Send North America: Who’s coming to St. Louis? NAMB or Acts 29? by Mary England

As a life-long St. Louisan I read with interest the recent Baptist Press article about NAMB's plan to plant 75 new churches in the St. Louis Metro Area. My initial thoughts were; where are they going to plant new churches, what about the struggling existing churches, and what kind of new churches?  >>>

SBC Tomorrow welcomes back Mary England as Guest Contributor*

NAMB.net shows two church plants in St. Louis: August Gate Church, Noah Oldham, Senior Pastor and Broadcast Church, Chris Conley Pastor.

So far as the first church plant is concerned, I found three addresses for August Gate Church. The address listed at NAMB is 2340 Lafayette. The church's website lists the address as 2601 Minnesota. And the Acts 29 website lists the address as 1809 S. 8^th Street. Noah Oldham is listed as senior Pastor at all three websites. Perhaps two of these addresses are outdated and were just contact addresses. This area is in the South Side of St. Louis City, in the City proper. There are currently at least two existing SBC churches within two miles of all three of the addresses listed. Lafayette Park Baptist Church and LaSalle Baptist Church. Over the last decade or more this is an area that is undergoing "gentrification." A simple definition of gentrification is an urban area that upwardly mobile "yuppies" move into and rehabilitate.

The other NAMB church plant listed is Broadcast Church, Chris Conley Pastor, #1 Ballwin Commons Circle. Ballwin is located in West St. Louis County about 30-40 minutes outside of St. Louis. Ballwin is not urban. Ballwin is not poor. In the Metro area, the money is found in West St. Louis County. There are pockets of poor people living in apartments and in neighboring counties you might find some trailer parks but for those of us who live in St. Louis, Ballwin does not bring up the image of "urban" and there is certainly nothing close to what could be described as inner city.

There are at least three existing SBC churches within three miles of Broadcast church. One is .74 miles away, Ballwin Baptist Church. The other two churches are Castlewood Baptist Church 2.10 miles and First Baptist, Ellisville 2.65 miles.

Now I understand from the BP article that in this area the logic will be those churches are for the McMansion crowd; i.e., we need to reach the lower class. Are we working with those churches? Have those churches been consulted? Perhaps one of those churches is the "mother" church? I honestly don't know. It does seem like we can see a conspicuous pattern. Churches without the name Baptist are being planted in neighborhoods with existing churches including Baptist in the name.

At the NAMB web site there is a profile on Sean Boone, a church planter at New Beginnings Christian Fellowship in North St. Louis County. He is quoted as saying "Established churches exist to meet the needs of established church people." The piece speaks of existing churches in the community as not speaking the same language. So if I understand correctly, there are established churches in the community, but they are not the right kind of churches. The BP article put an emphasis on "unchurched" areas. From just a little bit of sleuthing I've done, it seems the areas are not so much "unchurched" as they are "not the right kind of church."

Is anything being done to help revitalize those churches that are presumably doing church wrong? Do those churches understand when they are contributing to the Cooperative Program (CP) that the money is being used to go into communities where churches are already established and to plant new churches doing church a "new" way?

The information I've gathered at various sites on the internet seems to show that churches in the St. Louis Area are being planted in areas that currently have existing SBC churches. There are churches being planted in what one may term the more "troubled" areas, parts of North St. Louis County and perhaps an area in University City, but I cannot find anything indicating that any churches are being planted in the least churched areas of North St. Louis City and East Louis, Illinois. There may well be work going on in those areas, I just couldn't find anything to confirm that.

Plant St. Louis is being led by Darren Casper, the Associate Executive Director–Missions Partnerships/Church Planting of St. Louis Metro Baptist Association.

Darren Casper is also listed as the pastor of The Church at Bevo located at 5035 Gravois, an Acts 29 church. There are currently three SBC churches within two miles of The Church at Bevo. Kingshighway Baptist .66 mile, South County Chapel, a mission, .47 mile, and Gateway Southern 1.27 miles.

Jason Zellmer, mentioned in the BP article is the lead Pastor/Elder of Peine Ridge Church, Wentzville, MO. Peine Ridge appears to be a start from 2010. I didn't see it at NAMB, but perhaps I missed it. The video linked in the article is an NAMB video with a testimony from a Peine Ridge member, so I assume it has some affiliation with the SBC. Additionally, Peine Ridge Church is robustly Reformed tenaciously holding and teaching five point Calvinism (//link).

Before serving at Peine Ridge, Jason Zellmer served as Pastor/Elder at Matthias Lot. Matthias Lot is an Acts 29 church which meets at Ridgecrest Baptist Church, St. Charles. Ridgecrest is a Founder's Friendly Church; I think they've even held some Founder's Conferences.

Jason Zellmer is listed as the contact for Plant St. Louis Metro West, St Louis Metro Baptist Association.

Peine Ridge Church is "launching" The Gate, University City lead by Kenny Petty, mentioned in the BP article. University City definitely has sections we could classify as "urban." The other sections which abut Washington University and the area known as the Loop were gentrified before gentrification became cool. I couldn't find the address for the Gate or perhaps I missed it. Kenny Petty is featured in a NAMB video and since he's African American, it may be safe to assume that this is what is being termed an "ethnic" church plant. From what I know this area would be a good place for a church plant.

What cannot be overlooked is apparently The Gate Church in University City is in some measure sponsored by Rockport Baptist Church, Arnold, MO. Like St. Charles' Ridgecrest Baptist Church above, Rockport is yet another Founders-friendly church. Bob Schembre, who is listed as Elder and Min. of Music at Rockport Baptist Church is also a "Church Plant Advisor" for The Gate Church church plant. Check out this promotional video for The Gate (Schembre's testimony is approximately the 1:30 mark).

The St. Louis Metro Baptist Association (STLMBA) site shows a list of 15 church plants. Seven of those plants are listed as Acts 29 churches. One plant is an immigrant church and two could be described as "ethnic" work. Peine Ride is not listed as Acts 29, yet we can trace its pastor back to an Acts 29 church plant Matthias Lot.¹

Looking at what's apparently happening when we dig beneath the surface crust of the BP article, and given what I've discovered at least for now, answers to my initial questions posed above follow:

• Where are new churches going to be planted? Answer: Some, at least, in neighborhoods with existing SBC churches.
• What kind of new churches are being planted? Answer: The deep connections to Acts 29 in STLMBA are disturbing. If these churches are not "officially" Acts 29 churches they are surely going to be "knockoffs" with the same ecclesiology and practices of Acts 29 churches. In addition, the ties to Founders Ministries cannot be mistaken. Both Acts 29 and Founders Ministries are undeniably wed to Reformed theology. What does this clear focus on Reformed church plants which NAMB apparently is pursuing say about how our CP monies are being spent? Do the 43,000-+ Southern Baptist churches who faithfully send their CP monies to cooperative causes actually realize NAMB appears to be focusing an unreasonable amount of resources on church plants which will have a pronounced Calvinistic theology?
• What about struggling churches presently existing in St. Louis? Answer: Maybe there's a plan somewhere to assist them. I didn't stumble across it. Or is the plan to build Acts 29 knockoffs strong enough to overtake the weaker existing SBC churches?

Time will tell.

Mary England

UPDATE¹

To clarify the statement concerning the 15 church plants listed on the SLMBA website, including the seven church plants associated with Acta 29, note the following:

church plants listed are:

• August Gate-- listed on Acts 29 here
• Believer's --- not listed on Acts 29 but church website says it’s a part of two church-planting networks—Acts 29 and PLANT St. Louis
• Bevo --- listed on Acts 29 here
• Broadcast
• Genesis ---listed on Acts 29 here
• Japanese Harvest
• Matthias Lot --- listed on Acts 29 here
• New Beginning
• New Generation
• North
• Passage
• Peine Ridge
• Red Tree
• Redeemer --- listed on Acts 29 here
• Refuge – listed on Acts 29 here

Not sure what’s going on with Believer’s church which is in Hannibal, MO not St. Louis. Yet it is listed on both SLMBA’s church plant list and the Believer’s church website lists itself as a part of SLMBA (PLANT St. Louis) along with partnering with Acts 29. In addition, Believer’s church indicates it supports and partners with two churches: 2 Pillars Church in Lincoln, Nebraska and Christ City Church in Memphis. 2 Pillars Church is listed as an Acts 29 church. While Christ City Church is not listed on Acts 29 website as a church plant, the lead pastor of Christ City Church is Jonathan McIntosh, who is deeply connected to Acts 29 and served as Acts 29's Regional Coordinator for the Midwest and continues to lead “boot camps” for ACTS 29 church planters. McIntosh also served as Missions and Teaching Pastor at The Journey, where Darrin Patrick, serves as lead pastor. More significantly, Patrick is 1st Vice President of Acts 29.

The Acts 29 and NAMB rabbit hole gets deeper and deeper...

 

*Mary England is a Southern Baptist christian living in the midwest with her husband and three teenagers. She and her family are long-time members of a Southern Baptist church and have served their church and Lord in many roles throughout the years. Mary is a frequent commenter on SBC Tomorrow and is well respected for her keen insight into aggressive Calvinism as well as other vital issues facing the Southern Baptist Convention   

 

helpful links:

St. Louis Metro Baptist Association http://www.stlbaptist.org/2.0/

North American Mission Board http://www.namb.net/

Baptist Press http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37024&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+delicious%2Fgqlf+%28Christian+Headlines+Top+Headlines%29ss

Comments

[Les]

Mary, good article and good research. I am a West County resident and I see this type of church planting as a real positive. I'm somewhat familiar with The Journey, having been there a few times and having a university aged son attending the one on Kingshighway.

For whatever reason, these kinds of churches which are theologically Calvinistic and thus also conservative seem to be growing by leaps and bounds, reaching many younger people than the existing SBC churches (like Ellisville and Ballwin, for example) have been unable to reach. I attended Ellisville yesterday, in fact, and have many friends there. Very good church with thriving ministries. But I've been around West County for almost 25 years and FBCE is about the same size as it was 25 years ago, maybe a little smaller. There are surely several reasons for that, including the changing demographics.

So anyway, I commend you on the article. Nice work.

[lmalone]

Mary, If these Acts 29 churches are practicing Mars Hill style "discipline" or are anything like Driscoll they are not churches at all. The SBC needs to take a very close look at the Acts 29 model and who they are copying. Sounds a lot like what Driscoll advises in starting from scratch with the very young.

Have you guys read one of the stories about MH Discipline? It is scary.

http://matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-needs-new-pr/mark-driscolls-church-discipline-contract-looking-for-true-repentance-at-mars-hill-church-sign-on-the-dotted-line/#comment-10420

There is also a part 2.

I really recommend everyone read this if we are going to be partnering with Acts 29.

[Mary]

Sparky, I'm sure you're ok with more "like you" coming into the neighborhood.

The problem in the SBC is that we are continually being told there is no Calvinist agenda and NAMB was not going to be working hand in hand with Acts 29.

So Sparky, you wouldn't want the PCA to go planting non-Calvinists churches with your money would you? But that's exactly what the SBC is doing taking non-Calvinist money, planting churches that are against them and now we're seeing cultic in practice, all the while folks at NAMB denies that this is what they are doing. But Sparky, maybe you agree with the SBC Calvinists that all the stealth and outright lying is necessary for our own good, us being stupid and biblically illiterate and all.

lmalone, as I was doing this, I stumbled into the mess of Mars Hill and I think we definitely need a discussion about how the cultic practices of Acts 29 and SGM are being brought into the SBC using all the resources of the SBC. I feared the SBC was headed toward a split, with what I'm reading this weekend I think it's worse than a split - the SBC will be destroyed if we adopt and endorse cultic practices such as those practiced at Acts 29 and SGM.

[Les]

Mary, well what ya know. We live in the same area. How "bout that? You are the Mary, author, right? Or maybe another.

"So Sparky, you wouldn't want the PCA to go planting non-Calvinists churches with your money would you?"

Couldn't happen. We have a confession our ministers and denominational EEs subscribe to.

"maybe you agree with the SBC Calvinists that all the stealth and outright lying is necessary for our own good, us being stupid and biblically illiterate and all."

I don't anyone being stealthy and/or lying, Calvinists or non-Calvinists.

[Les]

Apologies, Should have read "I don't *condone* anyone being stealthy and/or lying, Calvinists or non-Calvinists."

[Mary]

That's me Sparky!

The problem with our BFM is that it was made intentionally broad thinking we could all continue getting along as we had all gotten along previously. There have been Calvinist churches and Calvinist serving throughout the SBC history. The problem isn't that Calvinist are just asking for a seat at the table, the Calvinist want the whole table.

Now the BFM is a funny thing because Calvinist use it to scream about "theological discrimination" perceived against them, but it's ok for Al Mohler and increasingly Danny Akin at Southern and Southeastern to discriminate against non-Calvinist in hiring and in the indoctrination going on at our seminaries.

The defense of everything I've written will boil down to - those churches affirm the Baptist Faith and Message.

So let me repeat myself - the problem goes to the fact that for years we are told "no, no there's no Calvinist agenda to take over the SBC and no we're not working with Acts 29" but the reality is starting to show otherwise.

Glad you may be getting the point Gramps about the "stealth" problem. We're not anti-Calvinist as the critics will rage. We are anti aggressive Calvinist who are taking over the SBC and who want a future where folks like Peter and I are only qualified to bring the crock pot to "Community Groups" as long as we keep our stupid mouths shut and tow the official party line. Otherwise we'll be "shunned" and kicked out. Read lmalone's link to see exactly what kind of churches are being planted near you.

[Mary]

This is another interesting read, which talks a little about the membership contract and other cultic practices of an Acts 29 plant.

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/01/25/mark-driscolls-mars-hill-a-tutorial-on-spiritual-abuse/

Read this blog with discernment as these women equate complementarianism with racism and creationists are just idiots and then of course they think Wade Burleson is some white knight kinda mythic figure. But the stuff they are doing on Driscoll and Mahaney/SGM is spot on and needs more exposure. That's the kind of thing the NAMB is using SBC resources to bring to the SBC.

[Bob Hadley]

Mary,

Excellent article; I guess that was what you were referring to in your comment on my blog post dealing with what I see as the Calvinization of the SBC. First the Seminaries, then NAMB, the IMB and now Lifeway. I had no idea Calvinism had made the inroads they have made.

Your article further underscores the importance of asking the question, how much is too much? I wondered why it seemed that the influence of Calvinism was appearing everywhere; I thought.. they are sure coming out quicker than I would have expected; now I understand what has actually happening; they are far more entrenched than I ever imagined and people are just now waking up and realizing it.

Simply amazing. I will have to give them the cudo's they deserve; they have done a masterful job in establishing their hold on the SBC entities and the churches are are no doubt next...

I am not a big history buff but it seems to me that the Japanese were in Washington wanting to work with the US when they quietly bombed Pearl Harbor. I guess my history teacher was correct when he said, "He who fails to study history and the mistakes of the past, is apt to repeat them. Moral of the story: be wary of those who say, "there is no agenda to take anything over." I learned a great greek word for that, "bologna."

><>"

[Bob Hadley]

Sorry... your question: Send North America: Who’s coming to St. Louis? NAMB or Acts 29?

Both. Acts 29 on NAMB's nickle.

><>"

[Absonjourney]

I know I probably won't get a straight answer but I'm going to try anyhow. I've read the articles at Turner's blog and at Wartburg. Obviously, both sites have axes to grind. I'm wondering exactly what is "cultic" about the MH discipline practice. The process has listed as its goal to bring a member back into fellowship. It puts into practice the Matthew 18 passage where Jesus tells us how to do church discipline. Paul tells us to "cast the immoral man from among you" in 1 Cor 5:13. The person in the article, Andrew, was sleeping with someone he was not married to and did not repent when confronted. What would you have the church to do? Ignore it? Let it continue? Do you not agree that sin should be confronted and that we should hold one another as Christians to a higher standard? I'm at a loss to understand the term "cultic" in this situation. It seems like a label used to villify a practice you either don't understand or don't agree with. Someone help me out here.

[David]

The MH "discipline" process has nothing to do with Matthew 18. That chapter deals with a brother that sins against another brother. The offended person is to tell the sinning brother of the fault, and if the sinning brother "hears" him (i.e., repents) then the process is over. If he does not "hear," the offended person then goes with the sinning brother before one or two more to establish every word. Up to this point, there is no involvement of the church; it is personal between the two brothers. Only if the sinning brother still does not "hear" is the church involved, and this is step three of the process. In the example, Andrew was not "confronted" but rather he confessed the sin voluntarily to both his fiancee and to group leaders. He did this repeatedly. The church should not have ever gotten involved with this situation, under Matthew 18, unless and until the offended person had first spoken to Andrew without his "hearing" and if a second attempt with one or two other persons had been attempted. There is no indication that this was ever done. Indeed, it appears that MH leadership was involved from the start. So the straight answer is that Matthew 18 in no way gives church leadership some license to get involved in the personal life of its members. There is a process outlined, and yes the church is involved in step three, but not before. Because Andrew almost immediately confessed, the church should have helped him, not "bring him under discipline." This misuse of Scripture by MH to control its members under the guise of "church discipline" is a cultic practice.

[Mary]

If you research signs of cultic behavior you would see the signs in Acts 29 and SGM.

The use of "community groups" or "gospel centered groups" to separate people from friends and family, these groups are not only separating people from anyone outside their "community" but they are used as ways of controlling thoughts. Dissension is not allowed and seen as divisive and one would be subject to discipline if you continue to dissent from the accepted group think.

With Andrew and Sophie's cases you can see that when one leaves one will be punished in a very public way with personal information shared with the "community" and the "community" instructed to have nothing to do with those who leave. This is a form of manipulation not to just to punish those who leave, but to control remaining members - demonstrating what happens to those who fall out of line.

Making people sign "membership agreements" is a form of intimidation - implying that members are somehow legally bound to the cult.

You really don't have to study cultic behavior too deeply to see the warning signs here. Of course those drinking the kool aid are going to claim that every person who comes out of SGM and Acts 29 are all just liars with axes to grind.

And Andrew did repent, he was convicted immediately of his sin and confessed to his girlfriend and his group leader. The Bible teaches us that If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgives us our sins. No person or church has the right to put themselves between us and God and determine that they have the supernatural ability to read hearts and declare we are still unrepentant. In the SBC we believe in the Priesthood of the Believer - what we are seeing with the cultic practices is that the YRR does not agree with the concept Priesthood of the Believer.

[Mary]

Bob, yes this is what I was working on over the weekend. I had a quote from you that I wanted to use but I couldn't work it in and I was over my word count. You said:

"Common business principles argue against focusing too much attention on new development and ignoring the core base that is financially responsible for the long term success of the organization."

Ezell, Mohler et al don't care about the core and the core is slumbering. Unless the sleeping giant wakes up and if these disturbing cultic practices that we see being injected into the SBC doesn't wake anybody up I don't know what will, unless the giant wakes up I fear the SBC is not headed for a split, but destuction. You cannot wander down these paths without serious repercussions.

[Mary]

The other thing that may be happening if people see the word cultic behavior they may think it means heresy. A church can be completely orthodox in it's doctrine and still be a cult in its practice.

Now I don't see heresy so much as a misuse of Scriptures in the case of Matt 18. Discipline that includes making someone write all past sexual sins is not biblical if those sins had already been confessed to God and repented of, the Bible says those sins are as far as the east is from the west, so to try to bring back sins into the life of a member is another thing a cult will do - "see how bad you've always been?"

And the way follower's defend Driscoll's absolutely unBiblical claim that he receives pornographic visions from God is cultic behavior. Forgive me for shouting here Peter, but this needs to be heard GOD IS NOT GIVING ANYBODY ON THIS PLANET A VISION OF A PORNOGRAPHIC NATURE, anyone claiming such is in no position to be teaching anybody anything about God, period, end of story. Anybody who thinks it's ok that Driscoll claims God gives him porn o vision is in no position to teach anybody anything, period, end of story. don't come back at me that I'm attacking charismatics - that's not what I'm doing - I am standing up for God and telling you that GOD DOES NOT GIVE ANYBODY PORNOGRAPHIC VISIONS. Christians should flee from anyone who claims that not partner in planting churches.

[Bob Hadley]

Thanks Mary!

I really believe my statement that you referenced is a bigger concern than the funding of Acts 29 and other Reformed church planting initiatives and there are several.

If the truth were known just how many church plants NAMB has and is planning on funding that are Reformed, we would all probably blow a fuse. It has been said there is nothing that can be done about it now; I disagree and am working on putting together some thoughts and suggestions as to how to curb that.

Namb's current practices must be changed or I agree with you: the SBC is in deep trouble.

With respect to Lifeway's recent step to produce a Reformed curriculum, did you notice that NO ONE has commented on insisting that Lifeway market the program with the following title:

"The Gospel Project: A Reformed Perspective"

Interesting aspect there as well that I will be discussing as well. These are indeed interesting days for the SBC... or should I say, almost CBC... Calvinist Baptist Convention.

><>"

[lmalone]

"The MH "discipline" process has nothing to do with Matthew 18."

You are so right. It is a total misuse of that scripture for the use of controlling people. In fact, MH is totally violating 1 John that if we confess our sins....

Andrew confessed up front. Instead of being thrilled he was convicted and confessed, they lay heavy burdens on him to detail his sex life, sign a contract and they get to decide when they think he is repentant. Then they have the nerve to send out an email to their inhouse facebook like tool to thousands telling them to basically shun Andrew. Slanderers!!!

Cult, cult cult. We should be very concerned with the Driscoll following in the SBC and Acts 29. They are not who we are as Baptists. And this folks, is what the Founders were trolling for when they focused on "regenerate" church membership and church discipline. This is where it leads.

1 Corin 5 is our model for discipline and even then, Paul had to remind them to forgive the guy in 2nd Corin. But if you look at the list in 1 Corin 5....do you see any Driscoll problems that need to be disciplined?

"But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

Who will discipline the discipliners?

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Sadly, NAMB continues to flaunt the will of local churches and state conventions -- planting Acts 29 churches in Missouri which took an official stand against such plants.

Missouri board votes to de-fund Acts 29
Posted on Dec 14, 2007 | by Staff
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (BP)--The Executive Board of the Missouri Baptist Convention met Dec. 10 in part to discuss their concerns about alcohol use and alcohol-based evangelism strategies within the greater Missouri Baptist family. They concluded by taking significant action on the issue.

In an historic move members of the board voted by a nearly 3-1 margin to cut off state convention Cooperative Program support to Acts 29 Network churches/church plants in Missouri. The vote does not impact MBC churches who, on their own, are assisting Acts 29 churches.

[lmalone]

" Andrew, was sleeping with someone he was not married to and did not repent when confronted. "

Abson, what are you reading? Andrew confessed. Otherwise the church leadership would not have known. (BTW: It was not about "sleeping" with the woman)

But confessing at MH is not enough. You need to detail your entire sex life for them on paper. Then They have to tell Andrews sins over their City social media for members and even told people how they could interact with Andrew if they saw him out somewhere.

That is cultic behavior. It grieves me you cannot see it.

[Dean]

What I see here is thus: it's possible Mary does not understand the logic of church planting. There may be two or three SBC churches in relatively close proximity to the church plants mentioned, but Send:St Louis' website has a salient statistic. In Saint Louis there is one SBC church for roughly every 6000 residents. It's true that North Saint Louis and East Saint Louis are the centers of poverty and crime in the Saint Louis metro area, but South Saint Louis has the highest population density in the area, so it seems illogical to conclude in a small geographic area that has well over 100,000 people that two SBC churches are enough to reach those people. We could plant 100 more churches there there and still not have enough.

Furthermore, I find it curious that the only churches being planted are Reformed theologically and that those churches seem to be reaching many with the gospel. Is that more an indictment of Acts 29 and Reformed theology or of non-Reformed SBC churches? The truth about church planting is that it is the most effective way to reach communities. I favor a both/and approach toward church planting vs church strengthening, but I think the value of church planting is evident. We do not fund missionaries with IMB money and tell them to only strengthen existing churches. How would I reached and underreached areas be reached with the gospel? North America is just as in need of such missionary outreach.

[Mary]

Mr. Tucker, Darren Casper thumbed his nose at Missouri Baptists because immediatley after that he began using SLMBA to plant Acts 29 churches. The people in the pews in St. Louis couldn't tell you a thing about SLMBA except that, that's the place you go to get a missionary for VBS. The Calvinists have been able to take over because the people in the pew are not paying attention and the leaders of the churches have this "let's all get along mentality and besides the young will throw temper tantrums if we don't give them what they want." By the time the regular pew sitters find out that we are cooperating with this churches with these cultic practices it may well be too late.

And guess what happens when new churches are planted? Well they can affliate with the Missouri Baptist Convention and the SBC. How many more messangers are we funding to go into State Conventions and the National Convention?

[Debbie Kaufman]

Andrew, was sleeping with someone he was not married to

No that is not what happened absalon. He made out with a woman who was not his fiance, one time, stopping short of intercourse. He felt guilt instantly and confessed his sin to the church, and the rest of the story you know from the comments here, which was craziness and cultic behavior. It was abuse beyond what this young man should have ever endured. And to put it on facebook, even just to certain people is like telling it to the world. It was beyond my comprehension as to why they felt they could Biblically do such a dastardly deed.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I sympathize with those who have expressed severe reservations with the way Mars Hill Church seems to have skewed biblical church discipline in the case under discussion. And, while visible connections exist between Mars Hill >>> Mark Driscoll >>> Acts 29 >>> NAMB >>> St. Louis Initiative >>> Cooperative Program >>> Southern Baptist church >>> commenting on the issue, I'd like to steer the thread back to focusing only on issues Mary England raised in her original post.

Thanks. I appreciate your participation here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Dean the Population for the entire City of St. Louis is 319,294 2010 census, according to the Association of Religion Data Archives there are 28 SBC churches in the City of St. Louis. Those 28 churches are found dispropotionately in the South Side of St. Louis City.

28 SBC to 319,294 = a ratio of SBC churches to pop of 14,478
If we look at the ratio of evangelical chuches we get
105 evangelical churches to 3,606.

Again those evangelical churches are going to be disproptionately in the South City of St. Louis

"Furthermore, I find it curious that the only churches being planted are Reformed theologically and that those churches seem to be reaching many with the gospel. Is that more an indictment of Acts 29 and Reformed theology or of non-Reformed SBC churches"

Then Kevin Ezell and others need to willing to go to the floor of the SBC and make the claim that only Reformed churches are capable of reaching anybody for the Gospel, but we need all you nonreformed to keep funding it. And we've decided to put all of NAMB funds into funding new reformed churches allowing nonreformed churches to die while we squeeze every last penny out of them we can.

The SBC has existing infrastrure - yet somehow it makes sense to rent and/or buy property within walking distance of existing SBC churches because those churches don't have the right soteriology. We're spending millions to reinvent the wheel because the existing wheel is the wrong brand.

[volfan007]

Mary,

I know of a church in Jackson, TN, which is Founders Friendly, and is seeking to start other churches, which has some strange dealings with anyone, who disagrees with them. I know a man, who used to be a member of this Founder Friendly Church, who voted against something presented to the Church by the Elders. Later that week, he got a visit by the Elders. They wanted to know why he would vote against this thing they had brought to the Church, and would he change his mind, etc.

He no longer goes to that Church.

A Church plant, which they supported as the Mother Church, and I'm not sure if NAMB gives them any support, or not; but the new church plant accepts unScriptural baptisms(sprinkling). They will allow people to join thier church, who were sprinkled at a Presbyterian Church, to join their Church. No immersion required.

David

[Les]

David,

Isn't that what John Piper was wanting to do at Bethlehem? But I think that is stalled right now.

BTW, I found my old MABTS directory the other day and looked you up. Now I remember you from those days. Quite a handsome guy!

Les

[Mary]

And I think perhaps Dean missed the point of the Baptist Press Article as well as mine. The BP article written by someone from the NAMB placed an emphasis on "unchurched" and "urban" work. You can not claim an area is unchurched when a church is within walking distance, not just a church but an SBC church. And you cannot claim church plants in Ballwin or Wentzville are anything remotely related to urban. So are we giving the impression to those unfamiliar with the area that the focus in St. Louis is to be the poor urban areas where churches left years ago and then actually planting churches in areas that are not unchurched and not urban?

It seems like we may be following Acts 29 strategy for church planting which is to target a certain type of people. It's curious when you look at where Acts 29 has planted churches and where Plant St. Louis is focusing and the majority of the emphasis for some reason seems to be on St. Charles, Wentzville, and Ballwin. Not urban, not poor, but young upwardly mobile. That's not the impression the BP article gave.

And of course everybody needs the gospel, but we need accoutabilty in the SBC. Who are really targeting and what churches are you really planting, and has the decision been made to let existing churches die.

[volfan007]

Les,

Thanks, Brother, but the years have taken their toll, I'm afraid...lol.

But, my wife still thinks I'm a good lookin' fella. And, her opinion of me matters most!

David

:)

[Max]

Mary, you ask “What kind of new churches are being planted?” A better question might be “What kind of pastors are being planted?” With a flood of SBTS and SEBTS reformed graduates now looking for pulpits, where are they to go? If they seek SBC employment, they essentially have four options: (1) apply to Founder-friendly churches, (2) seek sponsorship via a reformed mega-church, (3) climb over the wall to reform non-Calvinist works, or (4) enlist for NAMB church plants. At least some new church plants in my area are targeting a generation of 20s-30s who are unchurched or dechurched. Many are near college campuses or in areas populated by young professionals. Lord knows that the SBC needs to reach this generation, but not with message, methodology, and missiology which do not conform to mainline Southern Baptist beliefs. At least in my area, most of these works are primarily sponsored by mega-church pastors with a reformed leaning – they have no reference to Southern, Baptist, or Reformed in their church names. From what you note, NAMB church planting funds may very well be directed to plants which will tap the availability and energy of young reformed pastors to effect the desired SBC theological transition of the next generation.

You also ask “Do the 43,000-+ Southern Baptist churches who faithfully send their CP monies to cooperative causes actually realize NAMB appears to be focusing an unreasonable amount of resources on church plants which will have a pronounced Calvinistic theology?” The short answer is “No!” The majority of mainline Southern Baptists have little idea what is unfolding on the SBC landscape (e.g., churches with dual SBC and Acts 29 affiliation). They need to be better informed – the old gray mare ain’t what she used to be! Let me be clear, I am not opposed to new church plants nor current faithful home missionaries planting new works in North America – Praise God for their work! I am opposed to the encouragement and financial support of the “New Calvinist” movement within SBC ranks and believe that the multitude of Southern Baptists would agree with me.

[Mary]

Max, if you follow politics you know that the first thing we need to do is create a crisis and then create the solution for the crisis.

Calvinists through Founder's took over the seminaries and now we have a crisis - all these reformed preacher boys need jobs. They tell us "you all whine and moan about reformed graduates going into nonCalvinist churches and causing problems, but where are they supposed to go?" So now we're being told that we are responsible to fund these graduates that we've educated in our Seminaries. Meanwhile nonCalvinist churches are finding it increasingly difficult to find qualified nonCalvinists ministers.

Maybe if our seminaries weren't indoctrinating everyone into Calvinism, but instead serving the entire SBC including the nonreformed we wouldn't have this crisis of all these YRR demanding the SBC give them jobs with nonreformed money.

The seminaries are not serving the SBC, they are only serving the reformed faction of the SBC and now we see that NAMB will be serving the reformed faction, and it seems that Lifeway is now moving toward serving only the reformed faction. Meanwhile, the majority of the money is still coming from the nonreformed.

But no one in leadership has any amount of integrity to stand and say "yeah we are only gonna serve the reformed, that's been the plan all along, to take it over completely for the reformed all the while taking nonreformed money."

What does that say about the leaders that they knew they could exploit the fact that the pew sitters have not been paying attention and so they took advantage and are doing that which a majority would denounce if the leaders were to actually come right out and say "Yes Southern and Southeastern teach only Calvinism as the gospel, Yes NAMB is going to plant only reformed churches, and yes Lifeway will now be producing reformed materials."

[Max]

Mary writes "... that which a majority would denounce if the leaders were to actually come right out and say 'Yes Southern and Southeastern teach only Calvinism as the gospel, Yes NAMB is going to plant only reformed churches, and yes Lifeway will now be producing reformed materials.'"

When the stack of evidence becomes more commonly known, majority Southern Baptists will be faced with three Biblical courses: (1) remain willingly ignorant, (2) come out from among them, or (3) contend for the faith.

[Bob Hadley]

Well said M&M! Could not pass that one up!

><>"

[Mary]

Max, another problem right now and I see this in St. Louis and is that there are people who think this isn't a problem at all and we should just all go along to get along.

We only need look at how Acts 29 is run to see that at the end of all this, there isn't going to be room for both reformed/nonreformed in the SBC as there has always been. Those days of an SBC tent big enough to include reformed/nonreformed will be history if those planting these Acts 29 knockoffs have their way.

The gospel is Calvinism - the only people worth coorperating with are 4 and 5 point Calvinists. Men like Rogers, Vines, and Patterson would have no place in the new order of things.

Look at how the Acts 29 network and SGM which also has influence in the SBC is sturctured and you get that - it's not a move to cooperation it's a move to begin excluding. They already excluding at the seminaries.

[Bart Barber]

Might've bothered me a few months ago. But now that Pujols has left the Cardinals, Driscoll can HAVE St. Louis.

;-)

[Deb]

Mary,

Thanks for this article about church plants in St. Louis. I believe it gives us a glimpse of what may be happening in the SBC in years to come.

I enjoyed reading through the comments and agree with what Max stated:

"You also ask “Do the 43,000-+ Southern Baptist churches who faithfully send their CP monies to cooperative causes actually realize NAMB appears to be focusing an unreasonable amount of resources on church plants which will have a pronounced Calvinistic theology?” The short answer is “No!” The majority of mainline Southern Baptists have little idea what is unfolding on the SBC landscape (e.g., churches with dual SBC and Acts 29 affiliation). They need to be better informed – the old gray mare ain’t what she used to be!"

As a Southern Baptist, I am very concerned about this growing trend. We need to get the word out!

While I'm in the SBC Tomorrow neighborhood, I want to give a warm "Hello" to Peter.

Blessings!

[JR]

NAMB works with Southern Baptists who want to plant churches in agreement with the BF&M 2000. If Mary and others don't like the fact that so many churches are being planted in St Louis by calvinists, they should work to plant or replant more traditional SBC style churches. It appears that the calvinists will be planting regardless of what NAMB does.

[peter lumpkins]

JR,

I'm just afraid you really don't 'get' Mary and others' concern: "If Mary and others don't like the fact that so many churches are being planted in St Louis by calvinists, they should work to plant or replant more traditional SBC style churches." From Mary's perspective, she is planting churches through CP monies but she is being forced to plant an inordinate number of Calvinistic churches. NAMB's monies and SLMBA's monies come from here and people like her.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

And it's not just that we're planting Calvinists churches but when asked directly if we're planting exlusively Calvinists churches we'll be told oh no that's not what's happeneing at all.

If the NAMB is going to plant exclusively Calvininsts churches then they need to be up front and tell the convention that they plan on planting a majority of Calvinists churches and those churches are going to be the same as Acts 29 churches. But instead we'll get the standard - our church plants affirm the BFM. Which is what Calvinists always scream when they want to hide that they are pushing to Calvinize the SBC.

If the NAMB decided to plant zero Calvinists churches than the blogs would erupt, but if the Calvinists are doing it we get - THE BFM! THE BFM! THE BFM!

[Max]

Mary writes "If the NAMB decided to plant zero Calvinist churches then the blogs would erupt, but if the Calvinists are doing it we get - THE BFM! THE BFM! THE BFM!"

Close observers of the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) recognized compromises within the revision committee to diminish certain historical SBC beliefs to make it more palatable to the growing ranks of reformed brethren. Russell Dilday wrote an excellent analysis of the BFM2000 revision. In that he writes "There are features in BFM2000 that some believe give, for the first time, a distinct Calvinistic slant to the statement. Since Al Mohler, a leading shaper of BFM2000, claims to be a Calvinist, it is easy to suspect that some of the changes have more to do with Calvinistic theology than Baptist history." http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/5_14/pages/dilday.html

Dilday identified "troubling factors in the 2000 revision" which provided wiggle room for reformed theology. These concerns included "the trend toward Calvinism and mistrust of personal Christian experience" and "the trend shifting Baptist identity from its Anabaptist, free church tradition to a reformed evangelical identity." Thus, it is no wonder that the Calvinists among us keep bringing up "The BFM! The BFM! The BFM!" ... while majority Southern Baptists, who are non-Calvinist, are now starting to realize the plot behind the revision.

It can be argued that there were prominent non-Calvinists on the revision committee who allowed revisions to the BFM which diminished free church beliefs, personal experience, soul competency, and priesthood of the believer. That only aggravates the sting worse as we view how such compromise has impacted the SBC landscape. Before you know it, NAMB will plant predominantly reformed churches under the BFM banner. There are plenty of recent graduates from SBTS and SEBTS standing in line for church planting jobs to effect that mission.