Covenant or Confession
Posted byAccording to Merriman-Webster online dictionary, the following definitions exist for the words addressed in the title of this article.
Covenant (Noun)
1 : a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : compact
2 a : a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action b : the common-law action to recover damages for breach of such a contractCovenant (Verb)
transitive verb
: to promise by a covenant : pledge
intransitive verb
: to enter into a covenant : contract
Confession
1 a : an act of confessing; especially : a disclosure of one’s sins in the sacrament of reconciliation b : a session for the confessing of sins <go to confession>
2 : a statement of what is confessed: as a : a written or oral acknowledgment of guilt by a party accused of an offense b : a formal statement of religious beliefs : creed
3 : an organized religious body having a common creed
As I prepared this article I ran across the covenant at Acts 29 Network. The Acts 29 covenant uses precise language and certainly is one that holds strict accountability on those that plant churches with them. The network is a tight doctrinal group that is focused only on reproducing churches with Calvinistic doctrine. However, as one looks at the difference between “covenant” and “confession” one finds the success of the Acts 29 church plants rests not as much in their doctrine as it is in their covenant.
Some within the SBC have advocated a partnership with Acts 29. Dr. Danny Akin was accused of such a charge and he took opportunity to deny the allegations. However, as an entity head he advocates a connection with Acts 29 in presenting them as church planting models to younger pastors. We also have an entity leader who was on the original board of directors and was instrumental in launching the Acts 29 Network. We have serving on the Great Commission Task Force one that is openly partnering with Acts 29 and advocates that partnership within his local church. According to Baptist Press his church gives nearly $750 thousand to missions that are neither Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, nor Cooperative Program. While local churches are free to decide where they spend their mission dollars (I am not one that advocates good Southern Baptist are only those that give 10% to the Cooperative Program), this information astounds me. Seeing that Acts 29 requires, through covenant, 10% of a network church’s funds be placed back into the network through planting Acts 29 churches, one understands this particular pastor’s push in the Great Commission Task Force. I am one that believes strongly in local church autonomy. I do not want anyone to think I am opposed to any pastor on the task force doing what God leads them to do in their local church setting. The church I am honored to pastor gives 6% of our undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program, we also give 2% to local missions where we have better control over the funds. We also fund our local Baptist association with 2% of our undesignated funds. That is what we do and I certainly do not believe anyone on the Great Commission Task Force will object to any local church making those decisions.
All this leads me to one question: Who are we as Southern Baptists? Are we a covenant people or are we a confessional people. It seems that we have become a people who want to delineate between confession and covenant. Certainly, there is a difference in definition, but do the definitions actually lead to an opposing viewpoint between the two. I am one that says no, it should not.
With the covenant that Acts 29 has implemented and with many of our younger pastors leaning toward that type of network I believe the GCR Task Force needs to ask themselves a question. What is the difference in a moderate Southern Baptist church giving the majority of its missions dollars to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and a conservative Southern Baptist church giving the majority of their missions dollars to Acts 29? In reality there is no functional difference. I know the argument of the SBC was that the moderate churches would bring in the back door a majority of people that did not believe the Bible, thus we do not receive from our churches funds to be forwarded to CBF. The SBC voted on a definition of Cooperative Program funds in San Antonio. Within the debate it was clearly stated that the SBC does not receive funds from or forward funds to the CBF. With Acts 29 heavily involved with so many churches of the SBC, I wonder if as a convention we will make the same statement concerning that network. Will the GCR Task Force bring about a recommendation that we allow Acts 29 to head up our church planting strategy?
If that becomes a reality then we will have more than a large theological conflict. The Acts 29 covenant calls for “Primary funding consideration shall be given to Acts 29-approved planters” and also, “We agree with the theological beliefs of Acts 29 as a Christian Evangelical Missional Reformed network”. Soteriologically speaking, only Calvinist churches will be planted if we turn over the church planting strategy to a group such as Acts 29. What is the problem? The primary agreement that an Acts 29 church planter makes is spelled out specifically: “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.”
However, let me reiterate my most significant problem with an Acts 29 church plant is in the funding formula spelled out on their website: “This means that when we begin our public services we will give 10% of our internal tithes and offerings…to church planting, under local elder authority as follows…”. If this does happen, then Southern Baptists would have more missionaries in the pipeline waiting because our local churches would be dually aligned with their first commitment to Acts 29. Now, I understand the Acts 29 covenant does allow for “denominational church plants” but that does not remove the “Primary funding consideration” from the language of the covenant. Thus the majority of the locally planted church’s missions dollars would be going back to Acts 29, not IMB, NAMB, or CP. I can see it now, Christmas 12 months a year. 
The confession that Southern Baptist currently have, called the Baptist Faith and Message, addresses our current needs in church planting. It is a confession but it is also a basis for our covenant together as Southern Baptists. It is a confession that clearly spells out who we are and what we believe. It is a covenant in that it provides for us a basis of cooperation. For some it has served us well and we desire to see it continue to serve us. For others it does not spell out specifics and some desire changes in order to be specific in what it addresses. It is on the basis of this confession (the Baptist Faith and Message) that we entrust doctrinal accountability of the leaders within our convention to the point that we lead our churches to send large portions of our budget to fund our cooperative ministries. This confessional statement is also a covenant we make with other Southern Baptist churches and, while we do not agree on every jot and tittle, we enjoy fellowship with one another. However, when the covenant is broken through entity connections with networks like Acts 29 (advocating strict soteriological agreement) and pastors of high-profile churches within our convention funding them with a majority of their mission dollars, then the confession begins being ignored.
I submit to you that if we are going to see a Great Commission Resurgence we must stop pitting our confession against our covenant. “Confession and covenant” is not an either/or, it is both/and.
88 Comments
August 18th, 2009 at 8:16 am
The SBC should not be an entity that gathers full loyalty and should be encouraged with how God is using other organizations to advance His Word. We are first in covenant with the rest of God’s community as Christian brothers and instead of looking at Acts 29 as competition we should applaud and be grateful that God’s name is advanced. It is not about the SBC versus Acts 29, but it is about God’s kingdom being advanced through two good agencies. For that, we should rejoice.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Brother Derick,
Thanks for visiting with us at SBC Today. I agree that we are first in covenant with the rest of God’s community as Christian brothers. No place have I said we were not. However, if you look at Acts 29 covenant you will see they promote primary allegiance to a particular soteriology. I have no problem with Acts 29 and their church planting network. I praise God for them as they strive to reach the world for Christ through their church plants. My concern, as I addressed it in the article, comes when we as SB partner Acts 29 to plant churches. When a church plants a Acts 29 church, their covenant calls for primary consideration for their missions $’s going back into Acts 29 to plant more Acts 29 churches. These churches have within their covenant that an Acts 29 church is only one that has reformed theology. So much for a big tent.
Blessings,
Tim
August 18th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Brother Derick,
One other item. I do not want you to think that we are in competition with Acts 29 for winning souls for Christ. I praise God for Acts 29 and their vision for planting churches. I have to admit that when SB churches embark on a partnership with Acts 29 there is an un-intended competition for $’s. Let’s face it, monies that are going back into the Acts 29 network are being taken away from the IMB, NAMB, and State Conventions.
Blessings,
Tim
August 18th, 2009 at 10:27 am
There may be competition between human agencies, but the money goes to groups who expand the Word of God and so long as both are orthodox groups and who are seeking to glorify God, I will rejoice. I would think the Gospel would be advanced best when we are most concerned with ensuring God is glorified–as the old saying goes (paraphrased), We would accomplish much more for God if we were not concerned with who gets the credit.
Also, I am encouraged that if doctrine is what people are looking at to become a part of a group, it is much better than not looking at doctrine. This is encouraging. In a day when many are making light of doctrine, I find it encouraging that there are many who make doctrine a priority. It was encouraging in 1979 in the SBC, it is encouraging in 2009.
Perhaps our focus should be upon the money spent in the SBC on planting churches who are aligned with state conventions like the BGAV, unorthodox organizations who deny the fullness of the Word of God. They are more of a danger than Acts 29. One is orthodox the other is not.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Brother Derick,
First, it is not about who gets credit. No one is concerned here about credit going to Acts 29 or the SBC. What I am trying to point out is Acts 29 churches mandate 10% must be returned, SBC church planting does not mandate such. Acts 29 church mandate certain soteriological standards, SBC allows the local pastor to church the soteriological leanings of the church plant. Do you not see how the SBC has her hands tied when she partners with an Acts 29 church plant?
Second,I am just as concerned that we have SBC funds going to churches with unorthodox doctrine. However, one needs to identify the unorthodox doctrine of a particular church plant.
Third, our focus on doctrine that began in 1979 culminated in the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000. I believe doctrine has been very important to SB. However, as I said in the article, Acts 29 Network success is not so much to do with doctrine as it is with directing church plants to return 10% of their funds to Acts 29. If the SBC would mandate such a program, there would not be any missionaries waiting in the pipe line.
Blessings,
Tim
August 18th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Seeing that Acts 29 requires, through covenant, 10% of a network church’s funds be placed back into the network through planting Acts 29 churches, one understands this particular pastor’s push in the Great Commission Task Force.
That is incorrect, Tim. It is not *required* that 10% be given exclusively to A29 churches. It is encouraged and recommended, but A29 churches can give to whatever mission/church planting causes they are committed to, A29 or not. It is best that you talk to A29 churches and their pastors on the ground before you write about the “astounding” conclusions you’ve made. A29 respects local church autonomy inasmuch or if not more than Southern Baptists.
Furthermore, you should check with churches like Woodstock or Brookhills or others with huge mission budgets that are very diversified, not giving exclusively to the CP. The practice of dually affiliated A29/SBC churches are no different from what the President of the SBC does with how/where they divide their missions giving.
You said, Will the GCR Task Force bring about a recommendation that we allow Acts 29 to head up our church planting strategy? This is pure speculation and has no warrant. A29 has only a relative few (albeit influential) churches within the SBC world, and no one has even hinted to the possibility of A29 planters heading up the cp strategy (although there is a ton we can learn from them).
You are implying that true “Baptist Identity” is expressed when churches give solely to the CP and base their cooperation upon the BF&M. That’s interesting because, in the very accusation that A29 is “narrowing” the tent, you are guilty of doing the very same thing. A big tent in the SBC will include churches that hold to Baptist distinctives and have the liberty to express their theological convictions which are, by the way, historically Baptistic. You cannot juxtapose the CBF with A29 on the same level and say “there is no functional difference.” There is a HUGE difference between a denomination that does not affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and one that holds to everything the Conservative Resurgence fought for and more.
Lastly, when it comes to kingdom expansion and advancing the church, it is a matter of stewardship on how you invest/give to church planting, regardless of whether they have the “SBC BF&M2000″ stamp of approval on them. Until NAMB and SBC practices of church planting can show that giving to them is good stewardship of money, no one should fault SBC/A29 churches giving to other dually affiliated SBC/A29 churches. God places no higher premium on the SBC dollar than he does the A29 dollar.
Perhaps the reason why so many young Southern Baptists are heading the A29 route is not only because of the theological affinity but also the methodological effectiveness and church planting strategy that has strong community pushing a passion for the gospel and mission of Jesus Christ.
Your problems are based on misunderstandings, your speculations are based on conjecture, and your comparisons are illegitimate.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Well said, Tim B.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I, like Tim, would ask that you at least research the situation before you write something like this. On the A29 website is the list of churches. You can, as any “journalist” would, cross-reference that list with SBC churches and find at least one that is a member of each organization. Contact that church, and ask what is required of an A29 plant. I know that you will find that a majority of your assumptions will be proved false.
I would be happy to help you with this process, if you have any questions.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Tim,
To add to Tim Brister’s statement, we also have a SBC President whose church gave exactly $0 to the Annie Armstrong offering from 2005 to 2008. This same SBC President who did not monetarily support NAMB through Annie Armstrong for the last four years was at the meeting to dismiss the President of NAMB.
In addition, Tim Patterson, NAMB Board Chairman, pastors a church which has total receipts of over $1 million and in 2008 gave $140 to Annie Armstrong and $50 to Lottie Moon. This same pastor led the meeting to dismiss the President of NAMB.
I agree with you that each church is autonomous and can decide for themselves without interference from anyone else what to contribute to and what not to contribute. However, we don’t need these men leading Great Commission Resurgences or NAMB.
Les
August 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Tim,
I believe Tim Brister has expressed my opinions on this issue. You need to do further research on A29.
I certainly do not agree with all the methodology of A29 churches and my church has no affliation with this movement. But if Southern Baptists truly believe in local church autonomy, then you are promoting within the SBC the very thing you are opposing relative to A29.
Your article is another indicator why we need the GCR.
August 18th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Tim B. well said.
Less Puryear my concerns exactly.
August 18th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Timmy Brister and Les Puryear,
I love it when you guys say exactly what I want to say and yet you say it a lot better.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
As Acts 29 director, my heart aches over the ongoing division between SBC and Acts 29. I don’t understand the words that, in my personal perception, seek to divide our joint efforts to plant churches–sometimes together. I don’t understand the maligning of your own SBC leaders (Akin, Stetzer).
Like Southern Baptists, Acts 29 churches are autonomous. Acts 29 does not receive the ten percent money. Each church decides where to give their mission money: to the cooperative program, to local church plants, to foreign church plants, to their denomination or to plant a church wherever the Spirit leads. Nobody checks on where or how much an Acts 29 church gives and no report is required. Further, if an Acts 29 planter receives any funding from another agency, we strongly encourage them to honor those commitments. The covenant is to serve the local church, not Acts 29. We want more churches planted and we don’t care how, with whom or who gets the credit.
It’s all about Jesus.
Praying for reconciliation,
Scott
BTW, if anyone ever wants to contact me to verify our policies, write scott@acts29network.org or call 206-816-3608.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Scott Thomas and others,
A question I have for you is would you support a Church planter who is not reformed in his theology? and, who does not believe in Elder rule? I mean, before we all gang up on Tim Rogers here about the money percentage thing, I’d like to know the answer to these questions. If the SBC is asked to accept Churches by Acts 29 and 9 Marks and such, I’d like to know how narrow the tent is amongst these two groups…and any others that we may be asked to partner with, or accept, etc.
David
August 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Brother Tim B,
Thanks for dropping by. Let me respond to you point by point.
That is incorrect, Tim. It is not *required* that 10% be given exclusively to A29 churches.
While “required” may not be the exact word, if a church agrees with that covenant and then does not respond accordingly there will be a withdrawal of funds from the churches that are sponsoring them. Thus, it may not technically be required, it is monetarily controlled.
The practice of dually affiliated A29/SBC churches are no different from what the President of the SBC does with how/where they divide their missions giving. Certainly there is a difference. The president of the SBC has not signed a covenant with his diversified missions organizations that he will primarily designate 10% of his budget back to them.
The question of the GCR Task Force’s recommendation is pure speculation. I do not deny that. I do not believe I worded it in a way to say is was anything but speculation.
There is a HUGE difference between a denomination that does not affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and one that holds to everything the Conservative Resurgence fought for and more. I do not remember the Conservative Resurgence fighting for reformed soteriology. Acts 29 does not hold to everything the Conservative Resurgence fought for. They hold to inerrancy of Scripture, sure, but they add to that inerrancy debate a specific soteriology. Also, living in a state where dual alignment has brought about many various alternative giving plans one can see the future of the SBC with various formulas for giving.
Lastly, when it comes to kingdom expansion and advancing the church, it is a matter of stewardship on how you invest/give to church planting, regardless of whether they have the “SBC BF&M2000″ stamp of approval on them. Until NAMB and SBC practices of church planting can show that giving to them is good stewardship of money, no one should fault SBC/A29 churches giving to other dually affiliated SBC/A29 churches. It seems the last I checked no one has argued in this article against the autonomy of the local church. Each church has the right and privilege to give where they desire. But when a church gives hundreds of thousands of $’s around the CP giving formula and we end up with missionaries stuck in the pipe line I should not be chastised for not giving more money because I am following the agreed on formula.
Your problems are based on misunderstandings, your speculations are based on conjecture, and your comparisons are illegitimate. That is your perspective. However, when I am funded 3/4 of my education through SB that went before me and I leave seminary to plant a church with a group that advocate a tithe to be returned to their group, then I am not pushing a passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ I am either being disingenuous to the very people that sacrificed for me to get that education or I am a UFO–(Uncommitted Freeloading Observer).
Blessings,
Tim
August 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
David,
I think your post is inconsistent. If Acts 29 is clear in their doctrinal standards, that is okay. The Southern Baptist Convention has chosen not to make a definitive statement on these issues so the SBC believes this is not an area to which to make a stand. Both organizations have the right to have criteria. I do not know the standards of Acts 29, but if they choose these certain standards, so long as they are clear with these issues up front, I do not see a problem.
Southern Baptists would not plant a church who denied issues of Baptism. This is not a statement that Presbyterians are heretical, but it is a statement of their belief on certain areas.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Already discussed is the 10% issue. Once again, I do believe this is an issue where, instead of fighting, people should rejoice over a group who is reaching the lost for Christ. Let’s rejoice in seeing churches planted, whether they are Southern Baptist or Acts 29. The goal is not about building up the SBC or Acts 29, but about building up the kingdom of God.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Derrick,
So, I’m guessing, according to you, that the answer is no, these groups, Acts 29 and 9 Marks, would not support a Church planter who is not reformed. And, they would not support a Church planter who does not believe in an Elder ruled Church. With that being so, according to your word, then why in the world would SB’s want to partner with such a group????? Why would we want to endorse these groups with those kind of beliefs????? Why in the name of Annie Armstrong would we want to partner with them?????
David
August 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Derrick,
Also, as Tim said above in not so many words, it’s not about being in competition with Acts 29, nor is about hating Acts 29. But, it’s about partnering with them, and accepting them. Should the SBC partner with them, or accept them…if they are gonna believe and practice like they are doing? Is it something that the GCR should ask the SBC to do?
I vote no…if they hold to such qualifications for planting a Church. Now, God bless them if thier work. May they do much good for the Kingdom of God. But, with their beliefs and qualifications for support…no.
David
August 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Brother Tim,
With all due respect,…you are saying that the Covenant of ACTS29 is in violation of our aspiration to cooperate?
Here is the SB Statement:
Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.
So, if I understand you correctly,…you are stating that the Covenant that is required of ACTS29 churches is in violation of the SBC cooperative statement?
Why specifically?
Thanks,
Chris
August 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Brother David,
As a Calvinist, I can partner with non-Calvinists with no problem. Are you saying that you will not partner with Calvinists when you say “Why would we want to endorse these groups with those kind of beliefs”?
In case you’re wondering, I’m not involved with Acts 29 in any way.
Les
August 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
It amazes me that some people can always find fault with reformed brothers/groups no matter what the situation. If they are not crying out that the reformed will breed anti-missional thinking they are trying to dismantle their missional efforts because they don’t follow SBC methodologies.
I applaud Acts29 for what they are doing. I hope that they continue on in what they are doing with or without the SBC.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Les,
It looks to me that Acts 29 doesnt want to partner with someone like me.
David
August 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Volfan,
I believe that organizations who have such beliefs should put them in writing as their standards and should not support people who disagree with those standards. Southern Baptists should not support people who disagree with the BF&M 2000 nor 9-Marks and Acts 29 with their respective statements. Yet, I find it ironic that the Southern Baptists support state conventions that clearly disagree with the BF&M 2000. Yet, some focus on Acts 29, an orthodox organization who is clear on their theology and who agrees with the BF&M over an issue which is not clearly spelled out in the BF&M. If Southern Baptists wish to limit missionaries and organizations they wish to support over doctrinal issues, they should let the churches vote on those issues.
I, though, am most concerned that people wish to believe it is an “us/them” situation. Rather, both are working for the kingdom of God. May God use them both and may God get the Glory.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Derrick,
Why would SB’s want to partner with groups that dont even believe basic Baptist beliefs? Why would SB’s want to partner with groups that would not support 90% of the Pastors in the SBC? due to Elder ruled Churches and must be reformed in theology?
David
August 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
As a Pastor, i partnered with people who did not have Baptist beliefs. Why? Because they were are part of the kingdom of God. Granted, I would not want you to partner with this group in planting a church that was not a Baptistic Church, but I see nothing wrong with partnering with them when you can plant a Baptist Church. I am not asking you to compromise your stated doctrine but I am also calling for you to not add to your stated doctrine.
Secondly, there is nothing about being reformed and Elder that is contradictory to Southern Baptists. Acts 29 is also not Dispensational (Scolfield) and I suspect the majority of SBCers are. Yet, these doctrines are not such to separate. They are still Christian.
Rejoice with them, support them, pray for them, and even encourage appropriate men to become involved. Acts 29 and the SBC is after the same thing, God’s glory on orthodox doctrine. What is wrong with that?
August 18th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Well said, Tim Brister. Well said.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Better said Tim Rogers. Better said.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
This is what all SB’s seem to support….
Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.
-Is ACTS29 moving to the same ends
-Is ACTS29 violating conscience or comprising Loyalty to Christ and His Word.
Are not Southern Baptist’s stating that it is desirable to cooperate?
Tim, I’m certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I’m honestly not following your argument. I’m trying to though….
Blessings,
Chris
August 18th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Robin,
My Anti-spam is Self-control. I will heed to it.
There is something far more pressing than this. I lost your phone number or I would already have told you.
You guys need to get about the business at hand and leave other mission entities alone. The next thing I know is you will be telling me I can’t support Gideons International or Wycliffe Bible Translators.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Scott Gordon,
I tried to call you also.
The cell number you gave me is not a working number. You gave me a Goose number.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Tim, David, Robin: No response to Scott Thomas’s comment? That bothers me more. You are acting as if it is not there. Tim just ran all over it as if Scott Thomas was lying.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
This is last time I’m going to comment here. Not only are you guys suffering from incredulity, with comments like that of Robin, you are also suffering from immaturity. Nevertheless . . .
1. Tim Rogers continues to misrepresent A29, even after Scott Thomas, director of A29 has explained the practice of A29 regarding giving.
Scott Thomas wrote (@ 1:01pm):
Tim Rogers wrote (@ 1:59pm):
You be the judge as to who knows the practice of A29 better–the director of A29 or Tim Rogers who apparently know little to nothing about A29.
2. Tim Rogers says the difference between A29 churches giving to various mission causes versus Hunt is the “covenant”. However Scott Thomas clearly stated that “Each church decides where to give their mission money: to the cooperative program, to local church plants, to foreign church plants, to their denomination or to plant a church wherever the Spirit leads.” The covenant is not monitored or “controlled” by A29 but as Scott said, is intended “to serve the local church.” Even worse, you continue to assert that 10% “goes back to them” when is does not (and Scott made explicit). In fact, A29, the organization, is not a funding hub and does not receive a penny. Again, another misunderstanding.
3. Concerning the CR and A29, I argued that they held to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture which was ground zero for the CR *and* that they believed more (i.e., held to Reformed convictions). Unless you want to equate Calvinism with the CBF, you are making a illegitimate parallel. If you are uneasy with A29 churches holding to Reformed soteriology, then you must have problems with *any* Southern Baptist churches that hold to it as well(!). The giving options in NC are not driven by A29 but CBF. There is simply no link, no similarity, and no proper juxtaposition no matter how hard you try to make it so.
4. Your comments, and that of your peers, demonstrate exactly why the younger generation are not finding their identity within a denomination but within a genuine community of like-minded, kindred brothers with whom they share more than a label, but their lives. You failed to correctly represent A29 churches and the network in your original article (and apparently have done no first-hand research), and you continue to misrepresent them even after Scott Thomas corrects your error (and I do as well). You have demonstrated an inability to own your errors, which ironically has taken place under the title of a blogpost dealing with “confession.”
August 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
“Not only are you guys suffering from incredulity, with comments like that of Robin, you are also suffering from immaturity.”
That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
The new phrase to prove your point, or to win an arguement, is “the young people will leave if you dont….” Or, “that’s why the young people are leaving….” After this is said, it’s supposed to end the arguement and prove the point of the one talking.
For example, if I said that I like to eat at Wendy’s, but Tim and Timmy want to eat at Taco Bell; and we begin to debate it. Then, Timmy would say,”Eating at Wendy’s is why all the young people are leaving the SBC.” And, Tim would say,”Eating hamburgers is why so many young people have left the SBC.” Then, I would be required to say,”Oh, ok… let’s not do anything to run off the young people. Let’s go to Taco Bell.”
David
August 18th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I have no affiliation with either SBC or A29. Yet things like this and what is coming out of SBC saddens me. If a death of SBC comes, and I pray that it doesn’t, it will be because of things like this. How sad is it that there are arguments over who gets what money when millions of people are dying without hearing the name of Jesus. Maybe we should focus on Jesus and not SBC or A29. That might be a good start. It is all His money anyways, maybe we should start acting like it is His not ours to fight over. I praise those of SBC who are focused on Jesus and likewise A29.
Thanks Timmy B for your comments and continued support for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Josh Cousineau
August 18th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Josh,
Okay, we’re focused on Jesus. Now, let’s discern what He’d have us to do. How would He want the SBC spending it’s money and putting time and effort into starting Churches. I really dont believe that He would want the SBC to support groups that disagree with our basic doctrine, or who wouldnt agree to support 95% of the Pastors in the SBC due to them not being reformed, nor holding to Elder ruled Churches.
I also praise the Lord for any good that the Acts 29 people do for the kingdom of God. But, the question is, should we start Presbyterian Churches? Methodist Churches? Assembly of God Churches? What kind of Churches should SBC CP money be spent? What should our efforts and time and energy be focused on…in the area of starting Churches? Why would the SBC start Assembly of God churches? or, Presbyterian churches? When we could be starting SB Churches with sound doctrine, and who hold dear the same things that we hold dear?
David
August 18th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
David,
Can you name me anywhere in the BF&M that Acts 29 violates? Can someone agree with both the BF&M and Acts 29? I believe they can. If the convention wants to vote on adding to the BF&M, but if not then they should not use it as a criterion.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Derrick,
Does the BFM2K teach Elder ruled, or congregational ruled?
Also, again, you dont seem to be answering when I talk about Acts 29 excluding 95% of the Pastors…because they are not reformed in theology, nor do they believe in Elder ruled Church. What about that?
David
5
August 18th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
David,
I think 9 Marks and Acts 29 allows for both congregationalism and elders. From reading Dever’s view on the 9-Marks, he is both congregationalist and Elder, which I believe can be traced by many who helped found the Southern Baptist Convention. There is a history of Elders in a congregational form of government. If they violate the BF&M, I invite you to show where that portion they violate is in the BF&M.
Secondly, yes Acts 29 would only allow adherence to their doctrine. Yet, that is my point with the SBC. If you want to put an emphasis on a certain doctrine, put it in your statement. They did just that and that is a good thing. Yet, it is not good to try to speak for an entire convention based on doctrine when there is no statement in your confession concerning that issue. If it is that important, have the convention put it in the statement. Otherwise, there is no contradiction between the two.
Rather, a person can adhere to both the Acts 29 and the BF&M. If you want to add criterion in the BF&M, do so legitimately.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
As Derick says, plural eldership and congregationalism are not mutually exclusive. I suspect ACTS 29 allows for congregational polity although their website does not make this clear. They do use the word govern and not the word rule and there is a world of difference between the two. A clarification of this point would be helpful.
A careful reading of the ACTS 29 definition of what it means to be Reformed certainly shows them to be Calvinistic, but well within the range of doctrinal beliefs that are espoused by some of the most vocal non-Calvinists in the SBC blogosphere. (ie: I couldn’t find any insistence on the L in TULIP that so many find objectionable).
August 18th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Still no responses back to Scott Thomas who heads up Acts 29 after clarifying the blog posts accusations? It’s like the elephant in the blog…. and since the whole blog is about his organization and he ended his response with his number to call him for any other answers to the assumed accusations…. shouldn’t the minority who is concerned with any type of partnership with the A29/SBC bring this up with Scott (who left the door open for you on it?) instead of causing division with smart butt tones in a blog post forum? Also how often does one another really persuade the other to their point in these type of ongoing arguments? These comments have not only been discouraging in the name of Christ in not going to the proper people if one had a legitimate concern but also turned into a arminian/congregational led vs. reformed/elder led argument. Good job. I’m sure everyone feels like they are well advancing the kingdom in here and uniting over the Gospel.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Brothers,
I apologize for being away. Many pastoral duties called and I was not able to respond to each commenter as I desired. However, I will take a brief time this am to respond to the concern raised by some as to Scott Thomas’ comment.
When I saw Brother Scott’s comment yesterday, I called him and left a voice mail for him. He graciously emailed me explaining that he was in a seminary class and could not receive my call. We are trying to set up a time today to speak together. I will not respond to his statements here as of this moment because I have not spoken with him.
Brother Tim B,
I do not desire to see you stop commenting on SBC Today. Robin was merely responding to someone else and his response is not immature. Engage the conversation and stop threatening to leave because we cannot come to an agreement on this. You are a man of passionate convictions just as we. Let’s not allow our passion to over rule our heads. Let’s debate the issues and stop threatening to leave if we do not get what we desire.
Blessings,
Tim
August 19th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Brother CB,
Patience is my anti-spam word and I believe God is telling me something as I respond to your comments.
You need to stop ragging me on this. I have not found where the Gideons or Wycliffe are covenanting with churches to receive 10% of their tithes.
Also, let me say this to all and not just to Brother CB. There is no place in this article that I have said a local church cannot do as that local church desires. Local congregations are free to partner with and give any amount they desire to any organization they desire. I will never dictate to a local church their giving percentages. That is a violation of the autonomy of the local church, something we Baptist hold dear. The 10% covenant of Acts 29 is a violation of the local church’s congregational rule. Therefore a covenant with Acts 29 clearly violates the BF&M concerning congregational polity because someone outside the congregation has already mandated where funds are spent.
Blessings,
Tim
August 19th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Brother Tim,
Thank you for getting to a more focused view of your argument when you said,….
“That is a violation of the autonomy of the local church, something we Baptist hold dear. The 10% covenant of Acts 29 is a violation of the local church’s congregational rule. Therefore a covenant with Acts 29 clearly violates the BF&M concerning congregational polity because someone outside the congregation has already mandated where funds are spent.”
I would be surprised if ACTS29 is mandating anything, but I could be surprised. In Tennessee the TBC has a clear suggestion of what the congregation is expected to target for giving, the director of CP and I went over this the other day at lunch. Not all congregations can meet those expectations though. It could be similiar with ACTS29. Maybe that can be cleared up.
As far as Elders that rule well,…I’ll stick with the Apostles on that one because his words are very clear on that subject as one of the gifts given to the church. So, if congregational rule “means” you cannot have Elders that rule well, then that brand of congregationalism is the wrong kind of congregationalism (at least according to Paul and other Elders in the local churches), and a type of congregationalism that prohibits the use of God’s gifts in the church should be foreign to the SBC. Elders that rule well is a gifting thing, not a polity thing BTW. This may be where so many Pastors fail to understand Paul’s teaching and insistance of Elders that rule well.
Blessings,
Chris
August 19th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Chris,
Elders/Pastors/Bishops can rule without being the dictator/CEO of the Church. Our President rules, but he is not a dictator…even though he may want to be, and could be working towards that situation. An Elder leads, encourages, inspires, suggests, teaches, guides, prays, etc, as he “rules” the Church.
We have no Popes in Baptist Churches.
David
August 19th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Brother Chris,
You are taking words and working them to say something I have not said. Elders that rule well is not elder rule. Elders(presbuteros)sp?, as you know, in the scripture is used synonymously with Bishop (episkopos)sp? and shepherd/pastor (poimen)sp?. The only argument for elder rule that many make is the presbyterian form of church polity where the plurality of elders makes decisions for the entire congregation. If a congregation has voted to do this, as is the case with Capital Baptist in Washington DC (Mark Dever) then that is not elder rule but congregational rule. Each congregation decides how much authority is released to their respective leaders.
Elder rule, as covenanted with Acts 29 is a form of government where the elders planting the church decide and nothing goes to the congregation for decisions. The elders decide what they do, where their money is sent, and so on. Vast difference because the congregation has no say in the process.
Blessings,
Tim
August 19th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Brothers Tim and Vol,
These are the things that need to be dug out a bit. I am not working your words….I believe you have done a much better job just in your last post to me, articulating why scripture overtly makes clear the purpose of God to provide Elders for His church.
Who controls the Elder? Maybe that is what the whole argument in this string is about,…control and/or the lack thereof. Should a church be a pure democracy or is she something quite unique? I believe the latter. I certainly agree with Vol that if an Elder is a dictator, he is really no longer an Elder…he demonstrates his own disqualification (i.e the Pope is not an Elder).
I am interested as well in this mandating of the money thing. Does ACTS29 mandate anything?..or is it similiar to the SBC and its State revenue receiving arms. That will be a good thing to know.
The other thing that is not clear, that you seem to be aiming at…is that ACTS29 may be a trojan cause for Presbyterianism? That would be good to know as well. From the guys in Nashville that I know that are part of the ACTS29 congregation here…. it does not appear to be that way.
Blessings,
Chris
August 19th, 2009 at 7:50 am
I couldn’t find the word dictator or CEO on the Acts 29 website. I do think they need to clarify, but would be very surprised if they are advocating presbyterian polity.
Since everyone admits that individual churches can do what they like and partner with whomever they choose, what exactly is the protest (or potential protest) about? That the GCR taskforce will recommend turning over all SBC church planting activities to ACTS 29? Although I might agree that it wouldn’t be wise, why does anyone think that is even a possibility? I recall Bart saying he hoped the GCR taskforce wouldn’t reverse the latest anti-alcohol resolution. This is an honest question: Where are these fears coming from? I don’t know most of the people on the committee. Are people on there who aren’t sound? Or who we think might have some kind of stealth agenda? Could such ideas even see the light of day? I might well say that I hope the GCR committee doesn’t recommend that we all get re-baptized, but for it to make sense I would have to believe that somebody on the committee has an agenda to make such a thing happen. So what is it about the makeup of the GCR committee that leads people to even speculate that the SBC might consider an official church planting partnership, on an organizational level, with ACTS 29? What is the evidence? Who are the people we’re wondering about?
Thanks
August 19th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Vol,
You are right. We have no Pope in the SBC. But we do have an Aunt Lottie and her little sister, Annie. And neither of them are waitresses in Blogtown’s Local Cafe.
And even if they were, a “.50 cent tip” from a chief trustee is an insult to the one waiting his table (Annie in this case) and violates the integrity of every “stockholder” in our “food service business” (Bread of Life Business. Translation= fulfillment of the Great commission by the SBC)
Act 29 ain’t the story here guys. Cousin Les revealed what the story should be about for a hundred posts in his comment way back up in this thread.
You boys have all bought tickets to the wrong ball and you are callin’ the wrong dances this time.
Little Sister Annie is the one who is being neglected to be invited to dance here. Take care of her. Find out why these boys who “promised” to dance with her are tossing her a nickel but are expecting her to wait on them hand and foot. Let Acts 29 fill her own dance card. It is your “little sister” who is being mistreated here.
cb
August 19th, 2009 at 9:19 am
CB,
I know that we need to do something with NAMB. I know that something needs to change at NAMB. I mean, I’m no insider to all that goes on in the SBC, or anything close to it; but I think everyone…well, a lot of people…see that things need to change at NAMB.
But, and Bill, listen to what I’m about to say here, because I’m gonna try to answer you as well. My fears about Acts 29 is that the GCR task force will be recommending that we partner with such groups, and accept such groups, and maybe even give money to help such groups to start their Churches. I am concerned…very concerned…about that. I do not want to partner with groups that wouldnt even let me, nor 95% of SBC Pastors, be a Church planter in thier organization, or network, or whatever the PC name is for them. That bothers me. And, I do think that there are some strange bedfellows coming together….sleeping in the same bed….in our day and time. I can see this setting up. And, I would be very opposed to joining with groups that drink alcohol for pleasure, cuss in the pulpit, believe in Elder ruled Churches, and wont support Church planters who are not reformed in thier theology.
Bill, do you see the problem we’re having with this? And, Tim doesnt like the fact that they seem to require a Church start to give 10% to missions. That they seem to be forcing that Church start to do something. That’s what Tim sees here…but, he’s gonna talk to the Acts 29 head enchilada today to see if this is entirely accurate. So, let’s wait and see about this aspect.
Anyway, CB, I agree that NAMB needs tending to.
David
August 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Vol,
I understand your position.
Yet, my point is that the biggest story out there is not Acts 29 and what “might” happen. The biggest story is what “has” happened to Little Annie.
Vol, you and I both know that neither of us would let a fellow court our little sister if he just drove up in the yard, blew the horn of his truck and yelled for her to: Get out here right now we will be late to Vick’s house for the dog fights.”
You know good and well we would both get down off our log trucks and beat him about the head and shoulders with an axe handle for talkin” to and disrespectin” our little sister that way. And if we don’t, we ain’t fit to tote guts to a caged bear at the carnival.
If a fellow is going to “hang around our house” saying he has the best intentions for our little sister Annie, he needs to treat her with the respect she deserves and if he don’t, we need to introduce him to manners class and stop his rude behavior.
BTW, Vol, I am not saying we don’t need to spruce up the house a bit. A good coat of whitewash and a good “cleaning” might do wonders for our image in the community. But a clean house will not suffice for the fact that a fellow has insulted our little sister. That is another subject entirely.
cb
August 19th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Brother cb,
What I have read of Annie, she seems like quite a gal. She didn’t seem to care for consolidated education systems and took on Southern rather well. I like her idea of keeping things near to the mission….as she kept to her word when she resigned from the same WMU she had founded.
I like the gal and her philosophy for ministry. I think she understood the “go” principle of Christ when compared to the conventions established by men that extend beyond their authority.
Annie didn’t seem to “wait” on any dance partner.
Blessings,
Chris
August 19th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Vol, I see a lot of me’s in why you don’t want to partner with them…. Even if YOU can’t be a church planter with them, Can other’s who share the same Gospel YOU agree with? With a 100% chance of success in the church plant that A29 puts out? I agree with more of NAMB’s “doctrine” then A29’s but i want my money going to the one who is bearing fruit in the Gospel that everyone on here agrees with. If they happen to be reformed, and elder led… then so be it. It’s not about me. It’s all about Jesus.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am
David: But you are missing my question. I understand your fears regarding Acts 29. My question is on what is your fear founded? What is the link between the GCR and Acts 29? You and Tim and others seem to be wary of some type of official partnership between the SBC and Acts 29. You are free to fear whatever you want to. What I don’t see is where the fear is coming from.
What is there about the GCR task force, its members, or its supporters, that leads you to believe that a formal, organizational wide partnership between the SBC and Acts 29 is even remotely likely to be considered? I can see the dots, but I just can’t see how you are connecting them.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Erik,
Acts 29 can do whatever they want to do, and more power to them. May God bless them, and use them to do great things in God’s Kingdom. That’s not the point.
I really cant see the SBC partnering with groups that would not even let 95% of the Pastors in the SBC be one of thier Church planters. They would not let me and 95% of the rest of the Ministers in the SBC be a part of thier Church planting. So, why would we…the SBC… want to partner with them?
And, yes, it’s all about Jesus. And, Erik, I believe that the Lord Jesus would want us to start Churches that we believe best fits what a NT Church is. We are stewards of the money that is given to Annie and to the CP, and we should use God’s money to do what’s best.
David
PS. The use of the personal pronoun in my comments is because I can only speak for myself. I do not speak for the SBC. I speak for David Worley.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Bill,
I guess when you’re watching who is eating with who in restaurants at the SBC, and who seems to be getting together…in agreement…bragging on some others about their stance…for the GCR; or who is being asked to teach and preach in seminars and conferences and seminaries; and who are supporting the ideas of the other ones; and you hear the talk on the blogs and in articles and other places; then it begins to look like there are people, who are possibly joining together, for whatever reason, to do some things. I hear talk from different SBC leaders, or people who have influence talking about how we need to expand the tent. Or, how we need to be more willing to cooperate with other groups in order to do missions better. Or, we’d better do this, or do that, in order to keep the young people from leaving the SBC. And, some of these people are SBC seminary leaders, and Baptist college leaders, and people of influence in the SBC, and people in the groups like Acts 29, etc. Then, my ears perk up. My antennae go up. And, I talk to some others about all of this. And, we all see something stirring… something may be coming around the bend…it appears that there could be something brewing. You can smell it…see it…almost taste it.
And, that’s how the dots connect.
David
August 19th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Brother Vol,
How are they keeping you from planting a church with them, should you want to take that endeavor?
-Chris
August 19th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
David: OK. It all seems a bit vague, but your experience is your experience. Let me share this: I have a bunch of dogs, and sometimes they scrap. When that happens, if my mother in law is around, she screams. When she screams, it just winds the dogs up more than ever. Is she keeps quiet (she never does), or isn’t around, the dogs settle their differences and all is well. But because she makes a big fuss over nothing, I have to go pull them apart before they hurt each other.
It may be that there is a lot more heat and light being generated by the anti SBC-Acts29 partnership folks than is every likely to be generated by people, if they exist, who want a formal organizational partnership between the SBC and ACTS 29. You may be tilting at windmills.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Brother Bill,
I think you probably need to answer why these SBC profs would be teaching at a non-ATS accredited seminary before you charge us with “tilting at windmills”.
Blessings,
Tim
August 19th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Brother Tim,
If you were asked (and had the extra time) to teach doctrine at Mars Hill or somewhere in your town that was not SBC,…would you?
Blessings,
Chris
August 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Tim,
Help me out. Which of these people are SBC profs besides Bruce Ware? And are any of these people on the GCR committee? And why shouldn’t they teach at any university they choose? Again I’m having a hard time connecting the dots. Are these folks violating some rule or ethical principle?
Maybe my own questions are too cryptic, so I’ll try again.
Who on the GCR committee is an ACTS 29 sympathizer whom you suspect will try to persuade the committee to recommend a formal church planting partnership between the SBC and ACTS 29?
August 19th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Does it really matter whether Acts 29 requires paperwork or performs investigations to see where church plant money goes? Can’t we presume that any church who has entered into a covenant will perform it without paperwork and inspection?
I think that the Acts 29 covenant is a reasonable commitment for Acts 29 churches. The big point to me is that many Southern Baptists who favor Acts 29 will criticize the SBC for being uncooperative when the SBC does far less than require local churches to covenant with the SBC that they will give financial support to the SBC first. Why not criticize Acts 29 for being “narrow” and “triumphalistic” and “uncooperative” and for failing to practice “good ecumenism” and “see the value in other Christians”?
The problem is not Acts 29’s covenant, but is the hypocrisy of people who have no problem with Acts 29’s commitment to its own vision while criticizing Southern Baptists who want our convention unapologetically to show a greater commitment to its own vision.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Bart,
You have hit the real issue! I have yet to discover a parachurch ministry that does not specifically state its vision and requirements for partnering. I have often wondered why a few in the SBC world are so happy to jump and scream when someone mentions that the SBC should do the same. Maybe it is because we fail to realize the importance of maintaining identity and vision. The fact that the two go together and when they are diminished, the whole begins to scatter.
Funny also is the fact that some of the same few are the first to share the importance of a church adopting such criteria?
We people are really funny and sad at times.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Brother Bart and Tim G,
This seems to be the conjecture of Tim R… “the success of the Acts 29 church plants rests not as much in their doctrine as it is in their covenant.”
I guess that can be Tim R’s opinion, but I guess that not everyone is willing to make such an accusation about an initiative that is very, very, very, young…so very young …and the fact that according to the ACTS29 info all of the churches are autonomous.
So it is his accusation and opinion that their doctrine lags behind their covenant. Again, how can that be ascertained? Tim R. it appears has found himself with a putt for a double bogey on this lengthy Par 5. I have nothing against Tim, I just can’t figure out why so much angst against an infant initiative. I like to learn,…so I’ll stick around for the wisdom to rise to the surface.
Blessings,
Chris
August 20th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Brother Chris,
# 61 If someone in my church asked in a business meeting for an investigation into my connection with a group that advocates things that my church has said is in direct violation of their standards and the church voted for that investigation to go forward, then no I would not teach at that groups seminary.
Brother Bill,
When the SBC in Louisville was presented a controversial issue and names were named, I was against that motion. I believe the motion could have been named without naming specific names and it would have accomplished the same thing. However, the names were named and the convention voted to launch that investigation. The names of Dr. Danny Akin and Dr. Ed Stetzer were the ones named in the investigation as to their relationship with Mark Driscoll whose brain child is Acts 29. As you know Dr. Danny Akin is on the GCR Task Force and as you also know Dr. Ed Stetzer was just named the research chief for the now defunct NAMB task force. In naming Dr. Stetzer to this position the purpose for his research will be for the GCR Task Force. Also, Dr. JD Grear is in partnership with Acts 29 in his church plants. Two sit on the GCR Task Force and one will do research for them. If this does not connect the dots for you, then I do not know what else I can point to.
Brother Chris,
I never have been good at golf. I could care less whether I double, triple, or quadruple bogey. As long as I get that little ball on the green it usually finds its way into the hole.
I stand by my assertion that the genius of Acts 29 is in the covenant. What church, with any ounce of integrity, will enter into and sign a covenant with the intention not to fulfill the covenant. If Acts 29 church planters are doing this then we have more of a problem with younger pastors than anyone realizes.
Blessings,
Tim
August 20th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Brother Tim,
Fair enough, on the golf thing… My game definitely deteriorates with age….
As far as Acts 29,…at least I finally understand your angst better. Which is, correct me if I’m not stating your belief correctly, …that ACTS29 requires by way of covenant the authority and ruling of the church to be handled through the Elders and not the Congregation (where in the covenant, authority and governed by is used). Although, the ACTS29 network churches are autonomous, the ACTS29 form of church polity is against the SBC because the governing and authority in accordance to SBC principles clearly dictates that the congregation is always the final authority in all matters.
Is that close….
Blessings,
Chris
August 20th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Brother Chris,
your angst I am not sure if I would call it angst. More of a concern that we need to be aware. Angst means a feeling of anxiety, apprehension, or insecurity I do not believe I am anxious over this situation only more of an apprehension only. Look, I trust the people on the GCR Task Force. They are good godly people and I look forward to what God will bring about out of their meetings. I trust the people that head up Acts 29 to be Godly people seeking God’s direction. I do not desire to partner with them or turn over $’s to them, but that is another item.
As to your defining what I have said, I will agree with caveats.
I do not want you to tie me to your definition and then have to climb back onto the green when I thought I was about to turn in a single bogey on my score card. 
Blessings,
Tim
August 20th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Brother Chris,
After reading your comment defining for me what I was saying, I would add that is not all. You need to go on and see that according to the Acts 29 covenant, the church planted needs to place 10% of their primary offerings back into another Acts 29 church plant. What soteriological bend does an Acts 29 church have? What if the church planted decides to plant a congregational run, soteriologically arminian leaning church? They cannot do it with integrity. What for you is more important; the integrity of a church plant or that we are planting churches?
Blessings,
Tim
August 20th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Brother Tim,
Your probably right…angst is not the most accurate word to use.
I think though, that “governing and authority by” are legitimate things to discuss when comparing ACTS29 and the SBC. It is a fair discussion to have, since the history of the SBC has been consistently revealed as a congregational / priesthood of the believer approach to church polity, and ACTS29 is unambiguous concerning the governance and authority it invests in the Elder (covenant). So, yes this should be discussed and understood.
As you know, we cooperate with the SBC and have Elders/Overseers as the Apostle commands Timothy and the churches to appoint. This is a clear biblical mandate from the Apostles. “How” this is achieved is really important in the life of the church and is not well understood in the SBC or its seminaries. So, I like the idea of discussing this, so that the church can understand the proper implementation of a plurality of overseers in the church and always move in that direction through obedience to God’s Word. It is always a benefit to the church to have a plurality of qualified overseers (not deacons acting as overseers).
Blessings,
Chris
August 20th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Brother Tim,
Again, … a legitimate question “What for you is more important; the integrity of a church plant or that we are planting churches?
For me the primary command is to go and make disciples, teaching them to observe all ….that is the mandate. As disciples are discovered and made, we baptize them as they recognize the life of Christ within them as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.
The integrity of a church gathered is maintained through discipleship, so that they mature to the full stature of Christ. So that when the church gathers, she comes together for better and not for worse. Qualified overseers are normal as Christ adds to His church, as confirmed through the Apostles. Unity is maintained by the Holy Spirit and the gifts given by the Holy Spirit in the lives of those gathered.
“What if the church planted decides to plant a congregational run, soteriologically arminian leaning church?” That may be a difficult question for the ACTS29 group to deal with…and they may have already run into that situation or probably will as the group expands. I pray that they don’t have to deal with churches that are headed down an arminian path….because those churches prove to be very stubborn and selfish as they move away from Christ and His effecting. But as the Apostle Paul had to deal with immature factions within churches,…I find no indication that we will be free of that in this life.
Blessings,
Chris
August 20th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Tim: Thanks. I certainly would not have connected those dots, especially when the first dot is a silly and paranoid motion calling for an “investigation” of Akin and Stetzer. How many people took that seriously? It appears to be a running gag all over the SBC blogosphere. But, you did answer the question. Thanks.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Brother Chris,
One can tell that you and Dr. Barber were in school together. I give you one answer and you respond to me twice.
Seriously, another difference I see is the fact that Acts 29 is narrow as to the churches they will plant. Some of the ones that cried foul with the IMB policies are in full agreement with the narrowness of an Acts 29 church covenant. What is the difference in SB saying they will not support missionaries with PPl and will not accept an alien baptism, and Acts 29 saying they will not plant a church without a reformed soteriology? There is no functional difference.
Also, the integrity of a church is in discipleship of the church members. But, the leadership that would sign a covenant then lead the church to do something against that covenant has no integrity whatsoever. I am not saying Acts 29 church planters have no integrity. I am saying if a covenant calls for 10% to go back into an Acts 29 church plant then that is where 10% will in reality end up. If it is a SB/Acts 29 church plant then the SB missionaries are the ones that end up suffering.
Blessings,
Tim
August 20th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Brother Bill,
I certainly would not have connected those dots, especially when the first dot is a silly and paranoid motion calling for an “investigation” of Akin and Stetzer. How many people took that seriously?
I do pray that you do take the motion for an investigation seriously because this was voted on and approved by the SBC in session. This investigation was not a resolution, it was a motion that was not defeated. The Trustees at Lifeway and SEBTS certainly need to heed this motion or they will find themselves thumbing their noses at SB.
I do not remember a time in the past that you and I have gone back and forth on an issue. If there was, I do not remember it. One thing about me that you will find out. I will answer your questions. You may not like my answer but I will answer you.
Blessings,
Tim
August 20th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Tim: Thanks
August 21st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Brother Tim R,
As we say where I’m from, “I ain’t got no dog in this fight.” In spite of this, I have to ask if you will be responding to Brother Scott Thomas?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Brother FME,
I have privately responded to Brother Scott. His busy schedule thus far has hindered our communication through the phones. We have emailed each other trying to set a time to correspond. I have offered for him to be our guest on our Tuesday iPodcast. He is not available this Tuesday but maybe we can schedule him for a Tuesday in the future. That way he can interact with all of us at SBC Today.
Blessings,
Tim
August 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
[...] I have made it my practice not to comment over at the blog SBCToday, the factual errors in Tim Roger’s blogpost were just too many to ignore, so I set out to explain where he was wrong with the hopes it was [...]
August 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Great article on this blog post at “Provocations and Pantings.” I pray and hope that Southern Baptists who read this blog will listen to people like Timmy Brister, Dr. Albert Mohler in his future of the SBC address, and other prophetic voices for unity in the Gospel over this so called “baptist identity” rubbish here. I’m just glad that all the young men i know in this denomination and go to school with at SBTS have enough discernment to know truthful reporting from faulty research with an obvious agenda behind it. I’m starting to think that blogs like this and BP articles referencing this slander are starting to drive more young men into the SBC to drive this type of foolishness out so that we have more people leading the denom. who will continue to fight for the things that matter most to us as Southern Baptists, the Gospel (Mohler, Akin, Stetzer, Greear, Platt, Hunt, Reid, etc.). Keep the excuses coming Tim, it only makes us more passionate in making sure that the SBC keeps the main thing still the main thing and not to waste time hating on people or groups that are doing it well but don’t necessarily see eye to eye on all things with.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I am an A-29 church planter, our church is a member of the local Baptist Association, the GBC, and the SBC. I grew up in SBC churches in GA and AL. I have never been a member of any other denomination.
In 2007 as I was planning to plant New City Church downtown I attended Church Planter Orientation at the GBC. We were advised that funds were available through NAMB for SBC churches in the amount of +/- $14,000. We were then advised that any church taking those funds would be ‘REQUIRED’ to give 10% of all funds coming into the church to the CP. (with the exception of support from other churches). We were told that NAMB would check our giving records regularly and at any time to make certain that we were giving our required 10% back to the CP.
I told the instructor that we had no other support – what if money was tight? I wasn’t sure if I would have to have a full time job while I planted – be bi-vocational, or perhaps full time with many reductions to my family’s life. It sounds to me, I said, that NAMB and the CP is more worried about their 10% than me, my family, or the church plant.
The instructor responded that they cared very much for all of those things – and that they expected the 10% no matter what.
I looked into A-29. I read their covenant. I asked Scott Thomas what was expected. I was told that A-29 is a church planting network who is planting other planting churches. 10% is expected to begiven toward church planting.
How do A-29 churches do that? Scott answered – not through A-29 in Seattle, but by YOU giving to other church plants and planters – with A-29 planters being tops on the list.
I asked – what if I am to give 10% to the CP as an SBC church?
I was told – by all means give to the CP – you are giving to church planting. Then help your A-29 brothers.
I must say that this article is neither good nor true. In fact, I would say from my own first hand knowledge and experience I have not found A-29 to be overly demanding, or difficult – it is the treatment that I received from NAMB representatives at the GBC that was overly demanding and difficult.
I would also add as a church planter that in almost 2 years of working in this plant I have NEVER been called by my local association, the GBC, or the SBC to see how I was doing or if there was anything that I needed. I am regularly called by my A-29 brothers for that reason.
As a 41 year old adult who grew up and loved the SBC, I am finding it more and more difficult to live in the midst of such nonsense.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Keith
I read your post and praise God for your efforts in planting a church. I also have also worked with a church plant in Perkins Oklahoma and we received funds from NAMB. My experience was different from yours. Never was I told that we were required to give 10% back to the cooperative program. In fact, I know of some church plants that were giving as little as 3 % to the cooperative program. The difference in experience between us may be our state conventions. Even though Oklahoma has their own church planting division, it is funded directly from NAMB. The BGCO directly managed the monies offered from NAMB. So, I don’t know if it was the GBC telling you this or someone directly employed with NAMB. Either way, it was unfortunate that you were told this.
I don’t remember ever being told of a 10% requirement, but we were strongly encouraged to give to the cooperative program.
Again, may the Lord bless you as you serve Him in a new work.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
As a pastor of a southern baptist church I can tell you that these conversations are what is driving a young generation away from the sbc. I have no affiliation with A29 but appreciate the men who lead it and the conviction they have for church planting.
The bottom line is if our convention sees every different approach, vision and calling as contrary to our structure influence and income we will miss the mighty hand of God as he blesses other churches and the expansive heart of God for the lost.
Peace be with the SBC and peace be with Acts 29. “Satan loves for churches (or denominations) to compete with one another but God intends them to complete one another”
“May your light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”
August 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Amen, Russell. I am one of younger generation you reference. Let’s work for the spread of the gospel together.
“Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.”
August 28th, 2009 at 9:20 am
OK, so first of all, it was hillarious to me that as I wrote this response, my anti-spam word was peace. Not sure that the writer of this blog has any interest in that, but I found it humorous.
I wanted to tell a brief version of my story, because I think it is the the growing story of a lot of guys. I have spent my entire life in SBC churches, all of them fairly traditional. Five years ago I felt the very clear call to plant a church, which started three years ago in Eureka, MO. We were sent with support and blessing from the SBC church I’d served in for fourteen years, and we were supported by the Missouri Baptist Convention and that church. I found out about A29 and met with Darren Patrick to learn about their vision, mission, etc. My pastor and my Director of Missions encouraged me to check it out. I was impressed with their missional mindset, and that grew when I had several opportunities to have dinner with Ed Stetzer at A29 events. Short story, we joined the network. Their process of testing and affirming me as a planter was amazingly valuable. I am a 40+ guy planting a church, so I am one of the old guys in the network, but the funny thing is that when I attend stuff associated with Southern Baptists, I am one of the young guys.
I was told about the 10%, and informed that the guideline is that as a church we are to be involved in missions and church planting, and that our giving to CP could be considered part of that percentage. From day one we have given 5% to CP, 2.5% to Association, and 2.5% to a fund that we use to support a church plant. Right now we are helping to plant a church in the Bevo neighhborhood. We have never sent a dime to Seattle! But we keep giving to Cooperative Program as an extension of our commitment to give 10% to missions and church planting. The point being, this entire blog is incorrect and based on false information.
But here is the greater issue for me, and I believe for a lot of guys. Every time I read a blog, and hear that this kind of stuff ends up on Baptist publications (It seems like every other issue of the MBC Pathway has an article about Driscoll or A29 with completely incorrect and even slanderous information), it doesn’t draw me closer to SBC, it drives me farther away. My deep hearts desire is to function with both groups, to continue to be a SBC Cooperative Program church, while continuing relationship and partnership with A29. Yet, I am being driven away. Because of stuff like this, the MBC pulled our funding. After my previous pastor left the church I’d been in for fourteen years, a few of the “old timers” started reading all this baloney and used it to create division in that church. They decided to defund us as well as an attempt to keep peace during an interim. We basically lost $24 grand in funding, although I never moved or changed. I know in my conversations with other guys, there are a bunch like me, and they are all younger, and most of them are ready to bail on SBC. I keep trying to talk them in to hanging in there hoping that we will see attempts toward reconciliation. But then I read another blog, find another story, have another headache. The end for most of us will be that we will give up on SBC because of attrition. And if these young leaders leave in mass, where will it leave missions. My two cents.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Brother Mike,
My anti-spam word was “Love”. Therefore, in love I would like to tell you that your opening statement placed me in a defensive mode. It is such statements that keep us apart. I am struggling with whether to answer you because you truly desire dialog, or whether to blow you off because all you are looking for is a last word to win an argument. I choose the first because I truly desire to dialog.
I, the author you have chosen to label as one that does not desire to live peaceable, chose to write this article for one reason. It seemed to me to be very clear that some were calling and chastising others for the lack of funds to send M’s to the mission field. Those doing this were featured at the SBC Pastors conference and is sitting on the GCR Task Force but his church gives over half as much to Acts 29 as it does to the CP. (According to the formula of the Acts 29 covenant) I was told by Scott Thomas Acts 29 does not receive the ten percent money. Technically he was correct. However, he later posted a new covenant at Acts 29 that stated we will give 10%, surprisingly this is the same wording of the same outdated covenant he said I used. However, there was an addition to this covenant. Now, instead of 10% it was 9% going to church planting and 1% goes to the bureaucratic network of Acts 29. In all fairness we are told this is voluntary giving but the covenant does not word it as voluntary. Either there is a discrepancy in wording, or there is an integrity issue of placing a covenant out there that says one thing but the practice is different. I choose to believe the first.
I am not knocking Acts 29, I just do not believe the we as Southern Baptist should partner with them. You received $24 from SBC to plant your church. Praise God. However, isn’t it the responsibility of the mother church to subsidize the rest of the funds instead of going to a network of churches that restrict the church to a particular soteriology?
I pray that God continues to bless your work.
Blessings,
Tim
August 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
To get a look at a very good rebuttal to Timmy Brister’s post about SBC Today, and the issues they bring up; you need to go to Peter Lumpkin’s blog. I believe when you go there, you will see that things arent exactly as Timmy said them.
David
September 1st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
[...] September 1 by Dr. James Galyon Tim Rogers’ provocative post from SBC Today, entitled, “Covenant or Confession”, was disseminated to a larger audience by Baptist Press a few days after its initial release. [...]
October 16th, 2009 at 5:04 am
[...] with them. While I admit that as I looked at this myth I wondered if Dr. Akin was referring to my article that was picked up by Baptist Press. I briefly considered that, but then thought better of it. [...]