The extent to which the Southern Baptist Convention is being Calvinized is a subject of considerable debate. A Baptist Press article in 2007 compared a 2006 Lifeway Study claiming 10% of Southern Baptist Pastors were Five Point Calvinists with a 2007 NAMB New Minister study claiming that nearly 30% of recent seminary graduates were Five Point Calvinists. Although a 2010 Barna study seems to contradict this idea of a growing Calvinism, most observers of SBC life accept the prevailing view that a New Calvinism is being embraced, especially at Southern and Southeastern Seminaries. A problem arises, however, whenever a NAMB sponsored church plant affiliates with the Acts 29 Network, since this creates an unbalanced partnership in favor of the Network.
How does it create a problem if a Southern Baptist Church that fully embraces The Baptist Faith and Message chooses autonomously to partner with the Acts 29 Network? I’m glad you asked. Suppose only two funding sources exist for a new church plant–the New NAMB church planting emphasis and the Acts 29 Network. Since the New NAMB seeks to be just as “soteriologically neutral” as The Baptist Faith and Message, then it will be open to both prevailing salvation doctrines–Calvinism and Non-Calvinism. However, because the Acts 29 Network is not “soteriologically neutral” but only supports a Calvinist church planter, this partnership results in a “Calvinization” of the Southern Baptist Convention subsidized at least partially by the Non-Calvinist financial support of NAMB through the Cooperative Program giving of traditional SBC churches.
The assumption here is that some Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists would like to spread their Non-Calvinist doctrine just as seriously and purposefully as Acts 29 Southern Baptists are currently spreading their Calvinist doctrine. At the present time, a Southern Baptist congregation wishing to support only Calvinist church planters has the option of simply giving a token amount, through Cooperative Program channels, in support of NAMB, while giving a very large amount through the Acts 29 Network. Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists may be powerless to do anything to stop the Calvinization of the convention, but they should certainly not be forced to pay for it with their Cooperative Program giving, thus propagating a salvation doctrine they do not embrace, and altering their denomination in a direction they do not prefer. Non-Calvinists should have the same option as the Calvinists to support church planters whose salvation doctrine they can embrace with a completely clear conscience.
To put it simply, a new giving option is needed to accommodate both Calvinist and Non-Calvinist channels of financial support for church planting. Only by creating two such clear options can we accomplish these worthy aims: (1) working in unity to share the gospel with the nations alongside other Southern Baptists with whom we have significant doctrinal differences, and (2) providing a financial giving channel to plant new Southern Baptist churches without violating the consciences of donors who do not wish to subsidize the promotion of a salvation doctrine they cannot embrace.
For the sake of discussion, we might call the Calvinist church planting channel the “Acts 29 Track” while referring to the Non-Calvinist church planting channel as the “John 3:16 Track.” Churches would be free to designate however they wish the portion of their CP funds to be allocated toward church planting. Some might opt for a 50-50 split. Some might prefer a 90-10 split, reasoning that in this manner they could help preserve an existing soteriological balance they deem entirely appropriate. Others might devote all of their resources either to Calvinist church plants or Non-Calvinist ones. Alternatively, by directly giving $10,000 to the John 3:16 Track, a Non-Calvinist church would enjoy the same giving privileges as a Calvinist church today that gives $10,000 directly to the Acts 29 Network.
When it comes to church planting, no Southern Baptist should be forced to support financially at the denominational level the promotion of a doctrine they would not support at the local level if they were directly funding the new work and selecting the church planting pastor through their own search team process. This proposal is offered as a very simple solution that would permit us to continue to work “together for the gospel” while agreeing to work peacefully “apart for the doctrine” as we reach the nations for Jesus.
My heart’s desire in sharing this proposal is not to stir up needless controversy, but rather to resolve the conflict and seek a reasonable approach for moving forward together. To quote those four famous British philosophers, “Life is very short and there’s no time for fussing and fighting my friend.” We can work it out!
I’ve seen nothing in any NAMB statement about partnering with Acts 29. Is that really a strategy?
Anyway, I was a Virginia Baptist back when they introduced the two-track giving system. It was step one in the process of division of Virginia into two conventions.
What you are suggesting is not a solution, but the end of the SBC, in my opinion.
I think we need to plant Baptist churches – whether they lean Calvinist or non-Calvinist. Why do we have to separate?
I thought it odd in Birmingham when I visited a church which offered two tracks for giving. The offering envelope had two checkboxes: “Give to CP” and “Give to CBF”.
In other words, the way to work it out is for Calvinists to recognize that non-Calvinists are fully Baptist brethren and sistern, and for non-Calvinists to recognize that Calvinists are fully Baptist brethren and sistern.
Accepting that in spite of our differences, we share a biblical and Baptist heritage, and honoring one another rather than separating from and sniping at one another seems like a better solution to me.
We can still honor one another even if we each pay a different set of bills for church planting. We recognize each other as fully Baptist, but we give each other the same autonomy in stewardship at the denominational level that we have at the church level. Why not let people choose which kind of church plants they want to support? Some people really don’t want to join together with Acts 29. Why force them?
Rick,
That is simply not the way it works. Splitting the giving in the way you suggest is a major step to becoming two different conventions.
Dave’s example of Virginia is a good one.
Was the splitting up of the giving the cause of the separation, or was it the effect of an underlying cause that was truly creating the tension?
“The assumption here is that some Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists would like to spread their Non-Calvinist doctrine just as seriously and purposefully as Acts 29 Southern Baptists are currently spreading their Calvinist doctrine.”
The problem here is that Acts 29 does not exist to spread Calvinist doctrine, nor do Calvinist churches exist to spread Calvinist doctrine. The goal of these ministries, as with non-Calvinist ministries, is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. Southern Baptists are not sending funds to subsidize this or that doctrinal strain but to subsidize the work of the spread of the gospel. Unless one wants to make the charge that Acts 29 does not spread the gospel or Calvinist churches do not spread the gospel, we should rejoice that additional means exist to fund the spread of the gospel, even if we do not agree with the source of those funds on every point.
Correct, they exist to spread the gospel, just as the Non-Calvinists do, but by restricting their soteriology, only the Calvinist doctrine is spread in the process. By that same logic, A29 should start planting Non-Calvinist churches since we are also spreading the gospel, right? But since they will not do that, we do not have an “equal merger.”
Who cares about an equal merger? This is not a contest to see which side can win more, with rules to ensure a level playing field. The gospel is going forth, rejoice in that.
I rejoice in the gospel going forth among Methodists, Presbyterians, Assembly of God churches and many other groups, including A29. However, that does not mean I want Southern Baptists to join with them in planting churches. Just because the gospel is going forth among them does not mean that I am willing to pay, for example, for Methodist church planting efforts.
The equal merger has nothing to do with a soul winning contest, but everything to do with allowing Christians to start new churches that embrace only those doctrines we hold dear. Obviously, A29 holds Calvinism as precious since they require it. Why is it so hard to accept that Non-Calvinists might hold their Non-Calvinism to be just as precious and worthy of protection?
But you seem to be overlooking the fact that one can be an A29 affiliated church while in full fellowship and consistent theology with the SBC. The same cannot be said of Methodists. If a church plant sought funding from both NAMB and the PCA’s Mission to North America, that would be unusual and I wouldn’t support it. But that’s not happening in this case.
Also, I think the question was asked earlier and I’m curious – how many NAMB church plants also have A29 affiliation? People are making a lot of noise about this, and I know it happens, but how often does it happen? How common is it compared to the overall number of church plants funded by NAMB?
It’s a de facto partnership. NAMB and Acts 29 both support the same plant because the church receives money from both.
The end of the SBC? Allowing people to give without violating their conscience? Wow! I’m certainly not trying to separate us. Just the opposite, I’m trying to find ways we can go forward without so much tension.
Why do we have to separate funding channels? So Non-Calvinists will not have to pay for Calvinist Acts 29 church plants which they may oppose. Since A29 won’t pay for NC plants, why should NC’s pay for A29 plants?
If NAMB had guidelines that would prevent the planting of churches of either kind (Calvinist only, non-Calvinist only) then there would be a genuine issue.
But NAMB guidelines and funding work for both kinds of churches. In Iowa at least, any church, regardless of their soteriological preference, can start churches and receive funding.
I would hope we would all rejoice at and be willing to support churches of all Baptist stripes.
Rick,
Do you realize the A29 network doesnt fund church plants like NAMB does?
Different A29 churches fund other churches, but the network itself doesnt fund the church plants.
The flow of the funding is not my primary concern. It doesn’t really make any difference to me, just as it would not make any difference if NAMB did not collect our funds but the associations did.
Rather, the crux of my concern is the exclusivity of the A29 membership parameters related to soteriology. On this one particular point, the SBC is more lenient, more open, more accommodating than A29. They insist you must be Calvinist. Why should I give CP funds to their churches when our BFM does not restrict soteriology in such a fashion?
A29 THEOLOGY fits within the BFM, but their METHODOLOGY of only planting one kind, rather than two kinds, does NOT fit with ours. From the standpoint of a Non-Calvinist, the terms of the partnership are simply unfair.
Who cares about fairness? As I said before, this isn’t a contest with rules to balance the resources on any given side.
So should a NAMB funded church plant not seek any partnerships with any other entities, organizations, or churches then? Because any time they do, under your definition, NAMB has entered into a de facto partnership with said organization.
So long as the church plant itself conforms to the BF&M, should it not have freedom to partner with other organizations if it wishes? Or should NAMB, State Conventions, and offerings be the sole sources of funding?
Well, I wouldn’t want them partnering with Osteen, and placing the requirement on all church planters that every day be a Friday.
This is actually a very good question, Mike. What are the parameters for partnership in sponsoring new churches? If the SBC is the sole sponsor, we don’t open ourselves up to a whole host of issues.
However, once we do join together with another parent organization in supporting a new work, we can assume that SOME of our SBC churches might object, for reasons that may be doctrinal, practical or whatever.
I think we should give them the simple opportunity to designate away from those partnerships they find objectionable. Church planting should be just as autonomous at the denominational support level as it is at the local church support level.
Acts 29 is not an SBC agency.
Of course it’s not. Neither are the Methodists, but we don’t both sponsor the same church plants like we do with A29. That’s what makes this a partnership. And an unequal one.
The moment A29 starts supporting financially the planting of Non-Calvinist SBC churches, there will no longer be a problem.
Why not ask them to do exactly that? If indeed it’s the same gospel, why would they not want to work together with us and partner with us in the planting of Non-Calvinist SBC churches?
A29 is soteriologically exclusive. NAMB is soteriologically neutral. That just creates an imbalance that needs to be addressed.
Evidently, I am trying to solve a problem the existence of which most Calvinists in the SBC are unwilling even to admit.
I am unwilling to admit the existence of a problem that does not exist.
How many churches would have to do exactly what Bill Harrell’s did before you would admit the existence of a problem? A hundred? A thousand?
The problem is that “Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists” should have the option to withhold support from those churches affiliated with a “Calvinist Non-Southern Baptist” church planting network.
In other words, give Non-Calvinist churches the freedom, from their perspective, not to pay for the Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I should clarify – a problem does exist, but it is not that NAMB funds church plants that are also affiliated with Acts 29.
A layman asks: Isn’t there only one soteriological doctrine? Why are you guys trying so hard to strain out gnats? Why not just swallow the camel. Saved by grace through faith in Christ.
I agree with that. There are some speculative explanations for how that works that go by the short-terms “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” and folks tend to feel strongly about those speculative explanations.
But I will offer that in all of my wisdom and intelligence, I am not certain that you can reduce to a humanly acceptable explanation how God works to either influence our choice for him or to delineate when he has fully accepted someone as saved.
We then fall back–and should–on biblical language to explain both things and while I am certain that the text has exactly one meaning, I’ll observe that both groups make valuable and salient arguments for their speculative positions.
But in the end, God determines how it actually is and our interpretation of the Bible has the propensity for faultiness that roughly approximates our pride. The more pride we have, the more likely we’re wrong.
The layman says: Yeah, what Greg said.
Rick, I don’t agree here, primarily because you frontload your suggestion with assumptions that aren’t proven the most serious of which is presuming that what you term a Calvinist church is not in conformity with the BFM.
While I hear a lot about NAMB and ACTS29 churches (sometimes the network’s name is invoked, other times it is implied), I’ve been asking for someone to point me to a NAMB funded plant that has an ACTS29 affiliation and where the church does not conform to the BFM. I have yet to see a single example. ACTS29 claims only about 400 affiliate churches nationwide of various denominational connections (the closest one to me is Presbyterian).
The numbers aren’t promising for you to make your case, but I’m all ears anyhow.
Is it unreasonable to ask you and others who have the view that we’re starting scads of calvinist churches to lay some groundwork before advocating a historic departure from cooperative giving?
Bill Harrell here in GA has indicated his church will not support NAMB on this basis. He is the only one I know to have done this and he offered no evidence. That doesn’t work for me, though it might for others.
Though he didn’t invoke ACTS29 specifically, Emil Turner state convention CEO in Arkansas stated that he is concerned that NAMB is starting churches that aren’t marked by Baptist distinctives. Again, no evidence.
I’m beginning to think that we are repeating the same unestablished assertions on this. Let’s see some evidence.
[BTW, I worshipped in a church pastored by a Calvinist this past Sunday. Nothing seemed out of place to my highly trained senses.]
William,
I do not at all presume that the Calvinist church does not conform with the BFM. I believe they completely conform with the BFM. My concern is simply that the A29 sponsoring organization is soteriologically exclusive while NAMB is soteriologically neutral, creating an imbalance for those who wish not to partner with A29 and advance a doctrinal agenda they do not support.
To substantiate the existence of a problem, let me offer two exhibits, although not the list of churches you want. Exhibit A is Bill Harrell. Exhibit B is Emil Turner.
Friends, if Non-Calvinists suspect even a hint of a Calvinist Reform in our convention, they will not only oppose it, but will flat out refuse to PAY for it.
What’s the harm in allowing them the option of designating their church planting resources according to their preferred salvation doctrine, just like they would do it if they were planting the church all by themselves?
Pointing to the two men who failed to offer evidence is not evidence, Rick.
You offer another frontloaded presumption: “…if Non-Calvinists suspect even a hint of a Calvinist Reform in our convention, they will not only oppose it, but will flat out refuse to PAY for it.”
Ridiculously broad generalization, Rick. You can do better than this.
Every church has an unlimited number of giving options already. What you want is for your state convention to codify your biases into a giving plan. Unwarranted and unworkable.
…but I appreciate your well-meaning effort to work this out.
Are we to limit giving only to A29, or to any Southern Baptist Calvinist seeking to plant a church? Whose responsibility will it be to interrogate the church planter in order to ascertain which pool of money he might be able to dip into?
If we are going to do this (we’re not), then we need a checklist of doctrines we will support, beyond just soteriology. I don’t want my giving going to plant dispensational churches.
A29 is a fear, not a problem.
Someone already mentioned it, but it bears repeating. A29 is not the “Calvinist NAMB”. They do not collect money and fund churches out of it.
I was the one that mentioned that…
Misinformation abounds on posts like these.
Matt,
It seems like it is not misinformation so much as an unwillingness to accept the truth.
How many times has this A29 hoorah been discussed and corrected?
You can lead a horse to water…
“A29 is not the ‘Calvinist NAMB’. They do not collect money and fund churches out of it.”
Then perhaps neither should NAMB, if we’re going to make things fair. If we handled our flow of resources like A29 does, the individual churches WOULD have control to make sure their church planting dollars did not support doctrines they find objectionable, just like A29 does right now.
The problem, succinctly, is that the A29 church planting process REQUIRES supporting “Calvinism Only” while the NAMB church planting process does not even ALLOW THE OPTION of supporting “Non-Calvinism Only.”
They require a soteriological exclusivity in one direction that we do not even allow in the other.
That’s simply not fair.
I’m still not really even sure what you have in mind by “make things fair”.
I have followed this debate for a while. In my brief experience, 10 years as a pastor, I have seen a trend that is more concerning than the A29 and NAMB debate. Church planters are in need of funds to fulfill their sense of calling and plant the church. In this need, they are seeking agencies to fund their plant. So in my expereince, some planters are less concerned with affiiating with the funding agencies as much as they are looking for the funds. In other words, we have people who came from the Baptist tradition and realize that funding is available through NAMB but have no intention of giving to the CP or supporting the convention past the funding period. This is not about NAMB or being a baptist because I have heard people say that they can sign the agreeement with A29 even when they are not fully in line with the soteriology. My point is that the greater challenge for me is the pragmatic approach that church planters take in seeking funding. The flip side is the business matrix that funding agencies utilize to determine the continuation of funding. In the end, it is all about the money for some. Planters need the funds and see these agencies as the only way to get these funds and agencies are seeking a return on their investments and numbers are the measure of success. Just an observation from a young pastor.
Jeremy,
Unlike other denomination we Southern Baptist take the autonomy of the local church “very seriously” Therefore, when we give to missions work (church planting) we do so without any expectation of earning any return. Giving to missions work is not an investment plan for us.
Interestingly, and to the best of my knowledge, none of the thousands of Churches that Southern Baptist have planted outside of North America give to the CP and are not even considered a part of the Convention.
Jeremy,
Your point, I believe, is flawed based on funding. It is clear that those who pay the bills will be the ones that direct the theology. Thus, I sense the need for increased funding for church planters. However, I am finding that NAMB is beginning to pull church planters from local churches by promising more funding.
Rick,
I would have to disagree with the giving plans. I come from a state that just got out of that. I would suggest that we need to move our distribution center from the State Convention to the local association. Most state conventions are no longer hearing the local churches but the associations are. Most state conventions listen to and are heavily influenced by the mega churches.
Tim Rogers,
I would suggest that we need to move our distribution center from the State Convention to the local association.
I Agree 100%
Who decides how much each association gets?
Dave,
Very simple. The churches in the Association. They decide how much is distributed to the Association, State Convention, and National Convention. Let’s face it, on the national level and state level the local church does not decide anything. We have come to a point that no one knows what is going on. The Trustees system is not the perfect model, but it is a model I will never vote to do away with. However, the State convention model has become nothing more than a conglomerate of denominational leaders rewarding buddies.
I guess, Tim, my question was a little more “big picture.” Who decides how much money your association gets and how much mine gets.
I like the idea (at least theoretically) of decentralization of church planting. But distribution of funds is a thorny issue.
In Iowa, our state convention is very different. I would guess that your association is probably bigger than our state convention.
Tim,
You supported my claim. That is exactly my point. The flip side is that church planters are willing to take funds from both sides, while at the same time they are leaning toward one direction over another. I never said the issue was that those who pay the bills should not control the funding. My point was that commitment to the cause was over ridden by the pragmatic necessity of funding. If a church planter only turns to NAMB for funding but will not support the CP after funding ceases, then the issue is one of commitment to the Convention. The issue is funding on both sides. The topic has been the tension between NAMB and A29 but the problem is also about some planters who utilize the funding mechanism without convictional basis toward the entity. Should funding be increased? I think that is a well known argument that was not even mentioned by me. Instead, I think the real issue is where the support from the plants will go once the church is established and supporting mission causes.
Jeremy,
Ok, sorry I missed your point. I honestly believe the tension is desired to remain in place. Why? We have moved funding after funding over to church plants. Here in NC we now have about $5 million going to church planting. Problem is church plants are not receiving the same amounts. It is like the independent churches that say they support a missionary on the mission field but sends only $50 per month then tells the church that is “our” missionary. No he is not “their” missionary he is the missionary to whatever organization gives him the most money.
As to the money after the church plant is funded. I honestly believe that if we fund the church planter the way he needs to be funded that church planter will give to the CP.
Now, allow me to add to your premise. I believe that a church plant should be supported with the philosophy of a church planting team. I believe if we plant a church with a church planting team you have multiple people encouraging each other. Notice that Barnabas and Paul, then it was Barnabas and Mark and Paul and Silas. Notice also they went out in twos. Thus, a church planting team should consist of at least two. We fund these two with full time salaries. That would be approximately $140. We supply these two with the funds they need to operate for three years. That would be approximately $100k per year. Therefore we have now invested $600k in one church plant. I have no problem doing something like that and one state planting 10 churches a year. Instead of announcing that we are planting 100 churches per year but really can only find 5 in existence after 2 years. Let’s say that each church that is being planted now gets $2,400 per year. After two years we only have 5 in existence from that year we announced 100 churches were planted. That means we have thrown half a million $$’s in a hole. We could have used that money on a church planting team and received, not only a thriving church, but contributions to the CP because we looked after our church planters. Church planters are like entrepreneurs. They will become loyal to those that paid their way to the dance.
Rick, I have no desire to see the SBC affiliate with the ACTS29 Network in any way shape or form. Too many witnesses are coming forth who share of spiritual abuse within the top leadership of Mars Hill. The SBC does not need any further controversy. We create enough of our own. selahV
Harriette, that makes no sense to me. What does Mars Hill have to do with autonomous, congregational churches who affirm the BF&M 2000 and an Acts 29 doctrinal statement that doesn’t violate the BF&M 2000?
It’s guilt by association, but can you justify the guilt you place on Acts 29 and all Acts 29 affiliated churches because Mark Driscoll started the Acts 29 network and he currently resides on the board?
Hariette,
I understand that sentiment. I really do. But I also realize that right now some of the CP funds my church contributes will find their way into churches required by Acts 29 to be Calvinist. In other words, we are right now already in this partnership with them. My feeling is almost, “If you can’t beat them, join them, but at least leave yourself the option, if you prefer, to NOT join them.” My proposal was designed to create a clearer option for non-participation with mutual A29-SBC church plants if the convictions of the sponsoring SBC church required such a designation.
The default position right now currently places Non-Calvinist churches in a situation where, if they do nothing at all to opt out by following Bill Harrell’s lead, for example, they will donate Non-Calvinist Southern Baptist dollars that will further the cause of a Calvinist Non-Southern Baptist network.
I’m not proposing the partnership. I’m saying it already exists, in an unbalanced form, and needs to allow both sides the freedom to direct their giving according to their preferences.
You are certainly right that the SBC does not need further controversy. Unless we do something to resolve this situation, I believe that is precisely what we are going to have.
“churches required by Acts 29 to be Calvinist.”
Surely you realize that churches affiliating with Acts 29 are already Calvinist congregations? A29 does not impose on them something foreign; these churches voluntarily affiliate with A29 because these churches already hold the beliefs affirmed by A29 – just as they cooperate with the SBC because of these shared beliefs.
Yes, I do. Churches and church plants must already affirm this view before they will be accepted into A29’s soteriologically exclusive membership. There is an overlapping of shared beliefs between A29 and SBC that leaves a remainder of Non-Calvinist SBC churches outside of the circle. These NC churches are giving financially in support of a network they would be excluded from if they tried to join. That’s a problem. For what it’s worth, it would be a problem in the other direction as well, in the hypothetical situation where Calvinist churches were giving to support NAMB-J316 Network partnerships in which the J316 Network would not accept Calvinists into the organization. I would not want Calvinists to be forced to pay for an exclusively Non-Calvinist church planting network. I would want to give them an option.
No, churches are giving financially in support of Southern Baptist churches.
Rick,
You said: “Non-Calvinists should have the same option as the Calvinists to support church planters whose salvation doctrine they can embrace with a completely clear conscience.”
May I suggest that they do have the same option as the Calvinists to support church planters whose salvation doctrine they can embrace. How? No one is preventing them from starting their own Church Planting Network… I will even make a suggestion for the name “The John 3:16 Network.”
Issue resolved… “That was easy” 🙂
Greg,
You are a problem solver. 😉
But would that not also lead to the division of the convention Dave and others are concerned about, since instead of the support flowing through SBC-NAMB it would be flowing around the SBC and going directly to A29 and J316 instead?
I agree with Greg that the formation of a J316 Network would bring balance to the force, allowing Non-Calvinists the same giving channels as the Calvinists, but I simply wanted to keep both channels within the convention rather than outside of it.
To me, this outside network method would signal an even greater level of division. Nevertheless, I think it would solve the problem — which really does exist whether people care to acknowledge it or not.
Yes, you are, Greg. And perhaps before long a network will emerge with a remarkably similar name to the one you suggested. It will become the Acts 29 counterpart in SBC life that Non-Calvinists need in order to exercise their autonomy just as fully as the Calvinists. It will solve the problem.
I thought this post may have been intended as “tongue in cheek” and I was surprised when I realized it was intended seriously. I agree with those who say that this would lead to a further splintering of the SBC.
I would not be happy having to choose between either of the church planting options you suggested. I could not in good conscience support an Acts 29 model nor an anti-Calvinistic church planting model. I am fine with giving our money to NAMB as long as the church planter fits within the BFM parameters. I don’t care if the planter leans reformed or not, just that you preach the Gospel faithfully. I think the BFM writers got it right on soteriology; we allow all Baptist brothers to work together for the cause of missions. I pray we return to that vision for our denomination.
Bill Pfister
Taylors, SC
“I would not be happy having to choose between either of the church planting options you suggested. ”
Then you would not have to choose. Just check “50/50” or “no designation.” Unfortunately, Acts 29 churches are required to plant through the Calvinist track. This would merely give SBC the other side the same option to designate in the other direction.
* This would merely give SBC churches on…
There are far too many presumptions in this topic, although I grant that Rick acts out of good motives in making his unwarranted suggestion about funding options.
For those who want a little clarity here, I offer the following:
1. I know of a single church out of the 45,000+ SBC churches who has declared they will negatively designate their Cooperative Program giving so that their money does not go to Southeastern and Southern Seminaries. Presumably, the same church has addressed NAMB but I’d have to check. The numbers behind the proposal in this topic are underwhelming: 1/45,000.
2. I cannot name a single NAMB plant that is also affiliated in some way with ACTS29, though I don’t doubt that there may be a few. Neither Rick Patrick nor any other contributor here has named a single such church. If it is a problem then there should be abundant numbers of these. Could we at least name a dozen or so before launching into new giving plans?
3. I’ll make my own presumption that there are NAMB supported plants that are related to ACTS29. Would someone please point out how any such church, not a theoretical church but a real one, does not conform to the BFM. NAMB says they only fund churches that conform to the BFM. Please give us a list of any of those that do not.
But I recognize that as long as we have facts, and recognize the lack thereof, there is no harm in tossing out wild proposals.
William,
1. What would those numbers have to be in order to establish the existence of the problem I have articulated? As Abraham might ask, “Fifty? Forty-five? Forty? Thirty? Twenty? Ten?” Whatever number you choose, we may have it someday. We may have it already. I believe it is possible for one to describe an unfair situation that should be fixed, regardless of how widely embraced the problem’s existence might be in the court of public opinion.
2. The thing about these NAMB-A29 church planting partnerships is that the information would frankly have to come from someone like Kevin Ezell or one of his staff members. I am more than willing to admit that it may not be a huge number right now, but if I’m reading things correctly, it could very well mushroom in the days ahead. We are admittedly in the early stages of this problem, which is the best time to solve any type of unfairness, before it grows too large.
3. This whole issue of conformity to the BFM simply does not address any of my concerns. I never said they did not conform, so let me nail it down–the theology of Acts 29 fits within the parameters of the broadly worded BFM2000. I certainly never said otherwise. My theological concern is in the other direction entirely. It is possible for NC churches in the SBC to fully support the BFM but NOT fit within the parameters of the A29 Network’s doctrinal requirements. Do you see? It’s not that we Non-Calvinist SBCer’s don’t accept them–it’s that they don’t accept us. They will not plant NC churches even though there is room for the NC position in the BFM. Partnering with them is objectionable and unfair. Our Calvinist SBCer’s have found an “equal partner” in A29, but our Non-Calvinist SBCer’s do not consider A29 as an “equal partner” and we have no other alternatives at the moment.
Perhaps Greg’s suggestion of a J316 Network is the only way to give us that equal partner needed to balance all of this out. I was hoping simply to propose some options from within. Thanks for the exchange of ideas. Keep plodding!
If you consider the BFM irrelevant to your proposal then you have no basis to ask your state convention to change their giving plan.
We can speculate, hypothesize, and engage in handwringing until the cows come home but until you have evidence and a foundation for change, it’s just great fun.
Rick,
The fact that your issue is not with conformity to the BFM is the issue in my opinion. You can be a Calvinist and be a part of the Southern Baptist Convention and you can be an Arminian and be a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. There should be no distinction, period. We are not in the business of withholding funds because of someone’s doctrine on things that are not talked about in the BFM.
This whole topic really hurts my heart. I am a Calvinist on staff with Arminians. We work together just fine. There is no reason for the SBC to be divided on this issue.
Since Acts 29 is not part of the SBC, it isn’t any of our business. The job of the NAMB is to plant Southern Baptist churches. If they plant one that also affiliates with Acts 29, guess what, they did their job.
-Stephen
Stephen,
Fine, so I suppose if another Church Planting Network (which I’ve called J316 on this thread) existed that was Non-Calvinistic, and it only planted that type of church, you would not have a problem with NAMB partnering together with them also. Churches could choose which network they wanted to support. Perhaps that really is the only possible solution.
William,
1.) May I suggest to you that you know of that 1 church because he chose to make it public? I also suggest to you there are many more left in that 44,999 churches that may begin doing this with no publicity. I suggest one more time the only reason there is an increase in the CP is the way many are counting their $$’s now. Also, it could be the mega’s are accepting the 1% challenge. What do you think will happen with the CP when the mega’s stop their increase?
2.) In a couple issues back NAMB released their missions magazine and it was identified that at least 2 of the church planters they identified as NAMB church plants were also receiving funding from A29 churches and were featured in the A29 website as A29 churches. I personally presented one such case where we were told our AAEO went to a church planter that was listed as a A29 church planter by A29. The church planter website also stated clearly they were part of the A29 network.
3.) Can I get really honest. A Mormon can affirm the BF&M if he can define the terms. Thus, your point is not well taken. It is a rhetorical point like asking; “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Those who state they adhere to the BF&M do so by defining the language the way they want. On another note that relates to your argument. Why don’t we support CBF church plants if they say they can affirm the BF&M? (Not that I am for that, but it is a legitimate point)
1. I wouldn’t expect that any state convention would respond to your arguments from the silence of all churches save for the one I mentioned on negative designations of their CP money.
2. Your NAMB/ACTS29 churches are from publicity on LAST year’s Annie Armstrong offering. Perhaps you could find something current. Even using those old ones, you need to demonstrate nonconformity with the BFM.
3. If you have a standard other than the BFM by which to evaluate NAMB church plants then bring it forward. I suggest that your point about Mormons defining the terms would apply to that as well.
…like I said it’s fun to speculate here but that is about all that is happening in this topic.
“Friends, if Non-Calvinists suspect even a hint of a Calvinist Reform in our convention, they will not only oppose it, but will flat out refuse to PAY for it”
My heart continues to ache over the propensity we have instilled in each other to see the worst, expect the vilest, and demand of one another conformity to our personal view…all in the name of Jesus Christ. Rick’s statement above is simply and completely wrong. Though there are both Calvinists and Non-Cs in our association, we seem to claim each other as brothers, rejoice when God moves in any of us or through any of us and when Jesus is lifted up and God is glorified. BTW: I’m not a Calvinist. No one here withholds money or prayers or effort when a new plant launches or a church moves forward in faith. Though there is a mix of viewpoints among us, gratitude seems to be the prevailing spirit here when people are saved…whether it may have been a Calvinist or Non-C that has led them to the Lord.
Just one other thing. The argument that “we cannot be expected to support anything that is counter to our personal consciences” can be said by anyone anywhere about anything. The statement is true, but it is only a half truth. Our personal “consciences” are just that…they are ours, they belong to us, they are the viewpoints we have adopted. BUT THAT IN NO WAY MEANS THAT OUR “CONSCIENCES” ARE BASED ON WISDOM, THE SPIRIT, OR TRUTH! It, therefore, is a bogus argument even though we have used it against each other in the SBC for more than 30 years.
I think there are extreme, angry and aggressive non-Calvinists who will be satisfied with nothing but the banishment of Calvinism. I think most non-Calvinists, like most Calvinists, want to rise above that and display a more cooperative, charitable attitude.
We cannot let extreme, angry and aggressive anti-Calvinism define the middle or paint everyone in a bad light.
I really think the existence of the “Non-Calvinist Acts 29 Network Counterpart” will relieve the pressure and provide those NC churches who desire to designate their resources only to NC church plants the opportunity to keep their donations away from A29 while still planting new churches. This will solve the problem and there will be no more talk about attitudes and anger and lack of cooperation and all that.
I have no problem with NAMB cooperating with A29 as long as I can limit my church’s support to NAMB’s cooperation with “J316,” or whatever it’s called. Greg is right. The Non-Calvinist A29 Counterpart solves the problem. Dave may also be right, however. It may result in a split.
Why wouldn’t this work: let churches in their own local area start churches with their own money in their own way and let NAMB get out of the church planting business altogether?
No Cooperative Program money would go to any church plant so there would be no argument at all.
The Cooperative Program was based upon the idea of “doing together what we cannot do alone.” Disaster Restoration is a good example of such a mission work. Feeding migrant farm workers up and down the state of California would be another example of a “national need” that can better be done by a centralized organization.
Here’s my plan: send less money away to NAMB and do more in your local Associations. No more church planting by a parachurch organization of any kind–including NAMB.
Why would this not solve the problem and result in more, healthier, Southern Baptist churches–including healthier “sending churches.”
I think NAMB being in the church-planting business is the tail wagging the dog.
Rick,
I don’t believe that NAMB is “partnering” with Acts 29 by supporting a church that is affiliated with Acts 29. They are planting a SBC church. Why does their soteriology have to come into play?
I support the Cooperative Program in hopes that Southern Baptist churches will be planted. I don’t particularly care about the other details.
Your proposal reminds me of the church member who is angry with their pastor, so they put a special little memo on their checks that designates their tithes only for the music ministry.
It is time that we put away all this nonsense.
Stephen,
Your statement sums up the ENTIRE discussion:
“I don’t believe that NAMB is “partnering” with Acts 29 by supporting a church that is affiliated with Acts 29. They are planting a SBC church. Why does their soteriology have to come into play?”
These are SBC churches being planted!
Joshua,
Yes, they are SBC churches, but so are the churches my church will support when the “J316 Network” starts planting churches directly. Some of NAMB’s money will also be used to promote these J316-SBC congregations. They will be SBC churches fully in line with the BFM. Others may choose to promote A29, but I will then have an option I do not currently have. I will be able to avoid promoting that which I do not believe, in favor of promoting that which I do believe.
The problem will be solved. SBC churches will partner with TWO outside networks–one Calvinist (A29) and the other Non-Calvinist (J316)–giving our churches the autonomy to partner or to refuse to partner with whomever they choose. This will be a good thing. A29 will finally have a counterpart, Non-Calvinist church planting network for those who do not wish to work together with A29.
What about churches who want to plant a church that is both a non-calvinist church, and a non-non-calvinist church? IE a church that is sick and tired of all these groups? Will they have to start their own church planting network? How about calling it the Matt1225 church?
Well, if indeed there are multiple Calvinist church planting networks–A29 and PLNTD, for example–then there is no reason why we could not have multiple Non-Calvinist church planting networks. But perhaps we should take things one step at a time.
Theoretically speaking, why should Calvinists be the only soteriological group with the benefit of an organized church planting network?
Stephen,
I’m not angry. I just want to be able to do the same thing that A29-SBC churches do–plant churches whose beliefs I embrace. A29 is exclusively Calvinist. Once there is an exclusively Non-Calvinist “J316” it will be possible for the Non-Calvinist to follow his conscience in supporting only those NAMB church plants that affiliate with J316. There will be balance. There will be fairness.
You do embrace their beliefs Rick, they affirm the BF&M2000.
If Acts 29 truly affirmed the soteriological neutrality of the BFM2000, then they would plant NC churches and I would be comfortable partnering with them. But they don’t accept my kind. Acts 29 would not accept me as a member, even though I embrace every word of the BFM2000. I am disqualified from their network. In exchange, I don’t want to pay for its advancement. On the other hand, the J316 Network would accept me. I am glad to pay for its advancement.
Rick,
Serious question, are any NAMB church plants “steriologically neutral” as you assert the BF&M 200 is?
All SBC churches are allowed to go beyond the BF&M 2000 in their own covenants and confessions.
We as SBC members are cooperating for the spread of the Gospel under the lowest common denominator of the BF&M 2000. If churches are funded that go beyond the BF&M 2000 then so be it. They are not any less “Southern Baptist” than any other church. Do you agree?
If you don’t want your money going to Acts 29 churches, then act like your money is going to the Non-Calvinist church plants. In other words, your money is already going where you want it. I seriously doubt that your church is giving enough money to where it must be helping plant Acts 29 churches. Let’s say NAMB uses $100,000 a year to plant Non-Calvinist churches, just act like the money your church gives is part of that $100,000, because it is. Or, you can complain about it, automatically assuming the worst that your church’s money is not part of that $100,000 used to start Non-Calvinist SBC churches, but is part of the $100,000 used to start Acts 29 affiliated churches.
Also, if we really want to limit NAMB, why stop with Calvinism? Let’s only give to church plants that look exactly like our local church. Let’s use my church as an example: NAMB must only start churches that are cessationists, pre-millenial, sings hymns with piano, responsive reading, single elder, age-graded Sunday School, VBS having, two worship services on Sunday, disciple-ship training, soft-complimentarians (women can teach men, but not pastor), no divorced deacons or elders, etc. The problem is that the SBC has voted on our confession, and to limit SBC entities beyond that confession shouldn’t be an option for churches, unless a vote agrees with them. It’s the opposite of unity; it’s narrowing our giving beyond the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
The narrowing process started with A29, not me. They narrowed the parameters beyond BFM2000, not me. But I do support finishing the narrowing through J316. Once J316 says we will only plant Non-Calvinist churches, they will have narrowed their cooperation beyond the BFM just like A29, but the narrowing process will be open to both sides, and will thus be fair.
Rick, if your church’s money is already going to Non-Calvinist church plants, why would your church need to designate? It wouldn’t bother me at all if there was another planting network churches affiliate with like the J316. NAMB already plants Non-Calvinist churches. Therefore, I don’t understand your issue.
Furthermore, it appears these churches are affiliating with Acts 29 on their own. NAMB isn’t doing it, but the local church plants are voluntarily doing it.
Jared,
Excellent comment. You said this so well. Let’s see if we can develop a check-off sheet so the people who handle the finances in the church can make sure that money only goes to organizations that the giver agrees with. Now me, I can think of many reasons to separate from other Christians. The reasons are almost endless. Is it time for another Jerusalem Council?
Rick,
Would your proposal offer a situation in which funds could go to either Calvinist church plants or non-Calvinist church plants in general, or would it be more specific – funds to churches with no A29 affiliation versus funds to churches with A29 affiliation?
In other words, say there was a new church plant that adopted Calvinistic theology and yet did not affiliate with Acts 29? Where would their funding come from?
Well, that’s an excellent question, Chris. Frankly, when I started the article, I was trying to do all of this internally through NAMB. What I am hearing from so many is that this is unworkable, unwarranted, divisive, etc., even though it’s just the same thing A29 did from the outside.
Greg and others have convinced me that the only real approach that can offer churches a true A29 alternative would be an external “J316” Network. In this case, my answer to your question is that NAMB would sponsor all of these in a neutral fashion–A29, Calvinist but not A29, J316, Non-Calvinist but not J316, and whatever else. In this new approach, the thing that counterbalances A29’s exclusive Calvinism is J316’s exclusive Non-Calvinism. Churches could give to any of these organizations whatever they want without violating their consciences.
So who organizes this new network? And is its only reason for being to provide a counter or alternative to A29?
It’s reason for being is to spread the gospel to the nations, just like Acts 29. Secondarily, of course, you don’t have to be a Calvinist.
Well I suppose the good news is, this organization already exists, and we call it NAMB.
Joshua,
Down here…sorry, ran out of nesting room.
I do agree with you (SURPRISE!) that A29 churches are not any LESS Southern Baptist than other churches. Let’s face it…the SBC has a pretty large tent. Some of our churches are charismatic. Some are fundamentalist. Some have female pastors. Broad tent. All SBC.
Sponsoring churches make all kinds of decisions about what sort of church they will plant. A29 sponsors have chosen (or perhaps they were meant) to go with only Calvinist Pastors. In my current version of a solution, that would be just fine, because it would be counterbalanced by a yet-to-be-formed J316 Network that would choose to sponsor only Non-Calvinist Pastors. In this system, Non-Calvinist churches would be just as free to overload support for J316 as Calvinist churches are free today to overload support for A29. Either way, it offers churches more autonomy in directing their church planting dollars.
Rick,
I’m sure we agree on much, no surprise to me.
I want to press you on one statement. You said: “churches would be just as free to overload support for J316 as Calvinist churches are free today to overload support for A29.”
How are Calvinist churches “overloading” support for A29? Aren’t Calvinist churches in the SBC merely giving to the CP for the furthering of NAMB plants (which include both C and NC)?
It’s a question of proportion. Frankly, even a very small amount of financial support will qualify you as a Southern Baptist Church. So the possibility exists, and is probably true in some cases — and no, I don’t have names — that a sponsoring church could give a little bit to NAMB and a ton to an Acts 29 plant. That’s what I meant by overloading…the church that is really more about Acts 29 in its heart, passion, vision and giving, yet still gives just enough to NAMB to be considered SBC.
I’m not necessarily advocating that, just saying the structures allow for it.
Rick,
So because “the possibility exists, and is probably true in some cases” we need to split the NAMB budget?
I hate to say it, but this sounds like the very definition of a bogeyman.
No, I have rather come off of the initial NAMB splitting in favor of a J316 addition that will give the Non-Calvinist everything that the Calvinist is getting out of A29. It will have the same effect but be less confusing.
In other words, J316 would be the Non-Calvinist answer to Acts 29. NAMB would support churches affiliating with either one. Individual churches could designate their giving in a manner that honors their choices and convictions.
This is essentially the solution you credited Greg with around 51 and 52. I think it is an idea superior to my original post. Well done!
Rick,
lol I do not agree with Greg’s solution and I believe he made it in jest.
Where do you drawn the line? The slippery slope this creates is very real. Premillennial, Amillennial, moderationists, prohibitionists?
Why can’t the BF&M 2000 be our rallying point? I just don’t understand the absolute fear of Calvinist church plants.
Bigger question: is Calvinism such a repugnant issue to Arminians that we cannot cooperate for local and global missions? Are calvinists really so horrible that you cannot support a gospel-proclaiming, soul-winning Baptist church simply because they have a different view of God’s sovereignty in salvation? If so, then forget all of this two track funding nonsense. Plant your flag and call for a motion to water down the BFM even more and boot us all out.
John, most Baptists who reject Calvinism also reject the term Arminian as well.
But whatever the term, I think you hit on a legitimate point. If we continue to treat the other side on this issue as the enemy, we will end up split.
I hope that most Calvinists do not agree with the more extreme Calvinists, and that most non-Calivinists don’t support the more extreme anti-Calvinists.
I continue to hope we can find a way to work together.
I agree with Rick that we CAN work it out. HOW to do that is the rub, of course.
“most Baptists who reject Calvinism also reject the term Arminian as well.” Yes, I know but if you know the historical theology, you know they’re wrong 😉 Actually, there was a panel discussion at SBTS during the T4g conference that included a self-confessed Arminian. He helpfully distinguished between classical Arminian theology and Finneyism. I think many baptists would find themselves in the classical Arminian position and would want to admit that rather than the Finney position. (Here’s the link: http://www.sbts.edu/resources/conferences/t4g-2012/t4g-dinner-and-dialogue-2/)
I agree that we can work it out and we should. I think by looking to the first decades of our denomination, we’ll find an example for us to follow in regards to this issue, which isn’t a new one.
Dave,
Who are these “extreme” Calvinists? I want to make sure I am not one of them or agreeing with them.
I’ve met them in person and online. The promulgation of Calvinism is their primary passion and they look at those who are not Calvinists in a suspicious light.
I can only think of one blog, that I am aware of, that is dedicated solely to the promulgation of Calvinism.
The blogs and sites dedicated to the refutation and defamation of Calvinism…well…they are legion.
“most Baptists who reject Calvinism also reject the term Arminian as well.”
For what it’s worth, as someone who’s spent most of his Christian life outside of Southern Baptist churches, what I saw then of Baptist theology gave the impression that the Baptists were generally somewhere between Calvinists and Arminians. In a loose sense, Baptists were Arminians until you got saved, and Calvinists thereafter.
I get the impression, though, that among a lot of Baptists, the term Arminian means “doesn’t believe in ‘once saved, always saved'”, hence the rejection of the term, despite them likely actually being 4-point Arminians.
I think that is probably true, that security/perseverance is the issue that leads to people denying that they are Arminian.
“”I think that is probably true, that security/perseverance is the issue that leads to people denying that they are Arminian.””
Still being made up of 99% unadulterated Arminianism.
Let me suggest that you can add to security/perseverance… total depravity and prevenient grace (which includes irresistible grace). I believe Southern Baptists as a whole, believe God reveals Himself and is seeking to reconcile sinners unto Himself and through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, His grace is available to ALL who repent and believe in the finished work of Christ through faith. Southern Baptists have no real concept of the arminian tenets of HOW conversion takes place and although there are more today, most still have no real concept of the tenets of calvinism either… the ramifications of the DOG.
So, to say the SBC is calvinist or arminian is simply not true; the SBC is uniquely SB which has parallels that can correspond to the C/A arguments, but I maintain most are really neither. This is not to attempt to say that some are not calvinist… just to avoid that retort. That is not at all what I am even attempting to assert. Calvinists are and always have been part of the SBC. That does not mean however, that the SBC is either.
><>”
Bob,
Other than “perseverance of the saints,” how do you see non-Calvinists differing from the Free-Will Baptists?
Do not have an answer for you Joshua… I have no idea what Free-Will Baptists believe.
I asked you a question on another post which you may not have seen; you did not answer it. Do you consider Pelagianism heresy?
><>”
Bob,
You’ve never read Dr. Matthew Pinson’s work? SBCToday has recently promoted some of his writings. I would imagine you would find his writings much in line with your own beliefs.
Yes, I do believe Pelagianism to be heresy. Why do you ask?
Joshua,
No I have not read any of Pinson’s work.
With respect to my question, you make a comment on SBC Today on Eric Hankins’ blog post and then referenced it on your own blog site, where you said,
“According to many leaders and scholars within the SBC and out, they surmise that most of the SBC is semi-pelagian. If that is so, how much weight should be behind “what most Baptists believe and think is a good idea for others to believe?” The fact is, most churches need more building up in orthodox doctrine than fine-tuning.”
As I read this comment, given your last comment, I can only conclude that you agree with the “many leaders and scholars within the SBC and out” with respect to the issue of semi-pelagianism in the SBC… and since there is no difference in S-P and P where conversion is concerned, I am reading between the lines to hear you say that “most Southern Baptists” are heretic BECAUSE as you suggest in your inference, they are S-P.
Am I misreading your comments? I realize you did not make that connection in your post, but in putting what you said here with what you said there, that is how I am taking your position. Just curious…
><>”
“I do not think most Southern Baptists are “heretics.”
Would it be fair to assume then that you would lean toward believing most Southern Baptists “unknowingly being in error hold to an unorthodox or heretical doctrine”?
Would that be an accurate interpretation of your statement, “The fact is, most churches need more building up in orthodox doctrine than fine-tuning.”
><>”
Bob,
Sure, and so do others, as my blog post detailed.
So.. the gospel being preached by most Southern Baptists is heretical in nature.
><>”
I think perhaps you guys are talking past each other a little. Give each other a quick hug, and a kiss on the cheek (I don’t know – Bob’s got that beard that looks pretty scratchy) and play nice boys.
Seriously, I think that our issues a lot of times are not as much theology as communication.
Bob,
No, I wouldn’t agree with that.
Bob,
There is a distinction to be made between someone willfully holding to damnable heresy and someone unknowingly being in error and holding to an unorthodox or heretical doctrine.
I do not think most Southern Baptists are “heretics.”
I hope this doesn’t get parsed “10 ways to Sunday” but, well, we’ll see.
Obviously, there are wolves among the sheep, who teach “damnable heresies.” But most of us are just struggling to understand scripture as best we can.
Having incomplete and imperfect understanding of all the glories of God’s Word is not so much heresy as motivation to grow and learn and study and understand more.
Actually… I decided a couple weeks ago to shave… but that being said, I am still not kissin Joshua… but don’t take that personal~!!!
I was not trying to hijack the thread… I think it is about played out anyway…
When Joshua says, “The fact is, most churches need more building up in orthodox doctrine than fine-tuning.” it is clear that he (and MANY OTHERS) believe the doctrine of most Southern Baptist churches needs to be corrected… because as he has indicated, it is “unknowingly heretical.”
I find that assessment equally appalling. I do not think there is a failure to communicate at all. Seems to me the communication is crystal clear. That was my point.
I just wanted to see the comments in print.
><>”
Bob,
You can’t greet a brother with a holy kiss? 🙂 The rest of the world is far more secure in their masculinity than we Americans.
Anyways, even Pastor Harrell alluded to the poor doctrinal state of most SBC churches. If you are gonna be consistent Bob, make sure you are appalled at his statements as well.
A hug is all I am going to offer and be willing to receive!!!!! LOL
I have a distinct feeling your view of doctrinal difficiencies will differ significantly with that of Dr. Harrell.
Have a great evening and a great week.
>”
Joshua,
One more question… you wrote… that you believe Pelagianism to be heresy. You believe most Southern Baptists are S-P (so since S-P and P are the same where conversion is concerned) I asked if you believe most Southern Baptists are preaching heresy. You answered, “There is a distinction to be made between someone willfully holding to damnable heresy and someone unknowingly being in error and holding to an unorthodox or heretical doctrine.
I do not think most Southern Baptists are “heretics.”
If I am reading WHAT you said correctly, are you saying the distinguishing factor on who is and is not preaching heresy, whether they know what they are doing?
I mean if two guys are preaching the same message, in this case S-P as you suggest, and one KNOWS exactly what he is doing, he is preaching heresy but the other who preaches the same basic message does not know what he is doing and he is not preaching heresy?
I really am interested in what you are saying here… or mean.
><>”
John, you wrote:
“Bigger question: is Calvinism such a repugnant issue to Arminians that we cannot cooperate for local and global missions? Are calvinists really so horrible that you cannot support a gospel-proclaiming, soul-winning Baptist church simply because they have a different view of God’s sovereignty in salvation?”
If you asked this very same question to the Acts 29 Network (turning it around, of course) they would have to admit that yes, Non-Calvinism is such a repugnant issue to them that they will not support Non-Calvinist church planters and so on…according to the very logic of your question.
The ONLY thing J316 would do is to provide Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists the same kind of organizational outlet for their views that Calvinist Southern Baptists ALREADY ENJOY through Acts 29.
PLEASE remember who started their soteriologically exclusive church planting network first. If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. If the Calvinists can have a private network, so can the Non-Calvinists.
Rick,
If NAMB isn’t the one affiliating with ACTS 29, but the local church plants voluntarily are, then how could NAMB enforce your church’s designated giving? Would church plants have to submit to the BF&M 2000, and only certain planting networks in order to receive your church’s money from NAMB? Or, could these church plants only have the BF&M 2000 as their confession of faith in order to receive your church’s money from NAMB?
Jared,
Sorry this is so confusing, but I’m no longer defending my original post. Around 51-52 Greg and Joshua talked me into a much cleaner approach, namely the creation of a separate church planting network just as exclusive as Acts 29 soteriologically but in the other direction.
Thus, NAMB could sit back and neutrally support all BFM compatible church plants. They could also partner with any networks they choose. If my church desires to funnel more church planting resources in a Non-
Calvinist direction, we would not have to instruct NAMB at all. We would just give more to J316 and less to NAMB, even as some A29 churches do the same right now. Over time, the giving preferences of the churches would work their way out through the funding channels selected.
Rick,
I talked you into it?! Wow, I guess I am persuasive even when I am not persuading. 😉
Technically, Greg made the suggestion, and Joshua seconded it by calling him a “problem solver.” I looked at it and, all things considered, it appears to be a cleaner way of counterbalancing A29.
Joshua may not have been trying to persuade me, but Greg’s suggestion, and Joshua’s affirmation of it, made more sense to me than my original proposal.
BTW: I’m not necessarily pro-Acts 29; I’m just not against them. Regardless where we designate our monies, I think we’ll disagree with some things. I don’t think we should limit NAMB as if from a distance with limited knowledge, we can do a better job determining where money should go. I guarantee you some NAMB church plants are using methodology that I abhor, and my church abhors, but I would still cooperate with such churches. Why wouldn’t I help a Southern Baptist church that preaches the gospel?
I want to find out something, and I’m not sure anyone one this thread has evidenced knowledge of this.
I’m no fan or enemy of Acts 29. I probably don’t have enough of their convictions to partner with them. On the other hand, I have no big deal with an SBC church being part of the network.
But here’s my question. Exactly how extensive is the NAMB-Acts 29 conflation? Are there a lot of churches that are relating to both? Is this a big issue or a little issue?
Acts 29 has become something of a negative rallying point, but is it a real issue or a bogeyman?
I’m just not sure at this point. I’d love to get some factual info.
Dave,
Acts 29 is no “bogeyman”. Matt Chandler is now the President of Acts 29 but Mark Driscoll is still sitting on the BoD. Thus, there is no clear separation. Act 29 still has the requirement of a specific soteriology. Mat Chandler is sitting on the Gospel Project, so there is a clear connection to the SS material being produced. NAMB has featured Acts 29 churches as receiving funds from AAEO. William Thornton has suggested that is no longer but I haven’t done the research to be sure.
Now, the comment thread ended above as you and I were discussing the Local Association being the clearing house. You are looking at it from a different position as I am, according to what I understood of your comment. I am not speaking about the local association being the receiving point of the distribution from NAMB. I am speaking of the Local Association being the distributing point of money coming from the churches and going out. I would call for a new definition of CP funds as the current definition clearly points to the funds coming through the state conventions being the clearing house for the funds.
Thus, the funds would be distributed to the SBC and the State Conventions through the local association. That way the churches would make the decisions from that point instead of the local association being the red-headed step-child of the convention.
Okay, if I’m understanding you, then the money that currently goes to CP for Church planting would just be sent to your local association? Am I getting it right?
Look, I think its clear that what we have been doing has not exactly been a sterling success, so looking at options isn’t bad.
As an Iowa Baptist, (and assuming I’m getting your strategy) I’m wondering how church planting outside the big states would work. Our annual associational budget (minus NAMB funding) is probably less than your salary.
So, my initial question is how funding would work outside the South.
Tim and Dave,
Perhaps some form of a hybrid system could be considered where giving to both the local association and the C.P. Could be acceptable ways to support church planting.
If a one size fits all is truly not working for all southern baptist then perhaps we need to look at providing more options…. Kind of like “great commission giving”? I forget, did GCG include money given to the local association?
I think a national system is likely to continue to be our way.
I believe this [current funding] is the only viable way of cooperating as Southern Baptists for the spread of the gospel through church planting.
Splitting the NAMB CP funds will, IMO, lead to a split, convention wide.
Dave and Josh,
I think you are probably right…
The more I think about this it appears to me that what Rick is saying is that he and other Anti-Calvinist are absolutely unwilling to cooperate with Calvinist within the SBC. I really do not think this anti-cooperative spirit is going to appeal to vary many in the SBC.
Dave, Joshua, and Greg,
I have long stated that I’m in the Non-Calvinist camp but have also been a proponent of cooperation between the two camps. Having said that though, I do believe that churches should be able to designate their giving. As a matter of fact I know of several SBC churches that do that on their own by giving a nominal amount to the CP and then supporting mission works directly. If there was a designated giving provision in the CP I actually believe it might increase CP giving.
Also, Joshua, you speak of a split in the SBC if a designated funds option were offered in the CP. But my question would be to you do you honestly believe that a church should be forced to support mission works that they have a major theological disagreement with? This harkens back to the days before the CR when conservative churches were having their dollars used to support an agenda that they most certainly did not espouse. (Discaimer, I’m not equating Calvinsts with liberals, I respect you guys a great deal.) Just something to think about.
John,
You asked: “do you honestly believe that a church should be forced to support mission works that they have a major theological disagreement with? This harkens back to the days before the CR when conservative churches were having their dollars used to support an agenda that they most certainly did not espouse.”
That’s a good question. If we as Southern Baptists cannot cooperate together under the BF&M 2000 for the spread of the gospel through missions and church planting, then in what sense are we Southern Baptists? We are only Southern Baptists insofar as we cooperate to carry out our mission. If there is such a soteriological divide within the SBC that churches will not cooperate with each other by combining funds then the SBC is no longer functional or united.
Also, the issue with the conservatives disagreeing with the liberals over theological matters was because the liberals had abandoned the BF&M. This is a sharp contrast with the current issue, which shouldn’t even be an issue, as both sides affirm the BF&M. If we cannot all be united under the BF&M, though we may differ beyond what the BF&M says, then I am not sure how the SBC will continue to function and carry out its task.
I believe most Southern Baptists want to continue to cooperate under the BF&M 2000 and continue to plant churches through NAMB even if the churches being planted aren’t exactly the same as their home church.
A29 claims about 400 chuches nationwide and many of these are not Baptist, so the numbers are fairly small. I’d bet that if you emailed NAMB and asked, they would answer. It may be that they don’t keep those figures and that A29 isn’t part of their screening process any more than Awana or the Gideons are.
I’m hoping before this topic is exhausted that someone will come up with one real church that is NAMB funded, ACTS29 connected, and does not conform to the BFM.
Why? I don’t see where that matters. Presumably, in the future, there will not be one real church that is NAMB funded, J316 connected, and does not conform to the BFM either.
J316 and A29 would simply be mirror organizations of each other–each planting soteriologically exclusive churches and partnering with a soteriologically neutral NAMB.
I think it is the most graceful and symmetrical way to solve the problem by giving both sides a mechanism to be soteriologically exclusive in church planting, whereas now, only A29 provides such a mechanism.
Rick: Let me ask you specifically: Are you opposed to your CP dollars going to plant a church that is also supported by A29, or are you opposed to your CP dollars going to any church planted by a Calvinist?
Bill Mac,
I don’t really feel great about either one. If we were sponsoring the church plant all by ourselves, a Calvinist Pastor would not be chosen. Yet, it is fair to conclude that we are more concerned about A29 than we are about other Calvinists generally.
My primary opposition is to the lack of a funding channel ALLOWING my church to designate around Calvinism in the same way that the A29-SBC church is currently able to designate around Non-Calvinism.
I want Non-Calvinists to enjoy the same freedom of soteriological exclusivity as the Calvinists.
As to exactly how the church I serve would divy up the CP dollars, it is difficult for me to say, but we would probably give little to A29 plants and much to J316 plants.
Such a solution would empower us to give our church planting dollars with the clear conscience that comes from knowing we are supporting that which we truly believe and embrace in its entirety.
Rick,
I think you are leaving out an important point in this discussion… Not to long ago Calvinist were being denied any church planting support by their local associations, state conventions, and NAMB.
It is my understanding that we have made some progress in some areas around the SBC, but there are still some dark corners of the SBC where Calvinism is still considered anathema and where Calvinist Churches, Church Planters, Pastors, and Denominational Employees are still discriminated against.
Regardless of this, it was because of this discrimination against Calvinist Church planters that a relative few turned to Acts29 for help. The same cannot be said of Non-Calvinist Church Planters… No one in the SBC has, or is currently, discriminating against them because they are Non-Calvinist. Do you know of any?
Apart from the general Acts 29 inequitable de facto partnership I have labored to describe, no, I don’t know of any specific discrimination cases.
Moving forward, assuming a neutral NAMB, a pro-Calvinist A29 and a Non-Calvinist J316, I believe the pieces are in place for everyone to support what they wish to support–and only what they wish to support.
Rick,
If we should split our CP giving over soteriological issues then why not split the entire convention over these issues? I want to know your view on this.
People keep talking about splitting the convention. Whatever! I have no idea why they say that. We have 9 Marks. We have Founders. We have A29. The presence of a J316 would not split the convention any more than other groups of like-minded Southern Baptists. What’s wrong with Non-Calvinists having a little fun and forming a group they can identify with JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?
Rick Patrick:
Founders and 9 Marks are not convention-level, and despite your claims of NAMB being affiliated with them, Acts 29 is not SBC at all. There is nothing preventing you or anyone else in the SBC starting something analogous to Founders and 9 Marks, or your supporting some non-SBC entity that serves as a counterpart to Acts 29. The issue is your wanting a convention-level device that would allow you to avoid financially supporting Calvinist church plants.
To put it another way, the existence of Founders, 9 Marks and Acts 29 does no harm to anyone on the SBC. By contrast, your idea would significantly harm plenty in the SBC. Founders, 9 Marks and Acts 29 are able to have their “fun” without hurting anybody, and you should be able to do the same.
Job,
In order for Rick to move forward in creating a Anti-Calvinist affenity group for church planting, with any hope os success, he is going to have to identify what it is exactly that they believe.
Unless someone is a full-blown Anti-Calvinist I do not believe they are going to leave off giving to the CP in order to support a group that was formed by Southern Baptist (not Mark Driscoll) for the express purpose of excluding a segment of our Southern Baptist Family. That move will be seen as Anti-Cooperative and intentionally divisive by all except the Anti-Calvinist in the convention (including many Non-Calvinist) and as such I expect it will receive a less than warm response.
If there truly was a non-SBC affiliated non-Calvinist church planting network. And if SBC church planters could receive additional help from them besides what they receive from NAMB, who on earth cares? If the life of a gospel preaching church planter could be made easier by extra funding, why would I care if the network had non-Calvinist distinctives? Would anyone here object to it? For what possible reason? None that I can think of.
I’m a Calvinist. I don’t have a particular problem with A29, and I don’t have a problem with a church plant receiving funds from NAMB and A29. But I don’t support A29 in any way. I am a Christian first and Baptist second. Being a Calvinist is third or further down than that. To withhold my CP monies from NAMB because they might jointly plant churches with this theoretical non-Calvinist network would be petty and foolish.
(Disclaimer: I have no connection with A29, and would not consider myself a Calvinist) Interestingly, a brief search led me to the A29 website, and another brief search revealed an interesting aspect of that network. Acts 29 does not apparently fund any church starts. Their stated methodology is to link churches interested in supporting church starts with those who are interested in leading church starts. It is churches who fund the new works. Granted, they do work to link like-minded partners.
In other words, the “equalization” concerns being discussed with respect to “compatible” church planting efforts could be much more simply addressed than with all the organizational, agency-related, CP giving ideas being thrown about. To “balance” out the A29 effect, all that is needed is for the non-Calvinistic churches to fund new works with like-minded partners (church planters and other funding churches). Some would argue (and in fact have argued elsewhere in this blog) that this is the truer model of church planting anyway.
/worth every bit of the $.02 I imagine it to be worth
Fine, then the J316 could function just like A29 in the role of setting up and identifying plants and sponsors, training, resources, conferences and the like.
The flow chart for the money does not have to be centralized for the concept to work. And the concept is a Non-Calvinist A29.
So start one. No one here will object.
Bill Mac,
What do you mean “no one here will object”? With all due respect, have you read the comments? There are some on here who have proposed that Rick’s idea is the end of the SBC as we know it.
A notion, by the way, that I consider absurd in light of this reality: J316 would ONLY be doing what A29 did FIRST, namely, create a soteriologically exclusive church planting network to co-sponsor new churches with NAMB.
If you serve to me in tennis and I hit the ball back, I am not starting the point. If you hit me with your bumper car at the fair and I hit you back, I am not the one starting the conflict.
John: I think that comment was directed towards Rick’s first proposal. My “start one” comment was for Rick to start a non-SBC affiliated church planting network with non-Calvinist distinctives. Why would anyone object to that?
Rick,
You are conflating the starting of a non-Calvinist church planting network with instituting a divided CP giving through NAMB. These are two different issues.
I am all for the J316 planting network. I am very much against having splitting the CP giving by soteriological preference.
Here’s what I still don’t get, what’s wrong with a church being able to designate all its giving to the CP? I actually think that is a better system than the EC designating funds to things that a church doesn’t want to support. For me this goes far beyond just the Non-Calvinist/Calvinist divide but every area of the bureaucrasy of the SBC.
BTW I would like to clarify that I personally have no problem with supporting a Calvinist church plant even though I lean the other way. I just really believe that every church should be able to designate its giving. In the long run it would actually mean more CP giving IMO.
When Baptists start to see the CP as an asset to be fought over and not as a common cause, the end is near.
Are we not way, way, way past that stage?
A29-SBC Baptists saw the CP as an asset years ago. GCR proponents saw CP percentages as an asset years ago. Please do not act like the possible formation of a Non-Calvinist SBC Church Planting Network would be the “start” of a process leading to the gloom and doom prediction that “the end is near.”
This hypothetical J316 is simply a Non-Calvinist answer to A29. It would be fair to view the J316 formation as a “reaction” to the soteriological exclusivity of A29, but not as the “action” which sparked the end. I don’t think it would spell the end, but if it did, you would have to lay that at the feet of A29 and not J316.
Again, J316 would not be doing ANYTHING that A29 did not do first.
Yes it would. J316 would be an SBC entity. Acts 29 is not an SBC entity, and your claims that NAMB is partnering with Acts 29 does not make it so.
“Churches would be free to designate however they wish the portion of their CP funds to be allocated toward church planting.”
That is also something that A29 did not do first, and it is a big one. Right now, any money that an Acts 29 church gives to the SBC supports non-Calvinist church plants. Your idea would allow non-Calvinist churches to avoid sponsoring Calvinist SBC church plants entirely, and do so with a convention-level mechanism provided to facilitate exactly that.
See comment 134 below. I repeat, my hypothetical J316 would have to be structured “outside the convention” just like A29. Sorry for changing horses midstream, but Joshua and Greg were right at 51-52.
And by the way, just like A29, any money a J316 church gave through the CP would also support the opposing soteriology.
All this would do is to provide a soteriologically exclusive funding channel in the opposite direction of A29’s current one.
Rick,
Why are you blaming A29 for this? They are not affiliated with the SBC. They are a non-denominational reformed church planting network. Perhaps you could blame NAMB (if there really is anyone to be blamed) for supporting dually aligned church plants. But I don’t know how many church planting networks there are out there, but I would be very surprised if they didn’t have doctrinal distinctives.
I’m not blaming A29. I’m blaming an “inequitable system” that only allows Calvinist SBs to plant in a soteriologically exclusive manner, but does not allow Non-Calvinist SBs to do so.
It’s not that people are unfair, or uncooperative or mean-spirited or anything. The system itself is unbalanced without a Non-Calvinist counterpart to A29.
The creation of a J316 would balance the equation and solve the problem. We CAN work it out!
Rick Patrick:
How does this achieve “working it out”? The concept “work it out” requires compromise, and compromise means both sides sacrifice some so that both can reap a benefit that exceeds the cost of the sacrifice. But in this scenario, your position gets everything that it seeks while suffering no sacrifice whatsoever. Meanwhile, the Calvinist church planters – whether they are Acts 29 affiliated or not – receive significant financial harm while receiving no benefit whatsoever in return. That is not “working it out.” That is “getting everything that I want at the expense of the other guy.” Selling a proposal that will produce only harm and no good for the Calvinist church planters as “seek a reasonable approach for moving forward together” is simply false. It is reasonable for you but for the Calvinist church planters not so much.
It is a particularly bad deal for the Calvinist church plants that are not affiliated with Acts 29. They would suffer significant financial harm despite doing nothing to merit it, and would be punished solely because of their soteriology. How is that “moving forward together”? Did you bother to investigate what percentage of Calvinist SBC church plants are Acts 29 affiliated and what percentage isn’t before proposing this idea? What if 80% of the Calvinist SBC church plants have nothing to do with Acts 29? Is using an argument that applies only to the 20% that are to justify financially punishing them “moving forward together”?
You cannot “resolve a conflict” entirely on your terms, because that takes the position that the other side has no legitimate interests.
I agree that it ONLY solves the problem of a Non-Calvinist church that wishes to donate in a soteriologically exclusive fashion, just like the Calvinist church today is able to donate in a soteriologically exclusive fashion through A29.
I agree it does NOT solve the problem of the Calvinist church planter who wishes to use CP dollars from Non-Calvinist churches against their will who would truly prefer to donate in the same soteriologically exclusive fashion as A29 does right now.
Solving the first problem may indeed create the second one. I guess we can agree to disagree about which problem is most important, but I think donors should have control over what they support financially. That is one matter, apparently, upon which the leadership of A29 and I are in complete agreement.
Follow the simple logic of fairness: “If A29 is right to plant churches that are ONLY Calvinist, then J316 is also right to plant churches that are ONLY Non-Calvinist.”
Rick, as many people have stated above, the solution would be to start an Acts 29 counterpart that, like Acts 29, is not part of the SBC. That would give you everything that you claim Acts 29 gives Calvinists church planters. The fact that you aren’t interested in such a solution clearly illustrates that you are not interested in “working it out” but instead only care about what you want.
And you also totally ignored the fact that Calvinist church plants who have nothing to do with Acts 29 and who do contribute heavily to the CP would be the ones most harmed by your idea through no fault of their own. The truth is that you don’t want to contribute to non-Acts 29 Calvinist church plants either. Do you? But here is the deal. Once you admit that you no more want to support non-Acts 29 Calvinist church plants than you do Acts 29 Calvinist church plants, then the Acts 29 angle of your argument disappears. Acts 29 becomes irrelevant, and the only issue becomes your not wanting a dime of your money to support a Calvinist church plant.
That’s why you didn’t deal with the Calvinist church plants that are not affiliated with the SBC, and it is also why you don’t consider a true non-Calvinist counterpart to Acts 29, one that operates independently of the SBC and plants non-SBC churches as well as SBC ones, to be the solution.
You are only using Acts 29 as a device to justify your position that you shouldn’t have to financially support your SBC brethren if you don’t want to, and that you should be free to pick and choose which SBC brethren you get to support based entirely on your own criteria, and that is 100% apparent.
Job,
“The issue is your wanting a convention-level device that would allow you to avoid financially supporting Calvinist church plants.”
Sorry for the confusion. I have had a change of heart from my original post. (See Greg and Joshua around 51-52.) I now prefer an outside the SBC group just like A29 and clearly not a “convention-level device.”
“There is nothing preventing you or anyone else in the SBC starting something analogous to Founders and 9 Marks, or your supporting some non-SBC entity that serves as a counterpart to Acts 29.”
I agree. That is what I am now proposing.
“To put it another way, the existence of Founders, 9 Marks and Acts 29 does no harm to anyone on the SBC.”
The Non-Calvinist SBC church planter might disagree, claiming that A29 discriminates against them and promotes soteriologically exclusive church plants for which they are ineligible doctrinally. Perhaps other groups of Baptists feel that these groups harm them by narrowing the vision of the convention, revising the history somewhat, or just creating division.
This whole “end of the world” discussion is simply amazing to me. When a Calvinist Group organizes, everyone here is fine with that. But when we even talk hypothetically about the organization of a Non-Calvinist group, the sky is falling and the Mayans were right after all.
Rick Patrick:
“The Non-Calvinist SBC church planter might disagree, claiming that A29 discriminates against them and promotes soteriologically exclusive church plants for which they are ineligible doctrinally.”
As Acts 29 is not an SBC entity, then they have the right to discriminate. Methodist and Pentecostal church planting groups also discriminate against non-Calvinist SBC church planters despite generally agreeing with their soteriology. If your position is that some SBCers benefit from A29 while others do not, then I would submit that Oklahoma Southern Baptists do not benefit from funds designated for Missouri Southern Baptists by the Missouri state convention either. So, discrimination by geography is fine, but by soteriology is not?
“This whole “end of the world” discussion is simply amazing to me. When a Calvinist Group organizes, everyone here is fine with that. But when we even talk hypothetically about the organization of a Non-Calvinist group, the sky is falling and the Mayans were right after all.”
Wrong. After all, wasn’t it Calvinists who suggested “why not just start your own version of Acts 29”? The issue is not a non-Calvinist counterpart to Acts 29. The issue is “churches would be free to designate however they wish the portion of their CP funds to be allocated toward church planting.” Has that stance been abandoned also? Unless it has, then my point remains the same: it is not “working it out” but instead one side benefiting greatly at the expense of the other.
“Working it out” means starting your Acts 29 counterpart (and your 9 Marks and Founders counterparts and what have you) and leaving everything else be. Otherwise, you are harming the other side, benefiting your own side and calling it a compromise.
Yes, that stance has been abandoned also. It would be unnecessary to designate percentages of CP if a J316 existed to receive Non-Calvinist funding just like A29 exists to receive Calvinist funding.
And yes, “working it out” would mean starting the Acts 29 counterpart and then letting autonomous churches do what they feel led to do, just as they do right now through A29. The chips will fall where they may, but they will fall in a manner that honors the preferences of both Calvinist and Non-Calvinist donors.
The only way I know how to say this, guys, is like this: “It would be totally exactly like A29 only for Non-Calvinists. It MUST be fair, by definition, if you believe A29 is fair.”
Joshua,
Please forgive my conflation. Clarity went south when I agreed with you, which must have created some type of disruptive vortex in the universe.
Let me try again. Slowly. I am with you on the idea of starting a J316. If that happens, there is no longer any need to split CP into two giving options, so we can drop that part of it like a bad habit.
Great news! The split in the vortex is now hemmed for the time being. 😉
Now let’s go get Brad Whitt and Eric Hankins to start this J316 planting network.
j316
NC churches taking a page out of the Calvinist church planters playbook.
Love it!
Seeing as Acts29 leaders have routinely said that a SBC/Acts29 church that gives to the CP, meets its covenant requirement to give to church planting/missions goals; this entire argument is silly, irrelevant, if not an outright spreading of lies. Yes Acts 29 churches are directed to give primarily to other Acts29 church plants. But there is also this pesky little line that all you “haters” seem to forget…”and take into consideration any denominational agreements and affiliations”. Men like Scott Thomas, and Darrin Patrick have routinely pointed out that Acts29 is ok with SBC/Acts29 churches giving to the CP as part of their 10% agreement. Most SBC/Acts29 churches I have heard of routinely give something like 5%/5% in that they give some money to exclusive Acts29 plants, and some money to the CP, all equaling the covenant required 10%. The myth that an Acts29 church can ONLY give money to “reformed” plants is wrong. It has been proven wrong over and over again. Only those with ulterior motives refuse to listen to these facts.
This is a good point. In reality, A29 churches would actually help plant J316 churches through the CP. ::GASP::
And vice verse, of course.
Whoa there, we’ll take these one by one:
“Seeing as Acts29 leaders have routinely said that a SBC/Acts29 church that gives to the CP, meets its covenant requirement to give to church planting/missions goals; this entire argument is silly, irrelevant, if not an outright spreading of lies.”
Uh, no, it’s not, because someday J316 leaders will point out that their churches ALSO give through the CP and meet their covenant requirements in the very same way. Think of it this way: If you are SBC and Calvinist, you can get both A29 support and NAMB support, but if you are SBC and Non-Calvinist, you can only get NAMB support, since no A29 counterpart exists.
How is it spreading lies to create a Non-Calvinist Church Planting Network in the very same mold as the existing Calvinist Church Planting Network, with the only real difference being soteriology? I thought imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.
“Men like Scott Thomas, and Darrin Patrick have routinely pointed out that Acts29 is ok with SBC/Acts29 churches giving to the CP as part of their 10% agreement.”
I’m glad to know that Scott and Darrin at A29 are fine with autonomous churches giving wherever they want. Of course they are. Likewise, I’m sure that “Chip” and “Todd” at J316 will feel the very same way. All this does is balance the organizational equation so that each side has its own planting network. This gives churches the freedom to direct their gifts toward either approach, but only if they so choose.
“The myth that an Acts29 church can ONLY give money to “reformed” plants is wrong.”
Also wrong would be the myth that J316 churches would no longer be supporting reformed plants since their CP dollars would be forwarded by the soteriologically neutral NAMB toward both kinds of churches.
Smuschany, I assure you there is no “hating” going on here. Presently, a Southern Baptist has to be a Calvinist to belong to A29, but there is no outside church planting network for which one has to be a Non-Calvinist.
The creation of a J316 would simply provide that. Without any hating or anger or charges or whatever, Non-Calvinists would have their own outside network for starting churches that could co-sponsor them with NAMB just like A29 does for the Calvinist.
[Comment edit by moderator]
But let me clarify somethign for you. Any “non-calvinist” church can start doing what Acts29 does. All they have to do is start giving money directly to a church plant!! TADA!! You see, Acts29 churches do not give money into a pot, and then that pot gets distributed to all the plants. Rather Acts29 churches give money directly to other churches in need of support! SBC/Acts29 churches dont give money into a pot that will go to PCA church plants, they give money to other SBC church plants! Acts29’s structure is not like the CP. There is no formula that directs percentages of monies to different groups. It is directly to a single (or in the cases of a well established church multiple) church(es) in need.
Any non-calvinist SBC church can do the very same thing. MANY ALREADY DO! That is, if there is a church in your association, that is being planted, and you want to support them…GIVE THEM MONEY DIRECTLY! What Acts29 is, is a NETWORKING group, thus allowing churches in one part of the country to learn about other churches being planted, that they otherwise would never hear about. The only difference from YOUR church not doing the same thing, is that Acts29 has been doing it for several years and has a LARGE GROUP!
But to use a “formula” or a “two tier system” or whatever you want to call it, with the CP and NAMB funding, is not godly, not wise, not unifying. It is tantamount to a toddler screaming and pounding on the floor that they did not get what they want. NAMB/CP funds go to plant SBC churches…Period. That should never change. Affiliation with a networking group should not change that. EVER. But trying to drive a wedge into the convention like this…Well I remember Jesus saying something like “a house divided will fall”. Rick, your idea here is a wedge that will divide this convention. The fact you cant see that is sad…and dangerous.
If you wish me to remove the whole comment, I will. But we are not going to engage in name-calling. Your post made legitimate points, so I didn’t delete it, but please make your points without resorting to calling people names, okay?
While I consider myself relatively happy and safe, I may indeed be sad and dangerous, but I suspect I am only being misunderstood, which is partly my fault for being flexible enough to actually agree with Greg and Joshua. See what happens when you agree with Calvinists? 🙂
To be clear, I am no longer talking about the CP and NAMB funding options. I am only talking about giving NC churches the option of J316 gifts — DIRECTLY TO CHURCHES NETWORKED BY J316 AND NOT IN A COMMON POT — the same way that Calvinist churches have that option already through A29.
I don’t know how many more ways I can say it. If an A29 is morally fine for Calvinist Southern Baptists, then a J316 is morally fine for Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. Leave NAMB neutral to support church plants co-sponsored by either network.
I never imagined this response. Some of the very same people who passionately defend the right of a Calvinist church planting network to exist are charging me with a sad and dangerous outlook that will spell the end of the Southern Baptist Convention for merely proposing the hypothetical existence of a Non-Calvinist church planting network!
So what would you say to a SBC/J316 church that forgoes giving to the CP/NAMB and gives exclusively to J316 churhes? Because no SBC/Acts29 church that I know of has a CP percentage of 0. Here in Missouri the SBC/Acts29 churches left the convention rather because they did not want any monies going to the MBC as the MBC just defunded them, leaving most of the churches in a very bad financial spot. (IE these churches were using MBC monies to pay the pastors so the church could use more of its offerings for missions). Your “modified” giving plan seems to indicate you are ok with churches not giving to the CP, or designation their CP gifts not to be given to the NAMB, and rather give to J316 churches. As SBC/Acts29 churches dont do this, why is it right for J316 churches to do so?
Both A29 and J316 churches should be free to direct their giving as they choose. My hope would be for them to support both their church planting network and their CP gifts as strongly as possible.
So if a J316 church did not give any money to the SBC/CP, and only exclusively to other J316 churches would you allow them to continue to be called SBC churches? Because I know of no SBC/Acts29 church that does not give at least something to the SBC/CP. Why do I know that? Because everyone here has to admit that if there was such a church, the anti-Acts29 crowd in the SBC, using local and state records, would jump all over that as proof of why such a church should not be allowed.
I just saw and edited the first line. Had I noticed the last line, I would have edited that too. We don’t have to call people sad and dangerous to make a point.
I sound like a school marm from Little House on the Prairie.
“I sound like a school marm from Little House on the Prairie.”
Man, you are sad…and dangerous.
Rick,
If this J316 Network is actually going to get off the ground someone is going to (finally) have to define what a non-Calvinist believes… It would be almost be worth it to me to get this definition in writing.
How about giving us your definition of what doctrinal beliefs are required fo one to be considered a non-calvinist and for a church planter, or a Church to join this network.
Also seeing as Acts29 is non denominational network, I assume that the J316 network would be also?
I agree that one benefit of the other network (which is of course unnamed at the present time–J316 is just the working title) would be that greater doctrinal clarity would come to the SBC in general. We can all agree that this would be a good thing.
Rather than me defining those doctrinal parameters right now, why don’t we wait and see what develops? If such a group were to form, it would surely include scholars more highly qualified than I am to develop the verbiage defining the organization’s doctrinal parameters.
As you know, my assumption when I wrote the piece was that the organization would be WITHIN the SBC. Along the way, I grew to appreciate the advantages of an OUTSIDE organizational structure. Frankly, it matches a bit better with A29 and offers more autonomy. I suppose that is one of the major questions such a group would have to decide.
Rick,
I don’t agree that we are past common cause and just fighting over the assets of the CP. I don’t think that’s true of most southern baptists but I am truly sorry that it’s true for you.
It seems that calvinism, and it’s alternative that we cannot name, for some eclipses all else.
Carter,
Don’t feel truly sorry for me, because the thing you said you feel sorry about is not true for me at all.
I do not at all believe that we are past common cause, as you say.
It is true that I do believe, however, that some people have been
fighting over the assets of the CP, wanting a bigger piece of the pie for their ministry. I suspect that has been going on for years.
The debate over Calvinism and Non-Calvinism (for lack of a better name) may eclipse all else in the minds of some, but thankfully that is certainly not true about me.
I’m just trying to give Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists the same access as Calvinist ones to their very own church planting network. I think that’s fair and noble and certainly no less cooperative than the SBC-A29 church planting process.
I believe you have read into my proposals the worst of motives, when really I am only seeking fairness and balance.
Here’s the thing Rick, I think in the end the J316 idea would actually result in less giving to the CP. Because there is such a back lash against Calvinism in the SBC right now if certain movers and shakers in the Convention got behind this it would result in a defacto defunding of the NAMB. This is because Calvinism is the minority position in the SBC.
Did A29 result in less giving through the CP? If yes, then perhaps your point is two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m not sure they do, either. I began this post trying to keep it all in NAMB and give people options. That seemed too offensive and clumsy, so the outside organization idea rose to the top.
Ultimately, I do not know the impact of giving autonomous Non-Calvinist churches the same options as autonomous Calvinist ones to support their own church planting network. But I think it is only fair that if one side has one, the other side has one too.
It almost sounds like you are proposing an affirmative-action style Church planting network. Those guys already have theirs, so they should help us get ours up and running because we are the minority. Rick, if you want to have a non-Calvinist Church planting movement, then start one. Why would you even need these proposals to do so. Certainly the Calvinists didn’t need NAMB or anyone else to help them establish theirs. So go out and do it and then there will be options. The problem of course is what I’ve (and Joshua has) written below – so far there is no movement of non-Calvinists – except to be against Calvinism. You can’t make a Church planting movement out of being against others.
Would J316 require that all church plants be SBC? If so, then is this not then a competition against NAMB? Further, if there is such a requirement, then how is that no different then Acts29 requiring churches be reformed?
I guess you are going to have to also create a second network too…Or do you have anything negative to say about PLNTD? After all their “Network Confessional Consensus” is a modified “Abstract of Principles”…You know that evil reformed baptist confession!
My point is if you are upset with monies going to Acts29 and not PLNTD then that says you have something specifically against Acts29 (ie Driscoll) and not reformed planting networks.
I am not upset that autonomous churches give monies either to Acts29 or to PLNTD. They may do as they wish. So may I.
I am upset that autonomous churches do not currently have the option of giving to any exclusively Non-Calvinist church planting network.
Maybe one day they will. The world will be a better place, and more churches will be started for the glory of God.
Rick,
Isn’t this indicative of a movement that has no “movement?”
The Calvinists are selling millions of books, drawing thousands to each conference, and planting the majority of churches through NAMB.
I am still bewildered how this is a negative for the SBC.
Joshua,
Congratulations! If a Calvinist movement can do all of that, just imagine how exciting a Non-Calvinist movement can be!
We’re sad and dangerous, baby! And we have guys who were not even nerds in high school! 🙂
lol
Rick,
I don’t think it works that way. The Calvinist movement didn’t just happen, nor was it even planned. It was the result of various causes that brought about organic development to arrive at the point at which we find ourselves today. I don’t think it just works to say, “Hey, we need a non-Calvinist Church planting movement” and it just happens.
I’ve been thinking for the last few weeks about how the Reformed movement developed. Despite a lot of conspiracy theories and crazy ideas, it was completely organic. I don’t think it could be duplicated, even if we tried. And the leaders of this movement didn’t decide to lead the movement – they were raised up by their circumstances. Take Piper for example – he really didn’t do anything on his own that was that special – at least no more special than a Chip Ingram or a Ravi Zacharias. So why did his influence just blow up?
I think it was a combination of factors. Obviously, I first and foremost believe it was the Holy Spirit working through him in amazing ways. Secondly, he was given a unlikely platform at Passion Conference while simultaneously writing books like Desiring God and Pleasures of God. His preaching, his writing (especially those books), and his general demeanor don’t naturally appeal to college students or young adults, so it’s amazing that he was ever as influential as he has become.
Then simultaneously a thousand other things were going on that just easily assimilated with Piper’s new found influential platform. And then the Church planting movements sprang up some 15 years after that first Passion conference. So what you are proposing about a non-Calvinist movement won’t just happen overnight. Reformed Church planting certainly didn’t – and unless I’m mistaken, there’s only a reaction against Calvinism right now and no real positive movement forward. After all, right now you guys are only know for being against Calvinism – and not for anything.
For all the talk that some anti-calvinists have, regarding Calvinism not being evangelistic, it does boggle the mind that it is the calvinists who are out planting churches, and drawing in large numbers of people to those churches. Meanwhile the non-calvinist groups in the SBC are getting older and older. Could it be that the reason why there are so few non-calvinist churches being planted, is not because they dont have the support, but rather there is no need/desire for such churches? The reformed crowd (especially in the SBC) are often labeled “young”, and there is no doubt that the SBC is loosing more “young” people than it is gaining. Many of these young people are not “lost” in the spiritual sense, but are gravitating towards churches that meet their needs. These tend to be churches that are often Acts29 related or very similar. In large metro areas, these are the churches being planted. How do the non-calvinists plan on reaching this group? The Gen X and younger crowd. The crowd that does not believe in suit and tie to church, that believes drums and electric guitar are ok for worship, who prefer Getty-Townend to Watts-Lowry, ect. I do not mean to imply that all non-calvinist folk are all old fuddy duddies (I hope that does not count as name calling), nor that all reformed are “young hipsters”. But the fact does remain, that church plants rarely draw people form the 60+ age bracket. If more and more youth are going “reformed”, how then does the non-reformed expect to draw enough people to their plants to let them survive?
Smuschany,
While I wouldn’t agree with your broad generalizations here, I think you make a substantial point when you say, “Could it be that the reason why there are so few non-calvinist churches being planted, is not because they dont have the support, but rather there is no need/desire for such churches?”
I have heard non-Calvinists say this numerous times – we don’t need any more new Churches, we need to revitalize the ones we have. I’ve even said that before. But there is a problem with that – most of those established Churches are dying and refuse to revitalize. Many non-Calvinists just aren’t interested in Church planting.
In my association (73 Churches), we took a survey where we were asked how important we thought Church planting was on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being a high priority. There were less than 10 who answered 4-5 and of those, I believe 3 were Calvinists and the other guys were young to middle age non-Calvinists. I think we only had one older guy in the whole group. Church planting right now is just dominated by young or Reformed guys – and it’s not intentional (like part of an evil plan to steal the SBC), it’s just reality.
It boggles the mind to consider how we got all of these Non-Calvinist churches without anyone to plant them. Maybe God is omnipotent enough to ignite a passion for church planting even among those who still wear ties.
If there are all these non-Calvinist Churches with no need for a Church planting network, then what is the point of this post at all? It seems like here you are suggesting that non-Calvinists don’t even need a Church planting network – you’ve already got all that you need. So which one is it?
Many Non-Calvinist churches exist, with perhaps most of them in areas of declining population, such as rural country churches or transitional urban cities. This should provide a strong base of support from which to launch new church plants in areas with growing populations.
It’s not an either/or but a both/and. We have lots of NC churches, but we need to plant more, for there are many lost people in the world.
Rick,
Then do it – raise up Church planters, get funding from those Churches, and launch daughter plants from these mother Churches. I just don’t understand why we need to fund a non-Calvinist Church planting network to do it. The SBC didn’t fund Acts 29, nor did they fund PLTD. There are plenty of Church planting networks out there that you can help support – Great Commission Initiative is one such group. Just get behind them and fund them. We don’t need to divide CP money to do that though. You can simply help raise up planters and encourage them to use those networks.
You mean the churches that have been around for 50+ years? Whose members are dying off and no one is replacing them? Whose members tend to share a common type, in that they refuse change, refuse to adapt, and think everyone should change to be like them? Yea, those churches are not being planted anymore.
Perhaps they should be. Some of them, at least, don’t want to pay for the cool churches with the cussing pastors and the beer night outreach ministries for men. (See, I can look at the worst parts of your church style just like you can look at the worst parts of mine.)
Let’s just rejoice that God calls all kinds of churches to reproduce themselves. And let’s admit that if too few Non-Calvinist churches are being planted, and if we are indeed sharing the same gospel, then you should rejoice with us that if such an endeavor succeeds many more souls will be brought into God’s Kingdom. We can work together for the gospel–even if the soteriology and methodology is mine instead of yours.
Smuschany,
Whats wrong with churches that have been around for 50+ years?
Rick: So your solution is to begin a non-affiliated non-Calvinist church planting network as a sort of “competition” to A29. Presumably churches would be able to receive monies from both NAMB and your new network, as long at the separate doctrinal distinctives were satisfied. So go for it. If this is important to you, do it. I said as much earlier in the thread, but your response didn’t make sense to me. I thought perhaps you were responding to someone higher up the thread.
I wish you luck. Anything that gets more funding to church planters is great in my book. If your concerns are not about restricting Calvinism but rather equity in non-affiliated church planting networks, then by all means proceed.
Thanks, Bill. Your response is encouraging to me. I certainly do not personally have the wherewithal to launch such an endeavor, but I think it’s an idea worthy of further consideration.
Rick,
“Resistance is Futile… You shall be Assimilated…” 😉
Well, okay then. Where do I get my jeans, my barstool, my mustache and my copy of Piper’s complete works? And how do I decide between A29 and PLNTD? Between T4G and TGC? Do I need boots for boot camp?
As the doctrine of God’s Sovereign Providence teaches… “Everything you need will be provided unto you at the appropriate time.”
Rick,
Fascinating idea that you have there. As a church planter myself…well, it’s been almost 10 years now since we started it so unsure if “church planter” refers to a past event, an ongoing process, or a future proclivity or some combination 🙂 I would not consider myself in the Reformed Camp, and I see some great merits in the ideas that you and others have posited in regards to the soteriological conundrum that non-reformed SBC churches face in regards to giving to a church that would in some sense compromise their theological convictions….no need listing out all of the baggage that is associated with ACTS 29 and her former president, but more than enough to present problems for many.
Our church is in Las Vegas. I know a little about the culture. I know a little about the broken families and addictions. I preach with a tie on Sundays b/c I believe it is a way that I can show that the “office” of pastor is one that I take seriously. We have yet to incorporate any “metal” into our worship service, and by most accounts, our service would be as traditional as any you might find in AL, GA, Or TN. But I get opps to teach teens each week who come even though their parents don’t. I get to visit the seniors who have moved from all over. And I get to minister to young families who struggle with raising their kids in this especially hard environment. God continues to take care of our church and our family as He has done for almost 10 years now.
We originally planted through NAMB..got a stipend and health insurance for 2 yrs. If you are truly starting a church(no members, no contacts, little help), two years isn’t much time to become self-supporting. I do not know if this model is still in place, but it is not a good one.
There are challenges to what you have proposed, but I think you might find some receptivity if you find a few good backers. Count me as one who likes your idea!
Kevin,
Thanks so much. I’m glad to know there exists at least one person on the planet who thinks this might be a good idea and not the end of the world.
Rick, first let me say that I am in agreement with almost everything you are saying about A29 not having the SBC’s considerations, well-being, and continuation in mind. A29 is not baptist and certainly not SBC no matter whether Driscoll allows Chandler to the be the president and moves the headquarters to Dallas. A29 is the Driscoll Denomination, not the SBC. Any decisions made by A29 are in their best interest and made with the blessing of their CEO, Mark Driscoll.
Having said that, I don’t believe this is a strictly Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist issue, although your points are well-taken that it certainly gives that appearance due to the fact that A29 only partners with Calvinist churches.
In my opinion however, this is an issue that those being trained in our seminaries, who are claiming to be SBC’ers, better decide which camp they want to live their life in. If they are Calvinist Bapists (SBC) then work, mend-fences, build-bridges, and share with our brother non-Calvinist Baptists (SBC) that when push comes to shove we are with them through thick and thin. Those who want to believe that a little money from A29 overrides our SBC identity, heritage, history, and missional mindset are like those teenagers who believe their fathers didn’t know anything and then they became men and realized their fathers weren’t as stupid as they thought they were.
I am first and foremost a believer/follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am Baptist (SBC) by choice (also a Calvinist) and I have planted my tent in that camp. Until the SBC becomes heretical (I pray that day will never come) I will not leave her and I will not date another (A29) just because another may look a little more appealing on a certain day or on a certain issue.
If others want to date A29, then just get on with it and marry her and become part of the Driscoll denomination. Who knows, maybe someday he’ll even incorporate you into his Mars Hill and you too, can have him on your video-board near you. Or better yet he can just have visions about you.
May Nate’s tribe greatly increase.
Nate,
Thank you for sharing your unique perspective and for your faithfulness in choosing SBC over A29. Few planters seem to view this situation as an either/or as you do. They seem to embrace a both/and. I wonder how many others are willing to take such a principled stand as yours.
In the meantime, I can only pray that God will send an angel to block Mark’s TV reception should his camera ever attempt to enter the sanctity of my bedroom.
Joshua,
(posted this earlier)
One more question… you wrote… that you believe Pelagianism to be heresy. You believe most Southern Baptists are S-P (so since S-P and P are the same where conversion is concerned) I asked if you believe most Southern Baptists are preaching heresy. You answered, “There is a distinction to be made between someone willfully holding to damnable heresy and someone unknowingly being in error and holding to an unorthodox or heretical doctrine.
I do not think most Southern Baptists are “heretics.”
If I am reading WHAT you said correctly, are you saying the distinguishing factor on who is and is not preaching heresy, whether they know what they are doing?
I mean if two guys are preaching the same message, in this case S-P as you suggest, and one KNOWS exactly what he is doing, he is preaching heresy but the other who preaches the same basic message does not know what he is doing and he is not preaching heresy?
I really am interested in what you mean here.
><>”
Bob,
No, I am distinguishing the factor of someone being a “heretic” as I originally stated: willful rejection of the truth and unknowingly holding to error. Two major differences. Pelagius is historically known as a heretic. Why? Because he willfully rejected the Bible’s teachings on man.
At the end of the day, error is error. Heresy is heresy. However, I do not believe that most SBC pastors are unorthodox in their doctrine of man.
Hope that helps!
Does not really help.
If your assertion is true that most SBC churches are S-P and that doctrine is heretical, then the only conclusion one can draw is that you believe most SB are heretical in their beliefs.
As you say, heresy is heresy. So one of two things is undoubtably true… either you believe this or the charge that most SB are S-P is not true. I do not see any other option.
I am only quoting you so I am trying to figure out what you are really saying.
><>”
Bob,
Sorry, I don’t know what else to tell you. I think I have made myself clear.
You are right. Thanks.
><>”
Bob,
I would not say most SB are heretical in their beliefs… I would say most SB (average member in the pews) do not give doctrine enouf thought to be heretical.
So in order to have any meaningful discussion on S-P in the SBC we need to probably limit our discussion to what Pastors, Elders, and
Teachers in the SBC believe.
Grace for the Journer,
The vast majority of SB’s are NOT S-P and that charge as far as i am concerned is so ridiculously made it is not even worth the bother. I agree 100% that SB’s are not heretical; but my point is to assert that most SB’s are S-P is basically to say they are heretical.
It is a pitiful charge and is completely baseless.
><>”
I know a few SBs who are semi-Pelosian.
Personally, I don’t like San Franscisco liberals!
Sorry.
Anti-Pelosian!
><>”
I wouldn’t charcterize most SBC people as being SP. However I do think all this seeker sensative nonsense is definitely bordering on it. I would think that most SBC folks hold to a type of prevenient or enabling grace that gives them a divine prerogative to respond to the Gospel.
John,
I would think that most SBC folk have NO IDEA what prevenient grace is. Ask them if they believe the Holy Spirit convicts them of their sin and whosoever asks God to forgive them of that sin will be saved, then I believe you will get a hearty amen.
Following a series of comments made earlier in this thread with Joshua, 105-118.
><>”
Bob,
I think your above comment is right on the mark! The pastors who believe this are not necessarily in this forum, but they are out there teaching people to respond to God’s call of salvation & repentance. Thanks for explaining the “minority” position in this forum.
Bob,
I agree that many would not call it prevenient grace, but most would be in that camp nonetheless. For that matter most of them wouldn’t know a Semipelagian is either. To me the enabling grace view is the only one that makes sense. But I certainly don’t believe most SBC pastors are SP.
Personally… I am not into all these different kinds of grace that keep cropping up. Since I do not subscribe to TD or TI… enabling grace has no relevance.
I believe God reveals himself to sinners through His Word and the Holy Spirit convicts sinners and they respond in repentance BY FAITH to the promises of God in Christ Jesus and God forgives their sin and the Holy Spirit THEN (not before) takes up residence in that sinners heart and he is born again and he belongs to God from that day forward for all eternity.
Seems simple enough to me for anyone to understand and be saved and go to heaven. All we need to do is make sure we have made that choice (know that God is NOT going to make it for you) and then share it with as many people as we possibly can and leave the results up to God!!!!!!!!!!
Sounds pretty Southern Baptist to me!
><>”
This post makes no sense.
So-called anti-Calvinists who give to NAMB support the planting of churches, including Calvinistic churches, just as when so-called Calvinists who give to NAMB support the planting of churches, including anti-Calvinisitic churches.
I would suspect that so-called anti-Calvinists can and do start as many churches in the SBC as the so-called Calvinists.
If the so-called anti-Calvinists are not starting as many churches as the so-called Calvinists, that is not the fault of the Calvinists.
I don’t mind giving to plant churches on either side of the so-called debate.
And I have not heard any so-called Calvinists propose restricting the funding of church starts because the churches being started are not Calvinistic.
I really do not understand this post.
Then let me try to simplify it for you.
There exists a church planting network in Acts 29 that is soteriologically exclusive in planting only Calvinist churches. There does not exist a church planting network at the present time that is soteriologically exclusive in planting NON-Calvinist churches. (Please don’t use “anti.” It’s offensive and inaccurate. We’re not AGAINST Calvinists…we’re just not WITH them. They are free through A29 to plant as many churches as they wish, just as we should be free through J316 to do the same. More power to them! Go in grace and peace! God’s blessings upon them! See, there is really no “anti” here, but merely a “non.”)
All this seeks to do is offer Non-Calvinists the very same kind of soteriologically exclusive church planting network that the Calvinists enjoy. Since there is already an A29, what is wrong with having a J316?
Rick,
Again, if you are so concerned with this, then why don’t you go gather support and start such a network? That’s what I think none of us really understand here. There can be no “J316” track when there is no real network of non-Calvinist Church planters.
D. R. Randle,
In truth, Rick does not need to “start such a network.” he is already part of a “network.” It is known throughout the world as the Southern Baptist Convention. Many churches have been started by southern Baptists in many places in the U.S. and around the world.
I do not know if you read Nate’s comment above in the thread or not, but maybe you should. I do not think it is time for Rick to “fish or cut bait.” I think maybe all who are so enthralled with Acts 29 should seriously consider who you really are and make a decision to either be fully into the SBC or go another way.
The SBC has always had room for various soteriological positions among church planters. (no one ever asked me about it during the church plants of which I was involved)
Nate is dead on here in his comment:
“In my opinion however, this is an issue that those being trained in our seminaries, who are claiming to be SBC’ers, better decide which camp they want to live their life in. If they are Calvinist Bapists (SBC) then work, mend-fences, build-bridges, and share with our brother non-Calvinist Baptists (SBC) that when push comes to shove we are with them through thick and thin. Those who want to believe that a little money from A29 overrides our SBC identity, heritage, history, and missional mindset are like those teenagers who believe their fathers didn’t know anything and then they became men and realized their fathers weren’t as stupid as they thought they were.”
It is not Rick Patrick who needs to fish or cut bait here guys. Maybe some of you need to pick up the net or pick up the knife. One or the other.
CB: Do you think SBC church planters should not accept funding from A29?
That may be historically true, but I fear it may not continue to be true.
CB,
I am confused as to what exactly you are trying to say here. The SBC isn’t a Church planting network – it’s a denomination. Networks are different in that they often work with numerous denominations and provide different tools to help in the Church planting effort. Networks can often do what denominations can’t in providing on-the-ground support by other Church planters. What Rick seems to be proposing is a specifically non-Calvinistic network that would presumably be independent from the SBC (it would have to be if it was exclusive non-Calvinistic), which would “compete” with the Calvinistic networks.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of confusion as to how this network should function, be funded, etc. But the end result seems to be the proposal that we as Churches could split our funding between plants working with Calvinistic networks and one working with this newly minted non-Calvinist one (or give exclusively to one type of them).
The first problem with this is that no such non-Calvinist network exists. There are plenty of networks that are not exclusively Calvinistic that one could utilize, but none that are exclusively non-Calvinistic. So Rick would have to start one.
But secondly, even if one could be started, you have this pesky problem of the BF&M – the foundation of our cooperation. We would have to throw it out the window as the basis for our mission funding and instead co-opt it with further levels of division. That’s unprecedented and effectively renders the CP strategy null and void.
So what Nate said really doesn’t factor into my issues with Rick’s proposal. Networks are different from denominations, regardless of what he says.
No D.R. Randle,
The SBC is not really a denomination. it is a large, cooperative group of affiliated churches joined by theology and like-mindedness relating to the Great Commission.
It could easily be called a parachurch entity. (I realize a lot of people don’t like that, but it is what it is) It can easily be called a network.
There is really no confusion unless confusion is desired or a lacking in understanding what the SBC is in the first place.
cb,
I’ve struggled with whether or not the SBC is a “denomination” or a mere network of churches.
The reason I lean towards calling the SBC a denomination is because it has vast institutional presence (seminaries, mission boards, state conventions, doctrinal statement, etc.).
I realize there is no hierarchical power structure within the SBC, nonetheless, the SBC has all the other makings of a Christian denomination.
I understand all of that Joshua and have for a long time, I can assure you. Yet, the SBC is not a denomination. In reality, in my opinion, although most older, long time involved, guys like me don’t like for me to say this, but it is a parachurch entity. The SBC is an entity that was/is to support the work of the local church. Yet, at times it seems the tail tries to wag the dog. I am going to rebel against that until I die.
The local church as a visible manifestation of the Body of Christ is the primary institution and not the convention.
Now having said that, I understand your struggles. I have had them many times myself and probably will again.
Bill Mac,
I just saw your question to me. I cannot answer you at the moment. I will be glad to later. Must be about others things at the present.
CB,
I recognize the argument that the SBC is not a denomination, but it would be described as a convention where we do make decisions based on member votes.
This is wholly unlike a network like Acts29, which has a board of directors, president, vice president and others that are absolutely not under the authority of its member Churches. It truly is a parachurch ministry very much more like Samaritans Purse than a convention like the SBC. And that is really my point.
Bill Mac,
I have now returned to the thread and have read the comments posted since I stated to you that I would get back with you later. There may be too much water under the bridge for me to answer now–Might create too much of a problem for Dave and Rick and the other guys who run this site if I really go off on this one as I would like.
I will say that I read D.R.’s 13 (I think) point comment. I think his 13 points have a degree of truth in some of the points, but are greatly lacking as an analysis of the problem as a whole.
The major problems in the SBC are and always have been in the pulpits of the SBC. That is the real pink elephant on the table. It always has been and always will be.
Lastly, to answer your basic question of me, I believe that churches are to birth churches. I also believe that we are in such a welfare culture that it has saturated the mindset of many, even in the SBC. I think that is one reason why some guys are so eager to dip into the SBC treasure chest and any other treasure chest available at the same time.
I also believe that “planting” churches today is no different that when we called it “starting” churches.
If a guy is called of God (notice the words “called of God”) to start/plant/ grow/ birth/whatever a church the plan is really simple. Give up you life and go do it.
That actually works. It worked for Paul and a bunch of other guys. I personally know it has worked more than once in the last fifty years. There actually have been churches
(churches birthed by the gospel and maintained by the power of the gospel–all the things so many talk about today as if they discovered something no one before them ever heard of until they came along. Some guys were “missional” and “gospel-centered” before it was cool to say that on the way home from a conference with some glitzy little name)
started/planted wherein those who were the primaries in the plant (“plant” was actually spelled “w.o.r.k” back then) did not receive one dime from NAMB/HMB or any other “network” or benevolent benefactor.
It was the call of God burning in the soul of the planter, prayer, the Word of God (Bible), work, work , work, sweat, tears, rejection, little sleep, knocked down-get back up-start again, and God’s blessing in spite of all that and those were the best days of our lives.
You want to plant a church? Then die and one will grow up where your life fertilized it.
I know a lot of Southern Baptist guys who were young once and did exactly that. Surely, there are more out there, aren’t there?
Oh, yeah and by-the-way. Some of those guys who were young once have now gone into old dead churches and preached the same as they did when they were young and guess what? Baptismal pools are full again and people are getting saved and discipleship is happening. How does that happen? Same process. You go to the dead church and give up your life and new life is born.
Bill Mac, I realize I have not answered your question very well and I apologize to you. I really do because I have come to think highly of you in these few years of blogging on these various threads with you. But that is just how I see it. And I see it that way because that is how I saw it happen.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Rick: Here’s the problem I think you are encountering. You are talking to SBC folks about a problem that exists outside the SBC. NAMB is SBC. NAMB is, as you say, soteriologically neutral. So SBC Calvinist and non-Calvinists are giving to support both types of church planters. As CB pointed out, that is the way it has always been.
So what is the problem? Non-Calvinist church plants are not, presumably, being funded by NAMB at any lesser levels than ever. So the existence of A29 is having no impact on non-Calvinist church planting. The problem I guess, as you see it, is that a few ( I think it is probably very few) Calvinistic church planters are getting a little extra help from A29. How is that a problem? Do you want them to have less money?
You say the solution is a non-affiliated non-Calvinist church planting network. Few will object to that, but we still don’t see what problem it is correcting. It doesn’t get more money to NAMB. It doesn’t take away money from A29. We don’t get it.
Do you want to choke off the funds coming in to NAMB by redirecting funding towards your fictitious network? But won’t that hurt non-Calvinist church planting more than Calvinist church planting?
I am a generalist and, at least in this discussion, something of a futurist. We have no idea what the overall impact would be or how churches would respond to a NC church planting network since one has never yet been started. My primary point is that it is worth trying.
Since Calvinists have managed to support a church planting emphasis that has partnered with NAMB, then how in the world can it possibly be a bad thing for Non-Calvinists to do exactly the same thing?
Rick,
You said:
” then how in the world can it possibly be a bad thing for Non-Calvinists to do exactly the same thing?”
I’ve yet to see anyone on this thread speak negatively about the starting of a NC church planting network. I am all for it!
This post burned nostrils because you were advocating splitting the funding of NAMB based on soteriological preference. That is unprecedented and divisive. Thankfully you have abandoned this stance somewhere in the comments.
I would like to see something official that says NAMB is partnering with A29. I’m not saying it is not happening. But a church plant that is getting funding from two different sources does not make a partnership. If I give a friend of mine some money for groceries, and someone else gives him money, we can hardly be said to be partnering. Partnering implies at the very least, some type of internal cooperation and coordination.
Rick,
Let me echo Joshua here – no one says that it shouldn’t be done. However, we don’t agree that Churches should be allowed to split their money based on doctrinal parameters outside of those of the BF&M. Go start an exclusively non-Calvinist church planting network. Find planters who will agree to serve there and support them. Let them apply for NAMB funding and work through the process to become NAMB planters.
But, where we draw the line is in saying that we ought to divide our CP money on the basis of soteriological distinctions that have not been agreed upon by the greater denomination.
Allow me to summarize the problem I see with all of this Calvinist/non-Calvinist/Church planting/Acts 29/J316/whatever craziness:
1) Southern Baptists have done a poor job of Evangelism for many years now.
2) We have employed every single evangelism method we could think of in the last 20 years and yet have failed to see significant, lasting results, despite spending hordes of money on them.
3) We are losing money in the SBC hand-over-fist and we need to employ the most efficient means of Evangelism possible to stem the tide of decline.
4) Over 20 yrs ago studies were done (& have been confirmed since) showing that Church planting is the most efficient method of evangelism.
5) After ignoring efficiency for 20 years because of being flush with money and spending it on $40 million buildings (while the rest of Evangelicalism pursued Church planting heavily and leapfrogged us in terms of growth – e.g. the Free Evan denomination), the SBC is finally dealing with declining numbers of converts and declining amounts of cash.
6) Based on this reality, NAMB realized they must put the most amount of their funds towards the most efficient means of Evangelism available, hence, the focus on Church Planting.
This is where it starts to correspond to the article:
7) Simultaneously, while there is a need for Church planting, there is also a revival of Reformed theology taking place in the SBC.
8) SBC Calvinists in revival saw the clear reality of those 20 yr old studies in other denominations and desiring growth for the Kingdom, began to employ the methods of those Evangelicals, many of who were Calvinists as well.
8) SBC Calvinists, seeing success in those realms, are now more likely to Church plant and do missions, despite previous caricatures of them as being anti-evangelistic.
9) SBC Calvinists took full advantage of the new strategy of Church planting, employing additional autonomous methods of strategy, such as using Church planting networks.
10) SBC non-Calvinists are irritated that the BF&M alone was the standard developed for CP allocation and seeing that the revived SBC Calvinists are utilizing these efficient methods themselves, now claim a conspiracy in order to avoid the reality that there is no Church planting revival among their ranks which would take advantage of this new strategy.
11) Knowing there is no Church planting revival among their ranks, SBC non-Calvinists now suggest that we should ignore almost 100 years of CP precedence and BF&M cooperation and instead institute new structures of giving in order to employ an affirmative-action style process to catch up with the more on-fire SBC Calvinists.
12) And all of this while clearly ignoring the elephant in the room – there are very few non-Calvinists interested in Church planting in the SBC as compared to those who are Calvinists, thus no amount of money thrown at SBC non-Calvinist Church planting will work until there is a Church planting revival among their ranks.
13) Finally, in all of this there seems to be a clear message being sent that third-tiered doctrinal disagreements are more important to some people than people getting saved through Church plantings. Some are more worried about who is doing Church planting and their specific beliefs than in rejoicing that the Kingdom is being built. Some seem more concerned about how “our money” is being spent by those that 100 years ago we agreed with cooperate with under the banner of the BF&M than they are that “their money” is being used by God to proclaim His glory to a lost and dying world.
Sorry, but that’s how I see it and how I think a lot more “mainstream” Southern Baptists are going to see it come June, when all of this will likely blow up on the convention floor.
D. R.,
Is it fair to say, based upon the above analysis, that you don’t think very highly of Non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention and that you think the Calvinist approach is superior? It sure reads that way to me.
If that is indeed the case, then sadly, I am not at all sure that “we can work it out.”
No, Rick – that’s not fair to say. I’m just giving you my take – the way I see it currently. I don’t see a huge emphasis by the vast majority of non-Calvinists in the SBC to do Church planting. It’s just reality. I do think it’s a problem, yes – mainly because of the efficiency of Church Planting. But more than that – it’s a problem for your paradigm that you suggest. If there isn’t a huge amount of support for non-Calvinist Church planting, then this paradigm you suggest might result in wasted dollars that could be going to a more vibrant Church planting movement. In your plan, this needed money won’t be able to be used to support Gospel-centered, Bible-believing, Evangelical Southern Baptist Churches in compliance with the BF&M simply because of 3rd tiered doctrinal disagreements that aren’t covered by our Statement of Faith.
The BF&M should be good enough for cooperation. Right now you are suggesting it is not. That’s a problem because it is unprecedented and it calls into question the entire nature of the Cooperative Program.
I also don’t think it’s fair to say that I believe that “the Calvinist approach is superior” because there is no real “Calvinist approach” – non-Calvinists could do essentially everything that Calvinists are doing. The problem is that many of them are doing nothing and yet are complaining about “their money” going to support folks who are doing something.
Finally, the way this entire post comes across is summarized in #13 above – it sounds like guys like you are more interested in who is getting money and what 3rd tiered doctrines they hold than you are that a Church planting movement is afoot that is bringing people to Christ. And that’s the real problem, isn’t it?
For the one millionth time, I am very happy for any church planting movement — from any denomination or network — that brings people to Christ. However, I do not want to pay for the church planting work of other denominations or networks in which I am not a member since they do not believe what I do. It’s not that doctrines are more important than evangelism. It’s that doctrines define the boundaries of denominations, and the evangelism I want to do is the kind that will support what I believe. I can’t plant Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches at the same time. Clearly, we draw lines in our church planting based upon our theology.
Acts 29 must believe that soteriology is a first tier doctrine since they require their planters to be Calvinists. Ironically, I agree with them on the importance of the issue and its centrality to the message of the gospel and the methods of our ministries. Acts 29 does not support Non-Calvinism. Neither would J316 support Calvinism.
If A29 is fair game, so is J316. If J316 must go, so must A29. They are the same in structure, but different only in their soteriological stance.
Rick,
First, you aren’t paying for anything. You are supporting the SBC and its entities in doing missions work under the agreed upon Statement of Faith. If you designate money to only go to certain Churches you are not cooperating, you are doing societal giving (which elsewhere – approx. 1 year ago – you argued against as a legitimate way of Churches giving money) – the very thing we as Southern Baptists rejected when we adopted the CP. You are also rejecting our Statement of Faith as sufficient for cooperation. You are free to do all those things, but it defies almost 100 years of Southern Baptist precedence. And it begs the question as to whether you are really willing to cooperate with all your brothers and sisters in the SBC, or only those you agree with.
Let me also add that Kevin Ezell has already addressed this issue that you continue to bring up – NAMB plants Southern Baptist Churches who cooperate under the banner of the BF&M. If those Churches choose to affiliate with a network in order to secure more funding or in order to help them to be more successful (which networks do indeed help to do – a 2011 stat shows that over 97% of Churches who affiliate with Acts 29 are still in operation after 3 years, whereas the success level of all SBC plants hovers around 88% – a clear difference), then that is their autonomous decision. Saying that you refuse to support them because they make decisions you don’t like is itself a repudiation of the very nature of the Cooperative Program. And isn’t this what we claim to have split from the Northern Baptists over anyway – Northern Baptists refused to appoint and fund (rightly, of course) missionaries who they deemed to be unacceptable due to their belief and practice. Southern Baptists in coming together under the BF&M and CP in 1925 agreed that the common confession was sufficient for missions cooperation. I just don’t understand why anyone would say today that such a thing is unacceptable in today’s theological climate.
Also, it does not naturally follow that a doctrine must be considered first-tier in order for people to cooperate around it. First tier doctrines are clearly those that separate us from non-Christians. Comparing an SBC Church that affiliates with Acts 29 with a Presbyterian or Methodist Church is inappropriate and intentionally inflammatory.
Finally, no one is calling for J316 to go – heck it doesn’t even exist. But we are saying that Southern Baptists separating their funding based on concerns that go beyond those expressed in the BF&M is not in keeping with the nature of the Cooperative Program and thus is a bad idea.
D.R.,
With all due respect, do you not see where your last statement was contradictory? You uphold the autonomy of the church plant but do not uphold the autonomy of Rick’s church. If a church plant has the autonomous right to network with Acts29 then Rick’s church has the autonomous right to not support them. I’m sorry but every church ought to have the right to designate it’s giving so as to support the church plants that they want to support.
John,
I agree with all of what D.R. is saying.
He is not saying that Rick’s church doesn’t have the right to not give to the CP. Rick’s church is autonomous and can stop giving at any time.
However, if they do stop giving money to the CP they are no longer “cooperating” as Southern Baptists but have dedicated themselves to giving only to churches that are exactly like them. We are all cooperating under the BF&M2000 which allows both Calvinists and non to be called Southern Baptist.
So, no one is disrespecting Rick’s church’s autonomy, just defining what it means to cooperate as Southern Baptists under the BF&M.
Joshua,
Thanks for your response, but I must respectfully disagree. D.R. upheld the autonomy of the church plant but in essence did not uphold Rick’s church’s autonomy. By saying that a church is not “cooperating” just because it doesn’t wish to support a particular type of church plant is really unfair. To be honest with you I don’t want to support any of the seeker sensitive, purpose driven type church plants. We are still “cooperating” because our CP dollars are still going to support the seminaries both Calvinists and Nons enjoy, the BCMs, the DOMs. Just because a church does not wish to support a church plant that is also receiving funds from A29, does not mean that church is not “cooperating.
For the record for me it is about the principle of the matter, I personally love my Calvinists brothers and wish to network with them, but I support the idea of a church being able to designate it’s CP giving. I honestly believe that if a provision like that were put into place CP giving would increase.
John,
The BF&M2000 is our umbrella of unity as SBs. Is it fair to say that you believe the BF&M is too broad and inadequate to cooperate under?
Joshua,
I think that’s a great question and a fair one. My answer would simply be this, I think that the BFM insofar as human doctrinal statements are concerned is my favorite (I also like the New Hampshire Confession) and doesn’t need to be messed with at all. I think it is absolutely adequate for cooperation and unity. But having said that, there are a lot of church planters who claim to hold to the BFM that I would not be interested in supporting. I don’t think that cooperating equals supporting financially everything the Convention does. There are lots of things we can cooperate through without anyone having to send money to something they have major problems with.
An example would be the ERLC, based on several comments by posters on this blog, many people don’t want to support the ERLC. I believe that your church or mine should be able to specifically defund our CP giving from the ERLC. Does Dr. Land and the ERLC adhere to the BFM? Yes, but does that mean you have to support them? No, and that doesn’t mean you’re not a cooperating Southern Baptist. The same should be true of the funding of individual church plants.
John,
Joshua’s response to you is accurate. No where have I claimed that what Rick is proposing is wrong for him to do, but I do think it is wrong for the SBC as a whole to adopt. Rick’s Church is free to do what it wishes with its money, but it is somewhat hypocritical for Rick to one year ago vehemently defend the CP against societal giving and then choose to go the societal route themselves. While they would still technically be “cooperating” they wouldn’t be doing so according to the nature and function of the Cooperative Program.
As for a proposal for the SBC, I see it as disastrous and a clear opening for more societal giving, which was a huge problem that was solved by the CP in 1925. As for that increasing CP giving – that might be true, but at what cost? Ministries would begin to compete against each other in unrestrained ways and that was the huge problem that required the CP in the first place.
Finally, you say, “…there are a lot of church planters who claim to hold to the BFM that I would not be interested in supporting. I don’t think that cooperating equals supporting financially everything the Convention does.” First, there are plenty of professors at SBC seminaries that I don’t care for – should I be able to de-fund their salaries? There are some administrators in SBC entities I don’t like – should I de-fund those? I say that because if we go down this road, chaos could ensue – all the way until the point where we are again at that societal giving model, which again was so problematic that it almost caused the death of some of our entities. Then second, the Cooperative Program does indeed constitute the main way we cooperate for missions. If we undermine it, it will go away. And right now, we can’t afford to undermine the best thing we have had going in the SBC since 1925.
D.R., if what you say is true, then I, as a SBC Calvinist, who has been involved in three church plants, should be running away from the SBC (the denomination that paid the majority of my seminary training, and the denomination (home church) that sent the letter of recomendation to the SBC seminary on my behalf so that I could attend and be trained-at reduced rates) should seek out any and all assistance from any network that will throw me some money and then throw sour grapes on my non-Calvinist SBC brothers (see Patrick’s Journey church and the Missouri issue for example) who can’t get money from A29 because of their soteriology?
Seriously!
Note: I am not attacking D.R. personally in this next paragraph, but a mindset that is against brotherhood in the SBC.
I tell you what the elephant in the room is: this Eccumenical mindset of the YRR crowd who think that T4G is more important than SBC. If they want to say they can partner with Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Driscoll easier than they can partner with their brothers in the SBC, then payback your tuition and send your sons to Trinity, Reformed, or Covenant.
I’m SBC because I believe our Eccleisiology is better than the Padeobaptists, or the Dreamers of Visions (a.k.a. the Driscoll denomination). Yes salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, but if you are going to say being SBC is not a priority and you don’t want to work for and towards a dynamic SBC denomination (Calvinist and Non-Calvinist alike) then join Lig, C.J., or Mark and T4G on your way…
Sorry Dave/Rick if that is too over the top.
Nate,
Perhaps “ecumenical mindest” is the correct term. But it is actually that something is happening in our day that happened frequently in the 1700’s during the First Great Awakening. Something became more important than “Baptist”, “Anglican”, “Methodist”. To be “Evangelical” is what mattered. That term–though muddied in our day–I believe really meant to those in the 1700s to be centered on the gospel and not periphery things. Those things mattered. Very much they mattered. That is why John Newton remained an Anglican and John Ryland, Jr. remained a Baptist.
What is becoming increasingly frustrating is that within the SBC secondary and tertiary issues are becoming primary issues. I am happy to be SBC. I love the cooperative program. I am grateful to be a Southern Baptist. But if we in the SBC are thinking that what matters is helping students get an education in the SBC, plant churches, etc. in order to create a “dynamic SBC” then we’ve lost our focus. It’s not fundamentally about the SBC it’s about the gospel. And it’s quite difficult to stay within the SBC (though that is precisely what I plan to do) when many are calling for your ouster because of secondary/tertiary issues.
Yes SBC is A priority. But it is not THE priority.
Mike,
Well said! I totally agree.
I agree Mike. I was not saying that “any” cooperation was unwarranted, what I was saying is that it seems there is more enthusiasm by the YRR crowd (who are SBC trained and funded) for T4G than for seeing unification, cooperation, and continuation of the SBC. And while I have a good friend who is a Presbyterian minister, he and I are never going to plant a church together because I believe his eccleisiolgy to be seriously flawed, as he does mine. And that is a big deal, and it has an impact on how we unfold the gospel, the New Covenant, etc. I’m not saying my friend or his church’s regenerate membership aren’t saved, I’m saying we have serious disagreements about how the church and family operates.
My call is for these young men to take a principled stand, realize how much money the SBC (i.e. it’s churches) have given through the Cooperative Program to provide them with outstanding Seminary Training, and stay committed to said denomination, if it has not become heretical. It is an matter of morality and ethical principles to not take someone’s money, claiming you are one of them, and then go and join yourself to another. If they want to join another denomination, then give the money back.
This YRR crowd should seek to have a “SBC together for the Gospel Coalition”, and not give their money and time to another. There are many SBC pastors (far more mature, seasoned, wiser, and more evangelistic than me-or the YRR crowd) who I can learn from even if they may not be quite as reformed as I am.
Nate,
I think we are in fundamental agreement.
Please allow me to clarify this sentence a little more:
“And it’s quite difficult to stay within the SBC (though that is precisely what I plan to do) when many are calling for your ouster because of secondary/tertiary issues.”
It is my passion to proclaim the gospel and to disciple believers. I want to feed sheep. I want them to taste and see that the Lord is good. I desire to see people that are passionate worshipers of Jesus. I want Christ to be the only boast of this generation. That is THE priority in my life.
There are others that have much that same priority–and not just giving it lip service either. But it’s being backed by money, life, ministry, etc. I can partner with these people very easily because we have koinonia (self-sacrificing conformity to a shared vision). Many of these men and women are SBC. Some of them are not. But we share the same overarching vision and that is THE priority. We are Together for the Gospel.
Yet I have also been in SBC churches where it seems that the “shared vision” is not the gospel as much as it is extending the SBC or even American patriotism. I have been to SBC revival meetings where what was being proclaimed was not the gospel but moralistic therapeutic deism. The messages were about making sure to protect America. It was a message I could have just as easily heard on Glenn Beck. In this instance I could care less what the sign on the church says…we’ve got a different vision.
Again I love the SBC. I give to the cooperative program because I do believe that at its core the vision of the SBC is very similar to mine. But at the end of the day my fundamental allegiance lies elsewhere; namely to the Lord.
Rick:
As always, thanks for the response.
I believe that the remedy to concern about Acts 29 (which you know I am not in full support of) is for there to be a network of evangelical church plants that are not Calvinistic.
The work of NAMB in new church starts when it comes to Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic churches should simply be neutral. So long as a church start fits within the BFM, NAMB should support it.
The remedy does not seem to lay within altering NAMB or convention funding. But just for a church planting network to arise out of the churches that are not Calvinistic.
It is ironic that from the looks of things, Calvinists are (apparently) starting more churches than non-Calvinists.
I think that there are too many wrong lessons to try and draw from that observation that I will not discuss it.
I just find it ironic.
Louis,
I also find it ironic and perplexing that we lack a strong Non-Calvinist church planting movement alongside the Calvinist one. As you might imagine, I do not believe the explanation for this lies so much in the two differing theological stances as it does in the fact that the Calvinists have simply been much better organized, equipped and, well, networked, than the Non-Calvinists.
Hence, the suggestion of J316, that “sad” and “dangerous” notion promoting a “movement without movement” that will “split the SBC” and “spell the end” of our denomination.
I suppose we’ll need a theme song. http://bit.ly/IDdM6o
Rick,
Now come on. 🙂 No, one said the formation of a J316 network is sad and dangerous or will split the SBC. Let’s speak honestly here.
It was said by myself, and other, that dividing NAMB funding by mere soteriological preference will split the SBC.
No need to create opposition to your J316 network when there is none. Everyone here has encouraged such an endeavor.
Sorry for my failure to proofread! :O
True enough…I’m “conflating” again, as I think you put it, which is my new favorite word, after kerfuffle, of course.
It is hard to top kerfuffle. 🙂
Bill Mac,
You wrote: “If I give a friend of mine some money for groceries, and someone else gives him money, we can hardly be said to be partnering.”
Would you please tell this to (a) my insurance company, (b) the Office of Financial Aid at every university, (c) the IRS and (d) my sister’s disability claim handlers?
What you have is two organizations both investing in the same enterprise. The activities, terms and requirements of the two organizations clearly impact one another. They are partnering or cooperating in the endeavor.
As a descendant as well as a successor to those who have gone before and who were the folks the held to Sovereign Grace and yet allowed for differences, I would like to call attention to the little cloud on the horizon no larger than a man’s fist. This fall will mark the 39 anniversary since I began to pray for a Third Great Awakening (not that my prayers are so all fired important), but the theology of awakening being requisite to the reality and effect it is no strange thing that we have so many Sovereign Grace believers and preachers beginning to rise up. If you folks will check Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, you will find the theology of pluralism as opposed to what he calls determinism. And that is what was introduced into Baptist circles in the early 1800s to blunt the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions which threatened the control of the pluralists (who are really pluralist in name only) over the world. Yes, they do think they run the world., and there are books that have been written, documenting what they would do and did do in the 20th century.
The Third Awakening begins, hopefully, in this generation and continues for a 1000 generations, winning every soul in each generation and spreading to other plans (thank you Dr. John Owen and your doctrine of limited atonement which is illustrated in The Death of Death in The Death of Christ ass the atonement which the moxie, the one that truly and really delivers the goods, that is irresistible in the best sense of the word, that is so wonderful who could possible want to resist it, in fact, couldn’t resist it.
When we begin to pay attention to the intellectual aspect of the Christian Faith, when we begin to realize that the mind is the key to victorious Faith, that the emotional, so called heart issue is a ploy to keep us from using what Satan fears the most, our power to think and to plan to take the whole earth for Christ Jesus. Our Lord Jesus pressed the issue of opposites as when he said to the man in Mk.9, “If you can believe.” Our Lord was calling for the impossible (Mk.10) as the answer to our situation.
Rick:
I would totally support a J316 type of non-Calvinist church planting movement. I think that would be great.
I am not sure as to why one doesn’t exist.
It may be that within the SBC context that the guys who would support a J316 type of group are also very committed to certain issues in the Baptist context that would make it hard to have a cross denominational movement.
In the Calvinist context, there seem to be churches from Baptist, Presbyterian, Independent and even some Reformed Charismatic that form a network, whether called Acts 29 or not.
I cannot think of an equivalent in the non-Calvinist world.
There may be some groups that could begin networking to form that – SBC, Bible Churches, non-SBC Baptist groups etc.
D. R.,
“Comparing an SBC Church that affiliates with Acts 29 with a Presbyterian or Methodist Church is inappropriate and intentionally inflammatory.”
I mean no disrespect when I include Acts 29 in the same sentence with Presbyterians and Methodists. We are all Christians who love Jesus and share the gospel. The specific way in which Acts 29 is like Presbyterians and Methodists is that none of these groups would be willing to have me for a pastor because of what I believe. We are simply not on the same page.
To reiterate, I have dropped the original dual funding option proposal within the denomination in favor of an Acts 29 style Non-Calvinist Only church planting network proposal outside of the denomination. You may stop arguing against the former, since I stopped defending it about a hundred comments ago. I’m glad you support the idea of the latter.
Rick,
Sorry that I was arguing against a proposal you stopped making. I couldn’t keep up with the conversation.
I understand about why you compared the various groups, but I do think we need to be careful about conflating (to use your word) a network with a denomination. It muddies the actual conversation that we need to have about this. I understand why some are uncomfortable with Church plants affiliating with Acts29 Churches, but I think the positives far outweigh the negatives and I think this does come down to the issue of autonomy – something that our identity as Baptists demands us preserve and defend. We need to be very careful whenever we even come close to messing with such an important Baptist distinctive.
Allow me to give you an illustration of why I worry about messing with autonomy. I heard about and have had confirmed to me through a couple of different sources that one of our state conventions approached an individual to plant a Church in their state, but the contract, while generous in funding, required that the Church choose a polity that excluded elder leadership and that the pastor not mention from the pulpit or utilize any resources of John Piper, Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, and a few others. I’m sorry, but that’s a direct violation of the Church’s autonomy. That might be fine for a mission, but not a true Church plant. Thankfully, I don’t believe the state convention had any takers.
“That might be fine for a mission, but not a true Church plant.”
I think this “mission” mindset is behind most multi-site campuses, too. They want the new body to have the same DNA as the old one. I also think it is true of those who sponsor new works, regardless of whether they are characterized as a mission or a plant. Mother churches simply desire to direct the major doctrinal and methodological characteristics of their daughter churches.
“Thankfully, I don’t believe the state convention had any takers.”
How sad for the spread of the gospel that a network did not exist that could have matched this generous funding with a church planter more than willing to accept those terms. In my own ministry, over the past ten years, I may have quoted Dever once or twice and spoken of Driscoll, but only as kind of a warning regarding emerging church dangers. I don’t think I’ve mentioned Piper. In other words, I could probably have met those requirements myself with little effort. I’m sure there are many others who would have jumped at this chance, but no J316 exists to match them up. If it did, who knows how many souls could have been saved by now through the ministry of this new church?
Rick,
I find it sad that you would have been willing to submit to rules imposed upon you by a non-authoritative ecclesiastical body. That’s simply not Baptistic. We have always held that we submit to no one. What if the congregation decided that elders were more Biblcal? You couldn’t submit to the will of the congregation, but rather must maintain your “contract”. What if you left that Church and they called someone else? Wouldn’t they too have to submit to the authority of another body other than the Church?
This is why we believe in autonomy – no other body has the right to tell my congregation what they can and can’t believe (and hold money over their head in doing so). As I said, that’s not Baptistic.
If I were a Calvinist I would submit to Acts 29’s rules imposed upon me that I be a Calvinist. If I converted to Non-Calvinism, I would let A29 know and exclude myself. What’s wrong with being honest with your sponsors?
There’s a huge difference there Rick. First, the arrangement disallowed any change in viewpoint. The Church could not change ever – at least not with that pastor there (perhaps there were ways to dissolve it down the line). With Acts 29 you can simply dissolve the relationship. Here, it’s not quite that simple. Secondly, Acts 29 doesn’t impose rules on their planters that their member Churches also don’t abide by. Here the state convention was imposing rules on the plant that their member Churches did not have to abide by. And then third, Acts 29’s Statement of Faith is the foundation of agreement. With the state convention they went above and beyond the BF&M in imposing those rules.
One more thought – that money likely did go to Church planting – especially if that is what is was designated for in the budget. But hopefully it went to a Church planter that refused to submit to unBiblical and extra-Confessional rules.
I guess this where I get a little confused. I’ve been in the pastorate for about 17 years and I never have regarded church plants that are currently receiving missions support as being completely autonomous. Isn’t a church plant accountable to those who are supporting it?
John, it’s one thing to be accountable to a mother Church or an organization. It’s quite a different thing to tell a pastor who he can or can’t quote from the pulpit and what polity the congregation can adopt (at least as long as each conforms to the BF&M 2000 and nothing they are doing is sinful).
“””To be honest with you I don’t want to support any of the seeker sensitive, purpose driven type church plants.”””
I think I must agree with, John’s statement above. We should only cooperate in planting seeker insensitive church plants with no purpose who believe God is not sovereign and man’s free-will is an illusion.
There . . . now is everybody in the right camp?
Now, you are funny, Frank!
269 posts and what has been worked out?
Any Calvinism-haters now loving on Calvinists? Any non-Calvinism haters jump over to the TULIP side?
My hope from reading some (not all) of these posts is that this problem is not nearly as big as it seems. I earnestly pray that these significant side issues remain just that: significant, but on the side.
The SBC tent can only get so small before not even my group will all fit–that would be “Me, Myself, and I.” It’s getting to where “Myself and I” will need to find some other group to affiliate with.
It seems to me that the SBC is so large and so diverse that it is a miracle even most of us can agree to set the tent pegs at the BF&M 2000. I just don’t see how we can survive as a “Baptist group cooperating together” if we need to define ourselves in a more narrow way than the BF&M 2000.
I’m an old, fuddy-duddy, 56 in three days, conservative, stick in the mud from a State that is defined in relationship to another state, but I’m getting a bit concerned that we as Baptists have so lost a sense of who we are that we define ourselves all most entirely by “who we are not.”
Frank,
Here’s what I believe you might not be getting out of what I said, I don’t believe that “cooperating” means that I must send my money to fund everything the Convention sends down the pike. I don’t call that being more narrow than the BFM 2000. It just means that every church has the right to support what they want to and not support what they don’t want to.
John,
I agree that every church has that “right.” Here’s what I think you might be missing in what I’m saying: the cooperative program is a voluntary suspension of that right.
What you advocate is simply another version of the societal plan for missions that the Cooperative Program replaced.
I also think that your view is quickly becoming the prevailing view. As more and more churches follow the lead of certain mega church leaders of late and begin designating more and more money to local causes, the CP will disintegrate.
Now, that’s not a prognostication of doom, but simply a reality. Asserting individual rights as a congregation is incompatible with the CP.
Once we start down that road, pretty soon some churches will only fund “red” churches or churches with pipe organs and a green music leader with two thumbs on his (or her) left hand.
My view is that we must define the perimeters of cooperation so that we can easily identify: this is a cooperating church; this is not.
Calvinism (non-Calvinism) as an “identifier” in my opinion is too narrow to allow for the CP to continue as we know it. That is the same for charismatic (non-charismatic), or purpose driven (non-purpose driven).
D.R.,
This whole “don’t go beyond the BFM” line is used inconsistently. On the one hand, because Calvinism fits within the BFM, A29-SBC churches are given a free pass to require their exclusive Calvinism. No one ever claims they have gone beyond the BFM. But let any other group require exclusive Non-Calvinism, which also fits within the BFM, and the claim is made that they have gone beyond the BFM to require that. Please! If excluding Non-Calvinists fits within the BFM, so does excluding Calvinists.
Rick,
What examples are you thinking of where exclusive Non-Calvinism has not been accepted as an acceptable autonomous action within a single church?
Outside of a single church is a different issue altogether.
So you view A29 as a whole bunch of individual churches doing their own autonomous thing which just happens to be agreed upon by all of the others in the form of a covenant, but it’s not like a group or anything…it’s just individual, autonomous churches?
Fine. I want my groups to work the same way.
Rick,
Still waiting on your examples of the Non-Calvinist churches being oppressed and kept from being as autonomous as they would like to be because of the YRR shouting “BFM!” 🙂
I am also still utterly perplexed as to why you are so concerned with SBC churches affiliating with other organizations when our BF&M 2000 encourages such! They have a right to be exclusively Calvinistic and your church has the right to be exclusively non-Calvinistic! Seriously, why is this still not “worked out” yet?
“XIV. Cooperation
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.”
The issue is not so much whether churches are autonomous–they are. Nor is it whether we should cooperate–we should.
But we do not cooperate with EVERYONE. The boundary of the BFM does not protect Non-Calvinists from this offensive situation: Acts 29 churches do not accept Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists, but Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists are asked to accept them.
The creation of an exclusive network discriminating against Calvinist Southern Baptists within the SBC would bring equality.
I think people are objecting to the idea of designating CP giving so that none of the church’s gifts goes to support any SBC Calvinists. Bad idea.
But’s Rick’s new proposal would not do that.
290 comments later….this is just sad. What is being protected? What is being advanced?
Winning the C/Not C disagreement inside the family has become the driving objective. Planting churches is not. It’s about the assets not the mission.
Rick, if you have a passion to plant churches, plant them. May your plants thrive and increase as they honor God. Organize others to do so as well. Collect money. Partner with people who share your church planting goals. But…don’t be silly and think that you can sustain the effort and costs of church planting out of your partisan commtiment to this C/Not C disagreement. Sustaining a church planting effort requires you to primiarly care about church planting.
Carter,
I obviously care about church planting. I’ve sponsored missions or church plants at three of the four churches I’ve pastored. I’ve served on staff at a church plant, although we called it a mission then.
It’s been amazing to me how simply raising this issue has caused some to question whether my desire to provide soteriologically screened church plants — again, just like A29 does — is motivated primarily by a partisan salvation doctrine or a genuine concern for planting churches and reaching souls.
When A29 does the very same thing, their motives are considered pure as silk. When I simply talk about the possibility of creating such a network, structured exactly the same but with different theology, I’m accused of partisanship, lack of cooperation, denying local church autonomy, caring more about assets than mission, and so on. Just amazing.
I do think the conversation is pretty well played out and we are going in circles. I was just trying to see if we might hit the 300 comment mark.
Doesn’t look like it.