Acts 29 and the SBC
From SBC Voices…
Acts 29 and Bad Science Fiction Movies
by Rick Patrick on March 30, 2012
Congratulations to the Acts 29 Network for selecting a President in Matt Chandler who is altogether less controversial than Mark Driscoll. The issues with Mark’s explicit visions, his edgy sex book, and the church discipline controversy seems to have provided a lot of baggage that this organization did not need. I am certain that these factors would not be cited by leaders as reasons for the change, but the move to Dallas and the transition in leadership can only help this organization to become more acceptable both in Southern Baptist life and in the evangelical world at large. While I have no problem with the latter, the former troubles me.
Have you ever seen one of those cheesy science fiction movies where the aliens take over the earth one body at a time as they either (1) possess the souls of existing humans on earth, or (2) transform their appearance so they pass for men and women when they are really something else? It’s an insidious form of infiltration that goes unnoticed until it is too late and they have completely taken over.
Southern Baptists, they walk amongst us. While our Southern Baptist rules allow ministers and congregations the freedom to hold either of the two major soteriological positions, Acts 29 rules strictly require that they adhere only to one. While there are certainly other clear differences between Acts 29 and traditional Southern Baptists in areas such as methodology, ecclesiology, hermeneutics and cultural engagement, it is this one primary rule that requires unyielding conformity to a specific salvation doctrine that appears to “stack the deck” in favor of the growing influence of Acts 29 churches within the Southern Baptist Convention.
To extend the metaphor, consider other denominations as civilizations living on other planets who are also being infiltrated by the Acts 29 aliens. Because they do not define themselves as one denomination, separate from the others, even though they possess their own leadership, their own literature, their own training and educational conferences, their own church planting process, their own specific doctrinal requirements, and all the other marks that define a denomination, they are able to infiltrate existing churches as well as plant new churches among many different denominations simultaneously.
Although it is not my intention to incite, this next analogy may do exactly that. When I compare traditional denominations to the existing sovereign nations on earth and liken Acts 29 to a terrorist network, I am certainly not speaking of their functional intent–these are brothers who are truly sharing the gospel–but only of their organizational structure. Just like a terrorist network contains infiltrating cells within a variety of nations while preserving their primary allegiance for the terrorist organization itself, Acts 29 churches appear to enjoy carte blanche in forming their own “denomination without walls.”
Since their organizational structure as a network will never wall themselves off as a separate denomination, the only way in which any boundary for their organization can ever truly be set is if the existing denominations themselves wall off Acts 29 churches, declaring them to be the denomination they so fervently insist they are not. Unless denominations are willing to do this, the Acts 29 Network will grow unhindered within several denominations simultaneously.
I believe this is a house divided, which as we know, cannot stand. It is not that I wish the Acts 29 Network any harm. If they called themselves a denomination tomorrow, allowing every member to “choose ye this day” whether they wanted to be Southern Baptist or Acts 29, I would consider them with the same collegial feelings of goodwill which I currently hold for the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Evangelical Free churches and everyone else.
But as they are currently structured, I am concerned that their presence within the Southern Baptist Convention creates a denomination within a denomination, dividing our loyalties and possibly consuming some of our assets, such as church buildings, missions funding and, most importantly, the future young leaders of our denomination.
As I understand it, the new President of the Acts 29 Network was highly involved in the creation of our newest denominational Sunday School curriculum. He has preached in our seminaries and will gain even more access within Southern Baptist life than Mark Driscoll ever could. The Acts 29 Network is alive and growing within our denomination. If I seem a bit threatened by this, it is only because I disagree with enough of their theology and methodology to discern that Acts 29 and traditional Southern Baptist churches are simply not on the same page.
Just as Muslims embark upon both public holy wars and the more secretive infiltration of cultural subversion, religious denominations are subject to the same threats. While the liberalism a generation ago was a “holy war” fought over inerrancy, today we face the more illusive threat of subversion from within as the Acts 29 Network grows stronger and larger inside of us.
If you seek evidence for this growing influence of the Acts 29 Network upon Southern Baptists, consider that NAMB is transforming itself into an Acts 29 styled church planting network. A couple of our seminaries are strongly aligned with Acts 29. Lifeway appears absolutely smitten. Being fond of my retirement account, if they ever take over Guidestone, I suppose I’ll just have to convert, embrace all five points, read more Piper, preach in jeans, talk about meta-narratives, attend boot camps and use the word “gospel” to describe everything. I’ll eat a gospel breakfast, drive my gospel car and mow my gospel lawn.
Only God knows whether Matt Chandler is destined one day to become the new Adrian Rogers, but if he does, he will do it on a platform not of biblical inerrancy and cultural conservatism, but of Five Point Calvinism and cultural contextualization. While this entire post may deeply offend my Acts 29 brothers, I would simply ask that you try to understand my personal struggle with our changing Southern Baptist identity. From my perspective at least, the rising influence of Acts 29 upon our denomination seems, for lack of a better word…alien.
From: http://sbcvoices.com/acts-29-and-bad-science-fiction-movies/
“Recently, Wes Kenney brought to my mind that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a church planter to affirm both the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) and the covenant of the Acts 29 (A-29) church-planting network, particularly in the area of church polity. The A-29 covenant states, “We agree that our church will meet all biblical requirements for elders, including that the church will be governed by a plurality of qualified male elders (italics mine). In other words, for A-29, the church is not an organization that, “… operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes” as stated in the BF&M. Both these statements are polar opposites concerning the governance in the church.
Again, A-29 has every right to define for themselves how they believe the church is to be governed. But, for Southern Baptists, the church is directly subordinate to Jesus, being governed by Him. For A-29, the elders are directly subordinate to Jesus, standing between Jesus and the church. In an A-29 doctrinal belief, Jesus works through elders governing His church. In Southern Baptist polity, Jesus governs His church directly without any middle-men. This is not to say that pastors don’t lead the flock and that God works through them. But, the final authority under Christ rests with the church.”
Read entire article here: http://sbctoday.com/2009/08/21/acts-29-and-baptist-polity/
Is Acts 29 now IN the SBC or is a member of the SBC with Reformed soteriology at the helm. Isn’t there a difference? I’m just asking.
No, they are not IN the SBC (SBC members but nondenominational). They are not a denomination (well, they are, but they claim they are not) nor are they baptist, but the SBC has been giving money for the Acts 29 organization to plant Acts 29 churches which are incompatible with the SBC in terms of church government and in terms of doctrinal issues as well. Let me put this quote from http://sbctoday.com/2009/08/21/acts-29-and-baptist-polity/ just to stay on the church government topic.
“there is a huge issue for someone who is appointed by NAMB to plant a church and also seeks funds from the A-29 network. For church governance, you either agree with the BF&M or you agree with A-29. There is no compromise between the two statements. To receive funds from both agencies, while affirming both covenant statements is either dishonest or shows a clear lack of ecclesiastical perception and grounding.”
If I didn’t answer your question, rephrase it because I might not understand the question…
Here’s another article that might interest you Born that addresses some of the problems here.
http://sbctoday.com/2012/04/12/things-that-bear-watching/
Things That Bear Watching
Posted on April 12, 2012 by Wm. F. Harrell
——————————————————————————–
Bill Harrell has served as Pastor of Abilene Baptist Church in Martinez, Georgia, for over 30 years. He also is active in the Augusta Baptist Association, Georgia Baptist Convention, and SBC, including having serving as the Vice-President of the Georgia Baptist Convention and as Chairman of the SBC Executive Committee.
——————————————————————————–
In the short span of time of about five years, those of us who are observers of activities within the Southern Baptist Convention have witnessed not only changes but mega-shifts in our convention. It would take a large volume for someone to treat all the various subjects at hand but I want to address just a few that are very subtle in some ways but very overt in others.
Most of our Southern Baptist people are just tending to the business of the Kingdom in their part of the world unaware of the forces that are in play and what those forces are trying to achieve and indeed are achieving with much success.
Two things have come to our attention in recent days that bear watching. First, our agency for missions within the US, NAMB, has been using some of the Cooperative Program funds to help establish “Acts 29” churches. These churches must, by their own charter, be organized as five-point-Calvinist churches. There are those who have it as their goal to change the SBC into a Reformed convention more akin to a Presbyterian church that a Baptist church. I cannot, in these few words, get into a broad examination of what is going on, but any informed member of the SBC understands that this is happening.
The driving force behind the Acts 29 churches has been Mark Driscoll; and I do not need to elucidate how controversial he is. He has become, to the younger people, somewhat of a folk hero who they are willing to follow no matter what he says or does. Chapter 10 of his recent book, Real Marriage, is nothing but pornography. It encourages people to think that it normal to do sexually what the Bible condemns. Yet, it is Southern Baptist people who suddenly seem willing to accept the things that the people of our convention rejected outright as sinful until recently. In recent days the leadership of Acts 29 has shifted to someone else, at least in the public eye. Driscoll is the founder of this emergent church, Calvinistic organization; and many believe he will still be the “behind the scenes” leader. Being the founder, he is not going to “ride off into the sunset” too easily or too far.
Let me suggest why the younger generation finds it so easy to accept the kind of things Driscoll mentions in his book. This is the generation that was raised on the internet and all that it offers including pornography. I believe that this young generation is willing to accept and actually applaud the activities that are suggested as acceptable sex in chapter 10 of Driscoll’s book. I believe that many, though certainly not all of the younger generation that is currently pushing for such radical changes in the SBC are not alarmed by the content of chapter 10 because they have been exposed all of their lives, through the internet, to the grossest of pornographic videos and images. Many have exposed themselves to this internet trash and it has imprinted their minds. They think it is okay to do such because they have been dealing with it for years. They are part of the video generation who had the ability to go to their rooms at night and spend hours looking at pornography while their parents thought they were asleep. So, no wonder they don’t blink an eye at what Driscoll refers to in chapter 10. In fact, they wonder why we old “fuddy-duddies” are so worked up about it all. Only people who are accustomed to consuming pornography would gravitate toward such filth and endorse it. Some have noted what a good book he has written, especially in the first chapters. One must realize that it was the same mind that wrote those chapters as the one that wrote chapter 10 and encouraged people to do such things even to the point of providing web sites to help people know where to find aids that would heighten the sexual experience. Because human nature is what it is, things will get worse before they get better. How far will such people as Driscoll have to go before we become convicted and turn away in disgust? We are far removed from the purity that was expected of the New Testament Christians.
The people of the SBC in annual meetings have made it clear that they want nothing to do with Driscoll or Acts 29, yet some of our leaders continue to thumb their noses at what they know has been said on the issue at the convention. They don’t care what we think because these leaders of this new wave of thought are convinced that they are in control so they will do as they wish no matter what we think.
NAMB has been helping to start churches in the St. Louis area that are Acts 29 affiliated. The leaders at NAMB were confronted several months ago about this and we were assured that they were not funding Acts 29 churches with SBC monies. This all died down for a few months, and now we find that they have continued to do this. I don’t know about other people in the SBC, but I do not plan to fund such activity. I also believe that if the masses of the SBC people were to find out what is going on they would not fund it either. The real problem is that those good people are not informed about the current direction of the SBC. They trust their leaders and agencies never realizing that such is happening. The very people they trust are relying on them to continue to give because that is what they have always done and, at the same time, they are going in directions the good people of the SBC would never go.
There is a growing emphasis on church planting and missions. Let me offer a suggestion as to why. The young Calvinists, who are being turned out in numbers from Southern and Southeastern in particular, are finding it difficult to get a job in a Southern Baptist church because 90+ % of our churches reject five point Calvinism. The leaders of these seminaries know they cannot tell a young person that “we are going to educate you in Calvinism, but we want you to know that it will be difficult for you to get a job in a Southern Baptist church when you graduate.” Now suppose they told them that. How long do you think they would attract students in number? So, they are pushing church planting and missions to give these people an outlet for ministry opportunities. They can’t afford to warn the young student about the reality of job hunting in the SBC as a five point Calvinist. They just make them a part of their little group, which I describe as an “intellectual, spiritual groupie thing.” They have their gurus who they follow almost unquestionably. The same is true of those attached to the Acts 29 group. As churches get more familiar with the situation, they are starting to ask directly if a candidate is sympathetic to or is a part of the Acts 29 network. When the average Southern Baptist church finds out that they are connected to or sympathetic to Acts 29, they turn from them and seek another candidate. So, this new emphasis on church planting is being largely driven by the fact that five-point-Calvinist students and Acts 29 adherents need a place to go preach and minister because churches do not want their theology (in the case of the Calvinists) or their organization (in the case of the Acts 29 group).
These church starts in the St. Louis area are very revealing and bear watching. Lifeway, which is in the process of being changed into a Reformed agency, has just released a series of Sunday School lessons on the gospel of which all authors are Calvinists except maybe one person. Now, let me ask a question: With 90+% of the SBC people rejecting Calvinism, how did our educational agency happen to product a Sunday School series on the gospel that is authored almost exclusively by Calvinists? I think it was by design. It was intentional and done because, as stated previously, they think they are in control of the convention enough at this point that they can do as they please.
I believe that it has always been a dream of the President of Southern Seminary to use that institution of higher learning as the home base for making the SBC a Reformed convention. Even Christianity Today saw this. When Al Mohler arrived at Southern in 1993, he began firing the liberals who did not hold to inerrancy. We all watched and said, “Praise God, Brother Al is getting rid of those liberals.” We just didn’t notice that as he fired the liberals, he replaced them with inerrantists who happened to be Calvinists. Some were not even Baptist; they were Presbyterian. The Southern Baptist people were so overjoyed at the way Southern was being brought back into the inerrancy camp that we were totally unaware of the direction in which it was being taken. Now we see. Southern and now Southeastern are both turning out numbers of the young, restless Calvinists with Southern having been doing it for years. We have a large number of them seeking to pastor our churches. Many churches that are not Calvinistic in their theology have been ruptured by these young preachers who accept a call to a church but fail to tell them that they are five point Calvinists. The church is usually split and damaged before they find out the truth. One will be loudly condemned for stating this truth but as my Grandmother used to say . . . ”the proof is in the pudding.”
While I believe that there has been a long term plan to take the convention to the Reformed position, I also think that the number of our agency heads and leadership positions held by Calvinists or those sympathetic to that theological model prove the point. Where did Thom Rainer come from? Southern Seminary. Where did Ed Stetzer make his trek to Lifeway from? Southern. Where did Trevin Wax, a new writer and editor for Lifeway get his Masters degree? Southern. Where did Kevil Ezell come from? He was Al Mohler and Danny Akin’s pastor in Louisville. Where did Clark Logan, now at NAMB come from? Did you guess Southern? You are right. Even Danny Akin went to Southeastern from Southern. A “family tree” kind of graph, showing where the current leadership of some of our most influential agencies came from and who has been involved in their hiring, might be very interesting.
All of this points to why Lifeway would be so bold as to issue a Sunday School series on the gospel authored primarily by Calvinists. Dr. Mohler, along with The Founders group and others know that it would take five lifetimes to take the SBC back to a Reformed position church by church but he is also smart enough to know that it could be accomplished in only a couple of decades through the educational system: Lifeway. The good people of the SBC are not theologians. They simply trust their agencies and are unaware of the plan. They could be manipulated into the Reformed tradition through the educational process and never know what hit them. Also, less blood will be shed this way.
In connection with this, let me point out another thing that bears watching. With this gospel Sunday School series, they are subtly trying to change the definition of the word “gospel.” Even now, when those who hold to Reformed doctrine refer to preaching the “gospel,” they are meaning that one is preaching Calvinism. When one of the Calvinists says “preach the gospel brother,” he is really saying “preach that Reformed doctrine brother.” NonCalvinists are saying “preach the whosoever will gospel brother.” There is a vast difference. And, I believe that the goal is to re-educate the people of the SBC to understand that Reformed doctrine is the “gospel” and that the “gospel” is Reformed doctrine. Once that is accepted by the people after a couple of decades, the leaders of the Reformed resurgence can say, “we have done it; the SBC is now a Reformed convention.” And, they will have used the same basic approach to accomplish their goal as they use in the local churches: slow indoctrination that “sneaks up on the blind side.”
Let me pose this question: “Why, in the midst of all the other things that are transpiring that would totally transform the SBC, do we have this effort to change the name of our convention?” Let me offer this assessment. The effort is to “rebrand” the SBC. Call it something else and change the image of the convention in the minds of the people. At the same time the goal is to insert Calvinism as the identifiable theological bent of the convention. It would be easier to do it that way since the name “SBC” would not easily carry the designation as a Reformed convention. Rebrand it; rename it; insert Calvinism; educate the people that this is where the new convention is theologically. It would be much easier to call a newly named convention a Reformed convention than it would be to identify the SBC as a Reformed group. I realize that not all the people on the name change committee are Calvinists and had no concept of this. But, I believe others did. Those who are not Calvinists probably went along with the “nickname” approach because that is far better than totally changing the name, in their view.
Such name changing and rebranding was tried in 1995-96 when a committee studied changing some things so that we “could operate in a smoother way and more effectively reach the world for Jesus.” This committee renamed the Home Mission Board, NAMB. They renamed the Foreign Mission Board, the IMB. They eliminated some minor agencies. They thought that rebranding and renaming some of our key agencies would make things work better. Worked real well didn’t it? The whole process was a waste of time and money and at least one of the people involved with that process is involved in the current one. So, now they have come up with the brilliant idea of a “nickname”, Great Commission Baptists. Those who want to use this new moniker can do so in place of the Southern Baptist Convention name. This is only going to produce confusion in the eyes of those very people we want to reach. Now, some will have to say ”we are a GCB church”. Then comes the question: “I thought you were Southern Baptist.” “Well we are, but we are choosing to use Great Commission Baptists as our identifying name.” Now one would say, “so, there are two conventions?” “Well no, there is one but it now has two accepted names.” Is it just me or do others think that this is creating confusion? Let me tell you what I think will happen. I think that the GCB will become the “Calvinistic arm” of the SBC. The perception of the young, restless Calvinists is that their heroes are the ones behind this renaming approach, and they will run to be a part of whatever Brother So-and-so helped form and endorses. Soon it will be obvious that this “division” of the SBC is the Calvinistic “arm” of the SBC. Money will flow there in order to support whatever their leaders “suggest” is a good thing to support. So we will wind up with the CBF on one side, the SBC in the middle and the GCB (Calvinistic arm) on the other side. They will do the same as the CBF has done and stay in our convention and churches. More fracturing and confusion will be the result.
When people look at the different facets of the current happenings in the SBC, they can begin to get an idea of what is actually taking place and where it is all headed. Of course, this assumes that they have enough background. If current trends continue we will not recognize the SBC in a very few years. Which begs the question: “Is there NOTHING right about the SBC?” Is everything wrong and in need of radical surgery? I think not! These people are doing with the convention what many of them have done in churches: radically change the makeup of the church while making those who might oppose them out to be one who really doesn’t desire to be obedient to God or fulfill the great commission.
Things are changing in our Southern Baptist Zion and they are not for the good. If things continue on the present course, I predict that in only a few years we will not have thirty-five state and pioneer conventions but about twenty-five. Some will cease to operate. Some will combine with a more stable convention in order to survive. Additionally, I predict that the Executive Committee will cease to be the entity that has guided us so well in the past because fewer conventions will reduce the number of committee members. As it grows smaller someone will ask: “why have an Executive Committee? It is now much smaller and we don’t need to waste that mission money on having a meeting since we have the internet with the ability for each person to stay home and participate in a video conference.” There will be a movement to let the officers of the committee meet about twice a year, set up a video meeting and hold an Executive Committee meeting in such a manner. Next will come the bright idea . . . “Since we don’t have all those people meeting twice a year and since so much has changed, why don’t we sell the Baptist Building? We could take that money and start some more churches and send some more missionaries.” I mean, who in the world could be against such good things?
One might say I am being an alarmist, but I believe that the fragmentation of the SBC is already taking place and it will proceed in that direction until we are no longer the monolithic spiritual body that has influence in the nation and world. We will be like any other denominational body. We will not be the leader among denominations as we have been, but we will be classed with those that the world doesn’t care if they exist or not because they are no threat to the sinful directions of society.
I know that what I have said will be decried as harsh, but we are dealing with harsh realities in the SBC. If things follow a normal course, it will be the young theologues who have little or no experience who will be the harshest in their criticism of my thoughts. They are still “wet behind the ears” and don’t have the experience or background to say very much at all. In general they have no respect for those who have had a ministry of forty or more years. I really don’t care who says what. My observations are built on the foundation of sixteen years on the Executive Committee and thirty eight years of pastoring Southern Baptist churches.
The things I have mentioned are some of the things that bear watching. Time will prove if I am right or not. I think I am.
This is a piece by Mohler on interdenominational relationships:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-southern-baptist-convention-and-the-issue-of-interdenominational-relationships/
On being both Acts 29 and SBC
http://cp4us.org/2011/03/24/video-jd-greear-jdgreear-on-being-both-sbc-and-acts-29/
Acts 29 and Annie Armstrong Easter Offering
http://rebekah1.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/acts-29-and-annie-armstrong-easter-offering/
great post. I posted a warning on Mark Driscoll. Mark has deep connections to Calvary and Saddleback. A woman and her husband who left wrote an “open Letter” if you will after years of trying to recover from leaving Mars Hill. I read it and felt I could empathize with her plight as I left Calvary Chapels years ago. Same cult mentality, same ruling from the top down, same “non-denomination” Denomination stuff. It’s like they all went to the same school on how to manipulate and brainwash their flocks. Anyway. I don’t know much about Mars Hill except they pump out a lot of wolves and apostates, similar to CC.
Hi ther mijadedios. It seems that the same names keep coming up. Yes, I’m very aware of the ones you just mentioned. I’m interested in the SBC situation just because that’s my background and I’m interested in how this will all play out. The churches are independent on a local level and are not required to give to the cooperative program. I would think that if there were enough local churches who are members of the convention who don’t agree with the SBC giving money to plant Acts 29 churches, they would just stop sending their money and this would stop. We’ll see. There always seems to be something going on…the fundamentalists vs. the liberals etc. etc. It makes sense that the calvinism issue should come up (it’s acceptable, but not the norm). I just didn’t expect it to come up though a program that plants calvinistic, charismatic churches heavy on heirarchy. It’s just odd to me. So I’m just watching this kind of play out.
New Sunday School curriculum, The gospel project:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/03/16/the-gospel-project-webcast-video-online/
http://www.gospelproject.com/2012/04/4-things-every-kid-needs-to-know-about-the-bible/
http://sbcvoices.com/the-gospel-project-webcast-begins-soon/
Today on a Radio Free Geneva: The Traditional Southern Baptist View of Salvation?
06/01/2012 – James White
As announced, we did a special “extra” DL this week, a Radio Free Geneva discussing the aforementioned statement defining “the” traditional Southern Baptist view of the gospel. In other words, we reviewed the very poorly written, confusing, straw-man filled document produced by a group of traditional synergists in the SBC. If you think I am being just a bit harsh, please remember something: these men include some whose credibility is more than suspect (Emir Caner), and who have been corrected on their misapprehensions more than once, but refuse to abandon their errors even when incapable of providing a defense (David Allen), as well as others who just simply should know better. We are facing some mighty big challenges in our culture, and yet we have these folks running around lighting up theological straw men, all hoping their audience remains in the dark as to the real issues? Forgive me for being just a little bit less than patient and snuggly. The matter is vitally important—God’s truth always is—and this cavalier, shallow, self-contradictory and simply unbiblical document (did you know there is no difference between the effectual call and the universal call of the gospel? Yeah, try to fit that into Romans 8:29-30!) is in no way a positive contribution to the debate. So, we put in about 90 minutes to go through and provide a response. In the process, Rich and I sang a duet (seriously), and I managed to insult all the ladies in the audience by making the factual observation that men are genetically designed to make cool noises (like machine gun fire, jet airplanes, motorcycles, that kind of thing) and ladies are not. You’ll have to listen to figure that part out. Here’s the program.
http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20120601.mp3