... What is intriguing is to see the way that Driscoll’s allies seem to be unwilling to own up to their own errors in judgment. Paul Tripp, for instance, wrote a letter of resignation to the Mars Hill board:
Is it really a problem of distance? What did it take not to see even from Philadelphia that Driscoll was an accident not waiting to happen but already an accident? I don’t write this necessarily to congratulate myself (only Jonathan Edwards’ powers of introspection can tell for sure). But why did folks like Tripp give Driscoll such a long leash for so long?
Not too much to add there except that Hart has directly articulated a point Wenatchee The Hatchet has not managed to convince some bloggers out there to take to heart, which is that at length Mark Driscoll's antics and loyalties were going to show a distinction between the New Calvinist and the Old Calvinists and that non-Calvinists would do well to understand that those distinctions actually matter. It's not that the neo-Calvinists have exactly turned on each other, it's that many of them were just barely Calvinist to begin with in historic terms. One might even ask at this late date whether Driscoll's endorsement of Calvinism came as much from the necessity of being Reformed enough to get funding from David Nicholas' networks as by personal convictions and study. A man who could shake hands with T. D. Jakes in 2012 and then let his posse scrub away any significant testament to that handshake might have a ... pragmatic streak.