Kristi and I just got back from Newport Beach, CA where we had the privilege of spending the past few days with church planters/pastors and their wives from all over the world at the Acts 29 Network Pastors Retreat. We had a great time in a beautiful city worshiping with friends and we met pastors, church planters and their wives from all over the world. It was a refreshing time and a great reminder of why we joined the network in the first place.

I have friends who swim in different theological streams than I do. I love this and want to respect their theological convictions, learn from them. But, invariably, I get concern from friends in other streams about Acts 29. Some of the concerns are based on individual personalities and others on cultural/theological issues. Some is legitimate and some of it is just silly. Back in 2009, I wrote on our church blog several reasons why we were aligning with Acts 29 and I wanted to revisit those today.

We planted a church because we want people to know Jesus. We want to make, mature and multiply disciples. We want to see the entire NW Valley of Phoenix transformed by the Gospel. We want to see Phoenix and Arizona changed. Beyond that, we want the world to know about Jesus. This isn’t going to happen through our church alone. And so we have partnered with other Jesus-loving, Bible-believing, Truth-proclaiming, City-serving churches around the world to plant churches that plant churches. Here are the reasons I wrote in 2009 that we were partnering with Acts 29:

• Jesus-centered missionality

I realize that “missional” is a bit of a junk-drawer word (surely you have a drawer somewhere in your house where everyone puts everything?!), but at it’s base, it communicates the idea of living like missionaries in our immediate context. Living on and in God’s mission. Missions involves cultural engagement and lays the groundwork for evangelism.

Acts 29 not only understands and encourages this but does so from a Christ-centered framework, putting Jesus at the center of everything. This is key and must not be overlooked. Indeed, as Mars Hill Church says: “It’s All About Jesus.” To claim to be “on mission” without Jesus is simply a fool’s errand at best, and suicide at worst. Acts 29 understands that, not only is Jesus the embodiment of God on Mission, He is our hope and strength as He sends us in His footsteps (Matthew 28:18-20).

• Vocal doctrinal commitment

It is a sometimes-tempting trap for many church planters to water down doctrine in the hopes of attracting more people. Acts 29 rejects such shallow options, understanding that, to open up your Bible at all and teach is to involve doctrine and we’d better strive to get it right. We only do disservice when we treat the things of God as though they’re merely self-help tools to get us our best lives. Acts 29 unapologeticaly encourages and empowers pastors to lead their people deep into the glories of Calvary.

• The centrality of the Church

While the doctrine (and practice) of the Church is under attack from nearly every direction (including many who profess faith in Christ), Acts 29 stands on the principle that the Church is at the center of God’s redeeming Work. It is for the Church that Christ laid down His life (Ephesians 5:25).

• The importance of family

It’s often been said: “As goes the home, so goes the church.” And yet, it’s quite common for many ministers to pour themselves out so much in ministry that they have nothing left for their families, which should be their primary ministry. Acts 29 not only understands this, they call their pastors/planters to first be family men before pastors. This is often sorely overlooked to the detriment of everyone involved. I am humbled to be part of a network that takes family so seriously.

• Calling Men to Be Men

I was never a jock and I cringe a bit when I see masculinity defined primarily in athletic/competitive terms. But, it doesn’t take long in most churches to realize that more women participate in church life than do men. Acts 29 is intentionally calling men to be men, to be sacrificial leaders, to be humbly bold, to lead their families and the church. This is much needed in our culture.

• Kingdom over Denomination

Acts 29 has members across the denominational landscape. I see this as a tremendous strength. Acts 29 strives to put the Kingdom over our differences (as important as they may be). It’s much more difficult to strive to work across those boundaries than it is to hide behind them. What’s even more difficult is to firmly hold certain doctrines in a closed hand while holding others in an open hand. I am honored to be part of a network that puts the unity of the Kingdom above the differences of denomination.

—-

Three years later, I would only add to that list. There is a zeal for evangelism and a heart-desire for diversity in this network that I haven’t always seen in my other church-life affiliations. There is a growing emphasis on international church planting and there is a very real desire to pursue humility and a winsome approach to reformed theology that I myself have not always pursued. I am thankful to be challenged in this area.

I am more encouraged now than ever to be part of the network. We have a lot to learn, but, by God’s grace, we are trying.

So now, Emir Caner has issued an “apology” regarding his last tweet accusing the Acts 29 Network (in full disclosure, I am a member of Acts 29) of not only tolerating but advocating pornography (see my thoughts here).

The “apology reads:

I have come to realize over the past few days that Driscoll’s vulgarity is far too serious an issue to simply put out a satirical tweet. While it is easy to find Driscoll crossing the line (see articles by John MacArthur and Cathy Mickels) it should not be likewise with me, and for that I apologize.

I remember once, when my brother and I were younger and I called him dumb. My Mom told me to apologize so I said: “I’m sorry you’re dumb.” Somehow, Caner’s apology feels sort of like that. It is a shame to see Caner eschew wisdom and love in order to play the fool and gain cheap publicity for himself. This is the sort of thing that will get his followers rallied around him for “standing up for what’s right” while bringing attention to himself. I mean, come on, before this, who had even heard of Truett-McConnell College?

Is this a case of answering a fool or not? What do you think? Is this really an apology or something along the lines of “I’m sorry Mark Driscoll is so vulgar?” How should situations like this (in the public realm) be handled? Should we in Acts 29 choose to be wronged (1 Corinthians 6:7, Matthew 5:39) or should Caner be pressed further because of his position (James 3:1-12) and inability to tame his tongue?

• Read Justin Taylor’s post calling Caner out here.

So, yesterday, Emir Caner, President of Truett-McConnell College, in Georgia, brother of Ergun Caner, posted an unfortunate “tweet” on Twitter.

In case you didn’t see it or look at the picture at the top of this blog post, Emir’s tweet read: “The military discovered a large stash of pornography in bin Laden’s compound. I was unaware that Islam had its own Acts 29 Network.”

Later in the evening, I posted the following to Facebook:

“Is this Tweet real? Is Emir Caner really this idiotic or is someone setting him up?”

A little while later, I was “de-friended” by Caner on Facebook (yes, I was “friends” with him on Facebook, but I primarily use Facebook for networking rather than actual friendships, but I don’t see how that’s really the point here at all . . . ).

Anyway, the whole incident got me to thinking about how to biblically disagree with people. I could be wrong here, and I’m sure that some of you are more than willing to let me know that you think so, but it seems to me that Caner’s thoughts fall more along the lines of slander than they do genuine, biblical disagreement.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am in the Acts 29 Network. I know lots of Acts 29 pastors, candidates and applicants and I don’t know a single one of them who would advocate the use or promotion of pornography. Now, it could be that my exposure to the Acts 29 Network is limited. But, then again, it could be that Caner’s assertions are not factual. And, if they are not factual (which I argue they are not), then we must conclude that, either: 1) he knowingly promoted falsehoods about Christian brothers or 2) he unknowingly promoted falsehoods about Christian brothers.

Let’s start with the latter. Let’s say that, for some reason, Caner has a different perspective on the Acts 29 Network than I do, which is fair enough. But, his perspective isn’t just that we are wrong doctrinally or methodologically but that, somehow, we use, advocate and possibly even promote pornography.

I don’t know Caner personally, but, for a president of a college, I would imagine that it would be easy enough to contact people within the Acts 29 Network ala Matthew 18:15-20. But, regardless of whether or not Caner has been in touch with any of the Acts 29 people, it seems to me that something like Ephesians 4:29 (“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear”) or 1 Corinthians 13:7 (‘Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things”) should come into play.

I have deep reservations about the Caner brothers, but I don’t publicly accuse them of pornography. And this seems to be the issue. For some reason, Caner has come to the conclusion that the Acts 29 Network allows and perhaps even advocates the use of pornography and then decided that this was an appropriate thing to “tweet” to his 2,000 something followers. This doesn’t seem to me to be either edifying or believing the best about those with whom he might otherwise disagree.

If, indeed, he has differences with those of us in Acts 29, that’s not only fine, it’s probably good for the larger Body of Christ that everyone does not think or act the same way. Caner will likely reach people for Christ that I will not. But, I don’t publicly accuse him of sin simply because we differ on theology or practice.

Which leads us to the first possiblity: Caner knowingly promoted falsehoods about Christians brothers. I don’t even want to think that this is true, so I’ll allow an out – perhaps he thinks it’s true, when in fact, it’s not. But doesn’t that lead us once again back to Matthew 18, Ephesians 4:29 and 1 Corinthians 13:7? If he indeed thinks that this is true, should he approach Mark Driscoll, Scott Thomas, Jeff Vandersteldt or others on the board of Acts 29? Or at least believe the best?

I personally can’t see any way in which Caner’s tweet is helpful or edifying, which leads me to wonder aloud how to publicly disagree with someone. If there are specific issues, we should address them in light of Scripture. If there is not sufficient Scripture, then we should openly state that the difference is a matter of opinion. But, we should always err on the side of love (Matthew 5:44, Phillipians 2:3, 1 John 3:14, etc.).

What troubles me the most about Caner’s comment is that I see so much of my own tendency to villify those with whom I disagree in it. I rarely think the best about those with whom I disagree. So, if for anything, I want to thank Caner for the push to examine my own heart and attitude in public disagreements. I have a tendency to speak before I think and I am thankful for this opportunity to think out loud about how things ought to be handled.

No, I didn’t personally go to Caner before posting this. He “de-friended” me on Facebook, remember? I took that as a sign that he didn’t want my input.

• Read Justin Taylor’s input here.

Last week I wrote about John MacArthur’s public comments about Darrin Patrick. Now, I don’t know MacArthur, though I’ve met him (in fact, when my oldest son was four-months old, we took his picture with MacArthur and Al Mohler). Nor do I know Darrin Patrick. And that brings us to one of the difficulties in a situation like this.

I don’t know if John MacArthur contacted Darrin Patrick before publicly criticizing him. I do know that I did not contact John MacArthur before publicly lamenting his remark and its tone. And for that, I was taken to the proverbial woodshed, both publicly and privately.

My concern was not simply with MacArthur’s comment regarding Darrin Patrick. I perceive that, over the years, his tone has changed; become more harsh and divisive. It was coupled, in my mind with MacArthur’s harsh words for Mark Driscoll and his general disdain for contextualization. I realize that you may not agree with this but I know others who do. This latest comment was simply (for me) more evidence of this and that prompted me to think publicly about MacArthur’s comment.

I was also told that my reaction was not in direct proportion to MacArthur’s comment, that I needed to grow up, that if I had an issue with MacArthur then I should simply go to him personally and that I was arrogant, and guilty of the very things I was regretting in MacArthur.

I have to wonder what all of this means. In an age of public discourse, how is it that we don’t seem to know how to disagree in love? To add to that, how should we handle “celebrity” comments made in public settings. Apparently, a good number of people think that it’s not appropriate to address someone’s public comments unless you’ve first gone to them in private. Others, however, seem to believe that comments made in a public setting can be addressed publicly. I do think that our “celebrity” culture has only complicated matters. We have given some people a wide forum in which they often make 0ff-the-cuff comments in very public manners. This leaves the question of how to address these comments appropriately when they are inappropriate. Should it be left to other “celebrities” to go in private or can a common citizen express public concern? Apparently, there is little agreement on this.

I obviously lean towards the position that public comments may be addressed publicly, but I was surprised by the good number of people who adamantly disagreed with me. To the credit of one person, I did receive a private message asking if I had contacted MacArthur before writing. However, I also had several people ask me the same question publicly, which is a bit confusing. Apparently, there is little agreement on this.

I was honestly a bit surprised by the criticisms of my criticism. As far as I can know my own heart, my concerns did not arise from conceit and I did not write that post out of arrogance, but that was how a good number of you took it. It could certainly be the case that I was not as careful with my words as I should have been but I also wonder if it’s simply the case that we don’t know how to disagree well. When criticism is simply dismissed as arrogant or divisive, we have closed the gateway to meaningful dialogue. On the other hand, the public forums in which we now live have made it easier for criticism to simply be arrogant and divisive. Even when a writer is careful with their words, a good many people seem to think that to criticize at all is arrogant.

As we live more an more in an a time of public forum and as Christians give in more and more to celebrity culture, we must think carefully about how to tread these waters. Public criticism is not going away any time soon so we’d better think well about how to deal with it.

I have always said that one of the reasons I blog is not to simply make my opinions known but to interact with other people and ideas. One of the ways I process ideas is through dialogue and the blog format can be very useful for this. But this also means that I open myself up to a lot of criticism and people who are simply not careful with their words. It is my prayer that iron can still sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17) and that we can have enough humility to listen to others (James 1:19) and to realize that all criticism is not arrogance.

I’ve had an interesting journey over the past few years. I have made the trip that some of you have, from run-of-the-mill Arminian who was that way simply because that’s all we’d ever known, to angry, argumentative Calvinist, through the gymnastics of “theological precision,” from “High Calvinism” to “Low Calvinism,” and finally, to reformed (with a little “r”), missional and, I pray, gospel-centered.

It’s been an odd experience, because as I’ve moved through certain theological circles, I have gleaned tremendously from certain groups and individuals who, later, only seem to say they would no longer have me. The Southern Baptist Convention’s move across the nation against Acts 29, public comments asking to ban Mark Driscoll’s book from Lifeway stores have led me to infer that the SBC doesn’t want me.

John MacArthur has been a tremendous theological influence throughout my formative years. Though I have never aligned with his Dispensationalism or some of his views on the role of a pastor (it seems to me that he is fully content spending 40 hours a week in the study, which is a teacher, not a pastor. Pastors pastor; among people, which requires you get out of the office) he has helped me understand theological nuance, partly because I don’t always agree with him.

But lately, it seems as though MacArthur is saying to a myriad of young men who have benefited from his teachings that, while that’s nice, he doesn’t want anything to do with us. MacArthur has had harsh words to say about Mark Driscoll, saying that he “rapes” the Scriptures and more recently, MacArthur made reference to Acts 29 Vice President Darrin Patrick. As my friend Steve McCoy has pointed out, MacArthur was recently interviewed by Phil Johnson,. After railing against Piper and Grudem for their non-cessasionist views, and telling us that this is why what he does is so important, and that Phil Johnson actually writes much of the more controversial material, MacArthur had this to say:

You know, there’s a new book on church planting written by a guy named Darrin Patrick and it says if you want to be an effective church planter, develop your own theology.

You know when I read that I just almost fell off the chair. What? I mean, can you think of anything worse than to have some guy develop his own theology? This is ultimate niche marketing. Develop your own style, your own wardrobe, and then your own theology.

I’ll be honest, as one who has benefited from MacArthur, and one inside the Acts 29 camp (though I am not writing for them in any way), this breaks my heart. After having learned so much from MacArthur positively, it now seems that I’m forced to learn from him in the negative. His comments are not only careless, they are against Scriptural mandates regarding how we should treat one another. In 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, Paul goes to great lengths to show us that:

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant [5] or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; [6] it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. [7] Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Earlier in the same chapter, Paul warns against knowledgeable men who do not demonstrate love:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. [2] And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

In 2 Timothy 2:22-26, Paul warns us to avoid ignorant controversies and to restore false teaching with gentleness seeking the restoration (or salvation) of the one in error. I could certainly be wrong, I don’t know MacAthur at all, but as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that recently, not only has he chosen to pursue controversy with fellow believers, he has not believed the best about those with whom he disagrees.

I have to wonder if MacArthur has read Patrick’s entire book or listened to him preach, or really taken time to look at Acts 29 as a movement. His notion that Patrick was somehow advocating that every person come up with their own unique theology is simply laughable. I have rarely been around guys who take theology as seriously as my brothers in Acts 29. Patrick was warning against simply adopting other people’s theology, we must make it our own; we must do the hard work of wading through concepts, understanding nuance and weighing Scripture carefully until it is our own. It would seem to me that if MacArthur has actually read the book or listened to Patrick preach or spent much time around Acts 29, he would know that what he condemns is not what we are advocating. Not in the slightest. Acts 29 and Patrick are very firm in holding to the historical, confessional faith.

MacArthur’s comments are careless and they break my heart, if only for the fact that, at least from my vantage point, they don’t seem to believe the best about Patrick. If Patrick worded his assertions poorly then shouldn’t MacArthur give the benefit of the doubt? If anything, MacArthur’s comments have forced me to examine my own heart and attitude, especially in theological debates. I have a tendency to care more about making a point than the person I’m speaking with. At least MacArthur is still teaching me, albeit now by forcing me to examine my own faults by displaying his.

• Read Church Planter: The Man, The Message, The Mission by Darrin Patrick
• Listen to Theology and Ministry: an Interview With John MacArthur