Florida megachurch pastor Tullian Tchividjian has said that the increasing association between evangelical Christianity and the religious right has had a negative effect.
In an interview published Friday, Tchividjian warned against bonding political views with religion.
“I think the impression that most non-evangelicals have is that [evangelicalism is] a political movement — it’s a culturally warring movement,” he told The Blaze.
“Closely associating the core message of the Christian faith with a political ideology has always been a huge mistake.”
McAtee responds,
1.) This is merely an appeal from the political left, of which Tullian is a member, to disassociate Christianity from its moral base. The truth of the matter is that the Christian right has merely stood for issues like “babies being born,” “men not marrying men,” “Christians not sending their children to government schools,” and “The State not stealing from the public via Marxists religion.” Is Tullian really suggesting that it is wrong to advocate for God’s mind when the political realm starts leaking into the Church. You see the problem with Tullian’s thinking here is that it is not the case that the Church is butting into the political realm but rather it is the case that the political realm is butting into the bailiwick of the Church as it pertains to Christian morality.
2.) Of course, with this misguided statement, Tullian has indicted Calvin’s Geneva, Knox’s Scotland, and Kuyper’s Holland. Tullian has also suggested that the work of Thomas Chalmers was a huge mistake, the work of William Wilberforce was a huge mistake, and the work of John Witherspoon as a huge mistake. The fact of the matter is, is that it is Tullian and his non Biblical opinion on this matter which is the huge mistake.
3.) If it is true that culture is but religion externalized then it is obvious that Biblical Christianity should war against the culture where the culture is an expression of a pagan externalized religion. Of course the foundation of such warfare is the finished work of Jesus Christ. Because of the finished work of Jesus Christ, and His following Resurrection and Ascension the Lord Christ has every intent to make war on those cultures that are organized in defiance of Him.
The Christianity today article offered,
Tchividjian, who is the grandson of famed evangelist Rev. Billy Graham, said that the use of Christianity in politics has damaged the religion.
“My take on it having grown up in the evangelical world … the sort of rise of the religious right and its close association between the church and politics has done big-time damage to the brand of Christianity in the public sphere,” he stated.
Ask someone what it means to be an evangelical, he said, and their answer would likely contain views on political issues.
1.) First, can we just observe that it was Tullian Grandfather who was forever being seen with Political figures. If Tullian is going to disavow the nexus between politics and religion let him disavow his Grandfather who was seen with every President from Truman to Bush II. Second, let us not forget how political his Grandfather’s decision was to go to the former Soviet Union when so many people begged him not to because of the political message it was sending.
2.) Of course we must lead with Christ crucified but to suggest that there is no relation to Christ crucified and Christ risen, Ascended, and ruling is to abstract the Gospel to make it a antinomian Gospel. What shall we say? Shall we go on preaching Christ crucified without preaching Christ Resurrected, Ascended, and Ruling?
3.) Of course pagans are going to charge Christians with the most unsavory untruths. Why should we think that they would ever do otherwise? Does Tullian think that when we ask a pagan what it means to be an Evangelical, they are going to say, “Oh, Evangelicals, why they want me to understand that Christ died for me. I don’t like the Evangelicals who expect repentance but I sure like Tullian because he never says anything about the necessity to repent.”
Christianity Today as channeling Tullian continues,
“As important as those things might be to discuss, that’s not the central message of what it means to be an evangelical,” Tchividjian said.
“Historically speaking, evangelicals were good news specialists and because we’ve become so closely aligned with political ideologies and culture warring issues, what’s been lost is the core Good News message of the Christian faith.”
The Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church also urged pastors not to discuss politics in their churches.
“I have lots of opinions … on just about anything,” he said. “I basically almost refuse to make any kind of public commentary on anything other than the gospel [from the pulpit].”
He concluded, “For the last 40 years we’ve talked more about what’s going on in our culture … than we have preaching Christ and him crucified.”
Bret responds,
1.) The Good News is that “there is no other name under heaven by which ye must be saved.” I agree. We must herald that.
But saved from what? How can we talk about salvation without talking about sin? And how can we talk about sin without talking about God? We command all men everywhere to repent and be Baptized. But repent from what? From sodomy? From a lack of compassion? From preforming and submitting to abortions? From Statist Marxist theft as against the 8th commandment? How can we apply Christ Crucified unless we talk about these sins which the political realm has forced upon the Church by its seeking to try and reshape our message?
It looks to me that Tullian wants all the image with none of the substance. He wants a Crucified Christ to preach without the ethical substance that a Crucified Christ looks to forgive.
2.) Even with Tullian’s comment that we should not comment on politics from the pulpit he has made a political statement. He is telling us we should not raise our voice against those sins for which Christ was crucified. Tullian is being extraordinarily political in desiring a closed lip policy against the States interference with Christian morality.
A couple of comments. First, I find it amazing that you would cite Billy Graham’s visits with the presidents. Graham has made a conscious effort to be bi-partisan and non-political, something which cannot be said of many evangelicals today. Rick Warren tried that route and was thrown to the evangelical wolves.
Second, I remember someone saying once that it is easy to preach against sins that no one in your congregation commits. It is easy to preach against abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates.
The individual sinner (me and you!) however, are not brought under conviction for the sins of our culture. It is our sins: self-righteousness, unbelief, hatefulness, greed, selfish ambition, impatience, anger, holding grudges, having a sharp tongue (and pen), pride, and the like. Some of us commit acts of murder or sexual sins, as well. But the good news is not that we are sinners, it is that Christ came to save sinners.
Sadly, we have become not associated with Christ and his love for sinners, but the Pharisees and their condemning words.
David,
1.) Graham was hugely political. To sanction what US Presidents were doing by appearing with them was HUGELY political. Take only two examples.
a.) When he appeared with President Bush I in the context of Gulf War I, thus communicating the Evangelical approval. Instead Graham should have, at the very least, not appeared with Bush I since the Gulf war was naked aggression. Something no Christian had any business supporting.
b.) The 9-11 Memorial where Graham went all political by being part of a service that communicated that all religions are equal. A political statement if there ever was one.
Billy Graham was a political beast and there is no arguing that he was “non-political” and bi-partisan.
2.) Really? You think it is easy to make a public stand against Abortion and Homosexual marriages? You think Evangelicals in our congregations are not involved in those sins?
3.) Christ came to save repentant sinners. Christ did NOT come to save sinners who are not repentant. This is the problem with the antinomian “Gospel” of Tullian and (presumably) yourself. You think that repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners should be approached in the same way. Here are some words of Geerhardus Vos which might assist you,
“From the fact that to a generation which knew God only as a righteous Judge, and in an atmosphere surcharged with the sense of retribution, He (Jesus) made the sum and substance of His preaching the love of God, it does not follow that, if He were in person to preach to our present age so strangely oblivious of everything but love, His message would be entirely the same.”
Geehardaus Vos
Redemptive History & Biblical Interpretation
The Scriptural Doctrine Of The Love Of God
4.) All I see is self righteousness in the school which flings around the accusation of self-righteousness against those who hold up God’s standard. All I hear them saying is, “Look how much more righteous we are because we don’t expect people to have God’s standard placed before them, unlike those mean people who insists that the Gospel must be preceded by the proclamation of God’s Law word.
5.) I quite agree that all God’s people have sins to repent of. That is why, in our Worship every week, we hear God’s Law, Confess our sins, and then hear God’s declaration of absolution.
6.) You seem completely blythe to the fact that there is a set agenda being pushed upon the Church and culture to normalize particular sins. It is not me who is making a hobby horse out of preaching against “Sodomy” or “abortion.” It is the fact that my people are inundated with the message that sodomy and abortion are “normal.” Ministers, preaching in this cultural context, are fools if they don’t take a stand, for the sake of Christ and His people, against those prevailing sins of the zeitgeist that are seeking to force God’s people to conform to the zeitgeist.
You can be sure that when I am face to face with someone broken by their sin the last thing I will offer is condemnation. You can be sure that whenever I am face to face with someone who is repentant all I have to offer is the Character of God who loves us in spite of our sin.
I close by asking you,
What shall we say? Shall we go on sinning that Grace may increase?
By political, I meant taking stands on political issues. I was not defending Graham, but condemning those who allow their political views to trump the gospel. In particular I cite those who stand with Mormons and for political expediency, refuse to raise biblical issues (Ironically, Decision magazine fell prey to this when they removed their stand against Mormonism, on their website.)
Few pastors on the political right preach against abortifacients, for example.
Vos apparently argues from the silence of Scripture, and himself evidences a departure from Scripture.
You apparently have not listened to any Tchividjian sermons yourself. He is constantly preaching God’s law in its “first use.” He believes that Christians should go to Christ when in coming under the demands of the law.
“Shall we go on sinning that Grace may increase?” God forbid. Thankfully, men like Tchividjian preach against such things. You toss out “antinomian” like candy.
I leave you with a quote by D Martin Lloyd-Jones “If your presentation of the Gospel does not expose it to the charge of Antinomianism you are probably not putting it correctly.”
Bret responds,
1.) You mean we shouldn’t take political stands on the fact that the State is promoting sodomy? We should not take a political stand that the state is promoting abortion? We should not take a political stand that the State steals? What makes those uniquely “POLITICAL” stands?
2.) I see your problem here is that you don’t see the relationship between Theology and politics. If some Theology drives all politics then when the Church is standing against pagan politics it is at that very moment standing against pagan theology. Is it your position that the Church should not take a stand on theological issues? You see, I know that your compartmentalization here to be unwarranted. God said that we are to take “every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” I see no compartmentalization.
3.) I suppose it is possible for someone to be so taken up with politics that the Cross and the Gospel is obscured. Such obscuration should indeed be warned against. Thank you for doing so.
4.) You’ll be glad to know that I do not support Mormons for office and that I do tease out the full implications of the 6th commandment with reference to abortifacients. Maybe you should have jumped on someone else on this issue?
Bret responds,
1.) I’ll see your complaint about Vos and raise the same issue with your Lloyd-Jones quote. It is entirely extra-scriptural.
2.) I’ve read much of TT’s works. He is antinomian. A refusal to articulate both the 2nd and 3rd use of the law while at the same time adumbrating the 1st use is definitely antinomian. Besides, I’m hardly the first one to notice this. Here is a whole book on the subject,
http://www.amazon.com/Antinomianism-Reformed-Theologys-Unwelcome-Guest/dp/1596388153/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407594324&sr=8-1&keywords=Mark+Jones
The author (Mark Jones) has even offered to fly down to Florida to debate TT but to date TT has refused. I find that interesting don’t you?
Bret responds,
This coming from the guy who started the conversation slinging around gems like around “self-righteousness,” and the sin of a “sharp tongue (and pen)” and now your crying when someone returns volley?
2.) I rightly observe TT is antinomian and I am not accused of “tossing out antinomian like candy?” If I rightly observe that Ted Bundy was a serial murderer am I guilty of “tossing out serial murderer like candy”?
Bret responds,
Hence every antinomian who walks the planet runs to this well known quote to provide a shield for their antinomianism. You do realize that this quote does NOT prove that antinomianism does not exist don’t you?
What do you do when as a Christian, the law condemns your actions? Try harder?
“I’ll see your complaint about Vos and raise the same issue with your Lloyd-Jones quote. It is entirely extra-scriptural.”
The Lloyd-Jones comments were from his commentary on Romans 3, and 8. Read in context he is suggesting that the preaching of free grace by Paul led to the charge of being lawless. What passage is Vos commenting on when he says Jesus would preach differently to our culture?
It is interesting that you directly call Tullian and me antinomians, while my mention of “self-righteousness,” and the sin of a “sharp tongue (and pen)” were directed at no one in particular. Did you think I had you in mind, when I gave that long list? I did not. Are you having a guilty conscience?
DS asked,
What do you do when as a Christian, the law condemns your actions? Try harder?
St. Paul responds,
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Are you suggesting that there is no effort in the Christian life to putt off the old man and to put on the new?
Certainly we rest in Christ for all, but as a result of resting in Christ we continue to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
DS writes,
“I’ll see your complaint about Vos and raise the same issue with your Lloyd-Jones quote. It is entirely extra-scriptural.”
The Lloyd-Jones comments were from his commentary on Romans 3, and 8. Read in context he is suggesting that the preaching of free grace by Paul led to the charge of being lawless. What passage is Vos commenting on when he says Jesus would preach differently to our culture?
Bret responds,
You decide for yourself if Vos is doing sloppy exegesis.
http://books.google.com/books?id=33fUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=From+the+fact+that+to+a+generation+which+knew+God+only+as+a+righteous+Judge,+and+in+an+atmosphere+surcharged+with+the+sense+of+retribution,+He+%28Jesus%29+made+the+sum+and+substance+of+His+preaching+the+love+of+God,+it+does+not+follow+that,+if+He+were+in+person+to+preach+to+our+present+age+so+strangely+oblivious+of+everything+but+love,+His+message+would+be+entirely+the+same+Vos&source=bl&ots=CaFPx8io0G&sig=Lpbj0msycczzqotBDLJmG97pitQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iWfnU9TFLI7_yQT3gIHoBg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=From%20the%20fact%20that%20to%20a%20generation%20which%20knew%20God%20only%20as%20a%20righteous%20Judge%2C%20and%20in%20an%20atmosphere%20surcharged%20with%20the%20sense%20of%20retribution%2C%20He%20%28Jesus%29%20made%20the%20sum%20and%20substance%20of%20His%20preaching%20the%20love%20of%20God%2C%20it%20does%20not%20follow%20that%2C%20if%20He%20were%20in%20person%20to%20preach%20to%20our%20present%20age%20so%20strangely%20oblivious%20of%20everything%20but%20love%2C%20His%20message%20would%20be%20entirely%20the%20same%20Vos&f=false
And again I remind you that all because people are accused of being antinomian it therefore does not prove that they are not antinomian. (Which is what you seem to be implying.
1.) Tullian is being accused of being antinomian
2.) Lloyd Jones insisted that all men who preach the Gospel should be accused of being antinomian
3.) Therefore Tullian is NOT antinomian.
I hope you can see that #3 does in no way follow.
DS wrote,
It is interesting that you directly call Tullian and me antinomians, while my mention of “self-righteousness,” and the sin of a “sharp tongue (and pen)” were directed at no one in particular. Did you think I had you in mind, when I gave that long list? I did not. Are you having a guilty conscience?
Bret
I said “Presumably you.”
Nope … I didn’t think you had me in mind. No guilty conscience. But thanks for asking.
And Tullian is antinomian.
As the Dr. Jones noted in his book:
“Tullian Tchividjian commits the same errors as many seventeenth-century antinomians. He holds that ‘sanctification is the daily hard work of going back to the reality of our justification.’ This way of theologizing impacts his exegesis of Phillipians 2:12-13. According to Tchividjian: ‘We’ve got work to do–but what exactly is it? Get better? Try harder? What precisely is Paul exhorting us to do?’ Tchividjian’s answer: ‘God works his work in you, which is the work already accomplished by Christ. Our hard work, therefore, means coming to a greater understanding of his work.’ How does this fit with Paul’s exhortation to work out our salvation with fear and trembling? Paul surely did not reduce Christian living to contemplating Christ–after all, in 1 Thessalonians 5, toward the end of the chapter, Paul lists over 15 imperatives. But Tchividjian’s type of antinomian sounding exegesis impacts churches all over North America.” Antinomianism, p. 116.