Acts 29 has posted a statement mostly dealing with the baseless accusations made by the Missouri Baptist Convention “Theological Sub-committee.” Thank goodness for this article. It uses biblical exegesis and careful scholarship to debunk the MBC’s statement and makes it (the MBC’s statement) look laughable in comparison. It’s almost like comparing a first year theology student’s work against the professor’s. Too bad the MBC couldn’t put forward a document as well thought out, biblically based, and intellectually cogent as this one. Oh, wait, I guess they were presented that and chose to look the other way.

At any rate, you can read the article from Acts 29 here.

Oh, to be a theology professor with a last name like Devine. What power that conjures up in the mind!
Dr. Devine has offered a response to the recent article that seemed to communicate the idea that he was in some significant way responsible for the MBC Theological Committee statement about Acts 29 and the Emerging Church. You can find his response here and you can view the first draft of his response article - intended for publication in the Pathway - here.

Good stuff!

When I get wrapped up in struggling with hypocrisy (both in the MBC and in myself) and I find myself working harder than I should trying to impress people when I should be focused on holiness; when I find myself captivated by “stuff” and negligent of my relationship with Jesus; when I am more worried about what I’ll wear to church than I am what I’ll say to my people; when my self-indulgence threatens to grab me and take me under the beautiful Spirit of God quietly reminds me that Christ is simply more than enough for me. It’s good to remember that I need to take a backseat more often. Or, in the immortal words of John the Baptist, “He must become greater and greater, and I must become less and less.”

“Enough”

Which in turn, makes me want to “Oh Praise Him”

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. The Chairman of the committee had this to say, “We are living in a day and age where we need doctrinal precision and we need to be definitive in what we believe,” which begs the question,” How have you concluded that the use of alcohol is a significant enough issue to sever partnership? Knight goes on to say, “The day of presuming what everybody believes—that’s ambiguous. I believe most people do not thrive well in ambiguity. We thrive well with parameters such as the Baptist Faith & Message (2000), and any clari!
fication that can be made of a statement like that.” (emphasis mine) Since alcohol use is not addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message, one can only assume that Knight is imposing his interpretation of scripture on to the document. It appears that he is serious about providing “clarification” of “a statement like that” and in doing so he is interpreting, for us, the Baptist Faith & Message.

In response to their statement, I’ve listed below the seven conclusions of the committee. I’d like to interact with them individually.

1) Acts 29 is a part of the Emerging Church movement;

I would agree with that.

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

Hmm, interesting quote. I would assume, then, that his point would disallow a Democrat, for instance, to be a member of the MBC. Wouldn’t it follow that espousal of “liberal” social positions indicates a sign of biblical infidelity and therefore renders one who practices such behavior (i.e. a Democrat) useless to the MBC?

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

Wow, I cannot believe that they went there. Do they really want us to address the level of immaturity that exists within “accepted” SBC life? Is that a sign of disfellowship? Beyond that, how are they measuring what they perceive to be “rebellion?” If by rebellion they mean happiness to throw off traditional norms that are either not grounded biblically, or ineffective methodologically, than count me as a “rebel”.

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

I completely disagree with their assessment but I’m curious to know if they will accept money towards the CP from churches that consider themselves Emerging Church friendly? If so doesn’t that mean that they’re playing both sides of coin?

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

I cautiously agree. I would like for them to define “cultural compromise” further.

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

It would be stupid for me to disagree with their assessment of an historical SBC position. Having said that, however; does that qualify this as an issue of theological diversity that is great enough to cause a lack of fellowship/partnership? In my opinion, no.

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

Umm, there are vast theological extremes and a profound depth of doctrinal diversity, even instance of clearly heretical statements, within the Southern Baptist Convention, and yet we’re still happy to partner together. I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. Are there problems within the EC movement? You bet there are. That doesn’t negate the significance of those within the EC movement that are conservative, biblical, etc. The EC is not a “formal” organization and as such I am more than reticent to write off the entire group in a wholesale move.

Beyond all that I’ve said above, in no specific order and carrying no measurable degrees of importance to me, here are some additional concerns that I have with the report.

1. Dr. Ed Stetzer is considered one of the greatest minds in SBC life today. He has worked for multiple seminaries, NAMB and now LifeWay. He also sits on the board for Acts 29. Are we withdrawing our support from these SBC agencies because they obviously support a man who is tied directly to Acts 29? If not, why not? The fact that they would outwardly withdraw fellowship with an organization that is encouraged by a man like Dr. Stetzer seems ludicrous to me.

2. Why, when there are only 5 committee members, did Mike Green (who appointed the committee) appoint an individual who reports directly to him to sit on the committee? Denny Marr, who sits on the committee, is the Education Minister at Green’s church. Isn’t that indicative of the problems with tightly controlled power that we’ve been lamenting in the MBC?

3. Are we ready, upon acceptance of this statement, to disfellowship ourselves with all churches that embrace Acts 29 and other aspects of the Emerging Church movement? I hope not because if so, myself and my church will be out the door.

**UPDATE**

In the article by the Pathway, the reader is led to believe that the decision of the committee was influenced by Dr. Mark Devine, from Midwestern Seminary and his paper on the Emerging Church. That just didn’t seem right to me. I’ve taken theology under Dr. Devine and spoken to him many times away from the classroom about the EC movement and that opinion seemed contrary to what he and I have spoken about. In fact, I was just getting ready to email him and query him about it when I read his response on Steve McCoy’s blog about the whole controversy. It has certainly set me at ease regarding Dr. Devine’s role in the situation. !
His quote is below.

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.

If you have not seen these commercials, you need to do so right now. These are some of the funniest commercials I have ever seen. I laughed until I cried. Great stuff!

HT: Mike Rogers & Ryan Garrett

[Click here for the videos]

Kathleen Parker, of the Washington Post Writers Group, wrote a tremendous editorial piece this week looking at the vernacular that is used when describing abortion. She does a good job, I believe, of showing how confusion sets in due to the use of confusing (not to mention non descriptive) phrases which really do little more than to obscure the truth about abortion. I’ve reposted the article below, or if you would prefer, you can view the original by clicking [here].

WASHINGTON — From the clamor following the Supreme Court’s ruling to ban partial-birth abortion, one might assume that American women have been robbed of choice.

In fact, women can still render themselves unpregnant, in the vernacular of choice-speak, by several means. They can “disarticulate the fetus” and even “reduce” or “separate the fetal calvarium.”

If the vocabulary is confusing, that’s the point. Using Orwellian language to sanitize the issue, so to speak, is a time-honored tactic of the “pro-choice” arbiters. If we don’t say what it is, we can pretend what it isn’t.

Herewith, a brief translation:

Disarticulating a fetus, which sounds like suspending a pre-born’s instant-messaging privileges, means to dismember it. Reducing a calvarium — a thoroughly desirable-sounding procedure, like lancing a boil — means to suck the brains from the baby’s head. Separating the calvarium means to sever the head with scissors.

Paying attention to the language of abortion — or anything else for that matter — is instructive when trying to consider right from wrong. If you have to dress something up to obfuscate the truth of what’s in play, you can probably assume it’s wrong.

When a man murders his wife, we don’t say, “Mr. X rendered his wife unalive by efficiently evacuating her cranial cavity with an instrument customarily associated with construction.” We say, “He bashed her brains out in a brutal attack with a claw hammer.”

We apparently have no stomach for similarly descriptive (honest) terminology when it comes to the unborn. But then, one might argue, Mrs. X — unlike a fetus — was a completely alive human being when Mr. X committed the deed.

With its “partial-birth abortion” (PBA) decision, the Supreme Court took a step toward defining the aliveness of not-quite-born human beings and drew a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

Until now, a baby whose head was still inside the mother’s body was not alive enough to be protected under the laws of a nation that calls itself civilized. Understandably, it’s easier to kill a baby — sorry, “terminate a fetus” — when you don’t have to see its face.

Now, if a baby’s body has been partly delivered from its mother, it is alive enough to be protected.

Opponents of the ruling assert that this is a dark day for Americans’ constitutional rights and women’s right to choose. They say this ruling is merely part of the pro-life strategy for gutting Roe v. Wade, one ruling at a time.

They also argue, correctly, that this ruling saves no babies from abortion. As stated previously, a fetus can still be disarticulated. And that “procedure” is, arguably, equally brutal, though perhaps not as painful as collapsing the skull.

According to expert testimony, a fetus from 20 weeks’ gestation forward may feel “prolonged and excruciating” pain during a PBA — especially when the skull is crushed or punctured for “evacuation” of its brains. The other side did not rebut the claim.

Reality pop quiz: When rational people can dispassionately discuss whether it’s better to dismember or collapse the skull of a pre-born baby, are they still allowed to call themselves rational?

The main argument from the pro-choice side, and the constitutional issue at stake, has been that the PBA is sometimes needed to protect the health of the mother. But in no single court case were doctors able to demonstrate that PBA was ever a medical necessity. Instead, all arguments were in the realm of the hypothetical.

Indeed, the majority of PBAs are performed on the healthy babies of healthy women. Meanwhile, other alternatives are available that are safe for the mother, if no less unpleasant for the fetus.

It is, of course, true that pro-lifers are celebrating this ruling and that they also hope eventually to see abortion regulation reverted to the states.

It is also true that many states now will pass PBA bans as well as “informed consent” laws that may require women to view a sonogram before consenting to abortion. Pro-lifers expect the informed consent laws to be challenged and hope for a favorable ruling.

Whatever legal battles lie ahead, Wednesday’s high court decision seems a civilizing step forward, affirming as it does that the state has a substantial interest in protecting and preserving life.

As an operating principle — and assuming it is not misapplied — it would seem to beat the alternative.

Wade Burleson has a wonderful post this morning that considers the idea, once again, of baptism and its relationship to the church. Wade contemplates the idea of whether baptism is into a church or into Christ and, of course, I agree with his conclusion. I would encourage you to read it! [Click here]

Dallas Willard-

This process of “conformation to Christ,” as we might more appropriately call it, is constantly supported by grace, and otherwise would be impossible. But it is not therefore passive. Grace is opposed to earning, not to effort. In fact, nothing inspires and enhances effort like the experience of Grace.”