When the 'P' word is apparently not 'Presbyterianism'

There are 5 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

If I posit--and I do--that a man's treatment of his wife is a hallmark of good or bad applied theology, I have to wonder what signs those who were close to Tchividjian missed over the years, or whether he even allowed others to get close to him at all.  I would suggest that if indeed Tchividjian (sp?) rejected a proposed debate with Trueman because of the 9th Commandment--Thou shalt not bear false witness--that may be one of our relevant signs that should have been heeded.

No rejoicing on my part--I was blessed by his predecessor's stand on evangelism, and though I disagree with the Presbyterians on a number of issues, I treasure them as brothers.   I mourn, I pray, and it is my hope that those around Tchividjian work to understand what signs of problems they missed and pass that understanding on--discreetly--to the rest of us.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Rob Fall's picture

Trueman was a liar?

Bert Perry wrote:
SNIP

I would suggest that if indeed Tchividjian (sp?) rejected a proposed debate with Trueman because of the 9th Commandment--Thou shalt not bear false witness--that may be one of our relevant signs that should have been heeded.

SNIP

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

J. Baillet's picture

The question is whether Tullian Tchividjian is being submissive to the oversight of his church, the Presbyterian Church in America, in regard to his ordination vows, or whether he is attempting an end run through a public relations campaign in order to regain a pastorate.  Carl Trueman is not sure but suggests the latter in light of the circumstances.  If this suggestion is true, then Mr. Tchividjian would be acting contrary to Presbyterianism.

Mr. Tchividjian was apparently accusing Mr. Trueman of being a liar, of misrepresenting his view of grace.  Mr. Tchividjian has been widely accused of antinomianism, which is again contrary to Presbyterianism.

JSB

Bert Perry's picture

Rob, I'm going to hesitate to flat out say that Tchividjian was saying that, but "Trueman's lying" is a reasonable interpretation of that comment.  Sound like he disagreed with Trueman and assumed that Trueman knew that what he was saying was false--and if that is true (again, we only have Trueman's account here), then the proper place to discuss such matters is in a public debate (since both had made statements in public) or church court.

So if there is even a kernel of truth to what Trueman was saying, then Tchividjian's refusal to air out the matter in public is at the very least a warning sign, IMO.  

To draw a picture, I once sent a note to a formerly public theologian regarding something that had appeared on his website, and his response was that only certain people can call him on his behavior.  Now he has not fallen, to my knowledge, into grievous public sin, but he has more or less sidelined himself because he repeatedly demonstrated (not just to myself) that he doesn't play well with the other kids.  Huge shame, because the guy is sharp as a tack and has a lot to say.  But not being the Holy Spirit, I am of course powerless to do anything beyond what I've already done, and to pray.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.