Gerald Harris: WANTED: DEAD or ALIVE (mostly dead) by Peter Lumpkins

Last Thursday, The Christian Index editor, Gerald Harris became a hunted man. His literary crime was posting his personal opinion concerning what he perceives as an unusual rise of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention and to do so--gulp, gulp--in his personal opinion editorial column of The Christian Index  >>>

The first one to put out a bounty on Harris was Founders Ministries high sheriff, Tom Ascol. In his unhindered emotional meltdown, Ascol got so caught up in victimization rhetoric, he forgot to actually criticize a single proposition Harris wrote.¹ Apart from the I-can't-believe-Harris-had-the-audacity-to-write-this-stuff shock-n-awe reaction, Ascol kept saying over and over, "it's sad," "it's frustrating," "it's sad," "it's frustrating," "it's sad," "it's frustrating."

Even so, let no one fool you.

Emotional pleading still has its advantages and still serves a pragmatic purpose even for Calvinists who so often lament the evil pragmatic "bogeyman" we non-Calvinsts are supposed to have spawned. In fact, Ascol's rhetoric against Harris was so profound and so enticing, the self-confessing Arminian believer, William "Billy" Birch, interrupted Ascol in mid-sentence, falling to his knees and with hands in air, weeping and wailing out,

"Ridiculous, I tell you Ridiculous! Gerald Harris' piece is ridiculous! I know I'm Arminian but this is ridiculous!"

Seeing Birch emotionally vulnerable was a pragamatic sovereign moment for Founders to put together the perfect posse to go after Harris. Calvinist and Arminian wed together in SBC. Unity finally comes. Forget that unity was happening at the expense of blood--namely, bounty for a Harris corpse. "No way we'll miss the opportunity to walk hand-in-hand with our pelagian--semi-pelagian anti-Calvinists," Ascol was seen to text to Brister, Wax, and some dude named Darrin Patrick. "This is our chance for the unity we seek. We'll bring in that low-down literary heretic, dead or alive" he texted again.

So, Ascol's bunkhouse boys all gathered around Birch, putting their arms on his shoulders, offering him tender and kind words. Each in his turn giving William "Billy the Kid" Birch their hand of fellowship, including the secretly known, Calvinist cowboy hug.

It worked!

Birch got on his pony and galloped back to his ranch. After feeding three coupes of chickens, he got him a plate of beans, sat down, and scribbled out a colossal follow-up to his profound but emotionally driven moment--"it's ridiculous, I tell you, it's ridiculous!" Playing off Harris' title to his ridiculous editorial "The Calvinists are here" Birch's title was ingenious--"The Calvinist have been here..." And, then boy did the cowboy Calvinists come; they came riding in with pistols ablaze in celebration of unity and peace!

It was one adrenaline rush after another, I tell you:

• "I'm a Calvinist. It's so refreshing (yea "wonderful") to read such civility"
• "I am a Calvinist. Yet your response is refreshing and should be a model"
• "Great post Billy! You have promoted cooperation of both sides."
• "What a helpful post!"
• "William, outstanding article brother! I'm willing to reach the nations with you anytime."
• "Well said. This is the attitude the SBC needs."

Indeed champion Bull-rider and part-time rodeo clown, Dave Miller, fired the last shot in the celebration above. And, as a follow-up, Miller brought "Billy the Kid" Birch back over to his ranch and introduced him to their brand--SBCV. Besides good barbecue, SBC Voices is famously known for reasonable objectivity, factual commentary, fair appraisals, and mega-tons of original sources. Not to mention all the ranch hands there have been loyal lovers of all things SBC, and their combined experience in denominational affairs boggles the mind. 

"Billy the Kid" Birch bit and bit hard when Dave offered him a chance to ride his black stallion up to Dead Man's Gulch where he could finish off Gerald Harris. So, Birch loaded his pistols, climbed on a borrowed stallion, and once again went gunnin for The Christian Index criminal hiding out up in Dead Man's Gulch.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

"Billy the Kid" Birch was the least of Gerald Harris' worries. Even if the Kid had  an age advantage, Harris could still beat the young, cocky gun from Southeastern to the draw. But that's not all. As it turns out (and we'll soon see), "Billy the Kid" Birch had some surprising wanted posters circulating around the territory about him. And, rumor has it, a ruthless, independent bounty-hunter named Pistol Pete, who lives in an abandoned chicken-house in redneck Georgia, had already mounted his amazing mule "Rambler" and was onto Billy's whereabouts. Better watch out, "Billy the Kid" Birch. Pistol Pete has the goods, and he's got you in his bead. "Hee haw Hee haw Hee haw" Rambler bellows out, as Pistol Pete slowly but inevitably gets closer and closer still. 

No, Harris doesn't have to worry about "Billy the Kid" Birch. But The Christian Index literary heretic will have to face another posse, and this time they got the Federal Marshalls involved.

The Feds fired off their first round in an article innocuously entitled, "encroachment of Calvinism concerns editor." Assistant Federal Prosecutor, Erin Roach, assembled the group of marauding LawDogs. Here's a summary of their response to Gerald Harris' editorial, "The Calvinists are here...":

• Al Mohler: "I don't even know what you just said"
• Mike Ebert: "Nobody is saying editors can't have an opinion about the rise of Calvinism. Nobody is even saying editors can't speak their opinion about the rise of Calvinism, and speak their opinion in public. All we're saying is, editors can't speak their opinions about the rise of Calvinism in their own personal editorial columns"
• Danny Akin: Well, we can't publish what Danny Akin said. We do know that three times he denied he even knew Mark Driscoll and then he began to cuss and swear 
• Marty King: "Pretty good trick, liar!"
• Trevin Wax: "Here's the way the Gospel Project came together. Cross my heart and hope to die! We asked 20 Reformed men if they'd work on a Bible study project with us at LifeWay. All these Reformed men were connected with reputable Christian organizations and churches well known to have few, if any, theological agendas, organizations like--Founders Ministries, Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, and Sovereign Grace Ministries. And, we assured both Dr. Rainer and the Reformed men that we'd never ask them if they were Reformed. And, we didn't. So, what's all the fuss about?"

See what I mean? Gerald Harris may just need to go ahead and give himself up. With the Feds in on this, Harris is just no match for their stunning, persuasive words.

Note to Gerald: if you read this, I'll ride over to Sugar Valley half past four tomorrow. Be there (you know where we've met before), and I'll take you in myself.²

With that, I am...

Peter

Part I: Willaim Birch on Gerald Harris: The Calvinists are here and have been: a response 

 ¹Ascol did manage to reproduce Harris' full essay online apparently without permission from The Christian Index. One wonders if Founders Ministries would complain if, for example, another website reproduced their Founders materials online, materials they deem copyright in the same sense The Christian Index copyrights theirs. Georgia Baptists pay for their privilege of reading the Christian Index. Ascol apparently sees no problem with giving somebody else's material away for free. Perhaps this website can pursue the ethics of Founders in its weekly focus on ethical issues

²the answer of course is yes, I most certainly do intend to offer a serious critique of what's gone down with this hard-to-explain reaction to Harris' editorial from the Calvinist (with a little help from a non-Calvinist) community. This piece is intended to be playful and light. And, I'm confident it will be received by most readers in that light. Some of my harshest opponents undoubtedly will take offense. But then again, they'll take offense with most anything I write  

Comments

[Jason]

Peter,

I do not see the consistency with Harris posting his opinion about Calvinism and Breland posting his opinion about Dr. Vines' statement made in the interview by SBC Today. You call foul on others for criticizing Harris, but you (and others) did the same thing to Breland. I do not desire to engage in an argument, only to point out what I notice.

Have a restful Lord's Day.

[Mary]

Peter, the only thing missing here is a "whiskey for my men and beer for my hosses" line - the PLNTD ad at SBC Voices lists Miller's Ale House as a recommended restaurant. Maybe that's where the posse will end their day of huntin' down those antiCalvinists varmints.

Jason, the problem is that Calvinists refuse over and over and it's demonstrated nicely in this lil' fiasco, to address any actual points or facts. Just emotional knee jerk responses with lots of namecalling. How many words have been written about Harris' piece without one of the facts he presented in his editorial being addressed?

[selahV]

Well, Peter, if the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists can't agree on the "facts" in evidence, maybe they can agree on religious liberty and stand shoulder to shoulder against the assault the POTUS has now waged against us. Would be nice to unite on something we need to unite upon before we have no voice at all to debate such issues as faith, liberty, moral conscience, freedom to practice religion in our country, let alone Calvinism and non-Calvinism. selahV

[Les Puryear]

Thank God for the courage of Gerald Harris and The Christian Index. Keep telling the truth.

[Max]

Dead or Alive?! Peter's blog tag-line answers that question: "Truth is Unkillable."

[Les]

Thank God for the courage of Tom Ascol and The Founders and Billy Birch and Dave Miller.

[Mary]

Why is it not suprising that Skippy is thankful for the ministry that has caused untold division and discord in the SBC by "reforming" one church at a time - whether they wanted to be reformed or not.

Isn't it funny the number of people who wail and gnash teeth over "antiCalvinist" who alledgely want to get rid of all Calvinists in the SBC, but they are silent over a ministry who for thirty years has worked toward getting rid of all the nonCalvinists in the SBC? If you really wanted to cooperate and get along wouldn't you have to denounce Founder's just as loudly and vehemently? Oh! I forget! Yesmen syndrome!

[Aaron O'Kelley]

I'm all for spirited theological debate. I think Roger Olson, for example, is an example of one who opposes Calvinism and has done a good job of making a theological case for his position. I like to see rational, coherent defenses of positions, even if I don't ultimately agree with them. I have recommended Olson's book on Arminian theology to others.

What Gerald Harris wrote, however, was not anything close to the level of fair, spirited theological debate. It was an incoherent rant of random observations, largely employing guilt-by-association tactics. It had no unifying argument. It was a complete rhetorical and logical mess. It's the kind of thing I assign a failing grade when I receive it from students. If a Calvinist had written something similar from the other perspective, I would be saying the same thing. (And I have seen Calvinists do that kind of thing before, mostly on blogs).

The fact that a large number of people notice a terribly written piece when they see it does not a lynch mob make.

[Mary]

OH NOES! Aaron O'Kelley's opinion on Gerald Harris's opinions is that Harris's opinions get an F!

No lynch mob there! And of course no one has addressed any of the actual points that Harris made - were there lies, inaccuracies? Anything proven untrue? Harris's points are deemed not even worthy of consideration because the elites have spoken - Harris don't write so good!

[Les]

Hello Mary. I suppose if you're going to stay with the nickname thing I'll have to go along. I'm a yesman after all. That's ok, right Peter? So I think I'll go with MMQC for you.

Anyway MMQC. You, "Isn't it funny the number of people who wail and gnash teeth over "antiCalvinist" who alledgely want to get rid of all Calvinists in the SBC, but they are silent over a ministry who for thirty years has worked toward getting rid of all the nonCalvinists in the SBC?" I don't know who you're referring to, but rest assured there is no wailing and gnashing of teeth going on here. The "antiCalvinists" as you call them will not get rid of all the Calvinists even if they wanted to.

You: "If you really wanted to cooperate and get along wouldn't you have to denounce Founder's just as loudly and vehemently?" Nope. I haven't denounced anyone on this matter.

[CASEY]

"REFLECTIONS of a DISENCHANTED CALVINIST
(the disquieting REALITIES of Calvinism)

AUTHOR: RONNIE W. ROGERS, pastor Trinity
Baptist Church, Norman, Okl.
Criswell grad
His testimony having been a 'strong 4 point Calvinist' should be on everybody's reading list. It's just out and available from the church or on AMAZON.COM.
I urge you, regardless of your position on Calvinism, to read it. Ronnie is now a 'clear Biblicist'.......

GERALD HARRIS is to be commended. He stuck to the 'beliefs and convictions' in his presentation. His opposition, besides throwing a 3 yr old tantrum, failed to address his points of concern. Hopefully the Calvinists who portray themselves as deep thinkers and studiers will stick to the issue(s) and have a real engagement of the subject.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Your use of the "guilt by association" charge is a strawman objection that actually argues against a key biblical principle:
Amos 3:3 Do two walk together unless they are in agreement?
1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals.
Gerald was not incoherent, but in fact on point. He did not rant but with equanimity put out on the table a lot of points that are known but have not until now been pulled together in one source. You should be troubled by the deception in the answers by Mohler, Akin, King, Ebert and Wax in the BP piece.

[peter lumpkins]

Jason,

I appreciate your comment. Not sure what gave you the idea I called "foul" on Breland for posting critical remarks contra Vines. I most certainly did not. Rather I took issue with Breland's criticisms not with his crticizing.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Aaron,

If Harris' piece was as bad as you and others suggest, it would hardly be intelligible for human comprehension. I suggest you and others get to work on any factual inaccuracies Harris presented which led him to infer his conclusion--namely, SBs are being swarmed by an unusual colony of get-ready-to-reform-sting-you-if-you-don't Calvinists--a fairly easy proposition to prove, and given the lack of evidence to the contrary, a proposition virtually impossible to deny.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Aaron O'Kelley]

Here is just one example. Harris appeals to Mark Driscoll's new book, apparently in order to make us think in this direction:

Premise: Mark Driscoll is a Calvinist.
Premise 2: Mark Driscoll wrote a graphic book that approves of morally objectionable sexual practices.
Conclusion: Therefore, Calvinists approve of things that are morally objectionable.

It is not stated in so many words, but if that is NOT what Harris is trying to say, I fail to see why he would even bring up that book in an article entitled "The Calvinists Are Here".

But why couldn't Harris's argument work this way?

Premise: Mark Driscoll is a Baptist.
Premise 2: Mark Driscoll wrote a graphic book that approves of morally objectionable sexual practices.
Conclusion: Therefore, Baptists approve of things that are morally objectionable.

The second argument is just as incoherent and false as the first. This is what I mean by "guilt-by-association". Nowhere does Harris prove that it is Driscoll's Calvinistic theology that motivated him to write "Real Marriage".

[Aaron O'Kelley]

"SBs are being swarmed by an unusual colony of get-ready-to-reform-sting-you-if-you-don't Calvinists--a fairly easy proposition to prove,"

I want to ask you to do two things Peter: first, define exactly what you mean in the above statement, and second, prove it. You said it would be easy.

[Ron]

"You Sir are an anti-Calvinist!"

This seems to be the charge toward anyone that writes or speaks anything concerning the Calvinizing of the SBC.

[peter lumpkins]

Aaron,

"Harris appeals to Mark Driscoll's new book, apparently in order to make us think in this direction (embolden added).

Excuse me, Aaron. Please knock off the formal syllogisms. Logical syllogisms have their place but simply don't work trying to gauge what someone tries to make us think. Hence, nothing you mentioned follows. Zero. Nothing. You've constructed a completely subjective scenario which might be but does not necessarily have to be which is the purpose of syllogisms like you've constructed.

Moreover, you completely dodged my proposal, blowing smoke with intelligent-sounding but nonetheless irrelevant rhetoric containing inapplicable formal syllogisms toward someone's alleged purpose. Here's what I suggested: "I suggest you and others get to work on any factual inaccuracies Harris presented which led him to infer his conclusion." Now, when you want to dispute any factual inaccuracies Harris presented and do so by showing them false, be my guest.

Finally, as for what I wrote, Aaron, that was my interpretation of precisely what Harris wrote in the article. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you either deny Harris actually meant what I interpreted him to say, and give good reasons why I missed his meaning, or I suggest you do the above--"dispute any factual inaccuracies Harris presented and do so by showing them false." If you cannot, I'll understand. But do not come back blowing smoke our way. Deal with the facts, or don't comment.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Peter,

Please forgive my gentle correction about your immediate posting above.

You described Aaron's argument as a "formal syllogism" and a "logical syllogism."

Both are non sequitur given the nature of Aaron's comments.

The more appropriate term is "sophism" given his statements are specious.

He is not being pretentious, but a pretender.

The reality is that Aaron is blustering in an attempt to distract from the simple statements Gerald made that weren't value-laden at all but presented on face value.

It's akin to Tom Ascol stuttering "It is riduculous" because he can't intelligently argue the points.

-- HMT

[lmalone]

"What Gerald Harris wrote, however, was not anything close to the level of fair, spirited theological debate. It was an incoherent rant of random observations, largely employing guilt-by-association tactics. It had no unifying argument. It was a complete rhetorical and logical mess."

I don't think the rise of "New Calvinism" is really a "theological" debate at all and perhaps Harris knows that, too. Whose "theology" are we going to debate? The strange brand coming out of SGM which Mohler and Dever and support...Mohler even claiming the SGM bloggers just don't like Mahaney's strong leadership. SGM is a cult! Or, how about Driscoll's brand of theology where sex is a primary salvic issue and his DNA is implanted in Acts 29 churches we fund? Or how about James McDonald who wrote that congregationalism is satanic? All of these people have had influence in the SBC with many of our leaders supporting. And if they don't, they sure are silent!

Personally, I would rather see a 10 part series where he expands on his "scattershot" points as some have deemed them. I agree, it needed more.

In fact, he could do a 10 part series on Driscoll alone and connect dots from Driscoll/Mars Hill methods/teaching and the SBC's support of Acts 29.

I have noticed subtle tries from several in the Reformed wing of the SBC to say that Acts 29 is not really all Driscoll but do your homework....his brand...his DNA is all over it. We are funding little Driscoll clones for the SBC and that should be a chilling prospect.

Harris could go in depth about Driscoll methods and even put some of his teaching in there (would have to be blacked out) and really make the point of our leadership supporting Driscoll's type of methods and teaching. There IS guilt by association here. And Driscoll type of thinking and methods has found a home in the SBC whether people want to admit it or not.

What I have found amusing lately is the 'silence' from some concerning Driscoll's book. It screams. Where is our prolific culture warrior, Mohler, on it?

Or, how about part of the series analyzing Mohler's words on the GC video?

There is plenty of material.

[lmalone]

"You should be troubled by the deception in the answers by Mohler, Akin, King, Ebert and Wax in the BP piece."

Well, lets analyze this. The Index did indepth reporting on NAMB and from that....is one of the reasons we were given any indication of how bad things really were there. I respect them for that. A far cry from BP!

BP is a puff PR rag for the SBC. It has NO credibility at all and does not even report it when molesting SBC pastors are caught and convicted until some other baptist oriented press releases it first. Their mission seems to be more: "protect" with good PR and only report negative stuff if we have to because not doing so will be too obvious.

The BP is a huge waste of money and not to be trusted, IMO.

How is BP funded, btw? Anyone know the breakdowns?

[Ryan]

I don't understand why people are getting upset over this article. I am a Calvinist, and I actually agreed and was pleased that Gerald Harris wrote this article. I have quite a disdain for my Refromed brothers who come into churches and force their theology on a church that doesn't have roots in Calvinism. This destroys worship, divides a church, and in no way glorifies Christ.

[Mary]

Skippy, if you're gonna come in here with your snarky little comments you should at least know the player's in the drama. But you ain't really that dumb.

[Rick Patrick]

At least part of this conflict, it seems to me, stems from the audience to whom Harris wrote the editorial--your basic Southern Baptist church member in Georgia who may, in fact, be largely unaware of the existence of the New Calvinism, but subscribes to the state paper.
Contrast that audience with the Calvinists themselves who, of course, already knew of their own existence and that they have, in fact, been here for quite a while.

As the different audiences read the article, the Calvinists may be mystified by his insinuations and may even consider the content disjointed and unclear, but the basic Southern Baptists are raising their eyebrows and finally beginning to understand that we are dealing with the first major denominational controversy since the Conservative Resurgence.

Fortunately for the city of New Orleans, attendance should be up at the convention this year.

[lmalone]

"At least part of this conflict, it seems to me, stems from the audience to whom Harris wrote the editorial--your basic Southern Baptist church member in Georgia who may, in fact, be largely unaware of the existence of the New Calvinism, but subscribes to the state paper. "

I totally agree with this. And one reason I would love to see a series done in the Index analyzing our ties with Acts 29/Driscoll (and what Driscoll teaches and his behavior such as the I See Things video and other bizarre behavior) and analyzing Mohler's words in the GC video. It does not have to be 'anti Calvinist' at all. Just the facts alone speak volumes. I think it would be a huge wake up call for the rank and file.

[Les]

MMQC, thanks. You said, "Skippy, if you're gonna come in here with your snarky little comments you should at least know the player's in the drama. But you ain't really that dumb."

Me snarky? Where was I snarky? I surely meant no snark. Please accept my apologies if I offended you. Players? I know a few...enough. Dumb? Well maybe.

[Ken]

Actually your post is quite clever and creative. Even though I don't agree with your impression of Harris' article, I had to chuckle at the mental images of gun-slinging.

That being said, my concern is with the overall tone of Harris' article, and the timing of it. It comes just a few short months after a GBC annual meeting where both presidential candidates campaigned under the rhetoric of uniting Georgia Baptists of all types and styles in order to address the problem of lostness in our state. This appeared to be a clear extension of an olive branch to pastors like myself who tend to lean toward a Reformed theology. I appreciated this, though I was skeptical, understanding it to be part of campaigning for a position. Still, I was hopeful that this would spell an end to the impression that I have perceived in recent years that the leadership establishment (atleast in my state), would just rather those Calvinists just disappear (from the SBC).

I'm still hopeful that this sentiment is waning, but articles like Harris' still give me reason to wonder: "Am I not wanted in the SBC?"

Please understand, I am a local pastor of a small church who desires nothing more than to be involved in accomplishing the Great Commission. I have no grand scheme to take over the SBC. I don't doubt that there are extremists (I use that word carefully) on both sides of this issue that would gladly participate in a scheme to rid the SBC of their "opponent". To BOTH of these parties I would appeal: "Please, let's lay down our arms, unify under the Gospel, and get back to the work of fulfilling the Great Commission".

If we can't do that, then where will we be as a denomination in 50 more years?

Grace,
Ken

[peter lumpkins]

Hobart,

No problem, brother. And, you're exactly correct. Whatever, Aaron's point was, it did not address fairly either my suggestion or Harris' factual observations.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ken,

Thanks for taking the images I injected into the piece in the lighthearted way they were intended. For those who imagine I just posted to ridicule Calvinists or those with whom I disagree, I was self-portrayed as the mule-riding bimbo who lives in an abandoned chicken-house in redneck Georgia.

And, I do not dispute your observation that this article coming on the heels of a convention whose theme was "unity" is to be lightly dismissed. You may have the only legitimate point contra Harris' piece I've read, Ken. Again, I think if people will factor in Harris' clear focus on resurging what presumably for Harris is an unhealthy imbalance in the direction of rigid Calvinism, it assists in clearing up some false impressions.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

It's increasingly clear to me that there are two fronts of Calvinism within the SBC: (1) the "old guard" Founders folks, and (2) "new" Calvinists who are young, restless & reformed. Under normal circumstances, these groups wouldn't mix well. However, the old guys have become more emboldened by the fresh energy that the YRR bring to their cause.

To date, the Founders, with their estimated 10% representation in SBC ranks and fairly few Founder-friendly churches, really haven't scared much. We should be more concerned that our seminaries are producing 30% (and growing) young pastors who are reformed and mobilized. This group has the greater potential to disrupt the SBC theological landscape over the next generation, while the old guard (both Calvinist and non-Calvinist) fades away.

Brother Harris' piece largely dealt with the manifestations of out-in-the-open YRR activities, rather than the Founders' silent revolution ... even though there are some dots which connect both. Aggressive Driscollites, and the Mohlerites who support them, should be of more concern to majority Southern Baptists, than the Ascolites. We should not be distracted by who initiated, but who is determined to finish, this movement.

As a long-time Southern Baptist, I'll be glad when this noise is behind us and we are once again humbling ourselves, repenting, seeking God's face, and reaching the lost for Christ. There is no doubt that the prayerlessness and complacency of majority Southern Baptists helped prepare the field for New Calvinism to flourish. May Peter's blog soon be filled with reports of unity, widespread revival and spiritual awakening, and fewer articles about brothers in conflict with each other.

[Aaron O'Kelley]

Peter,

If I have misunderstood Harris's purpose in bringing up the Driscoll book, would you please explain to me why he brought it up? If it was not to smear Calvinists by associating them with him, what place did it have in the article at all?

[peter lumpkins]

Aaron,

Excuse me? Smear Calvinists by associating them with Mark Driscoll? Sorry, Aaron. LOL

With that, I am...
Peter

[Aaron O'Kelley]

Peter, it's a serious question.

[Aaron O'Kelley]

I don't see what is funny about that. It is clear that many people have a low view of Mark Driscoll's book, or at least parts of it. What was Harris trying to do if it was not an attempt to say: "Mark Driscoll, a Calvinist, wrote a dirty book, so Calvinists are bad."

It would be just as easy to say, "Mark Driscoll, a Baptist, wrote a dirty book, so Baptists are bad."

[peter lumpkins]

Aaron,

If you think that somehow non-Calvinists have to "try" and "associate" resurgent Calvinism in the SBC with Mark Driscoll, I'm sorry, Aaron. I do not have the time to catch you up. And, that's a serious response.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Aaron O'Kelley]

I'm not talking about Driscoll himself so much as I'm talking about his book.

Harris himself points out that Denny Burk was one particularly vocal critic of Driscoll. But Harris did not point out, that I can remember, that Burk is a Calvinist.

Nor did he point out that other critics who have responded to Driscoll publicly were Calvinists: Tim Challies, Carl Trueman, Jeremy Pierre, Douglas Wilson. In fact, even Danny Akin's endorsement of the book comes with a major disclaimer, which affirms that Akin doesn't agree with everything in it.

So, in light of the fact that so many Calvinists have publicly criticized some of the objectionable materials in Driscoll's book, what purpose does it serve to mention the book in an article sounding the alarm about the arrival of the Calvinists?

[peter lumpkins]

Aaron,

Look you're not dealing with what Gerald Harris actually wrote. You're trying to suggest Harris is somehow "wrong" because he didn't inform people Burk was a Calvinist. Please.

Concerning Driscoll, there's is a two-way connection--his book which has little to do with his Reformed leanings, and Acts 29 concerning which Driscoll is president and in fact has everything to do with his Reformed leanings.

Try as you desperately may, Aaron, you're just not going to usurp Harris' factual basis from which he infers his conclusion--the resurging Calvinism in the SBC. The best you're going to be able to do is question whether or not the Calvinist Resurgence in the SBC is a good thing or a bad thing. Harris seems to question whether it is a good thing. You obviously do not think it's a bad thing. But your third attempt now to question Harris' factual basis for his proposition has ended in failure. Time to move on...

With that, I am...
Peter

[lmalone]

"If I have misunderstood Harris's purpose in bringing up the Driscoll book, would you please explain to me why he brought it up? If it was not to smear Calvinists by associating them with him, what place did it have in the article at all?"

Aaron,

So, we seperate Driscoll's book from Acts 29, Akin being a promoter of Driscoll and all the young Driscoll wannabes at SBTS? I live at ground zero for YRR and let me tell you from Baptist 21 to you name it, Driscoll is the guy.

I have noticed AFTER the book was published the screaming silence from many of them. It is a bit embarassing, I grant you that. But to try and say mentioning the book was wrong and has nothing to do with the brand of Calvinism the YRR is promoting is a laugh a minute.

Mr. Harris could take Driscoll or even CJ Mahaney (formerly of People of Destiny and now the reinstated boss of the SGM shepherding cult) and do a 10 part series connecting the dots to their influence on the young minds full of mush in the SBC and our seminaries and it still would not cover the problems inherent with both.

With CJ, he could start with the large donations from SGM and from CJ personally to SBTS. SGM is a cult and both Mohler and Dever support it totally.

[Aaron O'Kelley]

Meaning is not merely a matter of "facts." In fact (pun intended), facts on their own have no meaning. They only have meaning as they are interpreted and related to one another. It's not the facts that are really up for dispute here, I wouldn't think. It is how they are interpreted.

The mere fact that Mark Driscoll published a controversial book doesn't have any meaning until Harris implies that it represents a smear upon all Calvinists. I have asked you repeatedly to explain what other meaning Harris could have intended by bringing up that book, but to this point you have not offered any other suggestion. You keep making this discussion about what you say I am dodging, but you have not answered my question.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

"The mere fact" is that Mark Driscoll is one of a half dozen prominent figures in the Calvinist movement (that strangely enough is only growing in the SBC). He is a featured platform personality in nearly every national and regional DOG-ma event (T4G, TGC, Resurgence, etc.) and if he is a black mark against all Calvinists, it's because they fail to discipline him properly to let the world know that even pastors must live regenerate lives.

[Ken]

To reiterate my point, I would not argue that anything that Harris wrote is factually incorrect or wrong. I would just question whether or not it's helpful. Since it's an editorial piece, I guess he has the right to publish any opinion he wants, I just wonder if he should have in this case. Especially in light of the theme in the Georgia Baptist Convention this year of "uniting Baptists to impact lostness", at best this seems distracting.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

The point is that largely the YRR crowd have made it known that they are not convictional Southern Baptists -- they are convictional Calvinists. They are convenient Southern Baptists because of the access they now have to Southern Baptists' CP funds. Until this point, they have been "wishful" church planters (meaning a 20-something with no life experience or practical ministry work, most of whom churches wouldn't hire because the only qualification listed on a CV was the theology in a box issued by SBTS or SEBTS after being recruited out of high school).