Divisive Divisiveness or Why the SBC is mostly a bunch of thin-skinned ninnies.

 

NOTE: I admit that by writing this blog post, to the extent it gets read, I am potentially stirring up dissension.

I keep hearing people within the SBC talk about “divisiveness.”  Most typically this comes in the form of an opinion that another person is being divisive, usually because the person making the claim of divisiveness doesn’t like the other person’s views.  Bad argumentation and thin skin underlie much of this kind of discussion.  It’s unfruitful.

Let’s be real here: if you claim another person is being divisive, you are, by definition, also being divisive so at least admit it when you do so.  Here’s a recent quote from someone making the kind of statement I’m talking about: 

This appears to be agenda-driven, a group desiring that the SBC conform to their will and their interpretations. They assume that their views (and, perhaps, theirs alone) reflect the revealed truth of God. False accusations are abounding against good people who disagree with this agenda. It is stirring up dissension and division in the SBC.

I’m not going to state who said this or even what they were discussing, as it serves no purpose.  The point is much broader.  When you question another person’s integrity (as this quote does, although indirectly) and you point fingers about “stirring up dissension” you are adding to the dissension.  Moreover, ironically, you are claiming that your views (and, perhaps yours alone) reflect the revealed truth of God.  How does it not add to the dissension and division when you say such things?  Be genuine enough to admit that’s what you’re doing if you are going to say things like this instead of hiding behind some holier-than-thou gobbledygook.

The only way to truly avoid divisiveness is to deal with ideas and not people.  There is much too much personal finger pointing going on.  Quoting the rock band, Dire Straits, may be out of place but here’s a lyric from their song “Solid Rock”: “When you point your finger 'cause your plan fell through, You got three more fingers pointing back at you.”  I feel confident that saying wasn’t original with Mark Knopfler, but it sure is incriminating when a non-religious rocker’s lyrics make more sense than the writing of a Christian.

There is a reason that many in the SBC are feeling uncomfortable these days.  I can recall a time when wording like the above was used against me in discussions at a church I attended.  The implication when I suggested the Bible actually said specific things (like women cannot be pastors) was that I was being legalistic and causing unnecessary dissent and that I should respect the idea of unity in diversity.

When people attack others for views they don’t like with the claim it is being divisive it is a personal attack, as it fails to address the underlying argument.  The formal logical fallacy is referred to as an ad hominem attack.  In other words, it’s not an effort to truly engage with the idea, but an attempt to marginalize the person who has the idea. Oh it sounds like the person is dealing with an actual issue (divisiveness) but if that were true, then you'd discuss divisiveness as an idea, unrelated to any person or group.  That's not what typically happens. 

 This creates another logical fallacy, guilt by association.  If one can claim the person with the idea is being divisive (which is bad for an organization that is trying to remain cohesive and organized), then one can further argue the viewpoint, if associated with some other nefarious idea or person, means the original person against whom the personal attack was leveled is just like this other bad person.

What follows is this kind of reasoning: Bob thinks women pastors are a bad idea because he believes Scripture does not permit this.  Someone accuses Bob of being a misogynist.  Harvey Weinstein is a misogynist, so Bob is, therefore, little different than Harvey Weinstein.  Thus, anyone against women pastors must be just like Harvey Weinstein.  Bob’s argument, therefore, should be dismissed because we don’t trust people who are like Harvey Weinstein.

Note the failure to address the real point: Bob thinks Scripture doesn’t permit women pastors.  This is bypassed or glossed over because the person doesn’t want to truly consider Bob’s arguments but, rather, just wants to make Bob look bad and make anyone who thinks like Bob look bad.

It’s not a real argument at all.

Let’s go back to the above quote.  I will bold each thought as I go through them.  First, the group in question is called out for having an agenda (This appears to be agenda-driven).  Well, ironically, so does the person calling out this group.  Everyone who writes or speaks out has an agenda; so what?   They assume that their views (and, perhaps, theirs alone) reflect the revealed truth of God.  But isn’t the person calling them out arguing that his or her view reflects the revealed truth of God?  I mean, isn’t that the point of having the discussion in the first place?  To figure out what we believe about the revealed truth of God?  If we disagree then simple logic says we both can’t be correct about what is the revealed truth of God, right?  We have to talk about it or both groups languish in a strange haze of silly pretending and back-slapping that everything is perfectly alright when it’s not.  False accusations are abounding against good people who disagree with this agenda.  If someone does make false accusations, then, by all means specify the falsehood or specify the claim and prove it false. Too often, though, the claim of false accusations is more a matter of opinion than of fact.  What difference, by the way, does it make if  the “good people” who “disagree with this agenda” suffer the accusations?  Good people can be wrong.  I guess logically such an argument means that it is okay to make false accusation against bad people?  What does the idea of “good people” mean, anyway?  Most likely it means “people with whom the writer agrees.”  Isn’t it possible, assuming the “accusations” are not false, that both sides are “good people?”  By the way, using the term false accusations means you are claiming the other person has lied.  Why not say what you really mean:  that person with the agenda is a liar.  False accusations sounds like something politicians say – it’s vague and weak and fits within its ambit all kinds of statements.  Be direct and say what you mean.  It is stirring up dissension and division in the SBC.  This is a direct indictment of those who started the Conservative Resurgence that took over the SBC in the 1980’s and into the 1990’s – they certainly did not create unity.  If dissension and division occur, then maybe there is a good reason.  The entire Reformation was an exercise in dissent and division.  Ironically, the person who wrote these words claims for himself association with the Conservative Resurgence, although of course he has “repented” because not everything that happened during the CR was wonderful. 

So where do we go from here?  Let’s have a robust discussion.  Read what everyone has to say and seek discernment.  This is why Christianity is done among many and not one.  This is why as Protestants we don’t buy into the Pope’s infallibility – we understand it took the whole council in Jerusalem to work out details about the “becoming a Jew first” problem. 

Obviously the SBC has not been without dissension and division, even during the Conservative Resurgence.  I am a Calvinist and don’t mind the label.  Thus, I have disagreements with some in the convention regarding some particularities in doctrine and theology, particularly soteriology.  This doesn’t prevent me from agreeing on broader principles and working within the SBC with others who see things differently.  We can agree to disagree on certain matters and still be in friendly cooperation.

However, we can’t be in “friendly cooperation” when we’re not friends.