I agree. No one should be resorting to personal attacks, but inquiring about the obesity level of Hinkle and the Executive Board, and then the MBC at large, is not a personal attack. It is a fair question regarding accountability that seems to be so high on the priority list among those “there is no higher authority.”

There is a both a seriousness and a silliness about the situation. When we can fence off Southern Baptists on a non-essential matter it is both silly and serious. When pastors are approved by NAMB and the MBC to receive funding, and they renege on their commitments when the pastors are not at fault, that is serious.

But that aside, part of the argument is to show the folly of modern fundamentalism in the SBC. What the MBC is doing reveals that we have a Conservative Resurgence without a true Reformation. We have replaced one bureaucracy with another, and in the words of Timothy George, this, a reformation, does not make.

1. Mark Devine, from the St. Louis Dispatch article:

Mark Devine, a theology professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, said he was “disappointed” in Monday’s vote. Devine is an expert on the emerging church movement and earlier this year he was invited to brief Missouri Baptist Convention leaders on the emerging church. “I believe Missouri is setting a negative example that other state conventions should reject,” he said.

2. Scott Thomas, director of Acts 29 in the same article:

“There are guys now who are saying they’re still going to plant a church in the Midwest, but they’re not going to do it in Missouri,” said the Rev. Scott Thomas, director of Acts 29. “They’re looking at Kansas and Illinois instead.”

3. Darrin Patrick, commenting to Don Hinkle’s post:

Don, I agree that the Acts 29 debate is a good one for the MBC. Your good friend Roger Moran has publically agreed to debate these important issues regarding Gospel, Church and culture with me in the near future. I am looking forward to Dr. Tolliver moderating this important debate as he has agreed to do so. The Journey tech team is going to make the video of this debate available to every church so that they can hear both sides of these important issues.

4. Scott Lamb’s most recent article, calling for MBC to stay true to their commitments and not compromise on their integrity:

To the Executive Board, I plead with you. If you so desire, restrict future funding of Acts 29 affiliated church plants. I will disagree with you on this, but you have that right.

However, to any minister whom we have committed support to, who standing before God as that man’s witness can state with honesty that they have NOT broken any signed agreements regarding MBC standards of conduct, we MUST honor the commitment.

There is no excuse that can justify nor explanation that can satisfy why we as a convention can act without integrity in the matter of such commitments.

Members of the Executive Board, our integrity as a convention is on the line. A watching world awaits to see if Christians do what they say they will do. If there has been a breach of church-planting contracts, then bring out the evidence and justify your action. If not, then no matter how much you may believe that FUTURE funds cannot and will not be used to support FUTURE Acts 29 church plants, the PRESENT commitments simply must be honored.

5. James Galyon responds to David Tolliver’s assertion of abstinence as the “only biblical position.” Check it out here:

http://drjamesgalyon.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/the-only-biblical-position/

6. Two of the pastors losing funding responded in the St. Louis Dispatch article:

Kevin Larson said, “The group voted to renege on its commitment to us,” he said. “We’re highly disappointed.”

Sam Bryers said, “The vast majority of people in leadership in MBC churches are not on board with this decision. . . . This was a political decision, and it’s a good thing to see there are people out there who think more about the mission than about politics.”

7. J.D. Greear, a dually affiliated Acts29/SBC church planter who also spoke at the annual meeting in San Aton this past summer, was interviewed by the NC state convention in which he discusses Acts 29 and the differences between emerging, emergent, and missional. Here’s the MP3 of the interview:

http://www.annualsession.org/uploads/tx_pmkmp3player/JD_Greer_Interview__Nov_2007.mp3

8. Lastly, Jim Shaver’s list of questions which are rather apropo:

Will the MBC (Missouri Baptist Convention) still receive Cooperative Program funds from Churches that accept tithes and offerings from members who gain part of those offerings from the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages?

Will the MBC still receive CP funds from Churches that hold religious discussions in bars?

Will the MBC still receive CP funds from Churches that participate in Christian family day at Busch Stadium in St. Louis?

Will the MBC still portray Albert Pujols as a Christian example to Missouri Baptists via the Pathway when it is a known fact that his restaurant in St. Louis has a bar?

Will the MBC still hold Annual Convention meetings at Tan Tar A when it is known that a portion of their income is derived from the sale and consumption of alcohol?

Will the MBC continue to promote usage of the Holman Christian Standard Bible published by Broadman and Holman Publishing Group, an arm of the SBC, at it’s annual meetings because it contains the word beer?

More to come . . .

I find it intriguing that Don and Scott are going tit for tat on their blog. They need a referee over there.

My point about accountability is simply to make the point that we are focusing on tithing mint and dill and cumin while neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.

How many MBC churches can you enter on any given Sunday and not hear Christ proclaimed, the Scriptures exposited, and the gospel preached?

How many MBC churches that do not provide any accountability for their members, their spiritual lives, their faithfulness to their church, and commitment to serve one another?

Beginning with Hinkle and the Executive Board, how many MBC pastors/leaders are overweight and a stumbling block to sinners?

Whether the ultimate issue is the Reformed resurgence, I still am not convinced either way. What I do believe is that there is a very small number of Southern Baptist politicos making executive decisions and are out of touch with the majority of those they assume they represent.

Ultimately, as Scott Thomas pointed out, future church planters are going to steer clear of Missouri altogether and look to plant elsewhere in the Midwest. Ultimately, the real loser is the “Show Me” state who has shown church planters the door.

The Saga Continues

If there was a convention funded church plant not reaching people they would lose their funding. I think the funding only lasts a couple of years any way.

I don’t think most southern baptists are that concerned with doing an audit on their church rolls. They haven’t been concerned with it for nearly 100 years. They see rolls as a tool not equivalent to the book of life.

I think what it comes down to is that the older generation of Southern Baptists doesn’t want to fund the rise of Calvinism in the SBC.