Disagreement, Conflict, and the GCR tagged: , , , ,

Disagreement, Conflict, and the GCR

Posted by in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions

As I have read through a lot of the commentary that has come out in the past couple of months on the GCR Task Force report, it seems as if most of those expressing their views have a strong opinion one way or another, some in favor, and others opposed to it (or at least to some of the recommendations). There have been some exceptions, but they have been comparatively few and far between. I realize that for any politicized issue (i.e. issues on which votes are taken) this is only natural. Most people who write for the public about politicized issues write with a view toward persuading others to vote a certain way. And, uncertain, unenthusiastic presentations don’t usually do a very good job of inspiring people to action.

Over the last couple of decades, American society in general has become highly polarized and emotionally charged, due, in great part, to this same dynamic in the realm of secular politics. When seeking to win people over to your way of thinking, it is normally best not to be too generous when considering the possible virtues of the opposition or of their platform. One of the most effective ways to galvanize your constituency to action is to demonize the opposition, or to call into question their motives and/or competence in what they do. But, once again, in the world in which we live, to a certain degree, this is only natural. Politics is politics, and no one ever said it wasn’t supposed to work that way. It pretty much goes along with the territory.

However, in the kingdom of God, I believe we are called to a higher standard. In the end, it is not all about winning. Rather, it is about serving. And being faithful. And obedient. And showing love one to another.

During and after the Conservative Resurgence of the SBC, it was predicted by many on the “moderate side” that, after winning the battle for control of the seats of influence within denominational life, the “conservatives” would eventually turn on each other, and end up splintering into a number of different sub-factions. If we are honest with ourselves, I think we must recognize that this prediction cuts closer to home than we generally like to admit.

One year ago, at Louisville, after a couple of years of rising tension within the ranks of SBC conservatives, the messengers present at the convention voted by an overwhelming 95% to approve the appointment of the GCR Task Force. There was optimistic excitement in the air, as we as a convention agreed to think and dream together, and seek God’s direction, through the leadership of the Task Force, regarding how we might be able to more effectively put the resources He has entrusted into our hands to good use toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

However, our enemy is very astute. And, he would like nothing more than to use that which holds great potential to unite us in seeking God’s face and fulfilling God’s task as a means to sow discord among us, and, in some way or another, derail what God is up to in our midst.

None of this means there is never a time and a place, in God’s work, for disagreements. However, we must be very careful that, when we disagree, we disagree in a Christ-honoring way. I do not believe we should sacrifice truth at the altar of unity. Unity that is maintained at the expense of freedom to hold to and express one’s convictions is, beneath the veneer, false unity. When we give in to the veiled threats and deceitful rhetoric of those who would seek to force their way by means of manipulation, we are ultimately not promoting peace, but undermining it.

The New Testament gives us several examples of different types of disagreement in the life of the Apostle Paul that I believe can serve as a useful model for us as we seek to voice our disagreements in a Christ-honoring way.

Paul and the Jerusalem Council. You perhaps have to read between the lines a little here, but I do not think it is a far stretch to infer that the outcome of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was not exactly what Paul had envisioned or hoped for, going in to it (Acts 15:19-21; cf. Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8). There were different points of view expressed, and the ultimate resolutions adopted were somewhat of a compromise between them. Yet, it was a compromise that Paul could live with, and one that, in the end, he could enthusiastically support. He didn’t feel he would have to compromise on any key convictions in order to go along with the recommendations of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and ended up deferring to, and openly advocating, those things which, after a lively discussion, they had agreed upon among themselves.

Paul and Barnabas. The disagreement Paul had with Barnabas over whether or not to take John Mark with them on his second missionary journey was of a different nature. In the end, Paul could not, in good conscience, sign on to Barnabas’ way of seeing things, and, as a result, he broke off his previous ministry cooperation agreement with him. I believe it is significant, however, that Paul never broke Christian fellowship with Barnabas or with John Mark. They simply agreed to disagree, and to work separately (at least, for a season), while continuing to regard each other as brothers in Christ, and to treat each other accordingly. While some interpreters laud the more magnanimous approach of Barnabas in his dealings with Mark, I believe it is perhaps instructive that, in the rest of the book of Acts, we hear a great deal about God’s mighty work through Paul, while Barnabas pretty much drops off the scene, so to speak. Yet, in the end, there appears to be a reconciliation and restoration of ministry cooperation between Paul and Mark (2 Timothy 4:11).

Paul and Peter. In Galatians 2:11-21, it says that Paul opposed Peter to his face, when he refused to eat together with Gentile believers. He did not mince words. He knew he was wrong. And, he knew it was no trivial matter. It surely must have taken a lot of guts, on Paul’s part, to do this. Peter was regarded as a pillar in the Church. And yet, he knew if he remained silent, or just tried to sort of smooth things over, he could not be at peace with his own conscience. And, it was only after Peter backed down, and admitted he was wrong, that Paul desisted on this one. For him, the gospel itself was at stake. But, once Peter admitted the error of his way, Paul was quick to embrace him again as a brother and fellow servant in the work of the gospel (1 Corinthians 3:21-23; 2 Peter 3:15-16).

Paul and Bar-Jesus. If Paul was blunt in his conflict with Peter, he was even more pointed in his conflict with Bar-Jesus (or Elymas the sorcerer). Acts 13:9-10 says that, “Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?” This was the same Paul who wrote, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). What was going on here? Was Paul not practicing what he preached? I think a better explanation is that, for Paul, it was not possible to “live at peace” with someone, such as Bar-Jesus, who, very clearly, was an enemy of the cross who was subverting the gospel. Indeed, there is a time and a place, if we are going to be faithful servants of our Lord, to be bold in our opposition to certain individuals and the ideas they stand for.

With those, like Bar-Jesus, who do not claim to be followers of Jesus, this is relatively straightforward.  However, at times, there are others who, at one time or another, have claimed to believe in Jesus, such as Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 4:14-15), or who teach a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), toward whom we must also voice our unyielding opposition.

What does all this mean for us, as Southern Baptists, as we get ready for the convention in Orlando next week?

First of all, we should not feel the need to be afraid or ashamed to voice our opinions on potentially controversial issues on which we may not all see eye to eye. But, we must learn to do so with love and respect. And, when the votes are taken, if things don’t go exactly as we might hope, we should be prepared to defer to the will of the majority, and continue to work, hand in hand, for the advance of God’s kingdom. We should be careful not to “cast stones” at our brothers and sisters in Christ, denigrate them in any way, or respond with passive-aggressive behavior.

If there are issues due to which we cannot, with a good conscience, continue to work together, then let’s be mature and honest enough to admit it, and do our best to part ways amicably. Personally, I don’t see why any of the proposals being voted on at this convention are necessarily of this nature. From time to time, however, there are issues that arise over which it is probably best not to try to force cooperation, even among genuine brothers and sisters in Christ. However, Christian unity and cooperation in specific ministry projects are not the same thing. And, even when we feel we must not continue to cooperate with certain brothers and sisters in Christ on a certain project, or series of projects, we must not use this as an excuse for failing to do our best to walk in Christian unity with them.

There are other times when we must be more direct and open in our opposition to others. When those times come, let’s be bold and consistent in our opposition. But, let’s make sure they really are issues that call for this type of opposition. Let’s be sure to not let Satan get a foothold and drive a wedge between us over issues that are merely differences of opinion.  

In the end, whatever the outcome of the votes on the Task Force’s report, the work is the Lord’s. Without His supernatural work among us, we will never see any significant progress in our efforts to see the Great Commission fulfilled. That doesn’t mean the practical concerns contained in the report do not matter. But, even if we as a convention make all the right decisions regarding the report, but, at the same time, allow them to divide us and lead us to hold grudges toward one another, we run the risk of seeing it all come to naught.

May God give us grace for the days ahead.