Tuesday, May 01, 2007

acts 29 misrepresented

The Missouri Baptist Convention refuses to cooperate with the Acts 29 church planting network for the following seven reasons as stated in their periodical The Pathway.
"Acts 29 should not be an organization with which the Missouri Baptist Convention networks by means of our Cooperative Program money, missions emphases and church planting"
1) Acts 29 is a part of the Emerging Church movement;

2) We have great difficulty with the notion or philosophy that a church can be theologically conservative and methodologically liberal. There is an inherent connection between biblical theology and missions methodology;

3) There seems to be levels of immaturity and even rebellion among the leadership of the Emerging Church movement;

4) Acts 29 should not be an organization with which the Missouri Baptist Convention networks by means of our Cooperative Program money, missions emphases and church planting;

5) A commitment to planting indigenous churches in Missouri is not a commitment to cultural compromise;

6) We recognize the diversity of opinion in American evangelicalism when it comes to alcoholic beverages. This does not negate our historic and ongoing affirmation of the resolutions at 57 annual meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention regarding abstinence as the Baptist position on the sale and use of alcoholic beverages;

7) There are vast theological extremes and a profound depth of doctrinal diversity, even instances of clearly heretical statements, within the Emerging Church movement with which we are greatly uncomfortable.

Read Acts 29's gracious response to these accusations here.

Timmy Brister has been following the events here.


Laura said...

They have "great difficulty" with theological conservatism paired with methodological liberalism (their terms), but they don't have the balls to say that they think it's wrong or that they disagree with it. AND, they don't take the time to define their terms. Bandying about "conservative" and "liberal" labels is hardly helpful to the discussion... if this thinly-veiled accusation of heresy can be appropriately called a discussion.

What does #5 have to do with anything? Are they saying that Acts 29 is committed to "cultural compromise" -- whatever that means? This is insane.

They desperately need to figure out that Acts 29 is "emerging" but not Emergent, and that they have radically distanced themselves from, and denied the dangerous teachings of, the Emergent culture. Read ANY of Driscoll's books, for heaven's sake! ARGH!!!

ckhnat said...

if anyone wonders why laura and i take this issue so much to heart is because ... we are partners (members) of an Acts29/SBC church ... it's personal.

epek said...

Acts 29 is not the problem, John Piper is. He's bad. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-GxkAJ1OBU)

GloryandGrace said...

I admittedly don't know enough about the topics. I have set a goal to read Carson's book "Becoming Conversant..." this summer. Have you read it? Any considerations for me since you're part of an Acts 29 church, and how that does or doesn't relate to the movement Carson speaks of in his book?

GloryandGrace said...

And if I'm not mistaken, would the SBC even support EmergENT churches?

Anonymous said...

A good book to read up on and maybe answer those questions (gloryand grace) is Radical Reformission by Driscoll himself.
Kristin P

ckhnat said...

that's just it, Jennifer. Acts 29 churches are NOT emerGENT. They read Carson's book and affirm, "That's horrible! and I'm not like those Carson is describing."

Carson is greatly respected among Acts 29 church planters. They are encouraged to read his books.

See this list of authors and recommended reading for their church planters.:

ckhnat said...

not exactly a group of authors that one might consider liberal, hmm?

i love it that 4 women have posted on this thread so far. and knowing each of them, i'm encouraged by how much they love the church.

John Dekker said...

Well, whatever the Acts 29 website says, #6 is a genuine point of disagreement.

And this highlights the big problem of "church networks" - they are, it seems to me, denominations that pretend not to be denominations. And what does one do when the church network and the denomination disagree?