ACME: Worth (Careful) Consideration

Cooperating for the gospel’s advance is manifestly biblical. I’m not a Southern Baptist, but I cheer on the work of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). I would not feel entirely at home in the SBC, but who can? In fact, to be Southern Baptist is to be at home in your own church and to work on the convention. From my seat, as a grateful Southern Seminary alum in a town with faithful Southern Baptist pastors, the SBC is a cooperation worth the work it desperately needs. Hence, this month’s theme at Christ Over All, Can the Center Hold? The Southern Baptist Convention in the 21st Century.¹

1. “Can the Center Hold?: The Southern Baptist Convention in the 21st Century,” Christ Over All, March 2026.

We’re asking more than a question. We are working for a hearty, yes!

But there is a network of churches forming where a brother like me should be right at home, or almost so. I’ll get to that “almost” part—I have a substantive critique to develop. But for now, let me introduce you to a new friend and good ecclesial neighbor: the Association of Churches for Missions and Evangelism. Yes, “ACME” for short.

ACME is not a denomination. But it is no mere church-search list, either. From the front page of their site, “ACME exists to unite and mobilize like-minded churches to fund pastors, church planters, missionaries, and other projects around the world.” Every word in that statement is important. They know what they are doing, with whom, and for whom. ACME churches pool their resources—about 2–4% of each church’s budget—to fund projects, plants, and global projects.

What makes this partnership unique turns on that expression, “like-minded.” Naturally. ACME’s church member affirmations make their shared commitments plain:

• Expositional Preaching
• Historic Baptist Ecclesiology
• Reformed Soteriology
• Meaningful Membership and Discipline
• Elder-Led Congregationalism
• One, Unified Assembly
• Biblically Oriented Public Worship
• Church-Centered Missions and Evangelism
  

ACME offers a paragraph explanation of each.² These are well crafted even if I hardly need these explanations. This is my church’s list, and these are my people. “Meaningful Membership” and “Church-Centered Missions” call to mind articles, essays, elder memos, intern training documents, and prayers prayed for my church over many years. So do the other six affirmations. This is the profile for churches robustly shaped by the labors of 9Marks and company, churches that have found a model in the influential Capitol Hill Baptist Church and the Baptist polity they’ve retrieved and championed. Many or even most of the churches are Southern Baptist, but not all. ACME was formed with churches like mine in mind. Our church in Greenville, South Carolina, bears this “healthy church” imprint.

2. “Member Church Affirmations,” Association of Churches for Missions & Evangelism (ACME), accessed March 30, 2026.

This is a partnership for the kind of pastors and churches that have been finding one another in less formal ways for many years. With ACME, friendships became formal and article-sharing gives way to pooling resources. ACME launched publicly in the Fall of 2023 with a seedling network of churches, and in 2024 fifty-nine member churches funded twenty-one projects and gave away $300,000. In 2025 the now budding network of around eighty-six churches funded forty-three projects and gave away $600,000. As of March 2026, their number stands at ninety-five churches, and I’m sure that their good labors of supporting gospel ministries around the world will only grow. ACME churches should be proud in the most sanctified sense for the fruit of their work together. Funding works like this makes ACME not only an engine for mobilization but also a clearinghouse for like-minded works and workers, domestic and abroad.

ACME’s origins are familial. Six words tell a story in the first lines of the founding board’s first letter: “We’ve known each other for years.” These are Mark Dever’s mentees building something new from their uncommon, historically rooted, and wholly biblical convictions. While the 9Marks church search page leads with an understandable disclaimer: “A church’s appearance in the Church Search tool should not be viewed as an endorsement by 9Marks,” ACME churches and partners are vetted and invested.

Who would not want to be a part of that?

I would want to be a part of that.

But I’ve decided not to be. So, let me explain.

A Conspicuous Omission, But Wait for It …

ACME was created at a time when issues of race, ethnicity, and justice were both front and center and unresolved in the movement and networks that gave us ACME.³

3. In 2018, TGC hosted the MLK50 conference, and at the T4G conference David Platt preached his infamous sermon on Amos, where he wrongly assumed that disparity is a direct result of racism (drawing explicitly from the book Divided by Faith). In 2019, the SBC affirmed Resolution 9 affirming Critical Race Theory (CRT) as an “analytical tool” that Christians can use. In 2020, the presidents of the SBC’s seminaries declared CRT incompatible with the SBC’s statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message. In his short 2021 piece, “The Final T4G,” Colin Hansen’s only quotation came from “Article XVII” of the T4G Affirmations and Denials for a partial explanation of why T4G ended. A plenary session panel that year featured Kevin DeYoung and Bobby Scott on “Critical Race Theory.” On this panel, they neither agreed on what Critical Race Theory was nor whether it was a problem or good for the church. The discussion was framed as an opportunity to see how brothers can charitably disagree. The subtext was that the leaders and speakers at T4G were not agreed themselves. ACME was born during this time of confusion.

I remember this time well. These were difficult years for pastors. When I first read ACME Member Affirmations, I heartily affirmed them. I was eager for partnerships formed along these lines. But something was missing. Where was that statement that every organization seemed to need about diversity, ethnicity, race, etc.? And what did they intend to say about it? The answer was to be found in a different document. A few clicks around the site clarifies: “the faith and practice of all ACME churches is consistent with the following, evangelical statements,” including, “T4G Affirmations & Denials (2006, Revised).”⁴ There it is: “revised.” What was revised? After looking at the revisions and reflecting on the reasons, it seemed clear: unresolved tensions on race and justice from the years of ACME’s founding are baked in to its founding documents. I’ll explain.

The last time I saw the “T4G Affirmations & Denials” was in Colin Hansen’s piece, “The Final T4G.”⁵

Colin took a paragraph to quote from the T4G Affirmations and Denials to explain part of why T4G ended. Article XVII to be specific. Here’s that article:

We affirm that God calls his people to display his glory in the reconciliation of the nations within the Church, and that God’s pleasure in this reconciliation is evident in the gathering of believers from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. We acknowledge that the staggering magnitude of injustice against African-Americans in the name of the Gospel presents a special opportunity for displaying the repentance, forgiveness, and restoration promised in the Gospel. We further affirm that evangelical Christianity in America bears a unique responsibility to demonstrate this reconciliation with our African-American brothers and sisters.

We deny that any Church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.

Since Colin is a journalist, it struck me that this reference to Article XVII was his only quotation in this relatively short article summarizing the end of the conference—the gathering point at the heart of a movement. That’s how significant this theme was at that time. “By 2018,” he wrote, this statement in Article XVII “would be considered by some as evidence of theological downgrade.” I disagree. Rather, the theological downgrade was how someone like David Platt and some on the MLK Panel that year applied Article XVII.⁶

For example, Platt preached to over 10,000 people at the 2018 T4G conference on Amos 5:18–27—a text where God refuses to accept his people’s worship because of their injustice.⁷ Platt suggested a similar dynamic at play with the (predominantly white) T4G attendees and an indifference to racial justice, “If we want God to be pleased with our worship . . . then in what ways might we need to repent and work for racial justice as his people?” He indicted every attendee for being “slow to speak and work against racial injustice around us.” Relying explicitly on the book Divided By Faith—a book that is replete with problems⁸—Platt accused “pastors in America and the churches we lead” as “currently widening the racial divide in our country.” Immediately after this statement, he then assured everyone, “this is not my opinion, this is a fact.” And all of this was even before he got to his specific exhortations and his closing prayer for repentance.

This is but one example of the challenges that became legion in 2018. Add to this the relative silence and tacit endorsement of these themes from many movement leaders and it is difficult to disagree with Colin Hansen: T4G peaked in 2018.⁹

What Does It Take to Revise a Statement?

It takes a controversy and a measure of confusion. It takes fog. Then, new words clarify in service of fresh unity.

Let’s consider the original T4G statement above. I can still basically resonate with that original statement from 2006. The sin is named: “injustice against African Americans in the name of the Gospel.” “In the name of the Gospel” is key here. The sinners are named: “Evangelical Christianity.” And the solution is named: “a special opportunity for displaying the repentance, forgiveness, and restoration promised in the Gospel.” Discerning readers today will wonder whether the original statement is suitable to ground our fellowship. Time revealed disagreement regarding what constitutes “repentance” and the terms for “forgiveness.” The cultural Marxist obsession with groups and guilt has made sweeping identifiers such as “Evangelical Christianity” and “African Americans” require more careful work on the “denials” side of the statement. “Reconciliation of the nations” also took on larger import than I originally heard, including corporate guilt, repentance, and forgiveness. The statement did not hold up well. But at least on its own terms it is relatively clear.

I cannot say the same for the ACME revision. Here’s the new statement with additions underlined:

We affirm that God calls his people to display his glory in the reconciliation of the nations within the Church, and that God’s pleasure in this reconciliation is evident in the gathering of believers from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. We affirm that reconciliation is necessary because the sins of neglect, hostility, and even hatred of other image bearers due to their ethnicity, culture, or both, have produced manifold injustices, resulted in prejudice and discrimination between and towards all ethnic groups, and perpetrated evil especially against African-Americans. We affirm that because the Gospel reconciles sinners to God and each other, individual Christians within local churches and local churches themselves have a unique opportunity and responsibility to associate in love—reflecting the “unity in diversity” evident in the new heavens and new earth. We further affirm that Christians should cross ethnic lines to partner together in ministry.

We deny that any Church can accept ethical or cultural prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.¹⁰ We further deny that one’s ethnic identity is superior to or erased by one’s identity in Christ.

10. Instead of “ethical and cultural prejudice,” I believe that “ethnic and cultural prejudice” was intended, thus corresponding to “ethnicity, culture” in the preceding affirmations.

Something is off here, but it takes a little work to see it.

On the one hand, this statement seems like an improvement. It removes aspects of the original statement that have taken on baggage, even trading out the language of racial prejudice, preferring categories that run along more Scriptural lines. Yet taken as a whole, this statement seems like a bad qualification between two positions. My interest in this statement is to protect from error and drift. ACME’s interest seems to be holding together a conflicted constituency.

Here’s my argument: this statement not only fails at clarity, but it actually also fails at cooperation.

If that is true, this well-intentioned revision threatens to divide rather than unite partnering churches, should there come a time when ACME pastors and churches disagree on what exactly they affirmed here.¹¹

11. I am using “affirmed” here since the revision was crafted for ACME and since it’s part of an “affirmation and denials” statement. However, per the ACME site, “The only statement of faith ACME requires churches to affirm is our Member Church Affirmations. However, the faith and practice of all ACME churches is consistent with the following, evangelical statements [which includes this revised Article XVII].”

Appreciation and Critique

I stared at this statement for a long time. Clarity came when I broke the two statements down—side by side, part by part. Three changes came into view. Less clear to me was what they meant by each change. Each, it seems to me, can be read in opposing ways. I’ll articulate each change, then offer some appreciation and critique.

The revised statement identifies a new sin.

I appreciate what I hear as an attempt to avoid Critical Race Theory’s insidious claim that only those in power can be racists. There is a universalizing of the problem. We are all sinners. That’s good. But the phrase at the end of that long list of sins—”especially against African-Americans”—moves awkwardly from the universal problem back to the United States of America. But when exactly? In 2006 when the original Article XVII statement was framed, past injustices of slavery and Jim Crow came naturally to mind. But when this revised statement came out in 2024, we were on the other side of a decade of a repeated trope: that racism against African-Americans has gone from overt to covert, worse today because it is hidden, that America is racist to the core and to the root, and that this problem goes back all the way from 1619. Thoughtful readers may wrestle over the meaning of racial disparities in our day, but it suffices to say that the sentiment expressed immediately above is grossly misleading and one-sided at best.¹² No revised statement on race and justice that implies a corrective to the racism of white supremacy should fail to address the racism of black power and (ironically) anti-racist crusaders.¹³ It would have been better to remove the parochial reference and allow readers to apply a biblical theology of sin reflected in the rest of the statement. But then what would the statement add? Since there are other statements in the T4G Affirmations and Denials (and in other ACME documents) that express well the universal problem of sin, this reference to sins perpetrated against African Americans strikes me as the reason for including the T4G Affirmations and Denials and revising this article. This was always Article XVII’s unique contribution.

The second change involves a new unspecified sinner . . . sort of.

The sinner is now no longer specified. “Evangelical Christianity” cannot be mistaken as a de facto oppressor group in this statement. That’s good. In 2006 I did not read that statement as entailing corporate guilt. This revised 2024 statement rules that out . . . but then it doesn’t. Read in full, this statement makes the problem worse. Since “African-Americans” are named as the “especially” victimized group, doesn’t this imply an accusation against everyone else, even “especially” white people or white Christians? By abstracting the guilty party to a nameless everyone, everyone is now potentially guilty of the worst injustices except African-Americans. Is this true of Christians and churches today, even in America? Was Platt right? In an attempt to level the playing field by addressing sin, the statement does so in a way that begins this association on unlevel ground. The updated statement places blame on all parties from a theological standpoint, while maintaining that African-Americans are not like all parties because of our country’s history on race and slavery.¹⁴

14. The fourth chapter in Don Carson’s book Love in Hard Places (2002), was republished at 9Marks as “Five Steps for Racial Reconciliation on Sunday at 11 a.m.,” 9Marks, February 26, 2010. Carson adds texture to our country’s history on race and slavery.

A third change offers a different solution.

While the sin and the sinner have been generalized, the solution is more specific and demanding. One of ACME’s most pronounced changes reframes the church’s responsibility and opportunity in racial reconciliation. The original 2006 statement called for churches to “acknowledge” past sins against African Americans which have created an “opportunity for displaying the repentance, forgiveness, and restoration promised in the Gospel” and a “responsibility to demonstrate this reconciliation.” The new 2024 revised statement suggests that reconciliation is a work to be performed: “reconciliation is necessary because [of] sin” and yields “a unique opportunity and responsibility to associate in love—reflecting the ‘unity in diversity’ evident in the new heavens and new earth.” The statement continues, “We further affirm that Christians should cross ethnic lines to partner together in ministry” (all emphases added). I affirm the spirit of this statement—that it’s a beautiful thing when Christian brothers of different ethnicities associate and dwell together in unity under the lordship of Christ. Of course. But statements are about specifics. “Should,” as the dictionary reminds us, is a powerful word that communicates obligation or duty. More overtly than the original, this statement confuses the biblical category of reconciliation in such a way that invites works of justice by abstract groups for justification and unity and rather than Jesus’s settled work. What does the reconciliation entail? Is it the type of reconciliation where one side is repenting of sins they did not commit while decrying their white privilege? I don’t know. And neither do you. I do know that in my own town there were conference meetings, resource spreading, and pastor gatherings in service to this very approach. Here’s what I hear: a statement that entraps blacks and whites in different ways in a mutually reinforcing cycle of accusation and justification.

One new denial.

The revised statement adds a denial: “We further deny that one’s ethnic identity is superior to or erased by one’s identity in Christ.” We should not speak of our identity in Christ in such a way that makes nothing of ethnic particularity. But neither can we make our ethnicity paramount. I agree entirely. But this being the only addition misses an opportunity for clarity that denials offer. In fact, some of the confusion revealed in the above engagement could be ameliorated by a handful of corresponding “denials.” As a result of this missed opportunity, while ACME is stocked with good churches and pastors, this new organization lacks the institutional clarity needed to block woke shenanigans should we have another Michael Brown or George Floyd scenario lighting the streets and our feeds on fire.

Here’s my hot take: the decent but misused original T4G statement has been made less clear and more vulnerable to manipulation on a topic that is notorious for confusion and movement dissolving conflict. ACME’s other statements are careful and clarifying. This statement, by contrast, seems hastily written and leaves room for a good bit of smuggling.¹⁵ My spidey sense tells me this is a compromise statement intended to “say something” on the controversial topic and that it is somewhat buried for a reason: to satisfy the twos on Kevin DeYoung’s illuminating taxonomy while excluding the fours (which would include me).¹⁶ If that’s correct, then if a church required other ACME churches to embrace this revised statement as a condition of their own participation, then I’m afraid that church will require more over time to stay. The ministry and its budget will grow, board members will turn over, new issues will confront, and this statement may become a surprising point of leverage.¹⁷ The statement creates a binding moral obligation that can be hijacked.¹⁸ Then where will the fours be when you need them? Whatever the case, a statement read in opposing ways creates more problems than it resolves. This specific revision obfuscates critical issues, transfers our generation’s unresolved tensions to another, and exports our confusion to the globe—ACME is an organization for missions, after all.

We Need ACME

Am I a brother who would appreciate a statement addressing the ideological challenges of our day? Yes. That’s why I love the “Augustine School Statement on Social Theory.”¹⁹

Here’s a sampling of two articles from this longer document, articles that cover some of the territory attempted or alluded to in the Article XVII revision. Note the specificity.

Article III

WE AFFIRM that after the fall of Adam there was a great animus, hostility, or antithesis established between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15). This antithesis runs through the rest of history. Christ is the true “serpent crusher” who defeated the serpent by his death and resurrection, conquering evil and sin definitively, with the full revelation of his victory still to come at the last day.

WE DENY any worldview, philosophy, or ideology that places the fundamental antithesis somewhere else, such as the tendency in our own day to place an antithesis between “oppressor” and “oppressed,” or between different races.

Article XV

WE AFFIRM that racism exists in the Western heritage, whether in the wicked institutions of the African slave trade, Jim Crow laws requiring racial segregation in the South, or in various anti-black laws in the North. We are thankful that the United States has made valiant efforts to affirm the human dignity of all persons, and that the United States has affirmed a proper legal equality before the law of all persons regardless of race.

WE DENY that racism can be presupposed as a pervasive condition of all white people living in the Western world today, irrespective of personal attitudes or actions. Rather, all charges of the sin of racism must be established by evidence that clearly demonstrates a heart of racial animosity or the personal affirmation of racial superiority. Where this evidence is lacking, charges of racism are unjust, uncharitable, anti-gospel, and destructive to the unity of the Church and the cohesion of society. We further deny that only those who hold power in a society (however that may be defined) are capable of the sin of racism.

I desired but did not expect a thicker statement from ACME. Considering ACME for my church, I would have been satisfied with no statement, or possibly just leaving the original T4G Article XVII. Why? Because I really did want our church involved in this good work on the ground floor. But with the evident revision, this new statement advances a document that ironically furthered confusion (not to mention division) and stifled our partnership. A revision must be plain about what it fixes and plain in the fixing. Both should be easy to discern on first reading. In this case, an unclear statement likely reveals unclear or wobbly convictions. The times require more of us. Since the “faith and practice” of ACME churches must be consistent with this statement, and since this statement leaves the door open to ideologies against which my fellow elders have labored to protect our flock—ACME would not be for us.²⁰

20. The Heritage Bible Church elders wrote a preface for an eBook gathering a series of articles written by Kevin DeYoung, “Thinking Theologically about Racial Tensions eBook,” Clearly Reformed, April 5, 2021. I wrote a piece for Desiring God on my family; see Trent Hunter, “Intersectionality and My Adoptive Family,” Desiring God, August 24, 2022.

Conclusion

Thankfully, my take on this revision does not guarantee future trouble.

From the themes and feel at the two National Strategy Conferences they held—I’ve joined my brothers for both—I’d say ACME reflects the best of the T4G atmosphere but among Baptists ready to get to work. Organized, happy, optimistic, and generous. I was welcome even having expressed my beefs behind the scenes. I was not there for reconnaissance. I was there for the blessing of it all. And I was blessed. I’d even say I was almost right at home.

As we well know, no document can keep an organization from drift. So too, an organization can be better than its documents. This revised article has chased off the participation of men and churches who share my concerns. I know a few of them. But I like to think that ACME and her churches are better than the revised Article XVII and the sensibilities it represents. In fact, since I know so many of them, I know that this is presently true.

But that may not always be the case. Whatever comes, let’s celebrate every good work done by ACME churches. We need ACME. The Southern Baptist Convention needs ACME’s influence on every one of her distinctives. But like the best of organizations, ACME needs influence too. My hope is that this “wound from a friend” would help to that end (Prov. 27:6).²¹ And let’s pray the churches of ACME remove, replace, or substantially revise Article XVII. Generations to come will give thanks if they get this right.

21. The founding board members engaged many brothers and welcomed feedback in the early stages of ACME’s formation. The decision to revise the T4G Article XVII statement rather than including a statement among Church Affirmations may have been a response to feedback from others. Once the revision was shared ahead of ACME’s launch, many of the concerns expressed in this essay were shared with the board. I expressed my concerns in roughly this fashion shortly after the first National Strategy Conference. Crafting a new cooperation in these years is an unenviable task. Course corrections can always be made, but they are admittedly more difficult once whole networks are signed on to a document.