Acts29 and the Missouri Baptist Convention

April 28th, 2007 · 14 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, I addressed the Theological Sub-committee of the Missouri Baptist Convention on the question of the emerging church. My article on that subject was copied and distributed to the committee of four persons and also to around 10 or so others who were in attendance.

Yesterday this press article appeared on The Pathway website. Since its release, I have been inundated by folks who have read my article and cannot understand how the “points” listed by Chairman Rev. Michael Knight could possibly be “based on” things I have written or said. I share their confusion.

Editor of The Pathway, Don Hinkle, has graciously invited me to write an op-ed piece for the next issue. I am grateful for this opportunity to articulate my views on the subject directly. You can link to a first draft of this op-ed piece here and comment as you wish.

Tags: Emerging/Emergent Church · Evangelicals/Evangelicalism · Southern Baptists · Theology

14 responses so far ↓

Timmy Brister // Apr 28, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Dr. Devine,

I have been following these developments rather closely and have been updating the situation on my blog. Thank you for the clarification and excellent work you have done in this much-needed crisis in the MBC. Indeed, we need theological precision, and I posit that it begins with telling the truth.

Thanks again.
micah // Apr 28, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Dr. Devine-

I’ve been writing about the situation and have been fairly critical about it as well, on my blog, and have been concerned about the implication in the article that you were involved. This really helps! Thanks!

I’ll be updating my blog asap.

Blessings
Ariel // Apr 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

Once again, you sort the nuances of the situation with the precision that’s so needed. I really hope that baptist leaders in MO are willing to read this carefully. It will represent a significant change of tone compared to what typically appears in The Pathway.
Kyle Roberts // Apr 29, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Mark,

Wow, they desire doctrinal precision and the elimination of ambiguity but they can’t even adequately interpret and appropriate the point of your paper. Sounds like some remedial hermeneutics is in order before any more theological declarations!
Tom Willoughby // Apr 29, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Dr. DeVine,

As one member of the MBC Executive Board, let me express my gratitutde to you for your research and what it means to all of us who are trying to work through all of the varied aspects of EC. While I am embarrassed that your work was so blatantly misrepresented, I’m pleased to know that you will have an opportunity to correct some of the misperceptions.

It would seem to me that before this committee looks too far into theological positions of evangelistically successful ministries, they would do well to attend my church’s 1-2 grade sunday school class for some background insight into the value of honesty and truthfulness.
Jim Shaver // Apr 30, 2007 at 5:51 am

Dr. Devine,

Thanks for clearing this up. I departed the meeting in Jeff City before you did and I thought upon reading the article in the Pathway that I had missed something you must have said after I left.

It was clear to me in the Q&A session that some had not listened to your presentation very carefully or else had come with their minds already made up on the Acts 29 Network.
Mark Richardson // Apr 30, 2007 at 8:15 am

Dr. D.,

The tone and tenor of your first draft is dead-on. You model the apostolic imperative of “speaking the truth in love” which in turn both rebukes error and builds the body. I’m sure there are many within Acts29 screaming, “Thank you!” I know I am.
Steve // Apr 30, 2007 at 9:57 am

For a first draft, that is an excellent and greatly needed paper. There are many common concerns between people like McLaren and Driscoll (Acts29). But their is a big difference. Once side forsakes doctrine for the sake of those concerns while Acts29 clings rigorously to historic orthodox Christianity. They should, indeed must, be separated and not lumped together, lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

But, what’s more, what the MBC seems to be missing is to recognize what they (and the church at large) stands to learn from the emerging/emergent movement. Certainly, we need to be humble enough to recognize that they are on to something and we need to ask what it is.
Bill Johnson // May 1, 2007 at 5:35 am

I, too, was at the meeting.

I appreciate your integrity and thoroughness in researching and reporting.

It seemed to me the committee heard what they wanted to hear. I think that was evident when the chairman (who is a friend of mine) summarized what you had said in such a way that you were compelled to interrupt and correct him.
Mike Crowe // May 1, 2007 at 11:15 am

Dr. Devine,
Thank you so much for your clarifying work. I am a student at SBTS in Louisville and a member of a growing, doctrinally solid Acts 29 church, and I have had a very difficult time personally reconciling what’s going on in Missouri. I look at our doctrinal statement, and I think to myself… folks are way off the mark here. Again, thanks for being willing to stand up and speak truth into what has become a muddy and messy situation.
Caleb Land // May 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Thank you very much for your clarifying article. I am a 23 year old student pastor, am a strong proponent of evangelical orthodox theology in it fullness, am proud of my Southern Baptist heritage and am a huge fan of Acts 29 and Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Ed Stetzer, etc.

It is difficult for myself and other young Southern Baptist ministers to stomach the attacks our generation is taking in many circles lest we submit to 1960’s SBC ecclesiology.

Thank you for taking the time to listen before you judge.
Craig Tanner // May 2, 2007 at 2:37 pm

I was quite confused myself. About 10 minutes after I posted an article about it on my blog Scott Thomas pointed me to the response he wrote from Acts 29. Then I was really confused. Finally someone pointed me to your blog, which sheds some light on this issue.
justin mclawson // May 2, 2007 at 2:55 pm

I echo Caleb. As a young man who is committed to the SBC I can’t believe the way things have gone in Missouri. Don’t the older pastors realize how younger guys are perceiving this whole thing? I have talked to several of my friends here at my SBC seminary and most of them are planning to leave the SBC. Sadly, many of them point to the whole fiasco in Missouri with Moran as the last nail in the coffin.
Dr. Devine please continue to be bold. The next generation of pastors and professors are leaving us!
Dr. Mark DeVine // May 2, 2007 at 3:52 pm

I wish you would not leave just yet. The way Baptists are structured is a great strength but it does also allow for rather public arguments like this.

I do know this. I am receiving strong support not only from many in Missouri but from many Southern Baptists at all levels and from around the country. The views of some in Missouri certainly do not reflect the views of may Southern Baptists at many levels of service within our convention.

I come at this thing as a professor and pastor looking for help in the advance of the gospel. I am trying to understand the emerging movement, missional approaches to doing church and evangelism, and how ACTS29 fits into that.

I am the pastor of a traditional Southern Baptist church in the urban core of Kansas City. I am not an Acts29 church planter. But some professors at Southern Baptist seminaries are members of churches that network with Acts29 and are not the focus of controversy because of it.