I do not know. However...
...reading various "voices" within the SBC blogosphere behooves us to consider whether the Cooperative Program, and Missions as we've always known them to be defined within our convention of churches, are at risk. That said, should the convention of autonomous SBC churches be fully informed of the theology, mindset, goals, movements and clear objectives of the affiliations, and send messengers to vote with full disclosure of agendas, we might be better able to carry on intelligent conversations throughout the blogosphere. With the barrage of controlled discussion, including ill-defined vocabulary, and complicated phrasing to disquise agendas, the average pew-sitter like myself, and 85 to 90% of the SBC, it becomes virtually impossible to debate, dialogue, discuss or inquire about things which concern Baptists today. Below is one comment "reply" to another commenter's question, who is trying to discern how the presence of ACTS 29 and SBC affiliations is troubling to some. I think he endeavors to be clear and honest in his evaluation and answer to Les:
"First, there is but a minimal "requirement" for churches to be affiliated with the SBC--only a few hundred bucks. Hence, there is no % mandate. Local churches vary. Second, that is not to say that there exists unwritten expectations the convention at large places on supporting churches. Few would view a church that gives a couple hundred bucks (unless it is a very very tiny church) as a "fully cooperating" SBC church.
As for A29, I've done quite a bit of reading in their material. While they officially do not "require" 10% going to A29 churches (1% of which goes to the A29 Network), they make it clear it's expected, very similarly to our CP expectations.
Finally, you state that Mary overstated about A29 spreading Calvinism rather that Christ. However, embracing "Reformed" theology is a non-negotiable theological template for A29. They are uninterested in churches and/or church planters who are neither a) theologically "Reformed" and, b) elder governed. Both of these theo-ecclesial conditions apply. This remains one of the chief reasons I find A29 objectionable for SBC purposes. We demand neither; they demand both. Hence, it follows that A29 would be interested in affiliating with, at most, about 5-10% of Southern Baptists. Yet we are on course to making A29 our bread-n-butter church planting venue. From my view, this is suicidal for the Cooperative Program.
With that, I am...
Peter" [replying to Les at SBC Tomorrow on post "Truth Is Unkillable"/see full post HERE]
Related posts which literally were prompted as a result of one innocuous dissenting comment by me in a stream of comments, on this subject can be found HERE@FromLaw2Grace, HERE@SelahVToday, HERE@SelahVToday, HERE@SelahVToday, HERE@SBCVoices, and HERE@SBCVoices, HERE@SBCVoices, HERE@SBCVoices, HERE@SBCVoices, HERE@DennyBurk, HERE@DennyBurk, HERE@GospelCoalition, HERE@SBCVoices, and HERE@SelahVToday.
THESE links are hardly exhaustive of those which are related to, or prompted by, the following comment I inadvertantly, and unwittingly discovered with shock and awe to create such a firestorm of opposition towards my view in general and my personal character in specifics:
"Well, Brandon, I didn’t read your post. My mind shut down at the introduction of who Steve is: Director of Acts29 Western Europe. I said to myself, Acts 29? I’m not in Kansas anymore. I checked the link to ascertain I was at “SBC” Voices. Acts-29 is not a voice I am interested in hearing. No offense…". selahV
I include my, now, deleted comment, and links above which pertain to it, in this post only because I find the furor and hailstorm of bloggers, and entity leaders within the SBC, more than curious and disturbing given the lack-of-discussion, previously relating to ACTS-29 Network. I'm curious, if simply writing a few words of dissent and disinterest in a forum designed to register opinions of Southern Baptists specifically, about ACTS 29's affiliation with SBC, then what could happen if some "brazen" autonomous SBC churches find, (upon deeper evaluation of ACTS 29, founded and run by Mark Driscoll), that affiliation and Cooperative Program monies spent to aid development of churches is objectionable to them?
Would the wrath of God come down upon those churches? Would the pastors be ostracized and removed from Convention platforms to speak? Would concerned pew-sitters and messengers like myself have our microphones muted on the Convention floor? Would we be smacked down and told to sit down, and to go back to our churches and whine there if we wanted to whine? Would any member of the church who spoke in opposition be shunned and sent out the back door of their respective church? I don't know. I'm just asking. selahV (a.k.a. one female voice crying in the grasslands)
[Comments are open, but are all moderated and cannot be seen by public until published by ME hitting the "publish" button. Feel free to voice your thoughts with grace. You do not have to read the full post offered at the Link provided with Peter's reply to Les, nor to read all the related links provided, to offer your thoughts on this op. Just to be clear.
And also, you probably won't have to be concerned about me arguing via email because I am taking Dr. Ed Stetzer's advice and not replying to emails which will go no where and end up back at the original opinion of the sender of the emails.]
Comments