;)
‘Show Me’ the Money … A New Day in Church Planting Funding?
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Uncategorized
I’m a little bit ticked. And I know that sbc IMPACT! is all about a positive message and “spurring one another toward good deeds.” But every now and then a tough issue comes along, and we need to deal with it. So allow me to vent just a little bit … and I promise you that I’m headed toward the whole “positive message” and “good deeds” goal. Trust me. 
Anyhow … the Executive Board of the Missouri Baptist Convention did it. I can’t say that I am surprised. They voted to cut off Cooperative Program funding to all church plants connected to the Acts 29 Network. The reason? A single Missouri Baptist church that partners with Acts 29, The Journey of St. Louis, hosted theological discussion groups in a bar. Those meetings were called, “Theology at the Bottleworks.” And some Missouri Baptists took issue. So the Executive Board exercised something of a “nuclear option” and de-funded all nine church plants in the MBC associated with the Acts 29 Network. How logical …”guilt by association,” “exit bathwater … include baby.”
What most people do not understand is that this decision is an intensely personal one. It really does not affect the budgets of the fledgling church plants. Instead, it affects the humble budgets of young church planters and their families. The amounts actually range from somewhere between $500 to $1500 a month in salary support for the planters. So, even though the MBC probably stands in some type of breach of contract, the amounts are so minuscule they wouldn’t even be worth pursuing from a legal standpoint (a sad testimony to our approach to church planting, indeed). But I’m sure those dollars seem huge to the church planters.
Of course, each of those planters already signed an agreement to abstain from alcohol and to teach abstinence from alcohol to their churches. But that did not seem to matter. Affiliation with the Acts 29 Network (which, by the way, does not fund church plants and strongly encourages church plants to “tithe” on their church income to their denominational structure) was evidence enough. A vote was taken. Cooperative Program funds were cut off.
I guess the one statement from this series of events that puzzles me the most is this one from MBC Interim Executive Director David Tolliver:
“We will continue to work with Acts 29 churches who choose to also be Missouri Baptist Convention churches. The Executive Board decision simply precludes us from funding those churches or church plants.”
But what does “continue to work with” mean? Does it mean that these de-funded MBC church plants should feel compelled to continue mailing in their Cooperative Program checks each month? Because that’s what it sounds like to me. But I digress…
I’m not going to get into the entire alcohol discussion here, even though it seems that is the true cause behind this action. Perhaps The Journey did go too far in their acceptance of a culture of drunkenness in their effort to foster discussion of biblical issues. Or, perhaps they were only trying to follow the example of Jesus and share a table with the “tax collectors and sinners” of their day. I guess it depends upon one’s point of view.
Instead, this event has given us an excellent opportunity to discuss and, perhaps, reconsider the way we fund church planting. I think our present system is cumbersome, bureaucratic, and inefficient. It is burdened with multiple, redundant levels of supervision. Church planting support/sponsorship dollars pass through far too many levels of Southern Baptist hierarchy and far too many hands on the way to our church planters. In the process, many of those dollars are skimmed to pay for buildings, infrastructure, salaries, etc… on a multiplicity of Southern Baptist “levels.” Let’s consider Missouri (since it is the topic of my discussion) as an example:
- A local church sends one dollar to the Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) in Cooperative Program giving.
- The MBC keeps 62₵ of that dollar and forwards 38₵ to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
- The SBC distributes that 38₵ to its various entities (seminaries, IMB, NAMB, etc…)
- One SBC entity, the North American Mission Board, partially funds church planting by returning some of its Cooperative Program money in the form of grants to the Missouri Baptist Convention (the original recipient of the original $) to be distributed to church plants as it sees fit. The MBC also includes (hopefully) some of its own budget funds for Church Planting.
- Said funds are, usually, doled out in small (welfare-level) amounts, forcing church planters to go out and secure funding on their own (though, sometimes, the SBC funds come with a few “strings” that prohibit seeking funds directly from SBC churches) or find secular employment while planting a new church.
- Sometimes the money even passes through associational “hands” on the way to the church planter.
Can someone please tell me how such a convoluted money trail makes any sense?
It is my deep and abiding conviction that church planting is not the responsibility of a denominational organization … even a Southern Baptist one. Church planting is, instead, the responsibility of the local church. It’s simply biblical. National boards and state conventions should not be our mechanisms for planting churches. They should be educating churches about church planting, but our local churches should be planting churches.
Personal Testimony: When we planted the Crossroads Fellowship in Cadiz, Kentucky, in 2002, one local church supported our plant. New Work Fellowship (an SBC congregation in a nearby town) provided $36,000 in direct salary to me in our first year. In 2003 we lowered that amount to $18,000. In 2004 we lowered it to $9,000. In 2005 we were fully self-supporting. Our new church has directly supported two church plants in our five-year history. Starting in 2008 we are investing 10% of our budget in planting churches among an unreached people group in Peru. It CAN be done. It should be done.
Yes, we need a system (NAMB?) to funnel funds to church plants in smaller state conventions and pioneer areas. But since our current organizational system is in place, state conventions like Missouri, Kentucky (where I live), Georgia, etc…, which keep the lion’s share of their CP dollars in-state, should (at the very least) bear the entire financial load of their own state’s church planting efforts. It seems ludicrous to send funds out-of-state via the Cooperative Program, only to have them return back to the state from which they came.
So, here’s my point. Here’s my positive “take” on this situation. I think that the “silver lining” to this cloudy event in Southern Baptist life is the fact that people are beginning to wake up and realize that they can take a much more active role in church planting at the individual, local church, and associational level. As well they should. Already, mechanisms have emerged to replace the grocery/rent money for that handful of recently de-funded planters in Missouri. Darren Casper, Director of Church Planting for the St. Louis Metro Association, has established the “Show Me Church Planting Fund” to replace the funding that has been removed from these planters. You can find information and an address to send money to this fund here. I pray that the association will receive direct funding from its churches to fund another 100 church planters in 2008. I also pray that they will pay those planters a respectable wage. And I further pray that more Southern Baptist churches will take a direct role in planting new congregations within their associations and states, rather than relying solely upon “proxy” efforts at the denominational level.
I’m sure that many will disagree with me. And that’s cool. I look forward to the discussion.
But, bottom line, if this event does stimulate more direct funding and more innovative, more active church planting efforts in the “Show Me State,” , or anywhere else for that matter, then I guess it really was a “good thing.”
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Geoff,
You said; “the Acts 29 Network (which, by the way, does not fund church plants and strongly encourages church plants to “tithe” on their church income to their denominational structure)
But, Acts 29 has a covenant that says; “ We agree to be an active church planting church. This means that when we begin our public services we will give 10% of our internal tithes and offerings (not monies raised from outside the church) to church planting, under local elder authority as follows:
* Primary funding consideration shall be given to Acts 29-approved planters.
* However, denominational and network-affiliated plants must honor their agreements with other affiliations and we will arrange the terms on a case by case basis.
While I understand that each church is encouraged to give back to their funded denominational entity, that is part of the covenant and sometimes that covenant takes precedence over Acts 29. Thus, the working case by case clause. So Acts 29 does not really strongly encourages church plants to “tithe” on their church income to their denominational structure.
Now, what Missouri Baptist ExCom did does seem somewhat harsh, I agree that it should have at least been a step down approach, the ExCom is made up of more that one or two people. This is a joint decision of the leaders in Missouri, that is autonomous of the SBC.
Should there be less bureaucratic levels? Certainly, I agree with you there. However, even when we have these levels of redundancy funds still get abused, just ask Texas.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
That portion of the covenant is simply an effort to build church planting into th DNA of the new church. And, of course, they would want network churches to re-invest within the network.
Just because more than one or two people made the decision certainly does not make it “right.” Yes, they are autonomous within the SBC, as are the churches which gave the $$$ to CP. I would venture to guess that some of those churches will by-pass this particular decision-making body if such harsh methods continue.
The whole Texas fiasco was another thing altogether … the natural result of glaring ignorance (the notion that house churches required financial support), a structure with tempting access to large “piles” of CP money, and a desire to “pad” their denominational “stats.” That was a sad day, indeed. Perhaps a good subject for another post.
But, hey, I’m glad we find a point of agreement on the “harshness” of the action.
Geoff
Geoff,
Spot on analysis, my friend. May I propose a different course for funding CP in the SBC, one which is not drastic, and does not remove levels of structure within the SBC? (Proposals which call for the removal of the association, state convention or NAMB always lead to controversy which means they stay theoretical and never get accomplished.)
Here goes: Local churches give money (they decide how much) to the cooperative program through their association. The association keeps some percentage of that money to fund church planting, working with the local churches to identify planters, train them and get them on the field. The rest of the CP money is sent directly to the IMB and some to the state convention, which helps distribute additional grants to associations which are smaller and unable to stand on their own. This money also funds a small state staff who educates and equips associations and churches in their work. The rest of those state CP funds are sent on to NAMB, which gives grants to state conventions who are in frontier areas, and also funds innovative and experimental initiatives in church planting and evangelism, developing a “think-tank” understanding of needs and solutions, in order to share information that will help conventions, associations and churches.
This plan would allow more funds to stay local, giving a DOM and local church members who are in associational leadership more discretion and ability to fund church plants.
I agree that SBC funding for church planters is a pittance: our average monthly associational grant is $250; and our average monthly state grant is $800 (if available, our state funds ran out halfway through the year). I don’t know too many church planters whose families can live off of $1050 a month. But in order to get those funds, this same church plant is required to give 3% to the association and 10% to the state convention (CP). So essentially, if you do the math, church plants are paying for church planting at the associational and state level. So what are the other churches paying for?
This is largely an issue of priorities. The money is there, but we are not spending much of it on church planting. Since church planting is the most effective evangelism tool we have, and since evangelism is the primary goal of missions, shouldn’t most of our missions money go to church planting?
Roger,
Sounds like a good plan … except for the fact that there are plenty of associations where church planting is not a priority, and not done. I fear that there would be many $$$ wasted even at that level.
I agree that this is an issue of priorities. We Southern Baptists have entirely too many “irons in the fire” that seem to have diminished impact from a Gospel perspective (i.e. real estate, six-figure salaries, etc…). We need to somehow settle down and get back to the basics.
That’s why some churches are engaging more in CP by directly funding new plants. My church has done so. I know that yours has. Frankly, I see more of it coming … unless we can discontinue losing so much of our funds in the support of SB infrastructure.
Geoff,
Good post and I’ll be sure to link to it over at my blog.
I’m the church planting intern at one of those nine affected churches in Missouri. This has been an emotional and interesting situation to say the least.
Also, if you guys can, this is something you’ll definitely want to watch today as Darrin and The Journey have kind of been at the center of this whole situation.
Marc,
Welcome to sbc IMPACT! As a life-long Southern Baptist I am grieved by what you folks have experienced. But I am confident that you will grow and excel for having lived through all of this.
I read about the video interview. Indeed, it should be interesting.
Thanks for the link. BTW … how did you find our site and this post? Just curious.
Blessings,
Geoff
Brother Geoff,
Do not get me wrong, I am not defending their actions. The same thing happened with a pastor friend of mine here in NC a couple of years ago. He was given notice in April that his funding would no longer be available come May. It was an extremely huge hit on him.
One other thing that I am told here in NC. The Church Planters are told not to use the NAMB money for salary supplement. They are told to use in for ministry and investing it into the church. They should seek their salary funding from other sources.
Also, Missouri Baptist are not the only ones that believe we should not be partnering with Acts 29. I agree that once you have entered into partnership with a group you should honor your commitment. That area you and I will agree that Missouri Baptist should hold to their commitment and not cut off funding like this. However, others in our convention do not believe it to be wise to form a partnership with them. Go to the following link and listen to the interview with Dr. Akin. At around the 18 minute mark he specifically stated that.
http://sbctoday.com/resources/audio-resources/interviews/
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Dr. Akin is entitled to his opinion, just like any other Southern Baptist. I think Dr. Stetzer might have a differing opinion.
I think it’s sad that we, as Southern Baptists, seem to be sinking deeper and deeper into an “us or them,” or even an “us -vs- them” mentality on so many fronts. Missouri church planters will now be forced to choose between the MBC and Acts 29. I submit that most, especially the more creative and innovative individuals, will opt for Acts 29. Tragic.
Geoff,
Interesting way of finding your blog. I was looking through my blog admin stuff and saw that someone had come to my blog through Google’s blogsearch.
So I looked down through the list of blogs that has referenced the Acts29 / MBC stuff and came across your post…
To give your readers a little perspective. The DOM (Director Of Missions) for our association is on the Executive Board and to date has never once sat down with our lead pastor, worship pastor or elders to discuss our Acts29 affiliation…
In addition to that, several other EB members from our region are literally minutes from us and we have never received leading up to this decision ONE communication regarding our affiliation with Acts29…
So indeed we were found guilty by association and de-funded. There are guys more directly impacted than me as they has funds already promised to them that they were counting on. But I’m in the pipeline to plant a church in MO in the next 12 – 18 months and this decision certainly stated that I was not welcome in the MBC if I kept my A29 affiliation…
Interesting stuff…I invited the entire Executive Board via email to watch the webcast…
We’ll see how this develops…
Marc,
I’m just glad you found your way here. Give us a link, check back in, and keep us informed. We need a “view from the inside” of this situation.
To speak to Tim Rogers post above, it seems that A29 is gaining steam rather quickly from a lot of respected corners…
Consider:
-Driscoll was a keynote speaker at Desiring God’s National Conference in 2006
-Southeastern Seminary hosted an A29 conference for all intensive purposes this past fall
-Stetzer, Dever, and other SBC’ers are speaking at A29 related conferences
-Tim Keller is practically the Godfather of the A29 movement
-Piper is speaking at the bootcamp I’m attending at the end of February
-more to come I’m sure
Point is, I think Geoff is right…and I think the MBC/SBC are mis-calculating this. If there is a decision forced on whether to affiliate with A29 OR the SBC – most young planters who will be successful at planting a church are going to choose A29…
Also consider that A29 – documented and verified – has a 100% success rate in their church plants… 100%…
So it’s not like they don’t know what they are doing…also…I would just encourage people to visit the A29 website and check out the doctrinal beliefs..
If A29 isn’t considered within Biblical orthodoxy, then you can’t come up with a group that is…
I’m thinking this has far more to do with Calvinism in the SBC than it does alcohol. The latter was the real reason for defunding, the former was the tool used to accomplish it.
If I’m right, this is just the beginning. I’m not confident that the SBC and Calvinism can coexist. And yes, I’m up to speed on it so don’t flame me.
If I’m wrong, this is still an action which should not have occurred.
Geoff,
I really like the idea of local gatherings supporting and multiplying themselves without having to send money to a special organization that takes some from the top. I also appreciate the fact that New Work Fellowship supported y’all in a multiplying effort. But I do not think your testimony is the ultimate solution to the problem. It could have been that you were meeting in a bar on Tuesday nights, sharing Christ with those who need him. If New Work found out they might have cut off your funds (purely hypothetical – I have no idea who New Work is and what they believe).
So, I agree that we should be supporting the spreading of the gospel. I think it might be better though if those who were being sent out would find fulltime jobs. This would free them up from much extra burden. Especially not having to be in someones “pocket.” It also frees up the church to use its monies more wisely. Instead of supporting one persons salary they could serve many people in need.
I think Paul would agree that this might be the “best” model (although it obviously isn’t the only model).
And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’
- Acts 20:32-35 ESV
Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?
- 1 Corinthians 9:4-6 ESV
But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.
- 1 Thessalonians 4:10-12 ESV
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
- 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 ESV
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
David,
I guess I’m going to need some explaining to make the Calvinism connection.
Lew,
You won’t get many arguments from me on the whole bivocational / tentmaker approach. In many areas it is, hands down, the most practical approach to church planting. I posted on that on my old blog several months ago.
But, one cannot say (in our culture and time) that the approach you suggest is best in all scenarios, either. The economic demands and the reality of providing for a family and a church are a bit different from Paul’s day. Certainly we should follow the biblical model as closely as possible, yet still realize that there are planters who need support.
And, ultimately, if we’re not financially supporting church planting missionaries (both North American and international)to start new congregations, the what in the world are we giving all of this denominational money for?
Really? Read the names of those involved in Acts 29 at the leadership level.
“Driscoll was a keynote speaker at Desiring God’s National Conference in 2006
-Stetzer, Dever, and other SBC’ers are speaking at A29 related conferences
-Tim Keller is practically the Godfather of the A29 movement
-Piper is speaking at the bootcamp I’m attending at the end of February”
With the exception of Stetzer, what’s the connection? That’s a who’s who of American Calvinism.
Much of the energy in church planting is being driven by the young reformed pastors being turned out by Southern. Many of the state conventions, at least the ones which aren’t CBF, are very traditional in their theology IOW not Calvinist. Having read about MO for years, I don’t think this is a logical leap. Might be wrong, and I hope so, because if I’m not, this is the first battle in a coming war.
Ahh … now I see where you’re coming from, David. Interesting analysis, indeed.
I’m one of those young (sort of) pastors turned out by Southern. I wouldn’t characterize myself as “reformed” in the textbook sense, but the theology has influenced my personal theology and ministry.
But I don’t know if I see such a war coming. I guess, like you, I hope you’re wrong on that one.
BTW – How’s the fishin’ down there? I’m already gearing up, tying my leaders, and getting ready for the pompano run in March/April.
David,
I agree that Calvinism may have been the issue. But I hate to put words in the mouths of those who made the decision. I would hope they would speak up and give clarity to their reasoning behind this.
Please let’s not have a war. I don’t think that is necessary. With all the young SBC Calvinists out there, and many other young SBCers who are willing to embrace those of reformed doctrine, and with all these new reformed churches being planted, and with guys like Dever and Keller and Driscoll and Piper and Mohler and Akin serving as mentors to thousands of young SBC pastors, I think we will simply find one day that the SBC has become reformed in its doctrine, or at least friendly to reformed doctrine – again. Let’s have patience, and let these theologians and disciplers and the Holy Spirit work and avoid a “war” which can only hurt spreading of the gospel.
I think this quote from the Baptist Press article about the action says an awful lot about the “why” behind this:
“Davidson argued that only a handful of board members were informed enough about the Acts 29 Network to be able to vote on any motion that was critical of it. He said on two separate occasions that his knowledge was lacking.
But Dunn spoke for the majority of board members who have at least heard about The Journey’s well-publicized barroom ministry and are bothered by it and vow that it will never happen again.”
I think “uninformed” is probably the best word to describe the action.
John-
To echo your point, while standing in line to check out of our hotel at the Missouri Baptist Convention in October, our church’s administrator was standing next to an MBC ExComm member. When he asked the gentleman why everyone was upset over The Journey, the ExComm member adamantly contended that The Journey owned and operated a bar and that they held their worship services there. Although our Administrator asked him to clarify himself 3 separate times, the ExComm member continued to maintain that faulty position.
It’s this kind of ridiculous ignorance that fueled this decision. It is most unfortunate that this happened. Most unfortunate.
John and Micah,
Welcome to sbc IMPACT! It was apparent that many of the votes must have been cast out of ignorance. But it is almost unbelievable that someone in such a position as that could have their facts so in disarray.
But … then again … often-times the truth is not as important as the perception of truth.
Brother Marc,
I normally would alllow your comment in #11 to go unchallenged, but since you called me by name, I feel you called the ball so I will dance. :^)
Seriously, I do believe that MBC should have given a step-down approach to ending the funding. They should honor their agreement with the church planters.
Having said that, I ask you to connect to the link I have linked to in comment #7. You will hear from Dr. Akin about the good things Acts 29 in church planting. But, he expresses a concern about partnering with them in church planting efforts. It is not about triumphalism, or about independence. It is about a denomination that has people that agree and disagree over ways to do church planting. I believe a church should be planted by a church, not a denomination.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Careful on those “dancing” comments. Legalistic eyes are watching.
But I don’t have a problem with it, so I’ll dance!
And, hey! You agree with me again!
(On churches planting churches, that is…)
But what does this mean? “It is about a denomination that has people that agree and disagree over ways to do church planting.”
I’m not tracking with you on that one.
If churches should be planting churches, and everything in Baptist life is autonomous, then why all the “concern” about independent, local church plants partnering with the entities they so choose?
No, I think this is about independence… and control. And I think that, like so many other things (even in SB life), it’s about the “power of the purse strings.” i.e., “You do things our way, or forget about getting Baptist funding.”
The inherent danger in our approach is that church planting (by its nature, one of the most innovative, challenging ventures within our faith) done by denominational “committee” gets “dumbed down” to what the most legalistic and uninformed people involved in the process can be “comfortable with.” (Case in point – the MBC.) The end result is the “same old same old,” churches that look and sound like all of the other existing churches on a particular field. Going after the same previously churched people … with on one targeting the people on the fringes who will never darken the door of a traditional model church.
Something HAS to change. I think this event, and others that will surely come, may have accelerated that change.
It’s too cold to think of fishing. I’m freezing down here – it’s 47 degrees for goodness sake.
It is hard to rule out the role of ignorance in SBC denominational life – I’ll certainly grant that. So forgive me for adding to it.
But how is it that we seek through the CP to plant churches internationally and that’s great, wonderful, to be celebrated and what a denomination ought to be doing. But here at home, that’s not a denominational function?
So I’m missing something now. Might be another cup of coffee will help. Can we still drink that? I’m in Florida so I have to be careful, beverages are an issue here too.
David,
Coffee … Too funny …
Actually, local churches can and should plant overseas, as well. It’ just that our IMB improves logistics dramatically.
Geoff, what a great post! Talk about spurring us on toward love and good deeds. I can see a dozen opportunities for that from this post and the comment stream. Do you happen to know exactly what prompted those brothers in Christ to begin a Bible-study in that bar and do they just have one study in one bar or in several? Do they drink along with the folks with whom they are trying to teach the Bible? And who has been sent out to do the study—a group, a team, a pastor?
Leave it to me to chase a rabbit.
I do wish we had a better way of handing down money to churches within the local areas and could eliminate some wasted funds as well as wasted energies and time of very capable leaders to share the gospel. Great idea to continue discussing.
On a side note: my husband was one of those guys who was called by a church to pastor their mission plant. He was to build it into a self-supporting church. As the church grew and more and more new faces came into the church, the pre-existing members got concerned because they didn’t want to be self-sustaining. They kinda liked the support of the mama-church and all the stuff they did for them for free that the mission church was fully capable of doing on their own. In time they began to grumble and complain and the pastor of the main church made a unilateral decision to eliminate my husband’s position by simply dissolving the responsibility of the mother church to it. They turned the church mission over to the association and we were kicked out the door with a month’s severance and no place to go. It was a sad time in our ministry. It created tremendous hardship on us financially from which we never really recovered. Emotionally it took a tremendous toll on our children as they saw a faithful man of God dumped into the streets by a pastor for what he said, “It’s just politics.”
It may have been “just politics” to him. But it was our lives and the lives of those young people and families we had begun to reach in that mission church. Several of the youth were devastated. They were lied to by the pastor of that church and believed we left the church of our own free will.
So, sometimes even the local church is not the best in all church planting situations. Wish we lived in a perfect world, don’t you? selahV
Tim: I always appreciate your voice of reason and thoughtful input. selahV
SelahV,
I’m not sure of all the particulars on the discussions in the bar. I don’t quite think they were Bible studies per se. I think they were more like guided discussions on faith topics that church leaders used as a bridge to share their faith and invite people to their church. It sounded like a really interesting strategy to me. I don’t think I could do it … I would truly be a “fish out of water” in a bar.
Your story is another tragedy that is all too familiar in church life. Indeed, I wish we did live in a perfect world. Perhaps a planned step-down of support (like we planned for our plant) would have solved the dependency issues in your plant. In any case, it sounds like the “mother” church had good intentions but no real clue how to plant a successful, self-sustaining church. I’m truly sorry you guys had to go through that. I guess you can relate to these men who have had their promised funds removed.
And don’t go bragging on Tim too much. He actually thinks barbecue is supposed to have vinegar on it!
Brother Geoff,
I love dancing. I left the Baptist Identity Conference early last year because I was taking my daughter to her first school dance. I was dancing to Sweet Home Alabama when my cell phone rang and it was my Chairman of Deacons. :^) He certainly had a great time pursuing the question of where my location was.
I am in agreement that there needs to be this loosening of the levels of accountability. What I am not in agreement about, I think, is that the money should go straight from the denominational department to the church plant. There has to be some level of accountability on the field. Look at the IMB. The M’s on the field do not get the money straight from the IMB, it goes through Regional Directors and they turn in their request for the funds. As autonomous churches the Church Plant really does not have to be accountable to anyone.
We agree that Churches should be planting churches. Whatever a church does with their individual money is withing their accountability to God for how they use those funds. However, when they request to use money that is given from the church that I pastor they just moved into my realm of accountability before God.
Also, one thing that you have not covered that is becoming all too prevelant in the church planting movement. Churches that run 5-600 people and larger are requesting funds for satellite campuses. This is not a church plant it is a church growth. That is going to be the next issue that someone in denominational leadership will have to step up on.
Blessings,
Tim
SelahV…
If you want to chase that rabbit, you might go here, and see what Journey says.
Since I’m chasing it a bit, I will note that it’s a bit of a misunderstanding to call what they’re doing a Bible study in a bar. If I understand correctly, it’s more of a way to engage culture and connect with people, with the ultimate goal being to share Christ.
I guess I’m just curious if the response of the MBC would have been the same if the “theology discussion” had been held at Applebee’s or Fatz, since they also serve alcohol. What about Pizza Hut? Or what about my local convenience store? Can I witness to the cashier at Food Lion? They sell beer there, you know. I’m sure many of them have tried marijuana. Can I witness at my company Christmas party if there’s alcohol available? Can I even attend without endangering my church’s funding???
I’m HIGHLY disappointed with this ruling, even though I have absolutely NOTHING to do with the MBC. It’s a trend I don’t like to see, because I’m sure BSCNC will follow.
Bernard,
Good point. I hadn’t thought of that, actually.
I’m sure that most of the people on the MBC Executive Board shop at Wal-Mart. I believe (though I may be wrong)that in Missouri they carry not only a full range of beers, but a large selection of wines, as well. You can also buy Bibles there, as well as the latest thriller from the pen of Joel Osteen.
Isn’t it interesting how people seem to draw the moral “do not cross” line just a step or two beyond their own feet?
Brother Bernard,
You say; “It’s a trend I don’t like to see, because I’m sure BSCNC will follow.” What do you base your conclusion on that the BSCNC will follow the Missouri convention?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim – You bring up a fair question in that I don’t really have any evidence at all to cause such a conclusion. It’s based on my recent frustration regarding the Myers Park problem, the WMU debacle, the Baptist Retirement Homes, and even the colleges that voluntarily gave up their support because of the BSCNC insistence toward controlling the boards. (Myers Park is a little different; I think the BSCNC did the right thing, but I’m not sure that the issue is really settled or even fairly presented). I’m just concerned that the BSCNC is going to have to make a similar decision, even though it may not be driven by alcohol, in the near future.
Along lines we have discussed here before, Pinnacle Church, a church plant of Biltmore Baptist in Asheville, was nearly refused membership in the Haywood Baptist Association because of the missing word “Baptist” in the name. Only a “call for the previous item” forced a vote and stopped a noisy discussion. The church was voted in, praise God.
Here in Western NC, we still see, from time to time, votes on liquor by the drink. Churches always get involved in a big way, but the votes always seem to carry anyway.
Asheville is an incredibly liberal city. It is central to many New Agers, and it is also a hotbed of gay agenda activity. I know there are many non-Baptist churches here with a lot of pro-gay activity, and I know that the issue is sure to get into the Baptist world soon, as well. I wouldn’t be surprised that some of the “edgy” Baptist churches are already into this “bar ministry” mentality, but it’s not “known” yet, necessarily. There are many fine Baptists who would knee-jerk react to that, and thus, I have a “belief” that a similar situation to MBC would occur.
Just a “hunch”. Not really a fair “deduction”, I admit.
maybe i havent exactly understood what’s going on with the journey church, but you hear a lot of things. what i heard was that they were meeting for worship in a bar, and that they were drinking alcohol during the bible study/worship time. maybe this is all wrong. i dont know.
but, bernard, i dont think that the people in mo would have any problem with having bible studies in applebee’s, or walmart, or in your local convenient store. i think that the problem they had was the idea of worship in a bar. am i correct?
let me just say this here and now…i dont see any problem with them having an outreach type of bible study in a bar. i’ve also gone to bars and handed out gospel tracts. my former dom in ms would go to bars to witness. in fact, he tried to get me to go into the redneck riviera one time to witness. that was a bar that kind of shot out over the water at a cutoff in the ms river! lol. when i lived in ms…close to the casinos in tunica…i seriously considered having a bible study in the casinos for the workers. i moved back to tn before that became a reality, but i seriously prayed and thought on it. so, if the only reason that the mbc cut off these churches was because they had an outreach bible study in a bar, then this is not good. but, was there more to all of this than the bible study in a bar? was this really the only thing that they had against acts 29?
david
David – It actually appears that they cut off several churches who were NOT having outreaches in a bar, simply because they were members of a network which DID have churches having outreaches in a bar.
Again, I’m not authoritatively educated either. I’m just curious. Applebee’s has a bar. They serve alcohol. Pizza Hut serves beer. It is consumed on site.
I, like you, am curious as to the real issue.
I’m a bit hesitant to step into the discussion, since I’ve already been down the road of controversial blogging before. However, I think the overall tone here has been really positive and constructive. I just wanted to weigh in on the whole issue of funding and church autonomy.
I think it’s a local church issue. SBC churches are local and autonomous. We do what we choose to do with our money. We can be as participatory in the SBC or non-participatory as we choose. We can direct our giving to any missionary, any agency, or any effort. For that matter, a local SBC church could buy a bar and use it as a church. Or buy a church and use it as a bar. We don’t have to change the direction of the whole SBC, nor do we have to jump ship because we disagree. We can disagree and still work together.
Our church continues to support the CP even though we don’t agree with everything the LBC or the SBC does. We give additional funding to those areas we think need extra money. Individually our church of 150 has supported church planting in Russia, Uganda, Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, the Philippines, China, and our own parish. Through the CP we have supported it worldwide.
The angst seems to come when we expect the SBC, or the MBC, or the LBC or the SBT or the BGCT to do what we individually want them to do. They won’t always agree with us. So, cowboy up and give your money where God tells your church to give it
We give to the SBC because we believe in world missions. Then we go and do world missions ourselves, and we fund it ourselves, too. When I was a kid we would not have dreamed of giving to anything but the CP. We also never dreamed about planting churches, and no one from our church ever went on a mission trip (even across town). The times, they have already changed.
Cyle,
What controversy?
VolFan007-
I can promise you that they were not having worship in a bar. They had a discussion time at an establishment that served alcohol. If you ask Darrin Patrick, their pastor, he will confirm that this is an intentional effort on their behalf to enter their community and develop relationships with the express purpose of being able to share Christ with them.
I’m all for applauding that kind of ministry.
Micah
Psalm 67
micah,
if all it was was an outreach in a bar setting, then i too applaud their efforts. i just cant help but feel that there has to be more to this whole thing than that, though. was there? i honestly dont know. maybe someone out there can shed more light on this.
david
VolFan007-
I’ve spoken to Darrin Patrick, pastor of the Journey, and I’m pretty confident there’s nothing else at play. What makes this even more frustrating is that very few, in fact almost no one, has gone to Patrick or the other guys to hear them out. They were never given an opportunity to address the MBC ExComm either. I don’t understand how our ExComm can make these decisions without even trying to hear from the people affected.
David,
The information about the discussion groups is found on the link that John gave in comment #30. Also, there was a video interview today. I haven’t seen it yet, and I can’t remember where I saw the link. Does anyone know? Anyhow, it wasn’t “worship in a bar.” That’s the big un-truth. It was a discussion group, plain and simple. That’s the truth.
But this is one of those cases where the truth about what what was going on really doesn’t seem to matter. Faulty information has been canonized as “the truth,” and nine church plants that had absolutely nothing to do with Journey Church were de-funded simply because they were affiliated with the Acts 29 Network.
I, too have been the victim of rumor and innuendo in Southern Baptist life. My church was rejected from fellowship based upon false information. I cannot tell you how many times i heard the phrase, “Well, I was told ___________…” and their “blank” was filled in with lies. This was a travesty. But what some intended for evil, I’m sure God will use to make good.
Geoff-
The discussion was on Shapevine.com. It was a good discussion. I believe that they are going to archive it and make it available to the public.
So apparently this follows other actions by the MBC that add a pledge of abstinence to the information sheet for prospective servants to the convention.
“An alcohol abstinence provision has been added to the profile sheets nominees to Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) boards must complete before selections are made.” – from the Pathway
Not sure if debate means the same in MO “After several minutes of debate, in which no opposition was expressed, the committee unanimously passed the addition to the profile sheet.”
This was done in November and followed a vote at the annual meeting which said in part “no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Missouri Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.”
There’s a lot of action on alcohol it seems.
What’s so disappointing to me about all this is the encouragement from our leaders in the SBC about evangelizing outside the church. Go into our communities and witness, they say. Here we have a church (The Journey) who actually does just that and they’re villanized for it.
Is it just me or does it seem that our talk doesn’t match our actions?
Les
david w.,
i agree totally with this statement of the mo baptist convention….”This was done in November and followed a vote at the annual meeting which said in part “no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Missouri Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.” to that statement i say, “amen!”
david
Brother Micah,
You said; “They had a discussion time at an establishment that served alcohol. If you ask Darrin Patrick, their pastor, he will confirm that this is an intentional effort on their behalf to enter their community and develop relationships with the express purpose of being able to share Christ with them.” Didn’t the controversy begin with the way this outreach was reported on the church’s website? The website, as I remember, advertised their Bible study as a time for everyone to bring their bible and enjoy some brew. Probably not the correct verbiage, but the advertisement certainly promoted beverage alcohol. When approached about it Brother Patrick pleaded ignorant, which he could have been, about what was being advertised on his own website.
I have said earlier that I believe the MBC should have used a step-down approach. However, Brother Patrick bears some responsibility here. He is VP in the Acts 29 network. He should have been working overtime to assure the MBC that this was not what they were about. Journey, while autonomous, is a foundational church in Missouri for Acts 29. Like it or not, they are the die caste for church plants in Missouri for Acts 29 churches.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Sincerely, ow much and what kind of reassurance do you think would have gotten the job done?
How much assurance would it have taken for all of the other de-funded church plants to make sure the MBC ExComm know that they were not about serving alcohol as part of church? Would a signed covenant have done the trick?
Oh … wait a minute … they did that, didn’t they?
I submit that no amount of drawing lines of connection or “degrees of separation” from The Journey to all of those other church plants will excuse this action. The MBC stands in breach of contract to these churches, plain and simple.
This is yet another step that is forcing some of the best and brightest young men in Southern Baptist life to choose between the SBC and some other organization. More and more, these “best and brightest,” who care nothing for religious politics and maneuvering, are going to opt for something else … perhaps anything else … than the SBC. And that is, most definitely, not a good thing. I fear that there are more standing on the threshold of going in another direction, and stuff like this blanket de-funding will encourage them on their merry way. Again … not a good thing.
Brother Geoff,
Let’s look at what we agree on. We agree that MBC should honor it’s commitment. If they cannot see their way clear to do such a thing, then there should be a step-down approach. We agree that you do not leave a commitment like that between MBC and these church plants.
We agree that all churches should not be judged by one. We agree. You cannot judge all church plants that are connected with Acts 29 by Journey, even though their Pastor is a VP in Acts 29 network. We agree!
We disagree on the amount of efforts to alleviate fears. These are things that I believe Journey, as a church, and Acts 29, as a network, should have been doing. Call it cultural differences or not, there should have been face to face meetings with everyone in one room discussing this issue. We do not wait until after the cow is out of the barn to close the barn door.
Some may say that Pastor Darrin tried by emailing and setting up times to meet. Some may say that others have tried the same thing. However, as a pastor, if the church I lead makes the state headlines and even goes national, with some ministry that causes a Executive Director to lose his job, I am in the office of those making these kinds of decisions in order to straighten out the mis-information. Once they produce an Interim Executive Director, I am in his office making certain he has the correct information.
In all due respect, it is not on MBC to initiate these meetings. If there is such a dependence on the purse strings as we have been told in this post, it is on those involved in the network to make sure correct information is getting where it needs to get.
Of course that is just my humble, traditional mindset, back woods, redneck opinion. And I am sure it may be in disagreement with yours. But we are still Brothers and I respect your opinion also.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
We do agree on some things in this situation. But I do not agree on any “step-down.” The MBC should honor its contracts. If they want to cease funding beyond the churches with promise in hand, then fine. But even in Southern Baptist life a majority vote should not be sufficient to allow us to go back on our word.
I guess the big thing that we will not agree on is this entire “guilt by association” approach. What The Journey did had nothing to do with Acts 29, let alone the other churches that participate in the network. Those other church plants/planters had nor have any business trying to explain anything done by The Journey. If we Southern Baptist pastors went around explaining everything done by our sister churches, we would have scant time to devote to our ministries.
I wonder, though … will the MBC still receive Cooperative Program checks from these de-funded churches? If, as some seem to think, all of these churches are tainted by the scourge of alcohol and the faulty methodology of the Acts 29 Network, aren’t those dollars tainted, as well?
Brother Geoff,
You are now adding words that no one has stated. No one has stated that Acts 29 has faulty methodology, and no one has stated that these churches are tainted by the scourge of alcohol. What people have stated is that they do not agree with this direction, plain and simple. If one an agreement is in place and the methods and actions used by one party are fall into unwritten standards, then by all means a step-down approach should be used to end the relationship. The unwritten standards were probably not known by one party or another. In that case a clear statement of standards should be revised and then an exit strategy should be implemented if the standards are not agreed to.
If there is a covenant in place that the leadership has signed to abstain from alcohol, but the church does outreach in a bar advertising on the church website, to bring your bible and grab a brew, that is a violation of an unwritten standard. The spirit of the covenant has been violated and that needs to be addressed.
That is all I am saying. I am not trying to defend actions on either side of this debate. I am just saying when a covenant is in place, the words of the covenant are honored along with the spirit of the covenant.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Geoff,
I missed this the first time. That is what I get for speed reading. :^)
You said; “What The Journey did had nothing to do with Acts 29.” If we took that approach then what NC Baptist did to Myers Park should not have been done. The pastor at The Journey is a VP in Acts 29. If NC Baptist would have said we will live and let live then we are just as guilty of condoning homosexual behavior as Myers Park. Acts 29 is a network of churches. What the leaders and their churches do, in the Acts 29 network, tell the world the type of churches one can expect when one becomes a part of the network. It is not guilt by association, it is guilt by being part of this network because that is what they stand for.
Blessings,
Tim
Ah, but homosexuality is expressly forbidden in Scripture, and alcohol is not. So any effort to exclude someone from full participation in the Body based on a nonabusive consumption of alcohol is then legalism and unbiblical.
You can say what you want to about methods, but you can’t twist Scripture to mean what it very clearly doesn’t. There is no abstinence requirement, unless we consider ourselves born in Nazareth.
It was wrong in Florida and it’s wrong in Missouri.
Brother David,
No one has expressed whether scripture is clear or unclear concerning alcohol. That is not the issue being discussed. I used the Myers Park situation to clearly express that if it was not dealt with, then the convention would have been viewed as condoning homosexuality for one reason–Myers Park.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
A quick correction… The Journey’s website originally said “grab a brew, share your view”, in regard to Theology at the Bottleworks, not “bring your Bible, grab a brew”. You can go to the link I gave in comment #30 above to see what they have up about it now.
As Darrin Patrick has repeated explained (see Baptist Press article here), the original text was published on Journey’s website by their secular web design firm. He states that it was removed as soon as it was brought to his attention, because “it does not reflect the values of our church”.
Of course, the truth about this portion of Journey’s ministry doesn’t matter now anyway… the misconceptions have stuck (as evidenced by comments on this post, particularly illustrated in Micah’s comment above, #20). This battle is over for now… Acts 29 has been condemned by the MBC Executive Board, and they don’t meet again until April. Odds are that nothing will change then.
Anyway, I suppose all of us who are upset about this ought to just pitch our convictions and take the advice of one member of the Theological Study Committee (as posted on the Missouri Baptist mailing list last night).
“Get over it.”
But that is the issue.
It was wrong to not engage in dialogue – both sides on this are guilty of not going to their brothers and doing whatever they could do to make it right.
It was wrong to make alcohol an issue. These sort of extrabiblical acts will not just run young pastors away. Keep at it and a lot of us will be gone.
But it was horrendous to arbitrarily break a contract, and then to break it with everyone associated was just sad.
We cannot do relationship by proxy. We cannot resolve conflict by email. Policies don’t replace our obligation to leave and go make it right.
This is one of those times when someone needs to get the parties together and lock them in a room until they work through it.
Just a quick correction of a mis-statement someone made, to keep us out of trouble – The Nazarite vow of abstinence has nothing to do with being from the city of Nazareth. Jesus was a Nazarene, not a Nazarite. There’s a big difference, not that it makes any difference to this discussion, even though it’s a very common misconception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene
david wilson,
many of us out here do believe that alcohol use is “foolish” according to proverbs, and to be “high,” or drunk, on alcohol is sin according to ephesians. so, we believe that alcohol, or strong drink usage, is foolish at best and sinful at worst. thus, to sponser a church that is advertising drinking(which i didnt know when this conversation first started)would be looked upon as foolish and even sinful…according to how many of us in the sbc believe about alcohol usage…and apparently many in the mbc feel the same. we do see it as scriptural. we do see it as scriptural. we do see this issue as scriptural. how many times do we have to say it before someone understands. we know that some people do not. and, that’s between you and the Lord. but, dont expect the majority(apparently…according to numerous votes in the sbc’s and according to the mbc’s stand here) to accept it, nor to sponser it.
so, tim, you’re saying that the journey church was advertising for people to come to a bible study and grab an alcoholic drink on the way in? good gracious! i knew there had to be more to this than just an outreach bible study in a bar.
let me ask all of you…why in the world would a church advertise this way? and, why should mo baptists, or sb’s, or any other church be asked to support something like this?
this reminds me of that church in washington state, i believe it was, that told women to dress to kill and for everyone to bring their id’s for a new year’s party. i wouldnt want cp dollars going to a church with this lack of discernment either.
david
David,
Please read John’s comment (#55). It corrects Tim’s errors in fact regarding the promotion of this particular ministry of Journey.
It more than clarifies the mistake by the secular web designer. It was resolved. it has been explained over and over. But it doesn’t matter. Perception has replaced truth, it seems.
But it is to no avail to even try to explain anything when people will simply “grab hold” of a misinterpretation of the facts and continue to hold on, despite the explanations and clarifications. That mindset is what led to this state of affairs.
Besides, I still submit that the actions of Journey should have no bearing upon the other church planters who had nothing to o with Journey … no matter how one may do “calisthenics” with logic and exercise multiple loops of circular reasoning.
I wonder if Southern Baptists will become as indignant about broken promises and breached contracts as some did about discussion groups in a local bar.
I still say that the denomination needs to get out of church planting. Local churches need to be planting churches.
well, i was typing this at the same time as the two previous ones. so, the pastor said that it was a mistake, and they took the advertisement down after they saw it on the website. then, again, i have to say…what’s the problem? why did mo baptist do this?
also, i’m getting tired of all the “if we dont do this, or if we do that, then all the young pastors are gonna leave” arguements. if they feel that they have to go…well, there’s the door. if they dont like sound doctrine, or if they dont want to abide by Godly wisdom, then see ya later, baby. listen, if all the older pastors dont like something that the rest feel is very important, well…there’s the door. i’ve always felt that people gotta do what they feel like they’ve gotta do. but, dont threaten everyone with your…”if i dont get my way, then i’m taking my marbles and going home” stuff, and then stomp off with a pouty lip. that’s nothing short of blackmail, and anyone who tries to threaten with that arguement needs to think about it long and hard.
david
Tim-
You stated that Darrin should have been working overtime to assuage fears. That would have been great except he was never given an opportunity to speak to the ExComm. He went to the meetings. I know because I’ve seen he and his staff/interns sitting in the meetings, and yet not one time has he been given the opportunity to speak. He has met with our Interim Exec. Director but has not been given a voice otherwise.
Trust me, this misunderstanding is not because Darrin hasn’t tried. I’m convinced it’s more so because others don’t want to listen.
This thought is justified even more so in that the ExComm Theology committee asked Midwestern Theology professor, Dr. Mark Devine, to address them concerning Acts 29 and the Journey during their deliberations and, after listening to his studied conclusions for 4.5 hours, turned around and rejected most of his conclusions.
Ok, David. I get that you believe alcohol use is a sin and you don’t want to associate with those who do not think it is.
And I get that you are fine with people leaving the SBC so you can continue in that.
But again, SBTS is churning out lots of guys who believe in sola scriptura, and if the Bible doesn’t say alcohol is inherently wrong, you are not going to change their view. The tipping point will come as boomer pastors age, retire, and this group of young theologians take their place.
They will be strong on living a holy life, on having a clear witness, but they will not prohibit what the Bible allows.
At what point, or is there one, that the SBC looks around and sees it’s a graying, increasingly ineffective, fractious group increasingly focused on keeping people “right” before it realizes it is dying?
Nevermind – Back to topic.
If this is our denomination, then we definitely need to get out of church planting altogether. We simply don’t have enough to hold us together – even contracts bear no weight.
david wilson,
your last comment was so off base and untrue that it was just about laughable.
i do associate with people who drink. i love people who drink just like i love people who dont drink. i dont want to support m’s, or have trustees who do. they are supposed to be wise people that we can trust.
also, sb churches can do whatever they want to do. we’re autonomous. just dont expect everyone to ok things that the majority of us see as foolish, unwise, bad, or sinful.
and, it’s also not just sbts guys who believe in scripture only. i believe in scripture only as well. i’m a mid america baptist seminary grad. and we were taught scripure only. and, how pridefully arrogant for someone to say that only young, sbts grads are the only ones who believe in sola scriptura. good grief, charlie brown.
also, a lot of us believe that the scriptures call anyone who drinks alcohol, or strong drink, foolish. and, to be high on the stuff is sin. thus, to be holy and to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord, we dont drink alcohol. instead, we try to find our life in Jesus and to be filled, or high, on the Holy Spirit. it’s much better to be full of the joy and the peace and the love of Jesus. i used to be a pot smoking drinker btw, so i should know.
also, i know of a lot of young pastors…lots of them…who believe like i do. so, i guess that the announcement about our death is a little premature…dont you think?
david wilson, the sbc is a huge denomination that is doing much, much good for the kingdom of God. the Lord is using our churches in a great way all over the world. i’m just sad that you dont see it.
also, we are very much into church planting, and i pray that we will continue to plant good, wise, sound churches with our cp dollars. may all the naysayers and negative nellies go start their own denomination. let’s see how they do.
one time, i had a negative nellie in one of the churches that i pastored who was always complaining and stirring up strife, and she would always bring up the “if i dont get my way then i’m leaving” arguement. one day, she got so mad over some petty, little thing that yall would laugh about that she told me she was leaving our church. in a most gracious way, as she walked out the front door of our church that sunday, i said,”well, we’ll see ya, then.” but, the whole time she was walking away from the door of the church, i was thinking of the old country song…”thank God and greyhound, she’s gone.”
david
David, I’m sorry I offended. Your restatement of what I said isn’t in agreement with what I actually wrote.
So I’ll thank you for your time and bow out.
Blessings,
David
Brother Geoff,
Before you continue to try an malign me in your comments to Brother David Worley in comment #58 by referencing Brother John Stickley’s erroneous comments in #55, you both need to go and re-read what I wrote to Brother Micah in comment #47. I never said that was what was on the website. I said that it was something promoting the beverage alcohol. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!
There are no errors in fact in what I said! I hire a secular web designer, I am going to know what is placed on the web site before it goes on the web. That is a ludicrous argument. I do not doubt that Brother Patrick did not know it was on the web sight, but someone in church leadership approved the site before it went public. If not, then The Journey certainly has learned a valuable lesson from this fiasco.
Brother Micah,
Your response in #60 adds much insight. If I were in the MBC somebody, somewhere would hear from me. I would be standing on anything crowing like a bantam rooster. If the Ex. Com. will not hear from the Pastor they have accused even after he has tried repeatedly to meet with them, there is something hugely amiss. If I haven’t said it before, I am saying it now, I will not serve in a convention that my voice cannot be heard. Especially if I am supporting that convention and working with them.
If this has happened as you said, and I have no reason to doubt your statements, then where are these alternative candidates that were elected to office back in November. Are they not part of the Ex. Com? While everyone racked Brother Roger Moran over the coals, Missouri certainly didn’t do anything like this under his tenure, did they?
Blessings,
Tim
Okay, everyone …
Let’s all push our chairs back from our computers, close our eyes, and take a deep, clean Kentucky breath. (If you’re not in Kentucky, just try to imagine breathing the most perfect, cool, crisp, clean air in the world …
)
Okay … now that we’re all calm and peaceful …
David (volfan),
Your “leave the denomination” comments seem to be in response to an observation I made. Please, my friend, don’t misinterpret what I said. No one has threatened to leave anything. I simply made an observation of what I see coming in the days ahead. David Wilson makes a similar observation, just in a bit stronger terms than I would use.
But I do see a crisis of age looming in the SBC. One would have to be in a state of denial not to see it. And if we continue to paint as “evil” and “wrong” the strategies being developed and churches being planted to try and reach a younger generation, I believe we are accelerating that crisis.
I certainly have never threatened to leave anything. I am the “poster child” of Southern Baptists who have been marginalized, disenfranchised, and even outright rejected in Southern Baptist life … yet I still hang on. I’m still a Southern Baptist. I don’t lead my church to place as many dollars in the denominational “pot” as most do, but I’m still SB, still partnering with our missionaries, still promoting Lottie, and still going on mission.
But I fear there are many young folk who are not as strong-willed and thick-skinned as I. And if, within an autonomous convention of churches (NOT a denomination) we truly unleash this, “Get over it. We’re in control. If you’re not happy, there’s the door,” attitude, then someone had better be “appointed” to “turn out the lights” in all the buildings when everyone is gone.
Tim,
Please. I have not attempted to “malign” you. Since when should pointing out an error ever be construed as an effort to “malign?” I certainly did not intend it as such.
You said, in your last comment “I never said that was what was on the website. I said that it was something promoting the beverage alcohol.” I don’t understand … what promotion are we talking about, if not on the web site? I’m confused … a little.
I merely pointed out that you stated an error in fact in Comment 47, the same error that so many people seem to be making: that Journey was using alcohol to promote church, or vice-versa.
Then, David Worley latched onto your statement and replied, “…so, tim, you’re saying that the journey church was advertising for people to come to a bible study and grab an alcoholic drink on the way in? good gracious! i knew there had to be more to this than just an outreach bible study in a bar.” (Comment 57)
Tim, I’m just trying to show that this is how slight misinterpretations of the real truth can be birthed and propagated … especially within the church. Innuendo is always only one small piece of misinformation away from any factual statement.
You said (in 47): “Didn’t the controversy begin with the way this outreach was reported on the church’s website? The website, as I remember, advertised their Bible study as a time for everyone to bring their bible and enjoy some brew.” I simply think that is an error in fact.
Fact: “The Journey’s website included an invitation to “grab a brew, share your view” when attending the Theology at the Bottleworks meeting. A picture of people raising glasses of beer in an apparent toast appeared adjacent to an essay by Patrick on the church’s website. Patrick attributed the content to a secular website design company hired by the church. He told Baptist Press he had the alcohol-related verbiage and picture removed as soon as they came to his attention because “it does not reflect the values of our church.” (From Baptist Press)
Good people of God should accept the word of this Southern Baptist pastor and move on. But such is not our “way,” it seems.
Anyhow, this is becoming far too much of a wild rabbit. Because, again, the root of this issue is not the actions of one autonomous church. It is the actions of a denominational committed toward an entire network of autonomous churches.
And, Tim, if I have offended you in any way, I am truly sorry. It was not my intention.
I really do work hard to disagree “agreeably.”
Geoff,
You sure know how to stir things up.
Les
Les, that’s what my mama used to tell me.
“Just a quick correction of a mis-statement someone made, to keep us out of trouble – The Nazarite vow of abstinence has nothing to do with being from the city of Nazareth. Jesus was a Nazarene, not a Nazarite. There’s a big difference, not that it makes any difference to this discussion, even though it’s a very common misconception.”
Absolutely right. I know better than that. My bad.
Thanks for the correction,
David
Tim-
As clarification, the ExComm is made up of a majority of people who were selected under what you term “his (Roger Moran’s) tenure”. The new individual’s who were selected are the President, VP etc. of the MBC. The new candidates on the ExComm were still selected under the old regime. It will take aprox. 2-3 years at least before the new regime has a majority on the board.
There is little the new leaders can do. That’s why I’ve been trying to communicate to people in Missouri that the real ability to make changes is not at the MBC annual meeting, or in an elected position other than the ExComm. If changes are to be made, they will happen through that group.
Is the Journey discussion at the Bottleworks effective in making disciples of Jesus or is it simply a tantalizing way to talk about God while enjoying the fruits of fermentation? When I was a consumer of alcohol I regularly discussed God, theology, and philosophy with those I drank with. None of that really led me to God, though. Most of it just led to another beer. So, again, is this working in producing disciples of Jesus or not?
I’m not advocating alcohol use. The use and abuse of alcohol has destroyed too many, my family of origin, and almost my own life. I’m not even going to get into that issue. I want to ask the same question I ask everyone about every ministry. Is this really accomplishing the Great Commission. Look, Willow Creek has admitted that their paradigm has failed to make disciples. I think we all need to have enough integrity to ask if what we are doing is simply filling a nitch for those who want their religious cake and want to eat it too, or if we are really making disciples: people who are actually more concerned with looking and living like Jesus than they are looking and living like what they or the world want.
So, Geoff, Tim, Les, David, Volfan, Selah V, Cyle, all of us . . . are we getting it done, or not? If not, then what do we need to do to get it done? How do we change without tearing down what has already been built? And, in looking at our methods, how do we engage the culture in a way that does not inherently emasculate our message? We’ve got to be man (or woman) enough to look at our methods and ask what they say about our message. Willow Creek has found out that it is not possible to present a watered down gospel that gets people in the door and then increase the requirements and expectations in order to have real disciples. Someone has to ask that about the Bottleworks, and about every ministry.
We ought to ask that about every Board, every institution, every church, every pastor. Life is too short and eternity is too long not to.
Cyle – I believe that recent information from Willow Creek indicates that they are NOT “repenting” of their ministry methods, as some have interpreted “REVEAL” to be. They are simply saying that they have not gone where they need to go with the “deeper” stuff. They have not recanted any of their “get people in the door” methods at all.
If that’s off topic, my apologies. I think it’s critical that we don’t use examples incorrectly if we’re going to use them.
Brother Geoff,
Your erroneous statement is found in your response to me. You copied only what would make your statement support your error. I have never said that was what their website said. I said “Probably not the correct verbiage, but the advertisement certainly promoted beverage alcohol.” This quote comes after your copied quote trying to make it appear that I am saying something in error. Do you deny that the website advertised getting a beer and coming to the Bible Study? Because that is what the site advertised. To Brother Patrick’s credit he did have it removed after the bru-ha-ha erupted. However, for you to state that I have made an error then pull out a quote up to the point that my words deny that I have made an error is not really being fair. It appears that we are trying to re-write something here. The fact is the web site advertised drinking a brew while studying the bible. That was on the churhes website and that was endorsed by the church. To remove it and not mention anything on the website about it does not really affirm this is not their values.
Brother Micah,
The officers are a part of the Ex.Com. As a matter of fact the BP reports say; “MBC Chairman Gerald Davidson declared that he has never been soft on alcohol, saying “I’ve said time and time again alcohol is one of our greatest evils in our society.” Tolliver said the convention will have no working relationship with churches “participating with alcohol,” which specifically means that Cooperative Program funds will not be used for “sinful outreach ministries.” And at the end of his report about Southwest Baptist University, President C. Pat Taylor pleaded with board members to “preach, and teach our youth, that alcohol is an evil thing” to counter what he said is “a soft attitude toward it” by non-drinking students.”
So, we have the newly elected President saying he is not soft on alcohol along with the President of SBU. Micah, there seems to be a unity in the new leadership on this issue.
Also, according to the discussions reported in BP, there was more than just alcohol that were the concerns. It was reported that “R” rated movies is also being used as “outreach events“. So, it does seem to be more than just alcohol here. Wouldn’t you agree?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim-
I am fairly confident that there is not unity on this issue among leadership, in fact I know that there is not. I also know that the officers are in attendance at ExComm meetings but cannot vote unless a tie is in place. I am of the understanding that our Ex. Dir. as well as others asked the ExComm not to approve this change and the ExComm voted in favor of the change anyway.
Be careful of what you read, it may represent what the author wants it to more than it actually represents reality. You should know that well.
Brother Micah,
I will heed your advice. Help me understand something about Missouri. Is the elected President the Chairman of the Ex. Com.?
Blessings,
Tim
Yes he is, but he is without vote – unless there is a tie, I believe. He can direct the proceedings to a degree, but he cannot completely control the proceedings, particularly when is among a small minority on the board.
Tim,
If you think I’m trying to bash you for something you said, paint you as a liar, or anything else negative, you’re sorely mistaken.
All I tried to do was provide the exact verbiage that was listed on their website, as documented by Baptist Press coverage of the issue, in an attempt to correct any further misconceptions about Journey’s “outreach” (if you want to call it that). They have clearly identified on their website that “Theology at the Bottleworks” is part of what they call “Midrash”, a ministry intended simply to engage culture, discuss ideas, etc., in an effort to connect with people.
The fact that there are STILL people out there that think that the church owns a bar and is hosting worship service in it, that they are holding “a Bible study in a bar”, or any number of other misconceptions about the program they call “Theology at the Bottleworks” tells me that attempts to clarify are simply an exercise in futility.
I still don’t understand why some people can’t seem to take Darrin at his word… that their web design company put something up on the site he was not aware of, that it mistaken characterized what they were about and what they were trying to accomplish, and that they corrected the issue when they became aware of it and considered it a lesson learned.
And this is all a rabbit trail away from the main discussion… MBC actions to remove funding from Acts 29 church planters.
*SIGH*
Brother John,
Here you go again. I have not stated that the church owns a bar. I have not stated that the church is hosting a worship service in the bar. I have stated that the church is having a bible study in the bar and that the church originally advertised that the bible study was open to anyone that wanted to come. The website–THE CHURCH OWNED–advertised the promotion of the beverage alcohol. That is all that I have said or promoted. You called me to task because of words that I used and you said; “A quick correction… The Journey’s website originally said “grab a brew, share your view”, in regard to Theology at the Bottleworks, not “bring your Bible, grab a brew”.” If you would have read the entire comment in #47 you would have seen that I said I did not know what the correct verbiage was. That is the only task I took to you. Yours, along with Brother Geoff’s comment in #59 gives me the appearance that I am wrong on my quote, thus I am spreading error on everything else.
All I am trying to say is that this situation is not without blame all around. For Brother Patrick and the others involved in Acts 29 there in Missouri to be surprised that this is happening would be like Britney Spears mom to be surprised that her 16 year old daughter is pregnant. According to things in her life she should not be surprised. According to the way the MBC has been moving this should not be such a huge surprise.
Blessings,
Tim
May the prayer and example of the Good Shepherd and the Great High Priest be an example to us as we lead God’s people and guide God’s churches.
“I will remain in the world no longer, but THEY ARE STILL IN THE WORLD, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name — the name you gave me — SO THAT THEY MAY BE ONE AS WE ARE ONE. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by the name you gave me. NONE HAS BEEN LOST except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled” (John 17:11-12).
Unless someone is a Judas and is “doomed to destruction” we should grieve whenever disunity mars the community and any of the fold is “lost” for whatever reason. (In fact, we should grieve whenever one of ours is “doomed for destruction.”) It should never be our desire or goal that someone leave. Instead, among God’s people “unity” should be the goal. Whenever we don’t have it, it affects our witness. After all, a lost world is watching us (vv. 21, 23).
Tim,
There you go again, reading INTO what I say instead of reading WHAT I had to say.
I did NOT call you to task. I tried to help provide clarification to combat general misconceptions that are out there. Not YOUR misconceptions. GENERAL misconceptions.
Apparenly I made a mistake in citing those misconceptions without noting their source. I assumed that since you’ve interacted in this thread, that you’d read it as well and would connect the dots. Apparently that was a poor assumption.
So… let me try to connect the dots for you:
– Micah related the experience (comment #20) of someone with a misconception of Journey… specifically that the own a bar and host worship there.
– SelahV (comment #26) refers to Theology at the Bottleworks as a Bible study in a bar, and asks a few questions about it.
In comes my first attempt to provide clarification… #30. I directed our friend SelahV to Journey’s website so that she could see how they currently portray things. I also noted that it’s a bit of a misconception to call it a “Bible study in a bar”.
So we continue with further statements indicating misconceptions…
– David (comment #35) noted that he’d heard they were meeting for worship in a bar, and were drinking during the Bible study.
– You noted you didn’t know the exact verbiage, and relayed it as “bring your bible and grab a brew” (comment #47, #51).
So… that brings us to my comments in #55, where I tried to help correct some of these misconceptions once again, this time by providing the exact text they used on their website at the start of this controversy and a Baptist Press link. Perhaps I should not have interjected additional commentary at that point further expressing my frustrations. Perhaps you focused on that rather than my initial point.
Regardless, we see how my attempts to combat misconception went, as you responded to Geoff in #65, in response to his usage of my comment (#55) to bring clarification to David in #59.
Apparently, at that point, you assumed that both Geoff and I were trying to malign you. I don’t see how you came to this conclusion, but it doesn’t really matter now… damage done. Geoff reiterated to you that was not his intent in #67, and I did similarly in #78.
Anyway, I’ll reiterate one last time… I thought my purpose all throughout this had been clear… to try to help clear up some of the many misconceptions that are out there and continue to be out there.
If you can’t take me at my word about my purpose to clarify, that my intent is certainly not to malign you, that I have no intent to point out error in you, and that I have no intent to assign anything negative to you, I guess we really are just wasting our time here.
As for me? I think I’m going to crawl back into that hole in which I normally reside in Baptist blog land over at my own little low-traffic, non-controversial site. I’ve realized once again today why I don’t interact online on Baptist matters very often anymore… it’s simply a waste of my time and energy.
John Stickley – Never fear, my friend, I read your blog regularly. I know how those low traffic sites are
[...] post from the other day (‘Show Me’ the Money … A New Day in Church Planting Funding?) prompted several comments (82 at this writing). There were a few off topic statements and [...]
[...] latest post is up at SBC Impact!. It’s primarily a reaction to this post. I’m on a college campus twice each week as an adjunct instructor. I find my students to be [...]
Sorry I’ve been away for the last 30 hours. I’m celebrating a little bit of early Christmas with my wife’s family.
‘m sort of sorry I’ve been away so long. I would have liked to lower the tenor of comments here.
So I’ll do it this way … this thread is officially CLOSED. Let’s move on.
Geoff
[...] latest post is up at SBC Impact!. It’s primarily a reaction to this post. I’m on a college campus twice each week as an adjunct instructor. I find my students to be [...]