Missouri Pathway reports Jason Allen elected as the fifth president of Midwestern seminary

It's official: Dr. Jason K. Allen has become the fifth president of The Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. According to The Pathway  >>>

"After a three-hour closed session during their bi-annual meeting, the trustees voted 29-2 to call the 35-year-old Allen following an official nomination, questions from trustees and discussion"

Furthermore, Dr. Allen will begin his duties immediately and hopes to be inaugurated in April 2013 upon the expected completion of Midwestern's new chapel. And, though we've been vocally outspoken concerning both the search committee process as well as what we believe to be legitimate reservations about the search committee's candidate, the trustees overwhelmingly did not share our view.

Even so, I am personally thankful to have been able to publicly express my own Free Church conscience about issues I think are important for all Southern Baptists. Nor is stating one's honest dissent a rendezvous with wasted effort as one commenter seemed to suggest. Hence, we intend to continue examining the theological beliefs, visionary directions, and administrative decisions of the Southern Baptist elite--both elected and non-elected as well as voluntary and paid employees--who represent the interests of all Southern Baptists and publicly voicing our agreement and/or disagreement as we judge fair and appropriate.  

Finally, we can and do wish nothing but God's gracious best for Dr. Allen, his family, and the Midwestern community upon the election of their new president.

 

READ THE ENTIRE PATHWAY ARTICLE

Comments

[Max]

Peter, thank you for your efforts to preserve Southern Baptist free church belief and practice. It's increasingly clear that the Calvinist minority within the SBC are effectively networked and organized ... the non-Calvinist majority are not.

[Ben Simpson]

Will the effort of societal giving now begin as churches defund MBTS? We'll see how precious the CP really is now, won't we? By the way, have there been Calvinistic SBC churches publicly threaten or actually defund SWTBS or NOBTS?

Mr Max, in my opinion, your comment makes a very crucial error. You mentioned the "nonCalvinist majority" that it is unnetworked & disorganized. There very well might be a nonCalvinist majority, but there is not an anti-Calvinist majority. The party represented here & at SBC Today do not represent the majority even though you share nonCalvinism with the majority. The majority, as has been shown multiple times at recent SBCs & other happenings such as the Dr Allen election, is not as concerned about Calvinism & nonCalvinism. Rather they are concerned about working together to take the gospel to the nations.

Anti-Calvinists are clearly the minority, it keeps being proven time and again.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Max,

Thanks brother. We intend to keep the issues before the public eye and leave the results to the convention to ultimately decide.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

Ben writes "The majority, as has been shown multiple times ... is not as concerned about Calvinism & nonCalvinism."

Well, now, that's an interesting observation and one I tend to agree with, at least on the surface of such a proclamation. As a long-time Southern Baptist, I didn't get concerned about the Calvinization of the SBC, in its various "old" and "new" forms, until I observed firsthand its impact on a couple of churches in our local association (splits of traditional works over church governance and introduction of reformed teaching by YRR pastors). I became concerned when I became informed. On this issue, the SBC majority are either (1) uninformed, (2) misinformed, or (3) willingly ignorant. The distinct differences in soteriology should cause the non-Calvinist majority to pause, think, pray, and stand ... if they express little or no concern with their voices and votes, then the mission to Calvinize the SBC will go largely unchallenged.

[Kyle B. Gulledge]

Peter:
Thanks for your work keeping us informed on these issues. We will keep standing, and voicing our opposition to this new elite of the SBC- even if we must stand alone.
Kyle

[Tim Rogers]

Peter,

As you have pointed out. The trustees met, asked their questions, and voted. We trust the trustee system.

Ben,

You say;

By the way, have there been Calvinistic SBC churches publicly threaten or actually defund SWTBS or NOBTS

"Calvinistic SBC churches" Name them.

[lydia]

Well that was quick and for good reason. The bully boys got another entity. I kinda feel sorry for Jason Allen. Hope he does not think another big loan is also the answer for MBTS.

[Randall Cofield]

29 of 31 Trustees "bullied" into voting for Dr. Allen...

Hmmmm...

[Jeffery]

2 down 4 to go. The blogging king can do nothing, but offer a weaken voice of dissent.

[Mary]

Randall, you've obviously never served on any type of search committee seeing as how you are soooo impressed with the 29/31 vote. The way it usually works is there are several votes - a first one to see where everybody is, then "discussion" maybe another vote with more "discussion" than there's the "well the majority is clearly this so now it's time for the minority to get on board to present a united front to the church/institution. By the time you get to the last vote - the dissenters are bullied for not jumping on board the "unity" band wagon.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

One's got to love it. Yes, here I am in all my "glory"

...THE BLOGGING KING...

What a triple Georgia hoot!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jeffery]

Mary, I have served on search committees, and nothing like that has every happen. EVER! WE do not know what happen with the vote. We know that the blogging king. :) is losing his grip. Just remember 2 down 4 to go. Resistance is futile.

[Mary]

Jeffery, you're showing yourself to be such a reliable source we'll just let your claim that it's somehow the norm in committees such as this that eveything is just rainbows and unicorns speak for itself. Anyone who's been around the SBC for any length of time knows that SBCers can fight about the color of the new carpet so the idea that they must have been jolly happy unified on this commitee just doesn't pass the smell test.

And Jeffery your ignorance is showing it's not 2 down 4 to go, it's three down three to go. Try to keep up. Of course when your side is using such "logic" that if you can't claim to have led 1000 people to the Lord in a year it's ok for a YRR to claim it's perfectly great that not ONE soul was led to the Lord in these superevangelists churches - that kind of "logic" and excuses doesn't speak well for those so called "young leaders"

[peter lumpkins]

Hi "Jeffery"

While I'm unsure what you mean by either "2 down 4 to go" or "Resistance is futile," know I have no present intention of either ceasing to publicly inform Southern Baptists about what's going on in convention life or to state my own views concerning certain issues I happen to believe are crucial for the future of Southern Baptists.

And, you can be darn sure I won't be bullied by elites/elite supporters into ceasing the expression of my Baptist conscience. If and when I cease to address issues concerning Southern Baptists, I will do so on my terms and timeline not theirs.

Incidentally, I have in my possession an email from one of the top-tier ruling elites wherein he literally extorts the silence of a staff pastor's public objection to an entity's decision by threatening to exploit his close relationship to the staff pastor's Senior Pastor. In short, if the staff pastor didn't remain silent, he'd lose his job. Of course, I can't do anything with this email (I simply do not publish private emails). I neither asked for it nor want it. But I have it anyway.

The point is, while extortion like this works on some due perhaps more to their circumstances, etc. it doesn't work on me. The elites have absolutely nothing so far as I can tell that interests me. I do not need their jobs, their praise, their accolades, their recommendations, their pats on the back, or their following on twitter. Nor do I need to protect my job (interestingly that's already been exploited and failed). What I do need are my wife, my kids, my grandkids, my church, a few close friends, a cup of good coffee, and especially my Lord Jesus. Life just doesn't get any better than that!

Nor will I fold under the mocking harassment in which, for example, you and Randall apparently take pleasure as did Sanballat and Tobiah (Neh 4). All of this is to be expected when one dares object to the ruling elite's company line. So be it.

And, now for a delicious cup of java brew...

With that, I am...
Peter

I will not remain silent and I will not stand down

[Max]

Peter writes "The elites have absolutely nothing so far as I can tell that interests me. I do not need their jobs, their praise, their accolades, their recommendations, their pats on the back, or their following on twitter."

Peter, in the midst of the battle for inerrancy several years ago, Adrian Rogers said "We don't have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention doesn't have to survive. I don't have to be pastor of Bellevue. I don't have to live. But I'm not going to compromise the Word of God."

Dr. Rogers' words still ring true. We have yet another struggle on our hands in the SBC with leaders pleading for agree-to-disagree, get-along-to-get-along, big tent unity in theological diversity which is a call to compromise. The current debate has essentially been reduced to who has a corner on the Truth in SBC ranks ... a man in Louisville and his band of elites say the minority does. What say the majority?

[Jeffery]

Peter, I read Nehemiah, and you are not Nehemiah. Judge Pressler, the man, the myth and the legend has endorsed the great Dr. Allen.

[Lydia]

"I have served on search committees, and nothing like that has every happen."

Strange, I have been on quite a few search committees even at colleges and it worked like that almost every time. And I cannot tell you the amount of time it took. Usually a year! And many times it took a year just to hire a prof!

But most "boards" I have sat on work in such a way that there are issues board members are not willing to go to the mattresses concerning. Some would not take stands because they knew it would be a war they were not willing to take on. Others are middle of the road folk that cannot handle conflict. These issues are especially forefront when the boards are large and distance is a factor. And you also have the factor that some trustees might not like being questioned and are sending a message.

Bottomline is that Allen is not really experienced enough or has a specific track record that fits a distressed institution. But then I doubt he will actually be the "leader". He answers to others besides the trustees. That is how the Calvinist movement works. Very top down and man centered. The YRR follow their leader/guru.

" EVER! WE do not know what happen with the vote. We know that the blogging king. :) is losing his grip. Just remember 2 down 4 to go. Resistance is futile."

Jeffery, you guys can take over entities but you cannot force or shame people into continuing to pay for it. Good luck with your attitude. You are exhibit A for why we have this problem in the first place. What is sad, is you cannot see it.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

"...you guys can take over entities but you cannot force or shame people into continuing to pay for it." Add to this that compulsion remains the strategy of strength for many top-down practitioners. Isaiah's "come let us reason together" maxim offers little potential in moving things along in their direction--too slow, too messy, too transparent, too many questions, too much explaining, too many risks "God's vision" may be abandoned. So, rather than persuasion, compulsion is employed; or as some put it, "bullying." Consequently, as you can see from "Jeffery's" contributions here, mockery similar to Tobiah's tactics (Neh 4).

With that, I am...
Peter

[bigfatdrummer]

Not to steal or plagiarize here, but Jeffery--you are a twit!

[Randall Cofield]

A VOICE FROM SBC HISTORY WHEN COOLER HEADS PREVAILED

“What, then, is the cohesive force which holds Southern Baptists together doctrinally? It is their time honored principle of unity in diversity. This does not mean doctrinal indifference nor a theological hodge-podge. It means that each Southern Baptist extends Christian charity to those with whom he differs. It means that he recognizes the integrity of those with whom he honestly disagrees. By this principle Southern Baptists have been agreeable in their disagreements. They have resolved their differences in the greater unity of purpose as stated in their Constitution of ‘eliciting, combining and directing the energies of the whole denomination in one sacred effort, for the propagation of the Gospel.’ It is thus that Southern Baptists have and will continue to preserve their unity and strength.”
–Herschel Hobbs

[JD Hall]

Jeffery, don't let the sore losership and name calling get you down. The Revolution grows as we return to our roots. The can't stop it.
Semper Refomanda..... JD.

[peter lumpkins]

Randall

I couldn't agree more with Hobbs. I do my best to honor the integrity of those about whom I post dissent. Your colleague in theology who posts right below you, however, fails to heed Hobbs' wisdom. For example, JD exhorts Jeffery concerning name-calling, a vacuous exhortation from my perspective. Let me show you what I mean.

"Twit" for instance is a perfectly good descriptor to explain an annoyance. And, yes, I employ those type of colorful images many times.

On the other hand, what I rarely, if ever--and for certain not habitually--employ are morally offensive images which cast doubt on a person's integrity or salvation experience, descriptors like "liar", "deceiver", "heretic", etc. Unfortunately, Hall's website is literally filled with such descriptors many of which are aimed in my direction.

Hence, there is a clear distinction in play. And, when you can show my critiques I post on my site are filled with morally offensive images toward my Calvinist brothers, I'll be glad to receive correction from Hobbs' exhortation. Until that happens, however, what I'd do is, go over to JD's site and post Hobbs' words there where JD routinely offers morally offensive critiques of those with whom he disagrees. Believe me. It's needed.

Have a good Wednesday.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ruth]

I have been reading this blog with interest for a while. I am very concerned about our denomination. When a seminary president, or any entity head for that matter, is elected with anything less than a unanimous vote, that is an indication there are problems. Yes, I believe many of the trustees were likely bullied, or if you insist on being kind, pressured, into voting against their conscience. It appears two had grave concerns. That should be cause for alarm.

I've observed many of our boards throughout the years. Recently I served a board that called a new head. While my preference was elsewhere, in the end, there was nothing about the candidate that was recommended and that most of the board favored that prevented me from giving my full support. Our board gave the new hire a unanimous vote of support and that is how it typically is and how it should be.

We have only six seminaries in the SBC. To know that one is going to be led by someone who doesn't even have the full support of his own board is sad, very sad. The MBTS board could have, should have, done better.

[Randall Cofield]

Peter,

"I do my best to honor the integrity of those about whom I post dissent."--P. Lumpkins

Indeed...

"Calvinists are arrogant, know-it-all, theological prigs who appear to think all others are intellectual buffoons."--P. Lumpkins

"We are pleased yet another voice has entered the arena posing reservations not only about the questionable process the search committee pursued, but also the weak nominee the committee proposed."--P. Lumpkins

PS: I read 6 of JD's posts concerning you, and I did not find him attributing to you the descriptors "liar", "deceiver", or "heretic" in a single one of them. Even so, in the event that he has, I am not culpable for JD's posts, as you well know.

[Lydia]

Let me see...exactly how is unity defined by the YRR/NC? Is it defined by calling people heretics? Suggesting that only the NC movement wants to see the nations rejoice for Christ? Is unity saying that your educated peers did not know what they were signing? Or is unity better described by calling people hereticsw or semi heretics or leaning toward heresy? Perhaps unity is defined by an SBC entity employee claiming certain unnamed people need to be marginalized?

Or perhaps unity encompasses our 2nd VP's blog, SBCVoices, he moderates with comments from several calling Peter the "anti Christ". Nary a peep from the YRR commenters except CB Scott. Miller was not nearly as outraged with that as he was with a comment by selahv, who is always irenic yet he deleted because it did not follow party line.

Calling for "unity" from the YRR is disingenuous.

See, the YRR/NC movement defines things differently so it is impossible to look at a quote they borrow from the past and think it applies today.It is impossible to have any agreement until we know their definitions.

Their words and actions tend to NOT MATCH. When that happens, people start looking at actions and ignore words.And trust is forever eroded.

[JD Hall]

Peter,

To be specific, I said your behavior has been "reprehensible" and "ungodly" toward Jason Allen...for the sake of clarification.

JD

[Max]

The introductory video evidently presented to the MBTS trustees in advance of the vote was a very professionally produced and polished piece designed to influence and convince http://www.mbts.edu/ Of course, that was the presidential search committee's task given pre-vote concerns about the candidate. The selection of video clips and soundtrack were finely tuned ... I was almost persuaded!

I was particularly struck by one overly dramatic comment by Dr. Kevin Shrum, MBTS Trustee Chairman and member of the presidential search committee: "This is the moment. This is the person. This is the time." Whew!

[Eric Lockhart]

Is there any evidence of bullying that took place at MBTS or just you suspect that is the only way it could have happened?

I happen to know several of the men on the committee, one of them, Dr. Bill Bowyer, was my pastor and I have great respect and admiration of him. I think the accusations of bullying are attacks on their character. An attack, that from personal experience with some of them, I don't see matching up to the character of the men being attacked.

So just wondering, is there any actual reason to believe there was bullying aside from the fact a guy you guys didn't want as President was voted in as President?

[Tim Rogers]

JD Hall,

"To be specific, I said your behavior has been "reprehensible" and "ungodly" toward Jason Allen...for the sake of clarification."

Are you serious? What has Peter placed out here that is "reprehensible"? Oh, and the most serious charge--"ungodly"? You sound like Robert Gibbs defending President Obama's definition of a terrorist act.

[Nick]

The problem with the nomination of Dr. Allen and the presidencies of Dr. Mohler and Dr. Aiken is not that they're Calvinists, but rather that they're not Calvinistic enough. Dr. Aiken identifies as a 4-pointer and the other 2 are more in line with new covenant theology. Unless the SBC recovers its confessional, covenental roots it will remain open to error and splintering. I knew 5 years ago when I left the SBC because of the revivalism, anti-intellectualism, dispensationalism, and semi-pelagianism I wasn't going to regret it - blogs like this one confirm all the more what a great decision it was. Funny, I too think the Calvinists should leave the SBC, but for very different reasons...

[Randall Cofield]

Eric,

So just wondering, is there any actual reason to believe there was bullying aside from the fact a guy you guys didn't want as President was voted in as President?

As far as I can tell...none whatsoever.

[Max]

Nick, if you have any influence over your highly Calvinist friends still trapped in the SBC, perhaps you can convince them to join you where you are now. Or you might wait a few short years until the Calvinization of the SBC is accomplished and return. By then, all us stupid semi-heretic majority Southern Baptists who long for genuine revival will have found another home as well.

[Max]

P.S. to my above comment regarding the MBTS presidential search committee promotional video: Dr. Kevin Shrum, MBTS Trustee Chairman and search committee member is pastor of Inglewood Baptist Church, Nashville … a “Founders-Friendly” church … http://www.founders.org/misc/chlist/TN.html

If the SBC reformed movement leadership want traditional Southern Baptists to get off the conspiracy theory wagon, they need to stop giving us so much evidence.

[Eric Lockhart]

We were young when the battle over inerrancy occurred but thanks to the resurgence, we were taught to not only love Scripture but hold it as highest authority. The natural outpouring of that is the adherence to God's sovereignty over the will of man. We cannot help but be monergistic and oppose synergism. You taught us to uphold the truth of Scripture, even of a majority rage against it. You want a revival, we think the reason we've got to this point is because we need a reformation

[JD Hall]

Max,

If there is "so much evidence" then maybe there isn't a conspiracy. Conspiracies try to keep things quiet, right? The irony of this all is that folks like myself make no secret about it; we think that Monergism is the biblical position and therefore think that Monergism (commonly known as 'Calvinism') should be default position in the SBC. We plant Calvinistic churches and teach Calvinistic doctrine and send our kids to Calvinistic-leaning colleges and seminaries and we use our influence to promote what we believe to be sound doctrine. What's funny is the insistence of the radical anti-Calvinist fringe finding conspiracies where none exist. We're not the boogey man in the closet. We're the Calvinist smack dab in front of you, waving. Could it be there's no conspiracy at our institutions? Could it be that Calvinism is winning in the realm of theology, that Calvinists are among the best and brightest that the Convention has to offer? There's no conspiracy here. There's only common sense.

[Kyle B. Gulledge]

JD-
After reading your posts I can't, for the life of me, understand why any of us ever thought you guys were cocky and arrogant.

[Lydia]

JD, In other words,

All hail Calvin!

[Eric Lockhart]

Oh goodness. I really hope you don't actually believe that, Lydia. Given your previous posts, it would seem the only way you could actually believe that is by willing ignorance.

Kyle, please don't try to make it seem like arrogance and cockiness is limited to the Reformed camp.

[peter lumpkins]

JD

If you can show a single post where I've suggested some sort of secret conspiracy at work, then produce it. Otherwise, keep your unfounded accusations on your own blog where you can wax on without being accountable for your blundering rhetoric. While I've quoted from Founders' Ministries manual on how to "reform" a church via stealth, this is public info privy to no exclusive group. Anyone can examine the same information I do and check my inferences. So, produce the goods, or drop the point. I trust I've been clear.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

"Oh goodness. I really hope you don't actually believe that, Lydia"

I should not believe JD's words?

[peter lumpkins]

All

Note if you will what JD Hall has handed to us. In effect he's openly admitted the objectionable substance many of us have lamented from many of today's Calvinists--a takeover mentality based upon their unilateral, uncompromising position that strict Calvinism should be default position in the SBC. Hence, it's no surprise that they think and presumably desire:

--Monergism is the biblical position
--'Calvinism' should be default position in the SBC
--to plant Calvinistic churches
--to teach Calvinistic doctrine
--to send kids to Calvinistic-leaning colleges
--to send kids to Calvinistic-leaning seminaries
--to use their influence to promote what they believe to be sound doctrine--which, of course is exclusively Calvinistic

If this isn't the proof in the pudding that every single lament we've ever voiced at SBC Tomorrow concerning the take-over mentality of aggressive Calvinism in the SBC has had teeth, nothing could constitute proof for yet an unconvinced person.

What a wonderful day for SBC Tomorrow. Calvinists finally admitting they, in fact, do want to take our convention away from us.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Eric Lockhart]

That's so ironic. One, you seem to associate JD with a lot of authority and pull in the SBC. Two, as you point out what JD said the Calvinist intent was, you end by saying "take our convention away from us", which would seem to mean that your intent is:

--Synergism is the biblical position
--'Calvinism' should never be the default position in the SBC (though I suspect you might go further and state it should never be a position period in the SBC)
--to plant non-Calvinistic churches
--to teach non-Calvinistic doctrine
--to send kids to non-Calvinistic-leaning colleges
--to send kids to non-Calvinistic-leaning seminaries
--to use their influence to promote what they believe to be sound doctrine--which, of course is exclusively non-Calvinistic

How does that make what you are attempting to do any different than what JD is attempting?

[Randall Cofield]

Peter,

What a wonderful day for SBC Tomorrow. Calvinists finally admitting they, in fact, do want to take our convention away from us.

Your Convention? Perhaps you could post a copy of the deed here on SBC Tomorrow...

Ps 127:1 Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain.

[Lydia]

Off Topic sorta:

Remember the lengths Mohler and Dever went to protect CJ Mahaney when he stepped down?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_CHURCH_SEX_ABUSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Lydia]

"How does that make what you are attempting to do any different than what JD is attempting?"

Eric, For some reason you don't think we should take JD's words at face value. Does he mean what he says or say what he means? And interesting your notation about "power". That does seem to be the focus of the YRR/NC movement.

Frankly, I have met tons of little JD's over the last 8 years coming out of SBTS. They talk just like him and are planting churches with non Cal money with the same attitude. I cannot swing a dead cat without hitting one of them. It is a form of psuedo Christian fascism. I am just waiting for the group think uniforms to appear.

[Dan Calkins]

Lydia,

Of course you understand what Eric is inferring. JD means what he says, but that doesn't mean every Calvinist would support his words. With all due respect to JD, he isn't some bigwig in Louisville, he pastors a growing chu rch in nowhere Montana. His church is selflessly planting two churches in rural North Dakota, where they are beginning to thaw from freezing temps by Independence Day. They're not planting churches because they're selfish Reformers, they're planting due to the lack of Gospel-centric churches and the prevalence of lostness.

[lydia]

Gee Thanks Dan. Does not change the fact that JD style clones are being manufactured at SBTS and sent out on assembly line church plants. They are tomorrow's big wigs if they can find enough people to pay them to lord it over them, long enough to last. :o)

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

If I may: first, whatever you mean by "ironic" I do not know.

Second, I did not associate JD with either "a lot of authority and pull in the SBC" or any authority and pull in our convention at all for that matter. I didn’t have to. Rather JD associated himself with some such Calvinistic group using "we" and "our" over a half dozen times in his short comment to spell out for us exactly what he and “folks like” him were about

Third, your presumption concerning the implication of my use of “our convention” is false. By my using "our convention" you incorrectly jump to the conclusion that I suppose a convention made up exclusively of non-Calvinists. Now, if you can demonstrate such an imaginary supposition, have at it. But until you do, you are going to have to use precisely what I've written about this as a measuring stick for what I mean by “our convention.” And, what I've specifically stated has never, ever implied a Calvinistless convention. Not one thin line even hints at your careless presumption, Eric. In fact, I've explicitly stated—and stated more than once through the years--just the opposite. Only recently I wrote:

“To formally exorcise Calvinism from convention-life is, for my part, to forfeit Baptist ecclesiology. If we do so, my membership as a Southern Baptist believer will swiftly come to an end.”

Hence, do not presume my mention of “our convention” implies just the opposite of what I’ve repeatedly and explicitly stated.

On the other hand, JD has just reiterated precisely what he and "folks like" him want--a decidedly, monolithic Calvinist convention, a convention soliciting the exact lament against aggressive, take-over Calvinism I’ve offered for over six years on this site.   

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

JD - thank you for confirming that there is no longer a "quiet revolution" in some SBC corners ... http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/

[Eric Lockhart]

Dan, it's nearly futile. There is a chance they twist what you say or they will just sort of ignore but reiterate their scare tatics and bad experiences. Cue Lydia talking about how one time Mark Driscoll used scare tactics or ignored someone.

Peter knows full well that JD isn't the standard but he, nor most the regular commenters on here, doesn't care. They're only excited that can find one pastor who is a Calvinist who affirms what they have been saying. Though surely there are more. In fact, there are parts of that I would affirm. By default, my kids are being raised with my understanding of Biblical theology. I assume theirs are, too. In fact, I assume they are doing just the opposite (hence, irony) of JD post, but they don't even recognize it.

I mean, take Peter. He writes months of blogs that are anti-Calvinist, but based off 2 little sentences he wrote at some point, we're supposed to know he's not anti-Calvinist. Silly me. What ever would have led to that idea? I mean it's not he opposed a recent SBC seminary president solely because he was Calvinist. Peter doesn't mind if we're in the SBC apparently, just as long as we sit alone in a corner with no real pull or authority in the SBC.

Awful nice of him.