But there is a section that I object to in his article. He states:
The Acts 29 group and their supporters, which include a growing number of bitter moderates once in the MBC, believe the Executive Board’s action – based on the alcohol issue – is extra-biblical.
I don't think it was quite fair to lump the supporters of Acts 29 with "bitter moderates." While I'm sure that the moderates have probably jumped onto this cause because they are looking for any reason whatsoever to complain about the SBC, look at who else has been supportive of Acts 29. The Founder's ministry seems to be sympathetic to the cause and even interviewed one of the defunded church planters. Mark Dever recently spoke at an Acts 29 boot camp and stated:
Our differences are enough to separate some of my friends—your brothers and sisters in Christ—from you. And perhaps to separate them from me, now that I’m publicly speaking to you.
No one who is awake and paying attention to trends in the SBC can honestly say that the Founders or Mark Dever are people that the Moderates would be supportive of. The Moderates are just jumping on the bandwagon because it is an opportunity to criticize something in the MBC that they can get sympathy from conservatives.
As I started this post, I agree that the MBC has the right to make that decision, but I also think that individuals and churches are free to express that they disagree with the decision without being lumped into guilt by association with the Moderates. This is not a liberal conservative issue. It saddens me to see that a state convention that I'm fully supportive of in the sense that they have regained conservative control, has chosen to cut fellowship with other conservative churches.