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.