Scott Lamb lets the word out on a decision by the Missouri Baptist Convention's Executive Board that establishes "a 'no-partnership with Acts 29' rule for MBC church plants." Scott is not privy to all of the details, yet, but has enough information to know that churches that affiliate with Acts 29 will be judged unworthy of support from MBC church planting funds. This hardly seems like a kingdom focus regarding church planting, does it?
Recently I read research from Ed Stetzer done for the North American Mission Board that indicated that only 68% of church plants are still in existence after 4 years. I wonder what that rate is for Acts 29 network churches?
Perhaps the MBC Exec Board has good, theological reasons for rejecting the Acts 29 network of churches in toto. If so, then I wish they would show me, and not simply resort to the tired and hackneyed response of "trust us, we know what is best for you." Missouri Baptists should not let this decision go unexamined. Neither should they settle for superficial rationales. At a time when we need to become more aggressive and purposeful in planting gospel churches throughout our land, this type of action seems more provincial than evangelical.