Acts 29 — correcting my misstatement

by Dan Phillips

In the meta to this post, I made the fairly offhanded comment (at 8:08 AM, June 15, 2010) that there was an Acts 29 church near us, which featured the pastor's wife sharing the pulpit on occasion to give a feminine perspective.

Yesterday when I woke up I found an email from someone identifying himself as being part of Acts 29 leadership, asking me for the name of the church. He said that such pulpit-sharing as I described would not be acceptable.

So as quickly as I could, I went to double-check my memory. I wrote the pastor of the church, and went back to the web site (on my iPhone; oddly, my work blocks the site). What I found:

My statement was incorrect. The church and the pastor are both unaffiliated with Acts 29.


I apologize for the misstatement. It was unintentional, simply a matter of a faulty memory.

Here's how (I think) it happened. I corresponded briefly with the pastor of the church, to try to make sense of his wife sharing the pulpit, since their statement of faith seemed pretty complementarian. In his cordial response, he mentioned that those connected with the Acts 29 network influenced him, and he named Mark Driscoll. The web site had (what I thought was) an Acts 29 "feel." Since I decided not to visit the church, I didn't research further — and it went incorrectly into my memory as an Acts 29 church.


In yet another prompt and cordial response to my email, the pastor says he's considered joining, uses their materials, admires what they do — but they're not affiliated.

I immediately apologized and retracted, within that post's meta. Until today, I left the comment up, so as not to give the impression of sweeping it under the rug. However, I decided that it was a greater concern, coming as it did in a long meta, that someone would read the misstatement and not the later correction — and be left with the false impression my comment created.

Again, I apologize, and hope this completely sets that record straight.

---