You could also call it critque, which is what I do, or even dialectic, if you want to get all fancy and Hegelian. Or you could just call it dissagreement.  But I think it has a place.  I think, however, it has a limited place, and as someone who disagrees with the Church a lot, I’d like to explain a bit how I think that works.

First, I accept that the leadership is conservative.  In fact, with a few exceptions, I more or less like it that way.  I would not want the Church to change with the wind anytime that a new idea or intellectual current comes up.

However, I think there’s impressive emprical evidence the Church has been wrong before.  Not about the fundamentals, of course, which are never in error, but about how those are interpreted–the role of democracy and religious freedom in the world, as just one small example.  Now what’s interesting here is that things that might have befeore appeared fundamental and un-changeable we now realize are quite negotiable and do not affect what we now realize is the fundament.  This is really important, because conservatives like to argue that the Church never changes, and they are able to make this point because what they deem fundamental, has, in fact, never changed.  To take an analogy from the US (borrowing from sociologist Jeff Alexander): the US always thought it was a land of the free, and it still is.  That freedom now extends to African Americans in a way that was once not thought necessary.  Has the US changed fundamentally?  No.  But what those fundaments looks like have changed.  The same can happen to the Church.

So how does critique work?  Critique functions by certain people speaking their mind within the Church, and the leadership pretty much disagreeing with them.  That’s good.  That’s how it should be.  And then most people wind up going with the leadership, which is also fine, and then a few more disagree still because they think it’s super-important or because they’re vain or whatever.  (And let’s be clear here, that if the dissenters’ motivations are impure, then the orthodox might also be motivated more by fear, or cowardice, or complacency, or the love-of-authority that is characteristic of totatilitarian regimes.  I’m not saying conservatives DO feel this way.  I’m just saying that if you’re going to call a liberal arrogant or prideful, recognize that a conservative is subject to a vast range of other vices.  Oh–and it’s also ironic that we liberals are called prideful by a Church incapable of error.  But that’s another kettle of fish).

The point is: there’s disagreement.  And in the end, as Truth shall set you free, the truth wins out.  So someone like Luther was super important for the Church,because ultimately he spoke some truths (and a lot of what I think was wrong) and those particular truths helped the Church.

I have a lot more thoughts on this, but I think this should get the conversation going.