Featured Tullian Tchividjian Back in Active Ministry

Bias?

Are you suggesting that the wife is not the "weaker vessel?"

Of course he has the greater condemnation!

"To whom much is given..."

Was he not supposed to be a living example of ALL that he preached?

Was his wife responsible for his actions or was he responsible for her actions?

Is the man given in the marriage or the woman?

Biased?

No - it is a matter of another area where he squandered his authority as husband.

The Scriptures place the responsibility squarely in his box for the home, for the family, for the spiritual well being of the members of the family, the integrity and works of the family...

The Scriptures place the responsibility of the wife in a supportive role, as in one who has the husband as the authoritative covering in which she may securely abide and when mistakes in the home are made can go to knowing that the husband expresses Scriptural love.

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
​

Lets get this straight.

He took a vow of marriage. It was NOT based upon what that other person did or did not do.

I have NEVER heard any marriage vows state: Will you take this wife as long as she remains faithful, healthy, financially beneficial, as your lawful wedded wife...

No, the vows taken were UNCONDITIONAL. One sided - a promise to God that he would remain of a certain character NO MATTER what experiences he would face.

That the wife did not keep her vow has NOTHING to do with whether he should have kept his own.

 

Folks we do not really know any of the details of what happened in their marriage except a few things. Speculating on who failed what and with whom is not appropriate discussion. He cheated, he stepped down, and not much else. He needed to stop down to be sure. Another church has chosen to take him on. We also do not know very much about the details of that. If your church would not take him on that way then fine.

What he needs is our prayer and his current church's support to move forward. Outside of that we cannot resolve anything, or come to any reasonable conclusions about what should or should not be done in his life.

 

There are more facts than you are allowing for that have come out.

It is not unreasonable for the BB to hash out what should or should not be done in this living example. The BB members have often opined as to motives and agendas.

Facts are that he did not obey those to whom he had submitted as his superiors and spiritual authority. Nor did he abide in their instructions.

Therefore, most certainly, he can be held up and examined, speculated about, and used for an instruction example that others might be warned.

 

6 Brothers,[a] if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5 For each will have to bear his own load
Gal 6:1-5

Darrell C keeps bringing up this passage, well not passage, just verse 1 but I like context, as his proof text for Tullian being able to be back in ministry so I will respond to it.
First lets establish a basic ground rule: The Bible never contradicts itself.

Ok we have that rule.
There are multiple passages that deal with the qualifications for being both an overseers in the church, and a server in the church. As an adulterer Tullian does not fit the qualifications for either role.
So we cannot use Gal. 1 to say he can be restored to those roles.
Now even if we grant that a man who is repentant can one day go back into one of those roles, that still does not work in Tullians case as there has not been time for him to show the fruit of repentance. Its been about a month since he filed for divorce and about 3 months since everything broke. Restoration takes time.
So what is he restored to? He is restored to fellowship. Tullian has not allowed this to happen either since he has left the church he sinned in, and ran to a different church and fellowship. Some will say he went there in the past, but I would again point out that this passage says restore and renewing fellowship. My husband and I moved a few months ago, meaning we left one church on good terms, and are in the process of finding a new church. If we moved back there would be no need to restore anything with our old church, just renew the fellowship.

I also wanted to look at the rest of this passage because this seems to be controversial idea with a poster here, that everyone is responsible for their own sin. Notice vs 4 and 5. Everyone is to look at themselves, and their own works, not of their neighbors. I cannot compare myself to another and boast because I have not done X. I have to look at myself and while I may not have done X, I most certainly have done Y destroying my boasting, and seeing my own load. Also I can't look at my neighbor and say well they did X so I can do X in response and then expect my neighbor to bear the weight of my X. Everyone is responsible for their own sin.

 

No there aren't. No one here knows the intimate details of their marriage. That fact alone inhibits reasonable discussion on their marriage by people who do not know them. Way to many variable. Most of what is going on in this thread is just gossip.

 

What you expressed is going on in this thread is you opinion.

Perhaps you could post snips of the "gossip" that you claim consumes most of the thread to take your post from opinion to fact.

 

I'm sorry Ann it is no where near enough. It's enough to say it may be premature to place him back in ministry and he and his families need our prayer. Everything else is speculation and borders on gossip.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Yup.

You still do not take into account all that is essential to the breakdown of this marriage and the man's ministry. You refuse to admit her sin is as heinous as his, and what motivates such incredible lack of discernment is likely a failure to balance this situation with the Whole Council. Instead it is no better than the reaction of the world, just as ludicrous, and just as hypocritical. Not mention it smacks of pride in thinking that one is above temptation to such a degree.

Again...


Galatians 6

King James Version (KJV)

1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.


The warning is from Paul, do you think you stand above that which he warns of?

So give me Scripture that overlooks a woman's sin because she is the weaker vessel. Show me where women are relieved of their responsibility, despite whether their husbands are "ruling well or not," to live holy.

Simply ludicrous.

He has a greater accountability, my friend. Condemnation does not come from God...

...it comes from you and the other members here who jump on the secular bandwagon to condemn.

Much was given to Peter, did God condemn him for his betrayal and hypocrisy? Deny him a ministerial position?

Do you?

Do tell...

Never admired a pretty girl walking down the street?

That is the point that escapes you and others involved in this discussion: both are responsible.

Relevance to the Covenant of Marriage and the Word of God in regards to marriage and adultery?

This is secular garbage.

Yup.

Without question.

And let's throw in a complete opposite of your proof-texting. You dare speak of love when all you have presented is pharisaical reviling.

No-one has argued he hasn't, though false witness has arisen several times and charged me with it. When challenged to quote me, of course it was ignored.

Oh, that's good news for women.

That mentality didn't work in the Garden and it isn't going to work today. Eve was deceived yet did Eve escape her sin of disobedience?

You ignore this woman's adultery still. Your unbiblical attitude is...

No-one is placed in a supportive role in regards to sin. Everyone is accountable for their own sin. No-one is relieved of that responsibility.

And when we see those who say they are Bible believing Christians making excuse for an adulteress, well...it is no wonder the world scoffs at the Church and mocks their hypocrisy.

Did she do that?

Did she "love, honor, and cherish" her husband?

Ludicrous.

Oh, good to know that adultery is a "mistake."

Couldn't possibly imply willful intent on her part, poor girl, I mean, if her husband had only done his job...

You presume to speak of Scriptural love?

Right. You haven't a shred of concern for this man's welfare, you diminish her adultery, and you express the opposite of the grace of God in direct violation of what you are commanded.

Where is yours?

Except if a brother falls, then it's hammer time.

Probably the root of why many will condemn this fellow.

Perhaps you could explain what all the CAPITALIZATION means.

Do you always yell at people?

Or only when provoked?

Which is all you and your fellow members have been doing.

That is a matter of opinion. It seems some here are quite happy this man has fallen, and a complete lack of a balanced perspective seems to feed that.

Except a fallen brother we are commanded to restore.

Of course, you folks seem to be "bearing" the adultery of the wife quite well.

Good job.

Except that a fallen brother should be restored according to the command of God.

Except that a marriage like this can be restored.

Except a brother falling.

Or a fellowship taking him in in hopes of restoration.

I'm working on it.

So did she.

On the contrary, there are two parties in a marriage.

Or perhaps you are in favor of fixed marriages.

What man enters into a Marriage with the idea that his new bride will cheat on him?

And that "I do" near the end of the ceremony was not singular...

Relevance?

You are not making any sense here, which is primarily because you are seeking to justify your own view.

Which is wrong.

"So, the wife sinned..."

"It doesn't matter that she cheated first..."

"Well, that goes to whether he was ruling his household properly..."

Absolutely shameful.

...on both sides, I would remind you, and both before God.

I hope you are not married...

Would your wife, if you are...agree with you on this?

And yet another statement which shows the bias which is unbiblical and as far as I am concerned worse than counsel we would get from secular counselors that have never turned the first page of Scripture.

As long as you categorize sin based on your own bias you will never be an effective counselor to anyone.


God bless.

 

He has hit it on the head: the presumption and the condemnation that follows is based on information not one of you could possibly know.


God bless.

 

Now show your justification for questioning his rule of the household.


God bless.

 

Amen.


God bless.

 

Please present statements from his former leadership to substantiate that he did not submit to them.


God bless.

 

Now let's look at the list you have produced prior to this one:

God bless.

 

I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt and just assume you missed post 125. Although you have since given me even more fodder since you have only focused on his wife's sin and refuse to talk about his "actions" as you called them.

 

Didn't miss it, I simply refuse to waste my time trying to have a discussion when it is one-sided and my antagonist will not cede points nor admit error on their part.

Particularly when they bear false witness and pointing that out means nothing to them, even as you do in this post.


God bless.

 

One more one verse wonder:


Galatians 6:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.


Although I don't think the "good" in view here would be excusing adultery.


God bless.

 

So you did see it, and yet still said I ignored your calling for quotes. Hmmm I find that interesting.