I have to be cautious. All of the information is not yet out. My opinion is really really low on the scale of "Whose Opinion Matters". And I am pretty upset about this decision. With that being said, I carefully offer my opinion on this dreadful decision by the MBC Executive Board. Here is the motion:

MOTION:Effective Jan 1, The Acts 29 Network is an organization which the MBC Exec Bd. Staff will not be working with, supporting, or endorsing in any manner at anytime.

Amendment:While recognizing the autonomous nature of all areas of MBC life beyond that of the Executive Board Staff, the MBC Executive Board directs the Church Planting Department and other ministry departments to NOT provide CP dollars toward those affiliated with the Acts 29 Network.

Motion as amended passed by a vote of 28-10 HT: Jim Shaver

What does this mean? It means that if you are a new church plant with the MBC and you are not yet "self-sufficient", then you must decide whether or not you are going to drop your affiliation with Acts29 or the MBC. Because the MBC is providing much of their funding this puts them in a very difficult position. I would love to see Acts29 step up and provide funding in place of the MBC. I would love seeing Acts29 churches stay in the MBC--but the politicians have made this nearly impossible.

I will probably be posting more on this later. Until then there is a little conversation going on at
Founders, Scott Lamb at Thoughts and Adventures, and at Micah Fries blog.

Update: Here are a few additional thoughts I have after doing some research. They are also posted at the Founders blog:

Let me preface by saying that I am not very knowledgeable of all the inner-workings of the MBC; so I could be quite wrong in my hypothesis. Nevertheless after doing a little research I think I have figured out that this is more than just an "alcohol" issue. I think the Executive Board feels that they are doing us a favor by preserving us from the Emerging church movement.
If you know anything about Acts 29 you know that they are not affiliated with the emerging church movement (Emergent, McClaren, Tony Jones, etc.) However, the Theological Committee Review has reported that Acts29 and Emerging/Emergent are pretty much synonymous. Read section 3A of their report

It appears to me that the underlying problem is that they are lumping Acts 29 with the Emerging Church. Emerging Church we should be very concerned with as they often deny the biblical gospel...if you read the review you will see how Acts 29 is lumped in with Emergent...therefore, I think people associate the heresy of Emergent with Acts 29.
Here is the part I am unsure of...how serious did the Executive Board take the Report. But as I have studied I think it is more than "just alcohol". It's motivated out of misinformation and wrongly associating Acts29 with Emergent.

Dr. Mohler has written about the mainline Protestant concern with homosexual pastors. "Yes, They Said It" gives two exhibits (quotes) that point to the reason we are concerned. One of the men that he quoted is a Lutheran. When we compare that pastors comment to a quote by Martin Luther we see just how far some churches have strayed from their origin. Brian Schmeling said this: "People aren't coming to church to hear that their sins are forgiven; they are coming to experience connection to God, to the people sitting with them in the sanctuary and to people around the world. My theology has thus become more incarnational and relational." In other words, he no longer preaches the Cross. Contrast this with what Martin Luther said about preaching the gospel, "The gospel cannot be preached and heard enough, for it cannot be grasped well enough...Moreover, our greatest task is to keep you faithful to this article and to bequeath this treasure to you when we die". Schmeling and folks like him have exchanged that treasure for a false gospel.

Michael Spencer, the Internetmonk, has made a very thoughtful post about Name Tags. In effective irony he points out the hypocrisy of many who call the Emerging Church (Conversation, Emergent, whatever they are called) vague. His point is that we [insert your affiliations here] are just as guilty as the emergent of being slippery and unidentifiable. His solution serves as a fitting rebuke...we should just wear name tags that spells out who we follow. "Maybe we could just try using the names of favorite teachers, like “Keller types” or “Macarthur types.” What do you think? “I am of Paul.” “I am of Apollos.” It would make everything much simpler."

I will take his rebuke and grow from it--I know I do sometimes follow "Piper", "Sproul", "Edwards", "Spurgeon", etc. And defining my theology by a name tag is wrong, I confess. But I do have to disagree with Spencer on one point at least. What many decry Emergent for is not that they are slippery in defining their names or giving a definition to their theology. Granted, it is frustrating not knowing what to call them (it makes writing more difficult). Slippery name tags is not the problem. Slippery theology is what the problem is. When their leaders refuse to make a stance on homosexuality (something the Bible is clear about) and clothe their border-line (sometimes outright) heretical views with deliberately confusing arguments then they become slippery, and that is what people have a problem with. Nonetheless, the rebuke still stands.

New Attitude points us to a C.J. Mahaney article on "Cravings and Conflict". Every time I read or hear something by Mahaney my level of respect for him grows. After reading this article I wanted to comment on it but found myself only able to say, "Wow". I highly recommend you read this article--you will be blessed. In it Mahaney reminds us that we will face conflict, the question is are we ready for it? This article will certainly help us.