Carl Trueman has an unwittingly ironic post on Tullian Tchividjian.
Tchividjian has been accused of antinomianism. Because he pastors an influential, high-profile, (nominally?) Reformed church, that's a cause for concern.
I haven't bothered to investigate the allegation. At this point I'm prepared to defer to the judgment of his accusers, who seem to be responsible accusers.
Trueman makes a point of highlighting the fact that Tchividjian is affiliated with TGC. Trueman is obsessed with TGC. He seems to think it's symptomatic of all that's wrong with evangelicalism. And that's because TGC, as a free association of independent ministries, isn't under the duly constituted authority of a proper ecclesiastical body–by Trueman's yardstick.
But here's where the unintentional irony comes in. Tchividjian isn't the senior pastor of an independent church. He's not a lone ranger. Rather, he belongs to a confessional Presbyterian denomination. That's precisely the kind of ecclesiastical oversight which Trueman champions.
If Trueman were consistent, he'd leave it to the PCA to police Tchividjian. I'm no expert on PCA canon law, but it's my understanding that a PCA pastor is answerable to his session. If his session is delinquent, the pastor is answerable to the regional Presbytery. And if the Presbytery is delinquent, the pastor is answerable to the general assembly. The general assembly can appoint a committed to study the issue and report back. It may issue a majority report and minority report. The general assembly can vote on the report (although it's not required to do so). If it votes on the report, that becomes official, enforceable denomination policy. That's my understanding.
The appellate process is inefficient. It operates at a glacial pace. Yet that's Presbyterianism. That's the ecclesiastical process Trueman recommends.
So why is Trueman advocating a public debate that bypasses the established channels of church discipline? Isn't that outside intervention subversive to the ecclesial accountability system that Trueman constantly touts? It seems as if he doesn't really have much faith in the process he champions. He's too impatient. It can't be trusted to yield timely, reliable results.
"If Trueman were consistent, he'd leave it to the PCA to police Tchividjian."
ReplyDeleteI don't think Trueman is being inconsistent at all. Public debate about controversial issues is not inconsistent with strict adherence to political structure, whether sacred or secular. Insistence on obeying a court of law, or whoever might be the proper authorities, does not imply either agreement or inability to respectfully dissent and urge another course of action. That is another thing entirely than dismissing the importance of ecclesiastical authority structures entirely, which many in modern Evangelical Christendom do.
"I'm no expert on PCA canon law, but it's my understanding that a PCA pastor is answerable to his session."
I studied this issue to some extent due to disciplinary proceedings against a former Pastor of mine. This is not the case, at least not in capital-P Presbyterian denominations (generic presbyterial government can be different). The teaching elders/ministers on a Presbyterian session are not subject to the session's discipline, they are subject to the Presbytery's discipline. In the case of a PCA Teaching Elder (TE), they are not even technically members of the congregation, and the session only has jurisdiction over the congregation. The Presbytery is responsible for disciplining all of its direct members, and the issue of ordination to and removal from office is in their original jurisdiction (the congregation and session only nominate candidates). The most a session can do is make life hard for a recalcitrant TE.
This isn't just a matter of public criticism, or debates *about* his position. Rather, this is circumventing Presbyterial oversight by interjecting oneself directly into the process, thereby interposing oneself between Tchividjian and the PCA.
DeleteI personally don't object to challenging him to a public debate. But that tactic implies the inadequacy of the Presbyterian machinery to do what's needed. Why isn't a high churchman like Trueman prepared to leave it in the hands of the PCA officers directly responsible for Tchividjian?
I was thinking along the lines of ruling elders rather than teaching elders. And even if the session operates in an advisory capacity, I assume that if a pastor flouts the session, that's grounds for referring his case to the Presbytery. So how's that inconsistent with what I said? It's an appellate process. A lower decision is subject to appeal.
Delete"Why isn't a high churchman like Trueman prepared to leave it in the hands of the PCA officers directly responsible for Tchividjian?"
DeleteThis question seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of a high church orientation, at least Protestant high church orientation. How does public debate undercut disciplinary procedures? Demanding proper ecclesiastical structure and discipline does not equate to surrendering all comment to the relevant Presbytery or Bishop. It does not mean that you cannot speak out and oppose the actions of ecclesiastical authorities any more than following the Apostle Paul's command to obey the governing authorities implies silence when they do wrong. Unless Trueman is claiming that Tchividjian is not a real Elder of Christ's Church, that I do not see how they contradict each other (if he does, then I concede he is being inconsistent).
"And even if the session operates in an advisory capacity, I assume that if a pastor flouts the session, that's grounds for referring his case to the Presbytery, So how's that inconsistent with what I said? It's an appellate process. A lower decision is subject to appeal."
However, the Presbytery is the court of original jurisdiction in Presbyterianism. The Ruling Elders can bring a charge against a Pastor if they can find an offense, but that is no different than any member of the Congregation (or, indeed, any member of the public) bringing an accusation. The only difference is that the Presbytery would likely take Ruling Elders' accusations more seriously than Joe Pew-Sitter's.
Your patronizing tone isn't justified by your obtuse comment. Rather, your comment indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what I wrote. I didn't say there was a problem with "commenting" on the issue, did I? To the contrary, I specifically said: "This isn't just a matter of public criticism, or debates *about* his position. I personally don't object to challenging him to a public debate."
DeleteI then went on to say: "But that tactic implies the inadequacy of the Presbyterian machinery to do what's needed."
You need to drop the condescending tone when your own response is so incompetent. In future, make more effort to interact with what I actually said, rather than ignoring distinctions I specifically drew.
Apparently, because you agree with Trueman and disagree with Tchividjian, that incapacitates you from registering my distinctions.
"Demanding proper ecclesiastical structure and discipline does not equate to surrendering all comment to the relevant Presbytery or Bishop."
DeleteIrrelevant inasmuch as Trueman isn't directing his comments at Tchividjian's presbytery. He isn't bringing his concerns to that body. Rather, he's airing his concerns in public to whoever will listen.
"It does not mean that you cannot speak out and oppose the actions of ecclesiastical authorities any more than following the Apostle Paul's command to obey the governing authorities implies silence when they do wrong."
To my knowledge, Tchividjian's presbytery hasn't even taken action as of yet. Opposing the actions of the ecclesiastical authorities would only be relevant if they were stonewalling, dragging their heels, or if, after the issue wound its way through the appellate process, the final verdict was a miscarriage of justice.
But if Trueman really believes in the Presbyterian process, then he needs to give it time to work, rather than disdaining official channels and appointing himself an ad litem prosecutor. If he lacks the patience to let the process run its course, then he doesn't believe in the process.
“You need to drop the condescending tone when your own response is so incompetent. In future, make more effort to interact with what I actually said, rather than ignoring distinctions I specifically drew.
Delete“Apparently, because you agree with Trueman and disagree with Tchividjian, that incapacitates you from registering my distinctions.”
First, I did not even state my position on the issue between Trueman and Tchividjian until the post below, so accusing me of blindness for that reason is jumping the gun. If I am blind for any reason on this, it is because of my High Church sympathies, not particular partisanship on the side of Trueman in this ongoing doctrinal dispute, which I have not even followed too closely.
Secondly, my point is that your distinctions don’t seem really relevant to your point. I know you think it’s ok for Trueman to comment, but you think Trueman is violating his own standards. I don’t think he is in this instance by supporting debate with Tchividjian.
I still think your commentary on Protestant High Churchmen, or disciplinarians, evidences a lack of understanding of their position, and I feel the consummate urge of the internet combox to set the record straight. Their position, if I understand it correctly, is that Evangelical Christendom is in a state of ecclesiastical anarchy. They think Evangelicals need to submit to some kind of ecclesiastical government to restore some order to the madness. While I’m not entirely sure if this view understands the sociology of the Evangelical movement, I have some sympathy with it.
ReplyDelete"I then went on to say: 'But that tactic implies the inadequacy of the Presbyterian machinery to do what's needed.'"
I don't think that Trueman has ever argued that Presbyterianism is a cure-all for doctrinal or moral laxity. The claim of the Protestant disciplinarian position is that discipline is lacking without proper ecclesiastical structures, not that proper ecclesiastical structures will discipline always. Yes, his commenting on the issues implies that Presbyterian machinery is not always adequate to the task at hand, but that wasn’t Trueman’s point in the first place. So, you are holding Trueman to a standard that he has never advanced, which is what I mean when I say that you misunderstand the High Church position.
"To my knowledge, Tchividjian's presbytery hasn't even taken action as of yet. Opposing the actions of the ecclesiastical authorities would only be relevant if they were stonewalling, dragging their heels, or if, after the issue wound its way through the appellate process, the final verdict was a miscarriage of justice."
Fair enough point. However, Tchividjian's errors, if, indeed, they are errors are being publicized today. That requires refutation publicly today. Even if Tchividjian eventually gets defrocked (a scenario I find highly unlikely in the PCA), his errors would still be publicly available, so they will require public, non-ecclesiastical refutation eventually. Now, I'm willing to say some of this is a flaw in Presbyterianism, but I'm not currently a Presbyterian myself (Protestant Episcopalian), so what I think is a flaw Trueman would presumably argue is a strength. However, you are claiming that Trueman is being inconsistent, and I think that is an unfair accusation given that he has not advanced the standard you claim he violates.
“If he lacks the patience to let the process run its course, then he doesn't believe in the process.”
I agree, but I don’t think he has evidenced that lack of patience. If he were demanding immediate action on the part of the PCA authorities, outside of whatever ordinary structures are in place, then he would evidence that lack of patience. If he demanded the case not go through the proper procedures, and that a summary judgment be issued, then that would violate his stated principles. He has not done so. He has only stated his position on Tchividjian’s doctrinal platform and challenged him to debate it.
If this isn’t addressing what you think is ironic about Trueman’s post, then I would like further clarification.
nate895
Delete"I still think your commentary on Protestant High Churchmen, or disciplinarians, evidences a lack of understanding of their position, and I feel the consummate urge of the internet combox to set the record straight. Their position, if I understand it correctly, is that Evangelical Christendom is in a state of ecclesiastical anarchy. They think Evangelicals need to submit to some kind of ecclesiastical government to restore some order to the madness."
That's just parroting what Catholic apologists say.
"While I’m not entirely sure if this view understands the sociology of the Evangelical movement, I have some sympathy with it."
I understand the youthful naivete, but Trueman has less excuse (as a middle-aged guy). Calvinists ought to be more skeptical about human nature.
"The claim of the Protestant disciplinarian position is that discipline is lacking without proper ecclesiastical structures, not that proper ecclesiastical structures will discipline always."
"Ecclesiastical structures" are just an abstraction. They can never be better than the real people you plug into the apparatus. Mainline denominations have the same "ecclesiastical structures," which are used to enforce heresy and immorality.
"Yes, his commenting on the issues implies that Presbyterian machinery is not always adequate to the task at hand, but that wasn’t Trueman’s point in the first place. So, you are holding Trueman to a standard that he has never advanced…"
Holding him to an implication is fair game. If he's going to tout Presbyterian due process, he needs to have faith in the process. He needs to exercise restraint.
"Tchividjian's errors, if, indeed, they are errors are being publicized today. That requires refutation publicly today."
I don't have a problem with that personally, but I'm the kind of low-church Protestant Trueman laments. If that requires refutation today, then given Trueman's ecclesiology, that requires refutation from Trueman's ruling elders and/or Trueman's presbytery and/or the general assembly of the PCA. If that's too cumbersome to refute the error in real time, then that illustrates the inadequacy of Trueman's ecclesiology.
He himself is playing the Lone Ranger role he deplores. So which is it? Should there be an orderly process, or is it okay for everyone to toss their hat into the ring? He can't very well attack TGC if he reserves for himself the right to saddle up and play Lone Ranger.
"I agree, but I don’t think he has evidenced that lack of patience."
Sure he has. Tchividjian hasn't even been brought up on charges.
Again, I don't object to critiquing Tchividjian's antinomianism (if that's what he's guilty of), but in that event we're calling the shots by what we think is right rather than adhering to a formal church disciplinary process.
He's playing both sides of the fence. He's using Tchividjian as a pretext to bash the lack of an overarching accountability system at TGC. Yet he's playing the independent role that he chides TGC for playing.
“That's just parroting what Catholic apologists say.”
DeleteSo? I tend to agree with “what Catholic apologists say” on this particular matter. Just because they use it for their own sophistry doesn’t mean it isn’t a legitimate point.
“I understand the youthful naivete, but Trueman has less excuse (as a middle-aged guy). Calvinists ought to be more skeptical about human nature.”
Connecting this with total depravity is a stretch at best. I actually think a High Church authoritarian position better fits with fallen human nature.
“They can never be better than the real people you plug into the apparatus. Mainline denominations have the same ‘ecclesiastical structures,; which are used to enforce heresy and immorality.”
I’ve heard the same type of argument from anarchists relating to the secular government, and I’m not exaggerating or making stuff up. What we are saying is that a proper ecclesiastical structure (what constitutes that Trueman and I would disagree on) is necessary, but not sufficient, for appropriate discipline, nothing more or less than that. Sure, you have to be on the lookout and you can’t just surrender your mind over to the local church authorities, but that’s not an excuse to dispense with them.
“Holding him to an implication is fair game. If he's going to tout Presbyterian due process, he needs to have faith in the process. He needs to exercise restraint.”
But that isn’t an implication of his position, and you have failed to demonstrate that it is. Once again, I think this goes back to the fact you fundamentally misunderstand the High Church position in general, associating it with the Roman Catholic idea of ecclesiocracy.
“If that requires refutation today, then given Trueman's ecclesiology, that requires refutation from Trueman's ruling elders and/or Trueman's presbytery and/or the general assembly of the PCA.”
Not even Roman Catholicism forbids theologians from debating issues outside the purview of Ecclesiastical oversight. Yes, in both cases, ultimately the Church (or an attempted facsimile thereof) gets to decide if the error is worth excluding by disciplinary measures, but that is qualitatively different from theologians debating doctrine in the public realm.
“He himself is playing the Lone Ranger role he deplores. So which is it? Should there be an orderly process, or is it okay for everyone to toss their hat into the ring? He can't very well attack TGC if he reserves for himself the right to saddle up and play Lone Ranger.”
You present a false dichotomy between a supposed totalitarian ecclesiocracy and free-for-all ecclesiastical anarchy. This isn’t a useful dichotomy at all. Publically debating issues is not the same as conceding that there should be no lawful authorities to judge such matters. What Trueman deplores about the "Lone Ranger" Christian is that they take it upon themselves to be the ecclesiastical authorities, not that they have informed opinions and express them publicly.
“Again, I don't object to critiquing Tchividjian's antinomianism (if that's what he's guilty of), but in that event we're calling the shots by what we think is right rather than adhering to a formal church disciplinary process.”
DeleteBut that’s not what Trueman is suggesting. What shots is Trueman attempting to call by debating Tchividjian? He is having a doctrinal discussion, not attempting to remove Tchividjian from office or decide the doctrinal future of the PCA. Even if he were attempting to influence such actions, it is perfectly consistent even within the strictest authoritarian systems to make rational arguments in a public forum for one side or the other.
“He's playing both sides of the fence. He's using Tchividjian as a pretext to bash the lack of an overarching accountability system at TGC. Yet he's playing the independent role that he chides TGC for playing.”
Trueman’s critique is that the TGC (and many parachurch organizations) is fundamentally separated from ecclesiastical discipline by its very nature. TGC can’t be held accountable by its very nature. Particular members might be accountable to ecclesiastical authorities, but the organization itself is not. Now, I’m not as bent-out-of-shape by parachurch ministries as Trueman is. I think they are a symptom of a more fundamental problem, not the problem itself.
nate895
Delete"So? I tend to agree with 'what Catholic apologists say' on this particular matter."
Thanks for tipping your hand. Unfortunately, that's a losing hand.
"Just because they use it for their own sophistry doesn’t mean it isn’t a legitimate point."
Legitimate from an illegitimate Catholic viewpoint.
"Connecting this with total depravity is a stretch at best. I actually think a High Church authoritarian position better fits with fallen human nature."
That's nearsighted. A high church authoritarian position simply empowers sinners at the top. And to the extent that sinners crave prestige and power, the worst people tend to rise to the top.
"I’ve heard the same type of argument from anarchists relating to the secular government, and I’m not exaggerating or making stuff up."
That's not a refutation of what I said.
"What we are saying is that a proper ecclesiastical structure (what constitutes that Trueman and I would disagree on) is necessary, but not sufficient, for appropriate discipline, nothing more or less than that. Sure, you have to be on the lookout and you can’t just surrender your mind over to the local church authorities, but that’s not an excuse to dispense with them."
I don't object to church polity or church discipline. But don't delude yourself into imagining that will avoid the failures of certain parachurch ministries. You're just transplanting the same failures into an ecclesiastical setting.
"Once again, I think this goes back to the fact you fundamentally misunderstand the High Church position in general, associating it with the Roman Catholic idea of ecclesiocracy."
That's just your ignorant imputation.
"Not even Roman Catholicism forbids theologians from debating issues outside the purview of Ecclesiastical oversight."
Irrelevant since I'm not using that standard of comparison.
"You present a false dichotomy between a supposed totalitarian ecclesiocracy and free-for-all ecclesiastical anarchy. This isn’t a useful dichotomy at all."
You should get a fire permit before you burn a straw man.
"Publically debating issues is not the same as conceding that there should be no lawful authorities to judge such matters."
That's the third time you've misrepresented by criticism, despite how I qualified it. You need to learn how to argue in good faith.
"What Trueman deplores about the 'Lone Ranger' Christian is that they take it upon themselves to be the ecclesiastical authorities, not that they have informed opinions and express them publicly."
Actually, he wants to have it both ways.
nate895
Delete"Trueman’s critique is that the TGC (and many parachurch organizations) is fundamentally separated from ecclesiastical discipline by its very nature. TGC can’t be held accountable by its very nature. Particular members might be accountable to ecclesiastical authorities, but the organization itself is not."
By that definition, the Westminster Assembly was a parachurch organization. The Westminster Divines belonged to different denominations. There was no overarching ecclesiastical authority to which all the Westminster Divines were accountable. Yet Trueman subscribes to the WCF.