11
Dec
Missouri Baptist Convention VS. Acts 29
Bad news on the home front today.
Members of the Executive Board presented and passed a motion during the miscellaneous business session that sets down a “no-partnership with Acts 29″ rule for MBC church plants. I have not received the exact wording of the motion yet, but it is a confirmed piece of news from an EC board member.
Don’t misunderstand, this does not mean that churches cannot be in partnership with Acts 29, just that if they are so aligned then they will not be able to receive MBC church planting funds. Never mind the fact that Acts 29 church plants in Missouri are thriving.
I do wonder if the EB will be consistent and pass a reciprocal measure that keeps Cooperative Program dollars from coming into MBC coffers via such “polluted churches”.
I just wonder where all the church-planting police were 10-15 years ago when I resisted the siren song of Willowcreek and Saddleback, only to have it thrown up in my face by Baby-Booming pastors that I was an arrogant idiot who was resisting the work of God in my generation if I didn’t buy into the seeker model.
This polarizes the issue of Acts 29 to the point that it is hard to be able to give any critique or praise of the movement at all. To be sure, there are some of both that any movement rightfully deserves. However, a misguided motion like this just makes the battle lines get laid down in all the wrong places.
I am not given to paranoia, but I do have to wonder whether the MBC would come after the Founders if their/our church planting efforts really began to formalize and bear fruit within Missouri.
What significant difference is there between a Founders church plant and an A29 one? Is this really just about alcohol? What drives this?
Have we really come to the point as a denomination that we encourage muscle-men power teams to come and blow up hot water bottles and break bricks over their heads, but we cannot condone what basically amounts to a Francis Schaeffer approach to cultural engagement with the lost? Acts 29 doesn’t walk on water, but at least there is a serious-minded approach to the gospel that leaves the buttons, balloons, and baloney in the dust.
Perhaps you don’t like either strategy. Well, then could we at least converse about these issues without blackening the eye of a small group of church planters (“small” relative to the mammoth amount of churches and resources that make up the MBC)?
Founders and 9Marks friends take note - do we really think A29 is soooo far different than us that this shouldn’t be our fight too?
- Scott Lamb
December 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
[…] Scott Lamb reports on a developing situation in the Missouri Baptist Convention, where the Executive Board has prohibited church plants in partnership with Acts 29 from receiving any money from the MBC. […]
December 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
[…] My friend Scott Lamb, from the eastern part of the state, has weighed in on the decision as well. I would recommend his article. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
December 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
No, it’s not just about alcohol, though the 20-something pastor who didn’t bother to dress conservatively when standing up in front of MBC (Pathway photo) didn’t help his cause. Add his cool eyewear and there you go, his image overshadowing his thema. Not uncommon with 29ers.
So then yes, alcohol did become the issue even when Mr. Eyewear didn’t at all mean it to.
Maybe it’s that MBC officials, like me as dad to a small four-year old son, have had it with the likes of Mark Driscoll and others who see no problem in not keeping one’s speech seasoned with salt. Driscoll is the face of Acts 29. It is there where the major departure with Founders occurs.
Full disclosure: I am younger 40s, conservative Biblically, Reformed soteriology, and full supporter of Tom Ascol and Founders, and live not far from the exploding Chandler-led Village Church in the N. Dallas area.
Acts 29 need to grow up a little more if they want to be taken seriously.
Sorry for the edge.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Lyle,
Driscoll has repented of the speech issue. You seem informed about the issues, so I suppose you know that already. Are you raking him over the coals for past sin?
Regarding the “cool eyewear” and “dress conservatively” and “growing up”… I am as straight-laced as they come, but personal preferences in external clothing being what they are, is this really what we are coming to in the SBC? No partnership with a theologically sound group on account of their leader’s sunglasses?
Again, A29 is not above criticism. But this motion cuts off that conversation before it even begins.
And don’t be so sure that there is or will be such a major departure between Founders and Acts 29. The future can be an interesting thing to observe.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Here is the wording of the Motion and the amendment that was made.
MOTION:
Effective Jan 1, The Acts 29 Network is an organization which the MBC Exec Bd. Staff will not be working with, supporting, or endorsing in any manner at anytime.
Amendment:
While recognizing the autonomous nature of all areas of MBC life beyond that of the Executive Board Staff, the MBC Executive Board directs the Church Planting Department and other minnistry departments to NOT provide CP dollars toward those affiliated with the Acts 29 Network.
Motion as amended passed by a vote of 28-10
December 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
[…] The Missouri Baptist Convention bans Acts 29 churches from funding. The issue is alcohol. Words simply fail. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 5:18 pm | Trackback | Permalink […]
December 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Lyle,
I went back to my paper copy of The Pathway looking for the A29 guy with “cool eyewear”. In the edition covering the MBC annual meeting, the only person pictured at a microphone that could be accused of wearing “cool eyewear” is MBC pastor Micah Fries. While he may be in affinity with A29, he is not in official affiliation with them. Are you talking about someone else? The pictures aren’t archived online, so I assume you get the paper copy?
December 11th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
[…] When I Am Ashamed to be a Southern Baptist My good friend Scott Lamb, also a contributor to Missouri’s state paper The Pathway, has reported that members of the Executive Board presented and passed a motion during the miscellaneous business session that sets down a “no-partnership with Acts 29″ rule for MBC church plants. What this means is that dually affiliated churches (Acts 29 and SBC) will not be able to receive church planting funds from the Missouri Baptist Convention. […]
December 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
[…] Scott Lamb lets the word out on a decision by the Missouri Baptist Convention’s Executive Board that establishes “a ‘no-partnership with Acts 29′ rule for MBC church plants.” Scott is privy to all of the details, yet, but has enough information to know that churches that affiliate with Acts 29 will be judged unworthy of support from MBC church planting funds. This hardly seems like a kingdom focus regarding church planting, does it? […]
December 11th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Possibly the same results, but with much less WHAM!
(1) Executive Board makes a motion that says something to the
effect, “At the next EB meeting we will take a vote on whether to
allow funding for A29 churches. Anyone who wants to travel to Jeff
City or call their EB member regarding this matter are highly
encouraged to do so.”
(2) At the next meeting… no input from anyone??? Carry forth
however the EB desires and rightfully say, “We asked for input but
didn’t get any.”
Point being, had I known about this particular motion, I would have
been at the EB meeting the other day. For anyone to say that we
don’t have a right to retrospectively complain is not seeking to be peacemakers on this issue.
Friends, this whole matter has been talked about in MO and the SBC nation-
for well over a year. If the EB was planning on cutting off
future and present funds to GOSPEL-PREACHING churches… yes indeed,
the right thing would have been to give an advance warning.
And who is defending A29 the most right now? A bunch of folks who
haven’t given to or taken a penny from A29, have no official ties with the group, and yet see this motion as a very wrong action to take.
Scott Lamb
www.ThoughtsandAdventures.com
December 11th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Lyle,
Check out Tom Ascol’s blog to view his thoughts on the actions of the MBC Exec Board with respect to defunding A29 churches…. I would say he takes them seriously.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Scott-
The funny thing about that picture is, I was wearing a suit with my “cool glasses”. I guess we get no respect. huh?
;-)
December 12th, 2007 at 2:46 am
[…] Scott Lamb says Members of the Executive Board presented and passed a motion during the miscellaneous business session that sets down a “no-partnership with Acts 29″ rule for MBC church plants. I have not received the exact wording of the motion yet, but it is a confirmed piece of news from an EC board member. […]
December 12th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Scott,
Interesting days ahead to be sure.
I’ve shared my thoughts on the situation.
I still want to get together sometime…maybe the next Acts29 quarterly?
December 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Scott,
First, I enjoy your blog and our few conversations. I pastor in the Atlanta area. Second, I want to share something that hardly nobody talks about Acts 29 or our Baptist view toward the Padeobaptist.
As a Calvinist SBC pastor I agree with the doctrinal position of Acts 29 on Salvation but it does not talk about the doctrine of the church unless I missed it. I have noticed many SBC Calvinist growing blinder and blinder on the seriousness of working with those who line up with Baptist on the local visible church. I noticed that Acts 29 works with PCA churches. As a Baptist I think the teaching of the Padeobaptist is wrong on the church and Baptist confessions consider them either a church who is not in correct gospel order or my position is that based on the NHC article under a Gospel church by definition you have to say Padeobaptist are not a visible gospel church because they are not baptized. Baptists believe as in Acts 2 one must be converted and Baptized by immersion(As Baptist see it) to even get added to the visible church. The BFM also teaches that Baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. So, I personally don’t support Acts 29 because they are to ecuminical for me however, I’m not saying Southern Baptist are knocking the ball out of the park either in starting churches. As I said ” I’m a calvinist but I have seen how Calvinism has made us Calvinistic Baptist have a blind eye to the Padeobaptist because we share the five points. I believe Calvinistic Baptist need to rethink some things concerning who we partner with. Example: You and I both appreciate Dr. Mohler and he is a fine man but he does conferences with men on the local church who we as Baptist don’t even considered in a visible gospel church or a church that is not in Gospel order. We are sending out as Baptistic Calvinist mixed signals to our Baptist brethern when we turn a blind eye on these things. BTW, our church serves wine in the Lord’s Supper so I will easily defend this position to the Baptist in your state or whoever if they really have a problem with the alcohol position. Baptists have become so blind that we will even condemn wine in the Lord’s Supper : The very element Jesus used to show forth His blood. Our confessions and catechisms from early Southern Baptist teach wine as well. I bring this last point up to show how unclear some Calvinistic Baptist are in their thinking but also the General Baptist of the SBC as well.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
[…] Scott Lamb: Missouri Baptist Convention vs. Acts 29 Timmy Brister: When I am Ashamed to be a Southern Baptist Micah Fries: Acts 29 Is Banned Tom Ascol: Missouri Baptists Axe Acts 29 Steve McCoy: No Funding for SBC/Acts 29 Church Plants in Missouri Tim Ellsworth: MBC enacts ‘no partnership with Acts 29′ rule for church plants […]
December 12th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Please see my reply on the Acts 29 website: www.acts29network.org
December 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
As a mom, I am grateful for this action of taking the funding away. How many of these young pastor wanna-be’s have done their homework and looked into the people behind the promotion of Acts 29? Please read the links to the reports below and do your own research. I have sadly been watching other blogs on this issue with pastors cussing about “where will we get our $$$”. The good Lord stated that, “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain” Psalm 127 I thank the Lord that He still guards the city; and the watchman have been awake. Now do your homework and repent youngmen. It may be a Jude 22-25 kind of day and you may be encouraged to go spread the gospel with out funding; for the time may be short. God bless! http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Leadership+Network&btnG=Google+Search&domains=WWW.CROSSROAD.TO&sitesearch=WWW.CROSSROAD.TO
December 13th, 2007 at 11:25 am
[…] The headline (what disturbed me): The Executive Board of the MBC has voted to block funding for Acts 29 church plants, according to Scott Lamb. […]
December 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
It is always nice to put a face to a decision like this. One of my friends is directly effected by this decision. Read his story here.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
[…] Scott Lamb: Missouri Baptist Convention vs. Acts 29 Micah Fries: Acts 29 Is Banned Tom Ascol: Missouri Baptists Axe Acts 29 Steve McCoy: No Funding for SBC/Acts 29 Church Plants in Missouri Tim Ellsworth: MBC enacts ‘no partnership with Acts 29′ rule for church plants Aaron Martin: The Missouri Baptist Convention Executive Committee Should Repent Marc Backes: I Guess That Answers That Question Talitha Koum: Missouri Bites a Hand That Feeds It Borrowed Light: The Effects of the Acts29/MBC Decision […]
December 13th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
[…] Sadly, the Missouri Southern Baptist Executive committee agreed to ban church plants that are affiliated with the Acts 29 Network from being funded. This seems to go back to the issue of the allowance for alcohol consumption in Acts 29. For more information go here. […]
December 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
[…] Scott Lamb: Missouri Baptist Convention vs. Acts 29 Timmy Brister: When I am Ashamed to be a Southern Baptist Micah Fries: Acts 29 Is Banned Tom Ascol: Missouri Baptists Axe Acts 29 Steve McCoy: No Funding for SBC/Acts 29 Church Plants in Missouri Tim Ellsworth: MBC enacts ‘no partnership with Acts 29′ rule for church plants […]
December 14th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Does anyone know the names of the churches and pastors? My church in Kentucky is going to send them money to let them know that there are SBC pastors and churches that want them to be SBC.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Jason-
A fund has been setup to receive funds for the churches affected. The address and other contact info is on my blog at micahfries.com
Micah
Psalm 67
December 15th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
[…] Missouri Baptist Convention VS. Acts 29 […]
December 17th, 2007 at 11:00 am
What seems to be lost in this conversation is that A29 states explicitly on their site that they do not hold any church affiliated with them accountable for anything unless they are pastoring it. So, if A29 is not going to enforce any stricture on the plants they support knowing full well the stipulations of MBC’s policy on drinking they will pay the price.
Also, the tone of the majority of the comments seemingly stems that nobody should be telling anybody what to do. And that is fine, unless you are asking for support. The Journey and other A29 churches seemingly want others to support them monetarily and yet they demand autonomy without consequence.
Any A29 church, or for that matter, any SBC church is free to autonomously do what they want. What they cannot expect is for the State or National Conventions to go along for the ride.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
(Begin specific reply)
Yes, the Acts 29 Network does not control the actions of churches it does not pastor. If you read further, you will see that they do expect churches associated with Denominations to follow their denominations rules.
In this case 8 churches are being unjustly punished for the “sin” of one church. Said church that broke its covenant with the MBC should have been dealt with. The churches that have kept the covenant should not have been tossed out into the streets. 8 Acts 29 Churches agreed to abide by the MBC no alcohol policy, and have done so.
(Begin General Reply)
However, I am sad to say, such actions by the MBC executive committee do not surprise me. They do have a current multi-year track record of Ignoring scripture for the sake of their “Pride” after all.
They also have a track record of calling anyone that disagrees with them, or anyone they don’t understand, or anyone that threatens their power, Liberal.
What makes this situation tragic for all Pastors of Conscience in Missouri is that the National Convention will not seat messengers from your Church unless you give your Cooperative Program dollars through your state convention. (This was stated during the 2007 Convention.)
How can one give to the MBC, in good conscience, when Millions have been spent on unscriptural lawsuits and other prsuits; instead of on Missions, Evangelism, and Church Planting. In Missouri, to be SBC, one is forced to choose between being able to participate nationally, by violating one’s conscience and giving to the MBC thereby funding unscriptural activity, or, to take a stand for what is right, and essentially be denied a voice in denominational matters.
I don’t take these matters lightly. I have been a Seminary student the last several years, and I cannot in good conscience, serve in any capacity with the MBC. I wish it were not that way, but I will not violate my conscience.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I am missing something, I went to publick skewl after all, but can someone fill me in on what “covenant” was broken by whom. I assume the answer to who is The Journey. But the question I have remains, what covenant did they break? I must be missing something.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
When you take MBC or SBC money, you agree to be Alcohol free. The Journey Held an event at a bar, and some of the attendees (who I would assume were likely lost, and or very new believers) were apparently drinking at the event.
This was taken as a breaking of the agreement/covenant, regarding Alcohol, by The Journey that they made when they took MBC/SBC funds. At most this situation only warranted de-funding the Journey.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Is this the Matthew Fox I went to elementary school with at the Grove?
Regarding the last comment about “breaking of the agreement” by Journey, that is not accurate on one major count - The Journey never has been a MBC-funded church plant. Hence, the alcohol agreement that MBC-funded church planters must sign does not apply to them.
No covenant signed = no covenant broken.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
So again, what covenant was broken? This keeps getting thrown around but I have never seen a specific accusation.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Jason,
We are referring to the alcohol-abstention policy that an MBC-funded church planter would sign and agree to abide by while taking CP dollars.
So, if such an MBC church planter signed the agreement and then broke it, the funds could be legitimately cut.
If however, they kept the agreement (and any other agreements that may have been required), then the financial commitment of support should be continued.
Regarding the Journey, they were not an MBC-funded church plant, so the whole discussion about “Theology at the Bottleworks” is not relevant. That is to say, the loan they took out from the MBC did not have a “Covenant against alcohol” attached to it.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
That’s my point.
There is all this talk about breaking covenants but it has yet to been shown who broke any covenant. That’s the point. That is why facts need to be substantiated.
So once again. What is the specific accusation (not vague innuendo).
That’s one of the major issues in this whole thing. No one is man enough to make a specific accusation.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
[…] calls it Bad News. […]
December 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Jason, I was merely attempting to communicate, what I understood the MBC executive committee to be saying. The issue with the Journey is what they have publicly sited. I apologize for misunderstanding all the facts surrounding the Journey.
As for the Journey not being an MBC church plant, that being the case, I have to ask, why the Executive Committee is fighting a Straw Man Argument. If none of the MBC funded churches have broken the rules, why are we having this ludicrous fight?
I am not the Matthew Fox, you knew/know. I am originally from Oklahoma. My main interest in this issue, is the potential negative precedents and effects this could have on the IMB in the future.
The way I see the Acts 29 Network, is that they are using the same principles of missions (being missional) that our IMB missionaries use overseas, to target our Own American Culture; which has changed significantly in the last 30 years. If these principles are rejected here, I ask, will our Missionaries be rendered ineffective overseas?
December 18th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Matthew,
You say: \”If none of the MBC funded churches have broken the rules, why are we having this ludicrous fight?\”
I agree with you, but I am not sure you are understanding what has happened.
(1) MBC says NO FUTURE Acts 29-affiliated church plants will be given MBC funds.
(2) MBC says NO CURRENT Acts 29-affiliated church plants will be given MBC funds.
I disagree with BOTH decisions. However, I recognize the right of the MBC to do #1 with integrity.
However, they cannot do #2 with integrity… UNLESS there has been a \”breach of contract\” on the part of CURRENT church planters. Which, I would argue, there has NOT been. (and for the record, the only disputed \”breach of contract\” issue on the table for discussion is regarding alcohol. There has NEVER been an MBC contract for church planters to sign that dictated they NOT be part of Acts 29).
So, there are 2 streams of discussion going on here:
(1) Should the MBC disallow FUTURE funds for A29-affiliated church plants?
(2) Should the MBC take away already promised funds?
I say \”NO\” to both.
Don says \”Yes\” to the first, and \”No\” to the second.
Scott
December 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I do understand what the MBC has done regarding the funding, what I don’t understand fully is Why?
For the record, I am agreeing with your Position on this Scott. For the last four years, I have been a missions student at Midwestern in KC. Before that, I spent 5 years getting a degree in Political Science, which is only relevant to help explain what exactly I am worried about most in this,the Big Picture.
If this decision stands, and we both agree it should not, What are the broader implications to church planting in Missouri, the USA, and Internationally? Every stone tossed in the water sends out ripples. Because of my calling to International missions, I am worried most about the ripples that will hit there eventually, from this decision.
Something like this is bigger than the MBC, and Missouri. It will eventually either positively or negatively effect the rest of the SBC.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
But Scott, Don has a stack of proof on his desk of all the contract breaking that has taken place. So the EB has every right to break the contract.
But I guess the EB doesn’t have to display the evidence that led them to break their contract with these church planters.
Maybe that’s something that should be pointed out more clearly. If these church planters have not done anything against their stated contract, then it is the EB that is failing to live up to the contract.
Not that this is route things are heading or should head, but is this action by the EB even legal (if the church planters have not broken the covenant)? What kind of legal standing does the Church Planter’s covenant have? Just curious.
And I agree with Tom Ascol on another post, where I come from a man’s word means something. And even more so as a Christ follower.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
[…] Scott Lamb […]
August 6th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Its really a bad news to us. We must make some alternate arrangements to overcome this problem.
____
jackspar.
Missouri Treatment Centers