Kevin Ezell Defends Acts 29 Network: A Response (part II) by Peter Lumpkins

Below is Part II of "Kevin Ezell Defends Acts 29 Network: A Response"

“Unlike Capitol Hill lobbyists who curry favor with politicians in exchange for financial gifts, church planters are not being bought out by those with varying theological differences. In short, Southern Baptist church planters are a kind of spiritual opportunists: accepting gifts from anyone, beholden to none -- except the BF&M and Cooperative Program.” Once again I’m afraid this explanation makes entirely no sense toward what’s going on here. No church planter aligned with NAMB will also be aligned with Acts 29 Network unless he agrees with Acts 29 Reformed theology. Hence, there is no being “bought out” by those with “theological differences.” Unless, of course, it is the non-Calvinist church planter who seeks out fellowship with Acts 29 Network. However, he will be turned down flat because they are not interested in him. He is not reformed. If Kevin Ezell and those with him who don’t see this “one way or the other” cannot perceive that this is a formula to bust apart the way we cooperatively do missions, there remains little to no hope for the SBC.

"Just because a church planter accepts a $100 gift from a Mormon grandmother does not mean he is planting a Mormon church," Ezell stressed. "We don't ask church planters if they are Republican or Democrat or restrict groups they can be a part of or conferences they can or cannot attend on their own dime." No it does not, Dr. Ezell. But if Acts 29 Network approves him as a planter, he will necessarily be: a) Reformed  b) an elder-governed plurality. I am saying this as strongly as I can: I am not going to support Acts 29 church plants. Period. Just as strongly as Acts 29 says they are only interested in planting reformed churches, I am only interested in planting Southern Baptist churches, churches which reflect the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists. If Cooperative Program monies are going to Acts 29 church starts, I will, with every fiber of influence God bestows, lead my church to designate around it. I don’t know how it will be accomplished, but it will be accomplished one way or another. This is not about the so-called “fear” mentioned above. Rather it is about biblical and moral conviction. I wish Acts 29 Network the best, really. They may start as many churches as God allows or directs. But not from the stewardship God grants to me. 

"There is no doubt in his mind about what Southern Baptist missionaries find so attractive about the Acts 29 Network. He knows because he's asked the question of church planters nationwide. "It's a sense of brotherhood, of training and top-notch resources that they can't find anywhere else," he said. Especially among Southern Baptists.” Yes, and this is precisely why it stands as nonsense to think that because 10% to Acts 29 church plants is not “mandatory” from Acts 29 churches, therefore funds are “voluntary” or “optional” to go where the local elders say it goes. Everyone knows, of course, where the money will go. It goes where they obviously think it is used most wisely and effectively, similarly to the way Dr. Ezell led his church to overwhelmingly give to mission projects other than NAMB prior to becoming NAMB's president.  And, for them, they could not think of putting it into the CP. What did the CP offer them comparable to the “sense of brotherhood, of training and top-notch resources that they can't find anywhere else" but in Acts 29?  An interesting investigative study for Joe Westbury would be to survey all Acts 29 churches and find out where their 10% to church starts is funneled. I’d bet Joe a week’s worth of Starbucks, few, if any Acts 29 churches pitch more funds--if any funds--toward the CP than back into Acts 29 churches. Follow the money trail, and you'll find the heart of Acts 29 churches.

"As a denomination we have admitted that church planting has not been a priority and we are now changing that, but that's why so many have looked for that help elsewhere. "We are in the early stages of building a network, a support group, that will be the first choice of church planters everywhere, not just Southern Baptist. We will and can compete with other groups," he says.” Unfortunately, liaisons with other groups may be where Dr. Ezell’s passion lies, but I don’t think he got his vision from grassroots Southern Baptists.

“Southern Baptist churches have been dually aligned for years with a variety of fellowships and affiliations without those partnerships being an issue. For example, ethnic groups have specific denominations they align themselves with and African American churches may have more than one historical denominational linkage that goes back generations. But there is no SBC-wide policy that prevents such relationships, even with differences such as degrees of charismaticism” If we have been dually aligned with organizations for years which demand a theology and ecclesiology that is out of step with the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists, Dr. Ezell would do well to name them. However, when (if) he names them, he needs to make sure that all of them desired a) to partner with Southern Baptists in planting churches; and b) desired only to partner with a minuscule portion of our churches to plant other churches because the vast majority of Southern Baptist churches are theologically and ecclesiologically unworthy of approval. When Dr. Ezell can assemble this list of organizations we’ve worked with for years which meet similar criteria of Acts 29, I want to see it.

“And then there is another thought to be taken into consideration. With more than 44,000 churches in the Southern Baptist Convention, there are perhaps several thousand whose pastors espouse a degree of Reformed theology but who continue to faithfully support the Cooperative Program. Nashville is yet to turn down such gifts which, if not an endorsement of Reformed theology, is hardly a scathing condemnation.” Once again, Dr. Ezell completely misses the point at hand. The issue is not necessarily reformed theology per se. Rather it is the necessity of Reformed theology. The question is not neccessarily elder led or elder plurality. Instead it's the necessity of plural elders and elder rule. These two demands are non-negotiable for Acts 29. So sure there are Calvinistic Baptists. So what? Of those 44k churches, the “several thousand” are the only ones theologically “worthy” enough to be approved by Acts 29. If Kevin Ezell is for all Southern Baptists, he’d tell Acts 29 to stick it in their ear. The SBC is a convention of Calvinists and non-Calvinists—mostly non-Calvinists. Therefore, for Acts 29 to say to us, we’re only interested in talking to the churches we think have correct theology and embrace our ecclesiology is a smack in most Southern Baptists’ face. But, Dr. Ezell’s approach is, “I have no concern one way or the other.” So, toward the theological reservations of 90%+ of all Southern Baptists, Dr. Ezell has no concern one way or another? 

It seems to me, Dr. Ezell is attempting to employ a similar strategy Al Mohler employed at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Mohler managed to build an impregnable Reformed "Ground Zero" at Southern which remains contrary to 90%+ of all Southern Baptsts' theology. Many qualified professors throughout the SBC could not go to Southern and teach. Why? They don't fit the "Reformed" template which rules Southern. Yet all Southern Baptists generously support SBTS. This is precisely why an historic SBC church is now designating monies around Southern and Southeastern seminaries. The fact is, Danny Akin, Al Mohler, and now Kevin Ezell are about to see what grassroots Southern Baptists think about a subtle plan to Calvinize, elderize, and Driscollize the Southern Baptist Convention. We will not stand down. The Conservative Resurgence trophies were not obtained lightly. Hence, we will not sit back and watch the sons of the Conservative Resurgence squander our inheritance like spoiled children.  

“Ezell says that if NAMB -- through its accountability process that is shared with state conventions -- ever learns that a missionary is compromising on what is outlined in the SBC belief statement, such as exhibiting a lack of evangelistic zeal, the matter will be addressed.” More and more smoke. Who has criticized Acts 29 for lacking evangelistic zeal?  Who?  So far as I know, no one. I surely have not, and I remain one of the chief critics of an Acts 29 and SBC liaison. Indeed I have been very specific in my criticism of Acts 29. And so far as I know I have never as much as mentioned a lack of evangelistic zeal.

Nor does Dr. Ezell get it that one of the major reasons grassroots Southern Baptists are reluctant to embrace Acts 29 is because of its figurehead and visionary, Mark Driscoll. And, while Driscoll allegedly has cleaned up his act, so to speak, he nevertheless still does not fit with what grassroots Southern Baptists embrace as a worthy model for ministry. For example, Driscoll still has on his website morally repugnant material dealing with sexual issues, including a link to a “Christian” porn site about which I published a couple of years ago when Danny Akin and Southeastern Seminary were promoting Mark Driscoll as a moral example (//link).

Acts 29 and Mark Driscoll can never be separated.

If Kevin Ezell doesn’t get this, he’s got a long, long road ahead. More and more churches will designate around NAMB if it continues to flirt with controversial organizations like Acts 29 and ministry models like Mark Driscoll.

With that, I am...

Peter

Read Part I

Comments

[peter lumpkins]

Cody,

Sure:
a) *exclusively* reformed
b) *exclusively* elder plurality
c) elder-RULE
d) *exclusively* elder-RULE
e) 'in your face' alcohol nonsense
f) Mark Driscoll's influence

Hope that's helpful.

With that, I am...
Peter

Oh, the link is in the post I linked on sex crazy xns

[Cody]

Peter,

Can you in a short paragraph share why you don't support Acts29 and why you don't want them mixed with the SBC?

Second, can you send me this link where Driscoll has morally repugnant material on sex?

[Max]

Casey, it's appropriate that you mention Baptist Twenty-One (B21) in the same breath as Acts 29. B21 is led by reformed folks, well-networked with non-SBC reformed entities, and exists primarily to encourage young, restless and reformed SBC pastors fresh out of seminary and standing in line for NAMB church plants. B21 followers could certainly be viewed as Acts 29 "sympathizers" and many will no doubt seek Acts 29 affiliation following their tour of duty as SBC-NAMB church plants.

For Peter's readership not yet familiar with B21, you can read all about it at http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/. A glimpse at the B21 website pages re: "Who We Are" and "Events" paint the picture well. B21 is hosting a session at the SBC-Phoenix meeting with their usual patriarchs on the panel, such as John Piper, Al Mohler, and Danny Akin. Darrin Patrick (Acts 29) is another go-to guy for various events through the year. What a crew!

And thank you Casey for reminding us that the Great Commission is all about winning the lost and making disciples. How could we look at souls through any other theological grid?

Max

[A. Price]

I agree Bro. Casey about Acts 29 in Mo. (my daughter was on the commt. that researched it a few years back) . The outcome, as you know, was a document folks in the MBC/Staff, had to sign before bringing in a speaker.
But, IMO, the folks in (and, I dislike this term),'power' now will ,eventually DO AWAY with that document.

'They' are also, IMO, pushing hard for the Acts 29 'agenda here--case in point--Darrin Patrick speaking at the Pastor's Conference!

[CASEY]

FINALLY, some of our profs are waking up to the 'ACTS 29/B21 nonsense'. In fact a few of them refer to it as B29(WW II bomber, get it?). :)
Evangelism prof at one of our SBC Seminaries:
"There is no commission to plant churches in the
Book of Acts or in the New Testament at all. The
Commission is to win the lost and make disciples.
Evangelism always precedes church planting not vice
versa. You will find the activity of Paul, Philip,
etc., in ACTS that under the anointing of the Holy
Spirit that they won souls and the Spirit led in the
activities that created churches. It begins with good
old fashioned Spirit led soul winning. A matter few
seem willing to do today.

[CASEY]

The good thing is 'we have stopped Acts 29 affiliations' here in Missouri. Both affiliations and $$$$. Do they still have a few 'sympathizers'? Sure. But only a few. The lesson the SBC needs to learn(and soon) is how MISSOURI exposed it and stopped it.
ACTS 29 to the SBC is simply wrong. On a spiritual level. Method level. Committment level. And shared ministry level. They have NO loyalty but to themselves!

[A. Price]

Brother, I think it's too late, expecially here in Mo.! The proverbial 'horse' has left the barn!

[Steve Evans]

There is no vendetta against Acts 29. Only a desire to be totally honest about where CP funds are going. And to see that they are routed to SBC causes. Why should this be a problem? Let all things be done above board.

[Mary]

So it seems like Ezell et al has gone from "we are not going to support Acts 29" to "shut up, we'll support them with your money anytime we want?" What happened to the "myth" about the GCR being about funding Acts 29?

[Rick Patrick]

Peter,

This may be your best post yet on the topic. Ezell is downplaying our current partnership with Acts 29, but you are clearly exposing the truth. Keep it up!

[Cody]

still a vendetta against Mark Driscoll and Acts 29? Move on.