Not Knowing Tullian Tchividjian Saved My Life
A reader sent me the latest post by Tullian Tchividjian. Go figure, he wasn’t able to pass on criticizing a concept that involves the possible use of verbs: New Year Resolutions. Susan and I had just finished working on a resolution of our own to begin the new year. We were not excited to partake in the endeavor. We knew it would reveal the necessity to make hard choices together. It was difficult not to focus on that rather than the glory that could be brought to God through the process. Afterward, while somewhat moody about the task, I checked my email, clicked on the link, and read it. So, hide the children.
Tullian Tchividjian is an icon among the Young, Reckless, and Rebellious that are presently tormenting the church. His followers are those who the apostle Paul said would come in the last days with itching ears—wanting to hear that the Christian life is a “mere natural flow.” According to Tchividjian, the acid test for determining if you are preaching the true gospel is to be accused of antinomianism. And while many of this bunch applauded the Queen of Anomia, Elyse Fitzpatrick, for stating that there is no such thing as antinomianism, others like New Calvinist/Super Yuppie Dane Ortlund claim that the apostle Paul was accused of being one; so hence, it is their goal as well. Even more detestable is the way that library theologians like John MacArthur lend credibility to these enemies of righteousness. In his ignorant ramblings about how the Young, Restless, and Reformed need to “grow up and keep reforming,” he is stupidly incredulous that antinomians are acting like antinomians.
And their arrogance is without boundary, having reverence for nothing but their own visions of grandeur. For example: yes, I realize that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had some issues in regard to orthodoxy, but I won’t even go there. Why? Because he left a cushy ministry in the States to take a stand against Nazism in Germany. He observed that like the pastors of this day, they wouldn’t take a stand in Germany, but rather emphasized the positive of what Hitler had to offer. Bonhoeffer was eventually hanged while naked with piano wire. But as ones who talk like those who have taken off their armor before putting it on and standing before the razor thin noose, they constantly rag on him for saying things like, “ One act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.” Another example that is almost equally disgusting is the book written by the pretentious and puerile Heath Lambert, passing judgment on the likes of Jay Adams. If the book is ever produced in audio, it would be an excellent complement to ventriloquist David Powlison.
And of course, Tchividjian wasted no time speaking for Susan and me regarding our New Year Resolution for the Lord. His message? Like all things that we try to do for the lord, it will fail. And gee whiz, isn’t it great that our acceptance before the Lord doesn’t depend on our performance?
I have some theological news for this vile antinomian and his fiend friend that sent him the quote that he thought was so special. That would be the friend who delights (like all New Calvinists) in bringing elderly saints up on bogus church discipline (I told you to hide the children. I am fed-up with this bunch and the cowards that cover for them). Here is the news flash: Susan and I don’t claim to be the brightest bulbs in the house, but we know at least this much; we cannot do anything to gain favor with God for purposes of justification. That’s impossible because He chose us to be completely justified before the Earth was created. Therefore, He also chose us, and the guaranteed result is glorification at a time of His choosing and good pleasure. Susan and I believe this with all of our hearts and it is the basis of this belief that gives us assurance of our salvation. But unlike these brute beasts, Susan and I have a King that we want to please for many reasons—reasons that He states, not mere men. We long to stand before Him and hear, “Well done, faithful servant.” And guess what? We actually believe He is talking about what we actually do. Excuuuuuse us for taking that literally and not embracing Tchividjian’s Gnostic-like approach to the Scriptures (also known as Redemptive Historical hermeneutics).
But what really torques me off about these men is their HOPELESS message. When I went to a biblical counselor some twenty-four years ago in the midst of a serious trial, I was a New Calvinist before New Calvinism was cool. I read Scripture and prayed for hours “seeking the Lord’s face.” In 1994, MacArthur explained what that means; in essence he said, “We don’t really mean like, you know, looking for a face in the Scriptures like something mystical. We mean like, you know, looking for Jesus in the Scriptures.” Ya, got it, except for the part about what Jesus SAYS, not what he looks like. MacArthur seems to have bought into the New Calvinist hermeneutic that is primarily concerned with who Jesus is as a “person.” It’s almost as if none of them can wait to meet Jesus face to face so they can ask him what His sign is and His favorite color. “Is fish really your favorite food? Or was it because that was the staple food of the day?” Oh to know who Jesus really is! The perfect complement is Francis Chan’s Jesus is my boyfriend theology. Meanwhile, Steve Camp and others have no clue where all of the Jesus is my boyfriend music comes from that they constantly lament. Antinomians acting like antinomians and those seeking to fall in love with Jesus singing Jesus is my boyfriend music, and no one is apparently able to connect the dots. What in the world is going on?
Thank goodness my counselor wasn’t Tchividjian . And thank goodness my counselor had not yet become the president of an evil empire. He told me that I could actually do something about my problem; specifically, what the Lord instructs. “Oh, you mean nothing’s happening because Jesus also wants me to do things? “ Profound.
This ministry is a witness to how New Calvinists counsel: “We are helpless creatures who have this treasure of Jesus in clay vessels. Embrace the pounding of the trial as it breaks apart these vessels of clay and allows the glory of Jesus to shine out!” Meanwhile, New Calvinists play on the results of an existing epidemic of our day: Christians functioning on biblical generalities and trying to do the right thing the wrong way. THAT IS WHY THEIR CHRISTIAN RESOLUTIONS FAIL, not for lack of a Tchividjian false gospel. Thank goodness I didn’t know him. It would have been one New Calvinist leading another into a ditch.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Lydia,
You might find the following article interesting re: Bonhoeffer. http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/Metaxas.htm.
A few years ago, we ordered bathroom cabinets from a local cabinet maker. When I began to install them along with a Tico (a young Costa Rican man) I had hired to help me I found they were not square. As I was trying to compensate for the lack of accuracy in their construction I was doing a bit complaining about the man who had built them [ that is a prodigious understatement]. In response to my complaints, my wife said, ” But Marcos [the cabinet maker] is so sweet.” My helper replied, “He may be sweet, but they still aren’t square.”
It does not matter how sweet, courageous, noble, loving or _____________[you fill in the blank] a pastor or theologian may be, if he isn’t square theologically, he still isn’t square.
LikeLike
Randy,
That’s not the point. The point is that child-pastors who abuse elderly saints shouldn’t be criticizing those who have intestinal fortitude.
LikeLike
Lydia,
The problem with the Hebrews was precisely that they were in danger of leaving the blessings of the New Covenant [ for example,the powers of the world to come, the Messianic age that dawned with the resurrection of Christ, in contrast to the former age under the Old Covenant] for Judaism. The message of the entire book is Jesus as the mediator and messenger of the New Covenant [and the Covenant itself] is BETTER than all the messengers and mediators of the Old Covenant [along with the Covenant itself].
The issue in Galatians was which covenant granted the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, or who is Abraham’s seed. Paul’s answer was that the Old Covenant could not grant those blessings. It seems to me these statements should be beyond controversy.
Apollos in knowing only about John’s baptism [a rite that belonged to the OC period] had clearly not moved into a full understanding of New Covenant truth. To me, that doesn’t seem like a laughing matter.
LikeLike
Randy,
Keep bringing it, your hilarious.
LikeLike
Paul,
That is not the point. I have not mentioned a word about New Calvinists and whether or not they should be abusing elderly saints. I am only writing about your seeming indifference to theological infidelity. But, since you mentioned elder abuse, I have known many supposed elderly “saints” who were quite abusive, theologically ignorant and anything but saintly. You might want to know more about individual situations before you make blanked statement.
LikeLike
Randy,
You have no idea how much of the situation I knew about before I made a judgement. If DB was unorthodox, then now we have cowardly child-pastors calling the kettle black. Let’s make that the point.
LikeLike
“ou don’t think a failure to understand Christian baptism and its significance has any relationship to New Covenant truth?”
Randy, you are simply changing the subject here and using typical Calvinist debate tactics. Now it is about MY understanding of Baptism. And we both know that was not the point. The point was you saying Apollos did not understand NCT!
So, I go back to Apollos who you say was SUPPOSED how Baptism worked in the New Covenant?. Through what lens? He was not a JEW, for crying out loud. It only had to be explained to him and all was well. But you turn it into NCT. I am pointing out to you that Gentiles had no OC filter! They simply repented and believed! Of course the Judaizers wanted many to know and practice parts of the law such as circumcision, etc, before they could really be saved/Born Again.
Now, if you want to be a Nazi about NC Baptism, then lets talk about the thief on the cross. (wink)
“Re: Bonhoeffer “orthodoxy,” If is my understanding that he at least leaned toward neo-orthodoxy. That would be a fairly significant problem.”
Here we go again. Lots of people define neo orthodox differently. Can you be very specfic? You have had the nerve to diss DB here and say the child pastors who are arrogant and brash are needed more than him. What did Bonhoeffer teach or believe that was so bad? Be specific. Otherwise, what you have done here to Bonhoeffer is cruel and unnecessary. Just one sentence. No links. And no more meaningless syrupy stories. I am not in your congregation. Just one paragraph even of what he taught/believed that was wrong.
LikeLike
I would be happy to explain it but you would be too stupid to understand it anyway.
LikeLike
“It does not matter how sweet, courageous, noble, loving or _____________[you fill in the blank] a pastor or theologian may be, if he isn’t square theologically, he still isn’t square.”
Actually Randy, “Correct” doctrine brings forth fruit such as you describe. And those fruits are AWOL in the NC celebrity crowd. Perhaps they feel they do not need them since they are preaching to “totally depraved” believers?
Correct doctrine without the fruit is what? Of course, we all know that how so many have redefine sin/fruit is the real issue here with the NC crowd.
LikeLike
Randy, Read the link. It is typical. I read Metaxes’ bio of BD, too, and had several problems with it. However, I have read Bonhoeffer and all of his bios that I can find here in the states. What really bothers me about the article you linked to is that one liners are taken out of context…even personal letters! concerning things Bonhoeffer wrote to his best friend from seminary and early on, too. I hope none of the stuff I wrote in letters at that age about belief becomes how you judge me.
Bonhoeffer was “ecumenical”? Did the author of the link gather that from knowing about Bonhoeffers underground seminary in the hinterlands after he broke with the institutional church? Sheesh! What an allegation considering the context of history.
And hold on to your seat. I like SOME of Barth.(GASP) He was brilliant. I do not read these men for “my” theology. That comes from my study and the Holy Spirit illuminating truth. I read them because they cause me to think and study scripture in a deep way. .
LikeLike
I get it Randy. This is so typical of the Reformed…..Bonhoeffer is guilty by association. He is German. He learned from German Enlightenment thinkers. (Barth is hated and constantly condemned at SBTS). And I agree that guys like Hegal were wack jobs but I would not classify him as a theologian!
But this is the mantra in Reformed circles: The German enlightenment thinkers brought their doctrine here and ruined the church. We, the Reformed, are going to save it. (I hear this all the time from SBTS people)
(You can make those square cabinets fit into a round hole!)
You are simply speaking the party line.
LikeLike
So Randy, be specific. Did Bonhoeffer go to his hanging believing it might not have been a Virgin Birth? What did Bonhoeffer teach/believe that would bring on such cruelty concerning him?
I was particularly insulted by the author’s out of context one liner that had Bonhoeffer saying “he had not read his bible for weeks”. That was it. One line out of a long letter to his best friend. Do we know circumstances? Context? No, that ONE line is quoted out of a long letter. I found your link despicable and twisted on purpose.
Yet, you have offered NO specifics. This is what I call a tar and feathering by word on a dead man.
LikeLike
Paul, I would like to apologize to your readers here for so many comments about this. My only defense is that I have been hearing vague accusations against Bonhoeffer for so many years from the YFF/Reformed/NC crowd. I am simply sick of it. I live at YRR ground zero and hear this stuff constantly.
I am not even a big Bonhoeffer fan. But to tar a dead man’s reputation with “vague” accusations is getting very old from this crowd. I think it plays into their “The German Enlightenment infiltrated the church here and we, the Reformed/NC/YRR have to save it”.
But I have yet to have one of them give me specifics concerning Bonhoeffer.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I agree. And where is the humble fear that wonders, “What would I do in such a situation?” You know, the stuff they cram down our throats all the time about humbleness. He may be unorthodox, but unless I think I would be able to walk in those shoes, it may be better to keep my mouth shut. But not them, they have no fear of treading on any ground whatsoever.
LikeLike
If you read Tullian’s story you’ll see that as a teenager he did drugs,quit high-school, and was premiscious (he actually talks about this on his story on the Coral Ridge Presbeteryan church homepage) and that he stopped doing those things when he came to the Lord. His behavior did radically change. I was at a service with a Q&A with him (a midweek service) and someone asked him “Should we keep on sinning then? “. He said “Of course we shouldn’t keep on sinning purposely. The problem is when our identity comes from that. We can’t be like the prodical sun’s brother and feel entitled or better than our other brothers and sisters. but yes, there are negative things we can do and negative earthly consequences for our actions.” He also said that “bad behaviour is not the root of the issue. The root of the issue is we often don’t look to Jesus enough. We look to ourselves. and sometimes we get so caught up with being moral that we actually forget to look to Jesus- which ironically, causes sin”. He’s not cheering for us to sin! Au Contrarie, he’s looking for us to become so caught up with what Jesus did that our behaviour changes and we love the things he loves and hates the things he hates.
Romans says that we “have all fallen short of the glory of God”. That is actually a fact biblically- we are creatures in need of constant grace. You can still try to do the right thing of course, but just make sure you have people to keep you in check. Because, you say that you know that nothing you do can make God love you more- and I know that too. But if you’re anything like me, even though you know the concept, you’re heart can still act like it’s truth. Don’t say that only idiots do that, because Paul wrote whole books on the Bible to people who didn’t act like that (Galations and Romans for instance) and the pharasees exsisted in the Bible and we’re still (myself included) like that. I need people to keep me in check because I do that. and i think it’s human nature to do that- not at a knowledge level. We know in our heads that God covers it- but at a heart level.
remember that whatever you do (good) comes from God. John 15 talks about the parable of the vine. Jesus is our vine and we are the branches. If we focus on him we will bear fruit. If not we will not. that’s what tullian’s trying to say! If we focus on him and stay connected to him than our behaviour will change (but we will still fall short sometimes and need his grace). But if we just try to focus on changing ourselves (and not focus on Jesus as much) than we’ll be unable to bear fruit because we’ll be looking inward instead of looking outward at God.
Lastly, you’re allowed to disagree with what someone says. You are. But saying “not knowing Tullian saved my life” is very judgemental and critical. We’re called as a church to build each other up and tell the truth in love. Tullian is not trying to be blasphemous to the Bible. I mean if someone is totally contradicting the Bible than fine, but he’s not saying “don’t listen to the bible” or “go out and sin cause God covers it all”. what he’s saying actually does line up with Romans (the heart of what he’s trying to say). Saying, “I believe this is wrong biblically” is one thing. but the judgemental attitude of saying “not knowing this person SAVED MY LIFE” is really quite hurtful.
LikeLike
Christina,
TT is an expert at couching his Gnostic antinomian beliefs in orthodox sounding verbiage. TT is one of the premiere heretics of our day. Nor has he been held responsible for his brutal/hostile takeover of Coral Ridge. All you have to do is start with the fact that he has admitted openly that he believes Christians are totally depraved. If that’s true, how can all of the above be possible? Well, this way: Gospel Contemplationism = a manifestation of the spirit realm verses the flesh realm.
LikeLike