God bless'em, and right in my own backyard even.

I'm a volunteer catechist at my Catholic parish and one of my business partners is a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher. He's one of the most decent people I know, but as you can imagine, conversations can get interesting. You just made my lunchtime tomorrow with this post.

Grumble, grumble.

I propose a resolution against ruffling feathers. That could lead to dancing.

No dancing for us CofC! That could lead to kissing!

I'm sure every Baptist weblog will be filled with nothing but praise for this new resolution. :)

I don't know where to bring this up, but I think I'd receive the best response here. I put myself in the position of the GBC leadership (or any church leadership) and I thought, "How would I want dissenters to handle it if they disagreed with me/us in leadership?" I have to admit, my response would be: "You many not understand or support our decision regarding [controversy here] but I must encourage you to consider Eph. 2:14-16 and Hebrews 13:17. If you cannot submit gracefully and with unity, please consider our care."

I know well the American spirit of public dissent. But the Word says what the Word says:

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” [Hebrews 13:17]

“Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe…” [Eph 2:14-15]

The opposition seems to say: “How dare anyone tell me I can’t dissent or complain any dang time or place I want about any issue I want! *humph*!” I just can’t see how that attitude reconciles with some very clear Scriptures. And never mind the issue of murmuring and rebelling in the OT.

Look, if people want to leave the SBC in Luther-like fashion, OK, fine. I’m not SBC so none of them qualify as my overseers and I feel free to disagree with them in Christ-like manner. They don’t watch over my soul and won’t have to give an account for me. But, I would be HIGHLY uncomfortable speaking against or undermining (especially in the broadcast forum the size of the internet) my pastor for the simple reason that’s not how I’d want my congregation to treat me if the Lord blesses me with a leadership role.

The authority of leadership ascribed to overseers both frightens and convicts me at the same time. I’m not totally sure where the bound are. It just seems like the Scriptures discourage our perceived “need” to excoriate our leadership before all watching world.

Well, I hate to be the one to point this out, but posting something on a blog doesn't count as posting it before the whole world. Sure, anyone can come and read it - but let's be real here. Most blogs are not as popular as the Thinklings. Most average about 5-10 people in readership. And not everyone is on the net (statistically, the net still has fewer users than television or newspapers).

I agree with Ephesians immensely. But I also know that it is possible to disagree without complaining or arguing. I used to be an assistant pastor, and I never saw Heb. 13:17 as meaning that someone couldn't disagree with me. Even when people did disagree with complaining and grumbling, it didn't phase me that much. Like my pastor in Waco used to say to me: "even if someone blasts you with junk that is 95% incorrect, the humble response is to forgive the 95% and learn from the 5%."

The issue doesn't seem to be over attacking leaders personally, but in disagreeing with denomination policy. I would personally say that the Baptist position on this one sounds a little skewed and heavy handed. Take this excerpt for example:

“(We) call upon bloggers to cease the critical second-guessing of these elected leaders; and be it further resolved that all Georgia Baptists respectfully request and expect that individuals who disrupt the fellowship through blogging repent and immediately cease this activity and no longer cause disharmony for the advancement of their own personal opinions and agendas.”

That's just scary talk - incorrectly using emotionally-charged words to skew the situation. I like the response:

Several bloggers have already condemned the resolution. Roger Ferrell, pastor of the SBC- and GBC-affiliated Woodland Creek Church in suburban Atlanta, said most Baptist blogging does not center on personal differences but focuses on philosophical disagreements.

Besides, Ferrell added, all Baptists have the right to disagree respectfully with the actions of their institutions and to suggest better ways of doing things, he said in a column on www.sbcimpact.net.

Doh! Oh yeah - I've actually read the Broadman's Baptist handbook-thingy. Baptists can disagree, according to their handbook. Disagreeing on television or in print is fine - but not in blogs? Hmmmm....

“There is plenty of backbiting, backstabbing and unharmonious talk going on in Southern Baptist life and would be even if blogs never existed,” Ferrell wrote. “It is not the fault of the medium but the messengers. And many of those who blog as ‘reformers’ really feel there are some deep problems in the SBC, things that desperately need to change.”

I guess this Ferrell guy needs to repent. But I do tend to agree with the last sentence quoted there.

Very well said Eloquorius.......though I don't know that in my case that I would say that my denomination watches over my soul. In our day and age we're several layers removed from denominational leadership. My pastor(s) and my fellow small group members keep watch over my soul.

I'm in Georgia - GBA is a policy making body more than it is a vehicle for discipleship.

That being said though, you framed the broader issue perfectly. Public critique is almost always out of bounds unless it results from a dispute that has been escalated properly according to Matthew 15.

I suppose that the difference is (especially on the vast internet forum) that open public critique is often a monologue that benefits no one, where as "healthy disagreement" is a dialogue that benefits all parties.

I'm guessing the resolution makes that distinction - haven't read it though.

Public critique is almost always out of bounds unless it results from a dispute that has been escalated properly according to Matthew 15.

I disagree with that. Public charges are out of bounds, yes; but critique which is informed, thoughtful, respectful and gracious is always appropriate.

The opposition seems to say: “How dare anyone tell me I can’t dissent or complain any dang time or place I want about any issue I want! *humph*!” I just can’t see how that attitude reconciles with some very clear Scriptures. And never mind the issue of murmuring and rebelling in the OT.

Remember, Elo, these are Baptists we're talking about here. You might not see how that attitude fits with the Scripture, but it fits Baptist polity just fine.