“If another believer sins, rebuke that person; then if there is repentance, forgive.”

-Luke 17:3b, NLT

Two former pastors and cheaters recently wrote a post pleading for the church to extend “grace” to morally fallen clergy.

These two pastors are speaking from the perspective of fallen pastors themselves. Their names are Tullian Tchividjian–who admitted to an affair leading to his downfall–and Chad Bird who also cheated on his wife.

It ought to be no surprise to readers that both are using the Bible to try and obtain a form of “cheap grace,” in my opinion. Their article strikes me as typical religious cheater drivel.

Their post actually starts out well…

And by mercy and grace and forgiveness, we’re not talking about being soft on sin, sweeping bad behavior under the rug, or minimizing the consequences.

This is good. However, they do not hold to this exhortation as the post develops…

But if we’re only okay with preaching grace in theory, but not when someone—even an esteemed leader—is actually in need of it, then perhaps we should all take a sabbatical. As someone once said, “People love it when preachers say they are broken just like the rest of us, until that preacher does something that the rest of us broken people do.”

I think this is what is known in logical reasoning as a category confusion–i.e. a fallacy.

The problem is presented here as a matter simply not extending “grace” to leaders. What is obscured is how leaders are expected–according to the Bible–to live to a higher moral standard.

If that biblical standard for elders and pastors means anything, then “grace” as it is named here cannot be extended. An unenforced standard of conduct is no longer the standard in fact. Elders and pastors can sin in ways unremarkable in the pews but disqualifying in the pulpit.

They continue…

It is anti-Christian to remember people primarily by the scandalous things they’ve done. We love to whittle an entire life-story down to a single season.

Most people in the church remember Judas Iscariot not so much for being selected as one of the Twelve and his good deeds there but rather for his betrayal of Jesus. This memory of Judas is not “anti-Christian.” But it is certainly just one “single season” of his life.

My point is not to recommend being uncharitable to people. However, it is possible–as Judas Iscariot illustrates–to blow it so bad that we are only remembered for our fall and not any of the other good things we may have done.

That is not “anti-Christian,” but rather this is reality and what natural consequences sometimes look like.

They next write about the story of individuals forgiving a murderer who shot up members of their church.

You’ll notice that these ladies didn’t wait for a display of repentance or sorrow to issue their statement. Grace came first.

I will just point everyone back to Jesus’ words in Luke 17:3. Forgiveness comes–according to Jesus–only if repentance happens first. These words stand in direct contradiction to Jesus’ own words.

In the final section, I find their words interesting in light of this error-filled teaching on forgiveness:

If the angels of God rejoice over one sinner who repents, then the church of God joins the angelic chorus when it throws a party over the restoration of one of its own.

Did you catch the mismatch?

The restoration happens for the “sinner who repents!” I am all for embracing the repentant. However, the problem is when cheaters push a cheap forgiveness with no reference to repentance.

While Tchividjian and Bird started out strong about not excusing sin, they ended falling into the old ditches of exhorting Christians to practice an unbiblical form of forgiveness devoid of repentance.