Two documents - "Agree with me...or sin."

I'm not gonna type much. It's wrong to. I'm just going to copy a couple of resolutions. First, a translation of the index to the old Catholic document the Index Librorum Prohibitorum or "List of prohibited books" that made the printing, writing, or reading of the works/translations of Martin Luther and any Bible in the language of the people a sin.(1) This is not in effect anymore. The Catholics stopped censoring awhile back.

"The Holy Church has through many centuries carried out immense persecutions, and the number of heroes who sealed the Christian faith with their blood, were multiplied. Today we face a struggle which is lead by the Devil himself; it is founded on something both insincere and destructive; Malicious publications.

No other danger is greater, it threatens the faith and exercise of custom and integrity, therefore the Holy Church will increasingly point this out to the Christians, in that way enabling them to retreat before this threat."

" The Holy Church, which was appointed by God himself, could not proceed otherwise. It represents an infallible master who securely leads his believers. Thus, the Church is equipped with all necessary and useful means to prevent the infection of the herd of Jesus, by the erroneous and corrupt which will show itself irrespective of the mask it hides behind. Consequently The Holy Church has the duty, and hence the right, to pursue this aim.

One must not claim that the condemnation of harmful books is a violation of freedom or a war against the Light of Truth, and that the index of forbidden books is a permanent attack against the progress of science and literature."

"Irreligious and immoral books are written in a seductive manner, often with themes which deal with fleshly passion, or themes that deceive the pride of the soul. These books are carefully written to make an impression and aim at gaining ground in both the heart and mind of the incautious reader."

"In addition, the necessity to suppress malicious publications for the wellbeing of the public, has particularly been proven lately, when even civil governments, have used preventive censorship to protect the judicial system and public order, with a rigidity unknown to the Church. This shows us how well it corresponds with the true liberty.
No matter how much true literary and scientific values a book can possess, it cannot legitimate the distribution which opposes the religion and good custom. On the contrary, the more subtle and seductive the evil is, the more it necessitates stronger and more efficient suppression of it."

"These prohibited books were written to make an impression, and all this have been exposed to remove any doubt occurring among the Catholic believers. This explanation is intended for the devoted, good sons, who readily listen to the words of the good Shepherd Jesus, and to his representative on earth; the Pope. In short, this is intended for those who scrupulously comply with the rules, possibly with some exceptions arising from extreme conditions, where the Church grant exemptions for those who dissociate themselves from reading or owning the books which have been prohibited by the Holy Church." (2) (Emphasis added.)

Second, a resolution passed just this week at the Georgia Baptist Convention. I couldn't find it online so I'm going to type it out. Any spelling errors are mine I'm sure.

"Resolution on Blogging

WHEREAS the American people have the distinct privilege of freedom of speech as provided by out United States Constitution, and this resolution is not intended to limit that freedom of speech we all value so much; and

WHEREAS responsible blogging can be a means of promoting the flow of information and encouragement of our people, but certain people use this tool for divisive and destructive rhetoric at the expense of peace among our Brethren; and

WHEREAS blogging is also used by some as a tool for personal attacks upon other Christian Brothers and Sisters, and this critical and divisive use promotes a negative view of the Southern Baptist Convention in the eyes of the society we are striving to reach with the Gospel (James 3:6,14)

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the messengers of this convention oppose blogging when it is used to cause division and disharmony among the members of the Southern Baptist Family (Proverbs 6:16-19; I Cor. 1:10); and since personal differences should not be dealt with in public view.

BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that all personal attacks should cease immediately (Proverbs 17:27-28; John 17:21-23); and

BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that we reaffirm the historic method of administering our agencies and institutions through elected boards of trustees, and 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 promote disharmony for the advancement of their own personal opinions and agendas; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that we set our eyes once again to the fields to which we are called to labor, refusing to dishonor God with activities that militate against harmony and good will."
(3)

I have no problem with asking Christians to stop making public personal attacks on people. Christians should not be "attacking" at all. Rebuke must be done in love and I understand that a lot of things are said online that are not in love. I must question (without calling into question the wisdom and guidance of the elected officials) the motive of this document. Is it to end divisive, hateful, unChristlike behavior? Or to be used as a platform to squelch all opposition to those in power? There is a fine line here between trying stop hatred (I would argue that a resolution isn't going to make anybody act like Christ) and trying to advance your own ideas by shutting up all of the others. (Not that the leaders should be held accountable or second guessed.)

I also find it highly ironic that someone took time to type, read, and pass a resolution about how somebody else should "set their eyes to the fields"? How are your eyes on writing against the blog world and the fields at the same time? My guess: Because multi-tasking is possible. It is possible to be 'in the fields' and call for reform at the same time. The Reverends Bray and Harrell did it when they typed this very document. It seems that the average blogger would be just as able to type their view of things and not neglect the mission field as the men who typed this resolution against them.

The "historic method" of pledging allegiance to the convention won't stand. The next generation is going to question their beliefs. In public, in private, and wherever else they are. If leaders make decisions they disagree with they're going to write about it. I guess it comes down to the question that had to be asked way back during the reformation...Do I believe in the priesthood of the believer or in the church? If individual people really do have access to God then the "elected leaders" don't really have any claim to pass laws that shut up Biblically based opposing opinions, do they? If, however, the final say resides with the convention then this resolution defines a new sin. Should I ask my forgiveness directly from God or do I need to drive up to Duluth?

                                                                            

1. http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ILP-1559.htm

2. http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_database/index_librorum.html

3. Typed from a printed copy of the "Resolution on Blogging" passed at the GBC this week.