UPDATE 12.12.07 :: 7:30 p.m. EST: Scott Thomas, director of Acts 29 Network, has responded to the motion.
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 (28-10) during the miscellaneous business session that sets down a “no-partnership with Acts 29″ rule for MBC church plants. Here is the 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.
It was amended with the following statement:
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 ministry departments to not provide CP dollars toward those affiliated with the Acts 29 Network.
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.
For background information to this embarrassing situation, you need to read this post. Scott makes an excellent point, reflecting:
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 resisted the work of God in my generation if I didn’t buy into the seeker model.
In addition, I do wonder if the MBC will be consistent and pass a reciprocal measure that keeps Cooperative Program dollars from coming into MBC coffers via such polluted churches.
For all of us Southern Baptist who are committed to building bridges in the SBC, this is a day where we should all be ashamed of being one. Let’s be clear on this. The issue about the MBC and Acts 29 is not merely about alcohol; it’s about the future direction of the SBC and who will be leading us there. For 2008, the MBC will be keeping $10.5 million of Cooperative Program money to be used for their own causes, just not church planting with Acts 29. With all that many and with so many less church plants to fund, one has to wonder what exactly they are planning to do with that $10.5 million. Abstinence billboard campaign? Hiring “specialists” to do weekly inspections of MBC churches that give traces of Acts 29 involvement? Church planting recruiters? But I digress.
Scott asks a pointed question:
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.
It is not enough to shake our heads and move on as though we think this situation is isolated to Missouri and Acts 29 churches. As we have seen, one state’s precedence becomes another state’s principle, and if they will do this to Acts 29 churches, what makes us think they will not do it to Founders or IX Marks churches? It is times like this that I wish some of our SBC leaders would step into the ring, even if they happen to disagree with the alcohol issue. Those of us who are passionate about the gospel, church planting, and building networks and partnerships with others in the evangelical world with like-minded passions cannot and must not tolerate these kinds of actions in the SBC. May God grant courage and conviction to steer the convention away from the fundamentalism and folly before us today.
Other responses:
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
Timmy,
While I agree that the whole affair in Missouri is disgraceful, I think there are leaders that have stepped up. Driscoll, whom I believe is more controversial than ever need be has spoken at Southeastern, and Danny Akin, while not giving a blanket endorsement did speak highly of him. There are those baptists who demand to fold in upon themselves like monks. They are self-righteous, legalistic, and don’t know when to put their swords down. The reason they are being so vocal as of late is because they see the Gospel-resurgence taking place among younger baptists, and it threatens them. God is moving, with or without fundamentalist southern baptists. We need church planters who have the perseverance to tell their state staffs to keep the cp money, and trust God to provide. On the other hand, I am thankful for all the state conventions that haven’t taken such a foolish, short-sighted road.
Darby,
I agree. I also think that such actions are indicative of a denominational structure losing its support. Simply put, state conventions and their media outlets (papers, pulpits, conventions) are having less and less influence, and I find these measures as a desperate attempt to regain control over the future of the MBC. It will be interesting to see who follow their lead and what kind of fall-off comes as a result.
Timmy-
What’s even worse is that they will pull all funding from existing MBC/Acts 29 churches effective January 1. This will potentially cripple some work going on in our state.
We’ve got to pray for these church planters and figure out ways to assist them.
Micah,
That’s really frustrating. I hope there is a way that these churches can be financially supported. The circles of “cooperation” are getting smaller and smaller for you guys in the MBC.
Warning… what I am about to say is Southern Baptist Heresy… True believers need to close their ears… Ok, you have been warned!
The obvious solution to funding these new works that will be “unfunded” effective January 1st is for the Acts 29 friendly churches to redirect their Cooperative Program dollars to help support these new works…
Actually this would kill two birds with one stone; it would fund these new works and de-fund the state convention. In this way the new works get 100% of the churches missions’ dollars and not just what is left over after the state gets their cut off the top.
Every time some BOT in the SBC makes a bonehead decision like this they just drive another nail in the coffin of the Cooperative Program.
Grace Always,
Greg-
Actually, I understand that there is one association that has already decided to redirect CP funds to help finance the work happening at an Acts 29 church in their association. Maybe the MBC will change their mind when the cashflow begins to dry up?
I agree with you guys. I am a big fan of the CP, but the more I study how it is being spent, the more frustrated I am becoming, especially when funds are being cut from church planting efforts. I would be all about helping redirect funding in order to circumvent the state convention. While they may hold out the idea that respective churches will not have any messengers at the annual meeting as a result, I don’t think that is much of a threat, especially when only 8% of SBC churches are attending anyway. In other words, the state conventions are trying to hold the money and the messengers to retain the SBC superstructure . . . and it is crumbling before our eyes (and this is not a bad thing either).
Micah, please keep us informed on what happens in the coming days and weeks.
I just want to ask a question that I’ve been wanting to ask for a long time.
Why are State Conventions in the Church Planting Business anyway?
Why can’t NAMB just work with local churches and local associations who know what’s going on?
Missouri’s convention politics are just weirdly frenetic. They remind me of when Dilday was fired at Southwestern… everything was just freakishly overblown and reactionary and out of proportion.
This is probably all because Darrin Patrick has the temerity to talk to someone about theology while they’re drinking beer. Heaven forfend.
I just remembered why that’s not a good idea.
I just remembered all those forms I had to fill out one summer when I was a NAMB missionary.
I think we should just keep the CP money in the Association where we can spend it quick when the opportunities arise.
Jim,
When I studied the Indiana state convention, I was amazed how the CP money was being tossed back and forth from state convention to NAMB back to state convention without ever making it to local churches or plants. There is something inherently flawed in our system of allocating CP money when local churches are the last to receive any benefit from our financial “cooperation.”
In other words, we have too much “program” in the Cooperative Program and not enough “cooperation.”
Now, I think we are living in a day where new alternatives are in the early stages of being formed. Whether it is affinity based networking that is not geographically centered, or a new paradigm of local associations as Mike Day has proposed, the actions of denominational politicos serve the purpose of instigating and perpetuating the necessary change for effective church planting in the future. I have been working offline on this issue for some time now, and I think that this, at least for me, will serve as a big impetus to focus more of my time and attention on this issue.
This is sad. I have been told by a missions professor Acts 29 has not had a CP fail. If that is indeed true ( I am not saying it is cause I have not verified the information) then maybe we ought to be listening to Acts 29 instead of criticizing and condeming.
This also goes to show that state convention bureacracies are barely able to do much more than to simply perpetuate their own existance.
Does the CP ever get used to assist a church in building their facilities- as a grant and not a loan? I know the Convention (I believe on a state level) has a loan program, but why not assist churches in building with no financial strings attached? Even a matching funds type of set-up. Do they do that? Or do they want the money back in the CP coffers?
Ken,
I believe you are correct. When responding to this, Tom Ascol asks, “Wouldn’t humility dictate that a “D” student be willing to listen to an “A” student when the subject they are both studying comes up?” That’s a good question. I mentioned my research on the Indiana state convention who, during a course of 10 years, spent 40 million dollars and had a net loss of 25 churches and decrease of 4,000 members. How do you account for 40 million dollars in a state convention that is declining?
Pregador,
From what I understand, that is exactly what happened with The Journey (St. Louis). If my memory serves me correctly they borrowed something like $200,000 from the state convention for building needs (church planting center), but that money DID come with strings attached, precisely over the alcohol issue. I don’t know whatever happened there, but it is what started the whole deal of MBC and Acts 29 to begin with.
Jim Shaver Says: I just want to ask a question that I’ve been wanting to ask for a long time. Why are State Conventions in the Church Planting Business anyway? Why can’t NAMB just work with local churches and local associations who know what’s going on?
Steve Clevenger: Jim and others why do you have to have a convention entity to plant churches? Local churches are to be in the church planting business. Cannot local churches network together to plant churches under the oversight of a particular planting church?
What is the biblical model?
Timmy,
Thank you for bringing attention to the situation. This is a situation that is very real for me as I prepare to plant a church in the next 18 months in Jefferson City, MO.
I’m not sure what the ripples will be from this, but I think they will be larger than most anticipated.
On a side note, I’m looking forward to meeting you in April at T4G…
Daggonit.
Seriously, I am incredibly grateful for my congregation’s relationship with our state convention — they’ve been SO, SO supportive of everything we’ve done from day one, right up to now, 7 years and counting, and have never made an issue of our dual alignment with A29, nor given us money or any other support with “strings” attached — but these kinds of things make me jittery about the future of their support. What kind of pressure is going to be put on denominational leadership in other state conventions regarding their cooperation with A29? Wouldn’t be the first time it happened.
And listen, I agree about skipping the CP to fund plants in Missouri. We’re Baptist; we vote. Let those churches who oppose this move vote with their pocketbooks and redirect those CP dollars to fund A29 plants directly!
I believe it’s possible this may well be salutary, in both the spiritual and pragmatic senses of the word.
Unfortunately the MBC is coming to represent the very sorts of things people hold up as reasons for rejecting Christianity. On the pragmatic side, not receiving funds from the MBC may well be a real plus if you want to evangelize anyone who’s not already Baptist. On the spiritual side, place your faith in God, not the MBC. You are called to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the gospel of traditional southern baptist culture.
If the pharisees threatened to withhold funding from John the Baptist if he had anything to do with this wine-drinking fellow Jesus who hung out with tax collectors and harlots, what would John have done? Funding wasn’t the issue for John, but there were religious leaders who wanted control over him too. John took his stand. He also died in prison. But the kingdom was advanced, Christ was glorified, and John is remembered forever. His critics are just nameless “scribes and pharisees,” whose only name of record is “brood of vipers.”
In this set of issues the MBC is simply wrong, no matter how well-intentioned.
Steve,
I think that is where things will be going in the future–churches planting churches without the SBC overhead. Exactly how that will happen and be organized remains to be seen.
Marc,
From what I have read in the comments made by Darren Casper (St. Louis Metro), they are not going to abandon the A29 churches in the SBC. I hope many follow Darren’s lead and bypass this resolution made at the state level. I, too, look forward to meeting you in April.
Laura,
Yeah, one has to wonder how the other states will respond. Granted, many states do not have this issue. For example, Alabama has only one Acts 29 church, and I do not think it is affiliated with the SBC. But those that do, perhaps it would be profitable to come out with a public statement saying they do not agree with the MBC and will not be severing ties with dually affiliated A29/SBC churches.
memrob,
I think you made a good point to remember, namely that our dependence should only be on God and not a denomination. We tend to forget that sometimes! Yet, there is wisdom in gospel partnerships and networking where more can be done together for the kingdom than apart. That was the vision of the SBC and CP to boot. But things have changed, and the partnerships are being severed NOT on the gospel but nonessential, peripheral issues. When we are no longer identified with the gospel and with Jesus, I am not sure I want to wear that label anymore.
I am the Associational Missionary ( would love to be called a facilitator of missions, which is my primary responsibility) for Grand Crossings Baptist Association. The action by the MBC affects one of our churches, a church plant. As I have told the MBC as far as I am concerned I will lead our association of missional churches to fully support the church plant who is affilated with Acts 29 and will lose some much needed funding. Others who want to help can join with us.
This is very sad indeed. At the FSI Lecture (Francis Schaeffer Institute) here in St. Louis back in October, I learned that our church, while Acts 29 planted, is considered technically an SB church (to my surprise and a little to my disappointment). Why? Our church gives $$$ to the Cooperative Program.
So. The MBC bites at least one of the hands that feeds it.
While I thought I had shed my SBC affiliation for good, God’s providence has driven me back into SBCland, at least technically; otherwise, I would remain silent on the issue.
*Letitia*
Steve,
That’s good to hear. The more associational missionaries and DOM’s speak out against this motion by MO X-COM the better. What I think we are seeing is just how out of touch the Executive Committee of MO has become with the rank and file Missouri Baptist.
Letitia,
Good to hear from you! It’s been a while. Yeah, that’s a good point. Why should SBC churches give to the CP when they are de facto not a part of it? Seems like that money needs to be pooled or allocated elsewhere. I am still wondering what the MO state convention is going to do with $10.5 million next year.
I’ve been planting a church in a small town for over four years without any outside support. Why does it seem to be about money so often with you guys?? Another reason why I left the SBC and why I consider A29 no better.
Please see my response at the Acts 29 website: http://www.acts29network.org
I am the director of Acts 29
Thanks Scott. I will plug your response at the top of the post for greater visibility.
Timmy,
Thanks for the heads up on this issue. Anyone who wants a little more info on what started all this (no names given) can read it on my post today.
Missouri SBC Bites a Hand That Feeds It”
You’re welcome Letitia. While I have no idea what the agenda is behind those bringing about this division, I pray that there will be a solidifying of efforts among kindred hearts for the gospel in the future. Actions like this should remind us that our true allegiance and commitment is always to God and His gospel and not a denomination.
Timmy,
See the continued posting on the situation here.
Thanks for bringing attention to this issue.
Marc
By the grace of God I stumbled upon a letter by John Newton, “On Controversy”, a couple of days ago. It is especially fitting given our present situation in the MBC. He gives solid advice to those of us living some 225 years later. You can read the letter here.
Brothers,
I have looked at your posts and have read Don Hinkle’s defense. I think I am going to interact with Hinkle’s comments a little in another post coming soon. His argument that Acts 29 churches have no accountability is duplicitous. Acts 29 churches are simply being scrutinized under the spotlight of SBC executives. Should Missouri Baptist churches receive the same treatment, I venture to say that many MBC churches should be defunded, especially when they are not preaching the gospel.
Thanks for the update. I will be putting my thoughts together . . .
A mechanism has been set up by which we can help the affected Missouri Acts 29 Church Plants that have been defunded.
You can send Checks made out to:
St. Louis Metro Baptist Association
write on memo line on check – “Show Me Church Planting”
address:
St. Louis Metro Bapt. Assoc.
attn. Darren Casper
3859 Fee Fee Road
Bridgeton, Mo. 63044
Contact info is listed below if you have any questions.
ST. LOUIS METRO STAFF
314-571-7579
Darren Casper ext 103
[email protected]
Associate Executive Director – Missions Partnerships / Church Planting
Thanks Jim. I will be including this in my next post on the issue.
Timmy,
Check the comments on Hinkle’s post. Tom Ascol already beat you to it..
Adding your thoughts couldn’t hurt…
Marc
Marc,
Yeah, I just read Tom’s comments. I have more to say, but I need to think about it a bit. My wife and I are headed out for a date, but expect to see something by tomorrow morning.
Read the latest.
Hi Timmy,
You know my significant other, Letitia Wong. I thought I’d add in a few cents since we are both members of the Journey.
A bit of clarification on the loan that Missouri Baptist Convention gave the the Journey. MBC leaders themselves approached the Journey and offered a no strings attached loan to the Journey for purchasing and renovating on old Catholic church into ,amongst other things, a church planting center. We are currently paying the loan back like any other responsible church with financial duties. So, the Journey did not do anything financially underhanded nor did we violate any strings since there weren’t any.
It was only after the loan was given that some members of the Executive Board starting hyperventilating about the alchohol issue because news articles of our Midrash ministry that discusses Christ and culture called “Theology at the Bottleworks” started showing up in the local paper.
Reporters with no brains kept confusing what we do at the Bottleworks with what we do on Sunday mornings! Ridiculous. Even Jennifer London of NBC kept correcting Pastor Darrin himself that our church was in a bar despite his many clarifications! The national media has a narrative that they spread and the Executive Board members have that same narrative despite information from Professor Devine, Ed Stetzer, and the rest. Acts 29 is not Emergent Village! How thick does one need to be to not understand that? Acts 29 is a terrific network of church planters that is doctrinally and missionally as sound as they come.
After reading the above linked BP article, I’m less offended at their being offended over alcohol than I am offended that they are offended by having a movie night where movies are used as teaching tools. What a great message they’re sending to not only Missouri Baptists but all Christians: The Gospel doesn’t or can’t speak to a movie. Let’s all just capitulate to The Golden Compass while we’re at it.
Conway,
Thanks for the comment. Darrin clarified the same thing in an earlier comment on another post, and I think it is an important one. One is led to believe that The Journey took advantage of the loan and practiced some underhanded tactics. From what has been told, everything was up front, agreed upon with mutual consent, with no contract violated.
The issue with lumping Acts 29 with Emergent is absurd. Anyone who makes such a conclusion really needs to do their homework. If we cannot speak accurately with our terminology and labels, we not going to get anywhere in the SBC, which goes for the ECM or Reformed Resurgence. (Perhaps that is a strategy)