The Dissent of Man: Where We Currently Stand With Regards To The Conservative Resurgence

or, "You say you want a resolution."

SBC narrowness calls for repentance, reform, disgruntled conservatives say

Proposal “On Dissent” stirs exchange

Conservatives concerned with SBC to meet in Memphis May 1-2

Baptists from diverse backgrounds issue ‘Memphis Declaration’

The Memphis Declaration

I have spent several weeks now thinking about the dissension issue, reading and re-reading the resolution and Baptist news articles and perusing the SBC blogosphere. My objective in pursuing such thoughts was to determine whether or not I would support such a resolution. I have decided to take the opportunity of this BP news article in order to voice my conclusion and opinions on the matter.

First, what are the issues that the dissenters are addressing? I see them as follows:

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.

None of these points are necessarily theological. Perhaps the doctrines of second-degree separation and charismatic gifts were a point of contention among IMB trustees at first, but these were simply theological issues that prompted action regarding the above. When we look at the resolution concerning dissent, we do not see any mention on these doctrines. We certainly do not see any hint of the issue of "private prayer language". What then do we see?

The Official Resolution On Baptist Dissent

"Be it further RESOLVED, that we affirm dissenters both within our denomination and without who raise objection to articles of our confession, policies of our institutions, and governance of our agencies when that dissent has been voiced in a manner consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ; and

Be it finally RESOLVED, that we wish to continue the tradition of welcoming principled dissent and protecting religious speech as the bedrock upon which a diverse people, such as Southern Baptists, may continue to cooperate for the greater good of evangelism and missions to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation of the world.”

I think that it is these two above stanzas that have the most importance and force.

However, 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 appoved. 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.

1) They never want to debate their beliefs with those who disagree with them. They avoid honest discussion about disagreements. In fact, they attempt to defend their beliefs only when know other option is available. The IMB rule changes are an example. Only after the general outcry did they seek to explain and justify their actions. And, as Dr. Pearle states (see below), when the trustees make a decision everyone else is supposed to get behind them. If I was certain that this was an opinion unique to Dr. Pearle (a very nice and competent pastor and man with an extremely charming wife) then it could be chalked up to an isolated matter totally removed from the prevailing opinion of the SBC and its leaders. Alas, the opinion stated by Dr. Pearle (see below) is the common assumption by the SBC leadership. (I’ve often wondered if the problem with the Conservative Resurgent leadership and the SBC leadership in general is that they have an incorrect and unscriptural view of pastoral leadership that they practice in their own churches which is then practiced in the convention and its agencies they lead.)

2) They are very afraid of allowing people who disagree with them to be heard. They have always tried to silence disagreement. The most noticeable case is the Wade Burleson incident but this also includes the seminaries, the Baptist colleges and the Baptist news outlets. The “moderates” never attempted to silence disagreement but took the opportunity to express why they believed their views were correct and why the opposing view was wrong. The “conservatives” never wish to discuss the matter; they prefer to silence opposition. They prefer to keep other arguments from being heard, especially in the colleges and the seminaries. I have always thought this was odd; they do not want people hearing arguments and beliefs with which they disagree. Why? Are they so uncertain about their own beliefs that they are afraid that they cannot withstand a counter-argument? If so, maybe their arguments are then not very sound. I myself am so confident in my beliefs that I would never dream of silencing those who disagree with me. Let people who disagree with you speak up. Let their beliefs (however wrong) be aired and then publicly proven to be wrong, if that is the case. But what if I believe I am right but am actually wrong? Wouldn’t I want to be publicly proven wrong in order that no one else falls into the error I myself fell into? Of course! Or am I so uncertain or so prideful that I am afraid to be proven wrong and even more afraid that I will be done so publicly?

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".

Let us look at the BP article.

A proposed resolution “On Baptist Dissent” generated a measure of that dynamic in an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The proposal, submitted by a Fort Worth-area pastor to affirm “principled dissent” among Baptists, is a response to a policy adopted by the International Mission Board’s trustees stipulating that an IMB trustee cannot criticize board decisions.

The policy is “an unprecedented action in Southern Baptist life,” Benjamin Cole told the Star-Telegram. Cole is pastor of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, which is part of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. Cole cited the IMB board’s efforts to “silence” trustee Wade Burleson of Oklahoma over the pastor’s airing of his IMB-related opinions on an Internet blog. Burleson blogged about his opposition to IMB policies adopted last year on private prayer language and baptism. The new policies exclude missionary candidates who practice a private prayer language (or hold that conviction) and require nominees be baptized in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone; does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative; and embraces the doctrine of eternal security of the believer.

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.

Are these all coincidences? Yes, they are all coincidences which is why we need to examine such incidences carefully. I believe in coincidences, but I am always suspicious of them.

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 can control the Baptist Press, seminary public relations, and Baptist state news agencies, but blogs are out of their control (see Dan Rather). During the 1980s, the Conservative Resurgent leadership spent a lot of effort taking control of the Baptist Press and other news agencies so that they could control the information that the average Southern Baptist received. Now any joe-schmoe can send his evidence and opinions to everyone in the world without money, time, effort and the entire SBC behind him. Let’s be honest, the SBC leadership looks at SBC bloggers like the mainstream media looks at the Drudge Report. The SBC leadership looks at SBC bloggers and the internet like the Latin Roman Catholic Church looked at Luther and his use of the printing press and the common German tongue. 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: 1) 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). Perhaps this is how some churches are run, perhaps this is how all churches should be run, but this is not necessarily how a convention or agency should be run. If it were, then the Conservative Resurgent leadership violated this principle by their own dissent and takeover. 2) Dr. Pearle 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.

Cole’s proposed resolution states in part, “Every tributary of Baptist identity includes an era of dissent from institutions, policies, political oppressions, and systems of belief that violate the individual conscience....

“Both our Anabaptist and English Separatist forefathers knew the power of the dissent to shield the soul from compromise on matters essential to faith, church polity, and the ordinances, often suffering ostracism, exile, and even death for their principled refusal to compromise their unpopular and inviolable convictions....”

Cole’s draft cites various resolutions adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention over the years, including a 1992 resolution titled, “On the Right of Religious Freedom for All Human Beings.”

Clever, Pastor Cole.

Among his “be it resolved” clauses:

-- “that we regard all attempts to silence principled dissent by fellow Baptists within our denomination, or of any religious minority, as a compromise of our cherished Baptist witness and an egregious disservice to the Kingdom of God.” Dissent should be affirmed when it has been “voiced in a manner consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ.”

-- “that we wish to continue the tradition of welcoming principled dissent and protecting religious speech as the bedrock upon which a diverse people, such as Southern Baptists, may continue to cooperate for the greater good of evangelism and missions to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation of the world.”

Now I have some personal experience with the people involved in and promoting the IMB rule change (Full disclosure: I also have some minor personal experience with those leading the charge for the resolution on dissension). Let me tell you: from the 1960s thru the 1980s, these people (those involved in and promoting the IMB rule change) 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. However, they did not dissent and encourage dissent because of any principles they wished to address but because they desired to take over the convention and its agencies in order to enact those principles. Of course, those who were then in charge did not put any restrictions upon such dissent and see what happened to them. And this is why these former dissenters are now so dead-set against any dissension from their leadership, from their decisions and of their beliefs: they 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.

Also, they do not believe that the aim is to address such principles. If, for example, one were to criticize a school for how it fires its employees, such criticism is not viewed as an honest complaint but as an excuse to attack their leadership and the movement they are spearheading. Because they believe your intentions are not honorable, they 1) ignore your complaint because they do not believe that is the issue of concern and 2) take your criticism as extremely dangerous because they believe your intentions are malicious and subversive. Therefore, the punishment for such dissension is more severe than it would be normally because they believe the intentions behind the criticisms are more severe.

And they believe this is the case because they themselves acted this way. The Conservative Resurgent leadership used the issue of inerrancy as a criticism in order to gain control of the seminary. Why do I not believe that this is issue was not genuine?

1) They themselves wrote articles and books that contained stances on the Scriptures that do not pass their own definition of inerrancy.

2) They accused their political opponents of holding to errancy when such individuals steadfastly held to a stricter form of inerrancy than their accusers.

3) People were fired not because of theological errors but because of “wrong” political associations and allegiances.

4) People who did have known views of errancy in the Scriptures escaped unscathed from the mass firings if they had “right” political associations and allegiances.

But how about those leading the charge for the resolution on dissension? What kind of people are they? With reference to the Memphis meeting: at this point, 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're not liberals. They're not even moderates. They are conservative, bordering on fundamentalism. They certainly aren’t charismatics, but perhaps charismatic sympathizers. At most, we can say that they are non-Landmarkist evangelical conservatives.

2) None of them have any problem with the BFM 2000. All of them readily support it to the utmost. In fact, 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. They are insiders with a lot of experience working within the Resurgent denomination and with the Resurgent and Convention leadership. They are actively seeking help and guidance from the SBC leadership concerning their grievances and concerns.

4) They agreed with the Conservative Resurgence in both its goals and much of the methods applied. At most, they are like much of the conservatives of my generation who were unable to experience the Resurgence of the 70s and 80s: they agree that the Resurgence was then necessary but that it has gone too far.

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. They may never have leadership of the convention hierarchy and agencies (there are other Xers who will be appointed to those positions), but others will have to address their concerns. If not, the SBC will become further isolated and further irrelevant which is what these dissenters are trying to prevent.

But let's look again at the Resurgent leadership:

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

I think we can take from this statement of Dr. Pearle that, if the resolution on dissent is approved by the convention, the plan of action will be a continuation of the same. Again, there is nothing in the resolution that expressly enforces or insures acknowledgment by the convention leadership. Furthermore, the convention leadership is stating that this resolution is net needed.

“There is no need for this resolution on dissent because no one is being silenced. People who have been disciplined are not being disciplined because of their public dissent but for matters unrelated to their criticism."

Firings and dismissals are the common and prevalent punishment for dissenters. I can name several individuals from recent memory whom everyone would recognize and who were critical of the Conservative Resurgence but who were all dismissed from their SBC positions because of “unrelated matters”.

For students, firings, probation or expulsion are the general actions. If there is not rule preventing you from dissenting, then they will find some “sin” they can accuse you of and for which they claim they are punishing. In Wade Burleson’s case it was “breaking trust” and “not submitting to accountability”. If there is no recent “sin” they can pin on you, then they will find a “sin” in your past of which they say you haven’t been punished. I will refrain from giving an example. Failing all this, they will punish you for a rule that they have yet to make but will so shortly. There are plenty of examples of this but the most immediate one I must also refrain from mentioning.

So 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. One of the clever points of the Resolution on Dissension is that it references previous resolutions about this subject. This particular resolution may be merely rhetorical, but a future resolution of a far more binding nature could be enacted and buttressed by this current resolution. 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: soul competency is disliked, everyone must agree to the 2000 BFM, individualism is generally frowned upon, anything that is regarded as other than the standard cannot be allowed to remain. This was the driving mindset of the Resurgence and the quarter century purge – a purge that continues even today. Furthermore, as I have argued elsewhere, the trend in the SBC continues to be towards greater conformity to the BFM 2000 in particular. While not all the Resurgent and Convention leadership supports such a trend, there are many in the convention (both leaders and “laity”) who do. Some groups are trying to have all Baptist state colleges and their professors adopt the BFM. Other groups are working towards having all churches in a given county association adopt the BFM in order to remain a part of that association. Still another contingent of the BFM-happy is arguing that every seminary student (who receives Cooperative Program money) is under obligation to affirm the beliefs of the 2000 BFM. 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. Any resolution attempting to prevent such an attack from happening again only points back to this generally recognized error. 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 (as stated above) have been paranoid about the possibility that a disgruntled group of Southern Baptists (like themselves) will use the tactics they used to wrestle control away from the convention (just like they did). The Conservative Resurgence took practical control of the convention in 10 years. Another group could do the same in the same amount of time. It is always the fear of usurpers that they themselves will be usurped.

(This latter point is why any change in the SBC by reformers must not seek to wrestle power or apply secular, political methods. Such methods are unChristlike for one and only temporary for another. The process of change must be the submissive and often slow process of repentance of individual by individual. This method takes time and much patience but it permanence lasts and is just as difficult to overthrow. God took millions and billions of years to sculpt His planet Earth by means of water, wind, lava, gravity and plate tectonics. The Church as the body of Christ is now God’s means of sculpting humanity. We are the water, the wind, the lava, the gravity and the plate tectonics. )

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. They know that the Wade Burleson incident is one of the biggest P.R. debacles in recent memory and one which caught the attention of many in the SBC, including those quite unfamiliar with the Conservative Resurgence. 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! A monumental task for anyone.

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. Before they gained control of the SBC, the Resurgent leadership claimed that the actions of the Pre-1979 Convention did not reflect the will of Southern Baptists and that the SBC should be held accountable. But now that they themselves are in positions of convention leadership their claim is that they know best, they do not need to be held accountable to the delegates and that everyone should back them when they make a decision. They are now stumbling to justify their new position but, at this point, they do not realize the contradiction they are in.

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. They are burying the news articles about the resolution in SBC digest articles and removing them completely the next day. They are ceasing to comment about the Burleson incident any the proposed resolution. Furthermore, while not mentioning the opposition, their grievances and proposed solutions to those grievances, the leadership has begun to bolster their own stances and the specific elements of their leadership (agencies and trustees) that are under attack. See here.

2. Expect a surprise at the convention prior to the vote, ala the October Surprise. I can recall a similar such surprise prior to a crucial vote concerning the BWA in 2004. Off of the top of my head I can think of two possible lines of attack and accusation.

But what should be done about the SBC and its current leadership? How should the concerned respond? What is the purpose of the dissension resolution? What should the plan of action be to solve problems in the SBC?

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. As of yet, such an effort is not underway and has not been advocated by anyone critical of current SBC practices, nor should it ever be. The movement to protect dissension should be that and that alone. It should not be used to hurt or damage or divide the convention or bruise the SBC leadership. Any effort to use dissension for political means should be identified as such and dismissed.

2) I myself am not interested in taking control of the SBC and I will not support any action designed to do so. While I think the Conservative Resurgent leadership has been unwise, I also think that they are increasingly irrelevant and have made the positions they hold increasingly irrelevant. While I believe they are doing extreme damage to the SBC, they are so unimportant and immaterial that it is best to leave them alone in their lonely castles while the rest of Christendom and the Kingdom of God passes them by. In effect, they have made themselves irrelevant and it would be more dangerous to the Church to remove them from their current positions of irrelevancy than to keep them shut up in their own little corners.

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? This matter for me has never been about control of the SBC. While I disagree with theology and goals of the Conservative Resurgence, I did not and do not care about them. To me, they are irrelevant and ultimately unimportant. Again, I disagree, but I don’t mind. However, the methods of the Conservative Resurgence are a problem. I have always believed and continue to believe that such methods are unscriptural, un-Christlike, should not be practiced and it is with this that I have ultimately staked my criticism. MY PROBLEM WITH THE CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE IS HOW IT HAS TREATED PEOPLE. This has always been my issue of complaint and it continues to be so.

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. To this end, if the SBC leadership and Conservative Resurgent leadership are ever treated like they treated the previous convention leadership, I will defend the SBC and Conservative Resurgent leadership with all the power at my disposal regardless of their previous actions. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Resurgent leadership and architects do not believe that someone can disagree with the movement but also not care. It is unfortunate that they cannot separate criticism of methods with criticism of goals. Of course, in my case, it didn’t help that I disagreed with the goals. But, as I have said, “I disagree, but I don’t mind.”

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) My own theology and method of implementing the kingdom differs from that of the dissenters such that, while they themselves are loyal to the traditional convention system and honestly pursuing measures that they believe will continue its effectiveness, I myself am somewhat indifferent to the continuation of this method of missions and am perfectly happy to shrug off the fact that the SBC as an organization is continually advancing towards irrelevancy and ineffectiveness. 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, again, 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. As of yet, none of the aspects of this particular group conflicts with my sense of how the kingdom is to be implemented.

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

3) I am not against the SBC becoming increasingly relevant and effective if whatever effect they have is positive and well within the proper bounds of its stated mission and the approved Scriptural parameters. 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. Sort of like a Southern Baptist version of the British Protectorate under Cromwell between the monarchy under Charles I and the Restoration period under Charles II.

4) The IMB rule banning "private prayer language" among SBC missionaries was an inexcusable and heinous intrusion into the personal worship between an individual and his God. While (as stated above) I do not think the Memphis Dissenters (or anyone else for that matter) 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.

I honestly hope that nothing divisive or “underhanded” occurs in the next two months or that the current events with respect to Burleson lead to regrettable incidences of inter-Baptist persecution and further trends towards conformity and hierarchal control. I have been praying about all these events since they began at the IMB and ALL those involved. While I am very pleased about the reinstatement of the Dobbs as missionaries to Guinea, I am still somewhat pessimistic about what will be occurring. I really do pray that I am wrong about all my predictions.