pearle is correct and that dissent is allowed by the SBC: 1) then there would be no harm in codifying such a practice because it is simply acknowledging the current practices of the SBC. 2) If dissent is currently allowed but there are trustees that believe dissent should not be allowed then this would be a good opportunity to safeguard the practice of dissent lest future trustees decide to codify their own personal opinions about dissent to prevent anyone from questioning their actions.

Now I have some personal experience with the people involved in and promoting the IMB rule change. Let me tell you: from the 1960s thru the 1980s, these people were not in power in the convention and its agencies and dissented all over the place and encouraged such dissent by pastors and students both in the seminaries and the agencies. And this is why these former dissenters are scared of such dissension because they know it can be used to achieve power. That this is not the aim of the current dissenters is irrelevant because the SBC leaders cannot take that chance.

How about those leading the charge for the resolution on dissension? What kind of people are they? I must say that any fear of their intentions is quickly and totally evaporating. Everything that the dissatisfied are voicing and doing has been completely open and public. They did not meet behind close doors and did not formulate takeover strategies in a New Orleans “coffee” house. They invited convention leaders and trustees to join the meeting and invited the press to cover it. There appears to be no double-dealing or under-the-table negotiations at work. And the reason for why this is the case is because of who these people are that are meeting. Who are these “dissenters”?

1) They are conservative, bordering on fundamentalism. At most, we can say that they are non-Landmarkist evangelical conservatives.

2) None of them have any problem with the BFM 2000. One of their main bugaboos is that the IMB trustees are exceeding the authority granted to them by the BFM 2000. They desire greater conformity by the SBC agencies and agency leaders to the document, though acknowledging the principled right to disagree with it.

3) They have been appointed to positions of leadership by the SBC leadership AND Conservative Resurgent leaders, including the architects of that movement. These are not outsiders like the Resurgent leadership trying to enter into the convention hierarchy.

4) They agreed with the Conservative Resurgence in both its goals and much of the methods applied.

5) They are mostly Gen Xers which means that the SBC Boomer leadership is going to have to address their concerns to some degree because they are the general concerns of the majority of a generation that has and is about to assume leadership of the churches and ministries of the SBC. But let's look again at the Resurgent leadership:If the Resurgent leadership can so easily ignore and “get around” the resolution if passed, then why should they not simply allow the resolution to pass without much ado and then continue on as normal as if nothing has occurred?

1) They do not want any resolution with which they disagree that has been approved by the majority of convention delegates however binding to be a precedent for future action. The Resurgent leaders would rather not allow potential future problems to incrementally manifest themselves.

2) One of the primary themes of the Conservative Resurgence has been against any lack of conformity. A resolution of dissent runs antithetical to this particular strand of creedal conformity.

3) The incident that instigated this dissent movement was the attack on Wade Burleson. This attack was a huge miscalculation and it’s still hurting. The Resurgent leadership wants that incident forgotten and a resolution by Burleson supporters is not a welcome development.

4) When looking at Pastor Burleson, Pastor Cole and the rest of the Memphis 30, the Resurgent Leaders see a threat and a big one. Why are they considered a threat?

a. They are criticizing the Resurgent Leaders and proposing the possibility that more criticism should be welcomed.

b. They are a few people in this group who are considered suspect for both practical and personal reasons.

c. The manner in which this Dissent Movement is unfolding is eerily familiar to many of the Resurgent leaders who have been paranoid about the possibility that a disgruntled group of Southern Baptists will use the tactics they used to wrestle control away from the convention.

d. The Resurgent leaders do not really yet know how to deal with these people. How so?

i. The Memphis 30 are mostly bloggers and the Resurgent leadership is baffled by such means even while knowing its effectiveness to both inform and persuade.

ii. These dissenters cannot be categorized as either moderates or liberals. They cannot be considered either outsiders or necessarily overly disgruntled individuals seeking revenge. The Resurgent leadership does not yet know how to properly label them in order to have them discounted by the rest of the SBC.

iii. It took the Resurgent leadership almost a year to drum up enough support to have the SBC withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance. With the dissenters, they have 6 weeks.

iv. The Resurgent leaders do not simply have to persuade neutral delegates that the Resolution on Dissent is a bad idea (like the BWA issue) but actually first dissuade delegates partial towards Burleson that they should not be partial towards him and his current goals … and do it in 6 weeks!

v. The Resurgent leaders are going to have to persuade the SBC and its delegates that, the dissenters are incorrect and the convention agencies and trustees do not need greater supervision and accountability by the convention. But such an argument runs counter to the initial claims and expressed goals of the Conservative Resurgence.

What then can the Resurgent leadership do to foil this perceived threat?

1) Currently, since there is only a short time to the convention meeting and there is greater sympathy in the convention for Burleson, the leadership is publicly ignoring the movement.

2) Expect a surprise at the convention prior to the vote, ala the October Surprise. But what should be done about the SBC and its current leadership?

1) The goal of any movement to address the problems of the SBC should be that and that alone and should not be an effort takeover of the convention.

2) I myself am not interested in taking control of the SBC and I will not support any action designed to do so.

3) If I have such a huge problem with tactics of the Conservative Resurgent leadership, then how could I justify the use of such actions against them? MY PROBLEM WITH THE CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE IS HOW IT HAS TREATED PEOPLE.

4) Therefore, I will never support any movement that adopts such methods and practices however much I am in agreement upon the goals of the movement.
Therefore, I am resolved to throw my humble and somewhat insignificant support behind the proposed resolution on dissension even though ...


1) It appears to be an unenforceable and mostly symbolic declaration of principles.

2) I am somewhat concerned that the reaction by the Resurgent leadership will be somewhat severe, enough to cause them to stumble.

3) I am somewhat indifferent to the continuation of the SBC as an organization. The advancement of the kingdom progresses without or without the SBC.

4) As of yet, I feel that the "private prayer language" issue has not been properly addressed by anyone in the SBC, including the Memphis Dissenters.

But I am in support of this resolution and its principle backers because ...

1) The attitude, methods and openness of the resolution’s principle backers gives one confidence that their public expression of intended goals is legitimate.

2) I am no “moderate” and let us never shrink from doing the proper thing out of fear that it will aggravate others or cause the spiritually immature to stumble.

3) This resolution may in fact be the beginning of a resuscitation in the life of the SBC which leaves this current period of Landmarkist and Fundamentalistic leadership and their tendencies as a brief and bizarre period of Baptist life.

4) While I do not think the Memphis Dissenters is properly addressing the private prayer language issue, I can see how the stated goals of these dissenters can perhaps either rectify the issue down the road or at least prevent such egregious abuse of power from happening again in the future.