The “Theology Committee” of the Missouri Baptist Convention have released a statement today that, in effect, separates the MBC from ever working in partnership with Acts 29 and their organization of church planters again.
And this is despite the new and shocking evidence that Mark Driscoll has become a flaming fundamentalist. Yes, that is a suit.
I guess MacArthur is the new authority on ... you name it ...
Posted by: Account Deleted | 04/27/2007 at 10:24 PM
Thanks for the link, Steve. Be glad your not in Missouri.
Posted by: micah | 04/27/2007 at 11:22 PM
It is clear that Baptist life in Missouri is in shambles right now. Two weeks ago the Executive Director was dismissed and yesterday, the South Carolina Baptist Convention called the MBC's Associate Executive Director, Jim Austin, as its next Executive Director. I was impressed with Dr. Austin's humility. And I was pleased with his answer when asked a question seemingly about cooperation. His response indicated he wouldn't be a hardliner in terms of restricting the parameters of cooperation. In South Carolina, we don't have a big fight between who is and who isn't a true Southern Baptist (thank goodness), and Dr. Austin appears to be a leader who is interested in keeping it that way.
At least that was my take on his response.
Posted by: Gregory Pittman | 04/28/2007 at 12:06 AM
Steve,
Thanks for the link. I am starting to understand more and more why you have so many qualms with the SBC. "Methodologically liberal"? Is that even possible? Liberal as opposed to what? The legalistic, self-made pseudo righteousness of the sacred SBC resolutions? "A commitment to planting indigenous churches in Missouri is not a commitment to cultural compromise." I am positive that Acts 29 would agree that cultural compromise is certainly not where they are headed, as long as the so-called compromise violates Scripture. Frustrating stuff. Thanks Steve, and I hope you will continue to speak out against the bad apples.
In Christ,
James
Posted by: James Gordon | 04/28/2007 at 12:26 AM
If the MBC is that enamored with John MacArthur's theology, they should also endorse Five-Point Calvinism at their next meeting. Likewise, they should institute an immediate moratorium on the practice of altar calls. I don't see any of the above happening though. I have a strong suspicion that MacArthur is only authoritative in their eyes when he's in total agreement with their own positions. Convenient. The same must have held true for their former Executive Director.
Posted by: Han Sola, Reformed Baptist Nerf Herder | 04/28/2007 at 07:23 AM
We've got some strong churches in our association who are in agreement with the BF&M, led by some Godly bros, and have a relationship with A29. I have no plans of backing off from partnership in any way whatsoever. Theologically conservative, Gospel centered, engaging culture...let's roll
What these dudes have got to figure out is that as long as we have first tier doctrine/theology in agreement, some second tier matters and third tier matters of methodology have to be left to the local autonomy of the church while we celebrate those first tier truths we unite upon.
Darren Casper
St. Louis Metro
Posted by: Darren Casper | 04/28/2007 at 08:18 AM
Ouch. As an Acts 29 guy, this really makes my heart hurt. Sometimes I just don't understand...
Posted by: bill streger | 04/28/2007 at 08:19 AM
Throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. We SBC folks are genuises at that.
I read Mark Driscoll's "Confessions . . ." I don't see how you can accuse him of compromising the gospel.
Posted by: Kevin | 04/28/2007 at 10:21 AM
Kevin,
I love the baby and the bathwater analogy. However, I think that there is often so much crap in the bathwater that the baby (the Gospel) cannot even be found. Many construct fake dolls (like the anti-alcohol doll) that they end up cherishing more than the real thing. Sad state of affairs. You are right about Driscoll, but I am guessing that most who accuse him of compromising the Gospel have not read any of his books.
In Christ,
James
Posted by: James Gordon | 04/28/2007 at 10:54 AM
Is it just me, or does Driscoll look rather TBNish in this pic?
Posted by: UberGoober | 04/28/2007 at 10:56 AM
Here's what this looks like to me: the MBC is taking on a siege mentality because they know they're about to become irrelevant. Their view that the Emerging Church is some monolithic movement, with consistent and easily discernible theology is comical. Admittedly I don't completely agree with Acts 29's theology, but it's impossible to say that God is not doing great things through them.
If the essence of your theology is alcohol consumption you've got serious problems. How about focusing on something Jesus actually talked about/dealt with/confronted/died for?
Posted by: Paul Deveaux | 04/28/2007 at 12:25 PM
>the MBC is taking on a siege mentality because they know they're about to become irrelevant
Bingo. Slam Dunk. Hammer. Nail. And so on.
Exactly and precisely what is going on. And you are going to see it on the SBC stage in the next 5 years plus.
With the average pastor not giving a rip about 95% of the denominational materials he receives, we're going to have to have some threats and save ourselves from them. So expect to hear a lot about:
Emerging churches
Calvinism
Charismatics
People who use wine in the Lord's Supper
People who have beer with spaghetti
People who run Phriday Photos
and so on
Posted by: iMonk | 04/28/2007 at 01:29 PM
The Pathway article contained a vast distortion, indeed a contradiction of both my article (which was distributed to the committee) and my comments to the committee. Don Hinkle has invited me to write an op-ed peice for the next edition. I am working on it now and will post an early draft on my website.
Posted by: Mark DeVine | 04/28/2007 at 07:15 PM
I wondered about that Mark. Very cool you get to follow up. Let us know when the article comes out.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 04/28/2007 at 07:20 PM
Steve,
I wrote a little on this as well this afternoon, including what Mark has written in his last post. It can be found here.
Posted by: Timmy Brister | 04/28/2007 at 08:54 PM
Steve-
Devine has posted his rebuttal. It's at theologyprof.com
Posted by: micah | 04/28/2007 at 11:22 PM
I grew up in the SBC, and most of my family are SBCers, but I am finding it harder and harder to justify any affiliation with this organization. I am part of a church plant in Boulder, CO and I can tell you that SBC churchmanship would go over here about as well as a lead balloon. Is there any hope, or should we just let the Titanic sink?
Posted by: Jason Ballard | 04/29/2007 at 08:43 PM
So MacArthur will comment on ABSTINENCE and then again on the sufficiency of Scripture?? How does that work? Is the Scripture sufficient or must we add our "history of Southern Baptist resolutions" to it to make it comply with accepted SBC standards on such issues as drinking? What an inherent contradiction! I just wrote on this on my own site today. Sola scripture! But "sola Welches" I guess.
Posted by: Scott Andrews | 05/02/2007 at 09:31 PM
imonk...
I think I would be against beer with spaghetti. However a nice bottle of Chianti would be totally acceptable!
What I always wonder about the "alcohol abstinence" group....
Are they so scared of becoming gluttons that they advocate non-eating!?
Posted by: Kolin | 05/03/2007 at 02:01 AM
Whoohoo!! My screen capture of Driscoll made it on Steve's blog! The original blog post that I used that capture on can be read here:
http://mrclm.blogspot.com/2007/04/mark-driscoll-in-suit.html
Big Chris
Posted by: Big Chris | 05/03/2007 at 03:22 AM