Response to Kevin Labby

 I recently read Kevin Labby’s thoughts on hiring Tullian Tchividjian so soon after his deposition (see here).  His explanation revolves around the ideas expressed in these two paragraphs.

I’ve long thought that American evangelical churches do a generally abysmal job caring for their “fallen” pastors. We drum them out of service; clear the books; and move on. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen. I’ve seen it. Heck, I’ve participated in it.

Jesus didn’t do that. After Peter’s three-fold denial, he sought after him and worked to restore him. He went after Doubting Thomas, and reassured him back into service. He went after the deserting disciples on the road to Emmaus.

The issue raised in the second paragraph is easy to address.  There is a difference between Peter’s momentary lapse, and even his repentance, and that of a pastor who carried on an adulterous relationship while weekly exercising leadership in the church. 

The first issue Kevin raises is based entirely on a false dichotomy, as though there are only two options.  Either we hire fallen pastors in our churches, or we “drum them out of service; clear the books; and move on.”  Maybe this happens, but the failure of some does not mean we should ignore the teaching of Scripture that a leader in the church ought to be above reproach, living a life worthy of imitation (1 Timothy 3 and Hebrews 13:7).  According to the PCA constitution, Tullian was disqualified for office and was assigned to the oversight of a local session.  Unless sessions are utterly incapable of caring for a fallen pastor, Tullian would have been shepherded and assisted to bring about true repentance.  His restoration to church membership was never in question.  His qualification for office was. 

Kevin mentions Tchividjian’s need to provide for his family.  Yes he does need to provide for his family, and so do all of the men in a congregation.  Why would a church hire him and not others?  This is a “red herring.”  It makes the decision look more pious but is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  By hiring Tullian, the church bestowed on him an honor which was inappropriate.  When Chuck Colson was convicted of obstruction of justice, he was disbarred and unable to make a living as an attorney.  Why would there be lower standards for a minister of the gospel.  It is not ungracious to require the deposed minister to get a job outside of the ministry context.  It may be ungracious toward the people the deposed minister has injured to hire him to a church position. 

The currently proponents of grace, which I believe is actually “cheap grace” consistently create a black and white world.  It is either law or gospel; grace or legalism, Jesus or Pharisees, drumming “out of service; clear the books; and move on” or hire the fallen pastor as church staff and promote them returning to their teaching ministry online.  I believe that the best option is to see that by Tullian’s sin, God indicated that he was no longer qualified for ministry.  Therefore, we can rightly conclude that God wanted Tullian out of ministry related work.  I, for one, would rather not argue with God.

Hermeneutics

     I want to post a couple of my thought on hermeneutics.  Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting a text.  I am seeing a growing lack of hermeneutical discipline and I would like to remind believers of how to properly understand the Scripture.

     I just listened to a sermon in which the preacher repeated a common assertion that the first century division between Jews and Gentiles corresponds to the racial divisions between blacks and whites in the US.  On the surface, this seems like a fair statement if we assume the Jews and Gentiles was divided primarily by ethnicity.  What divided Jews and Gentiles was not their family lines, but their faith.  The people of God were not to intermarry with Gentiles because it would lead to idolatry.[1]  That is why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:14, tells believers to not marry unbelievers.  Ephesians 2:11-22 shows what divided the Jews and Gentiles.  In Jesus, Gentiles are brought into the covenant and are made fellow partakers of grace with believing Jews.  

     If, as the aforementioned preacher suggested, the division between blacks and whites is parallel to the division between Jews and Gentiles, and Ephesians 2:11-22 is true, doesn’t it follow that blacks are outside of the covenant?  The apodosis is clearly wrong, therefore one of the protases must be wrong.  Since Ephesians 2:11-22 is true, then the division between blacks and whites is not parallel to the division between Jews and Gentiles.

     The assertion by the preacher led me to wonder, “How could he draw that conclusion?”  Today, I am seeing a lot of common hermeneutical errors used to promote an agenda.  This preacher rightly opposes racial divisions and is working to build a multi-ethnic congregation.  I think his intention is noble but he is seeking to justify his efforts and exalt their importance by equating it to the work of the Apostle Paul, (Ephesians 3:1-10).  The problem is that his effort at racial reconciliation has an even higher purpose—which was really at the root of Paul’s apostleship—love.  Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."[2]  Love is the greatest commandment and summarizes the entire law and the prophets.  What we are doing in racial reconciliation is helping all of God’s people to learn to love one another.  We are not trying to bring African Americans into the covenant with us. 

      The hermeneutical error that the preacher made is to fail to understand the context in which the passage of scripture was written.  The exegete must first understand how the passage was understood in the original context, then glean the universal principle that applies to all situations, and finally apply that principle to today’s audience.  It is too common for preachers to skip the first step and simply assert that our situation is the same as those who first received the message from the text.  It may even be helpful to advance our agenda.  However, it is lazy and may bring about some dangerous errors.

---

[1] Deuteronomy 7:3-4 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.”

[2] John 13:35