Ok, I'm genuinely inquisitive here—not being snarky in the slightest or even trying to make some subtle point.
The Missouri Baptist Convention (more or less the state-level manifestation of the SBC) recently voted to withdraw financial support from churches that affiliate with the Acts 29 Network of church planters (think Mark Driscoll).
Though the MBC offered no official explanation in their action, recent discussion from both sides seems to indicate that moderate use of alcohol is the central issue. Here's the Acts 29 response. More details shouldn't be too hard to find.
So here's my question: How would hard-line, rigidly separatistic, independent fundamental Baptists respond to this? Is this a good thing or a bad thing, and why? Don Johnson, Frank Sansone, anybody in the OBF, I'd love to hear from you. Thanks in all sincerity.