Theocast, Chad Bird, Mockingbird, etc.

[Aragorn Skywalker]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum. I'm also not sure if this is the proper setting to be asking about these individuals and ministries but I've been dying to get more insight so here it goes...

Are there any reformed and confessional pastors/theologians that have examined the ministries of these men?

I realize they're not all the same but they all seem to be connected. The common thread seems to be outright antinomianism and acceptance of men like Tullian and Chad Bird on the part of Theocast. Maybe it's not my place to be asking this here but I recently left a calvinistic non-denom. church that was greatly harmed by these ministries. They lead several to outright antinomianism and several to unfairly condemning my former church. There was a huge controversy over sanctification for a couple years because of this.
I realize some of my assessments may be off or even wrong but I've been struggling to find other legitimate critiques of these ministries. I am currently seeking to be apart of the OPC but many of friends are still being affected by all this. Any insights are greatly appreciated!

 

[Taylor]

I went through a period a couple years ago where I drank Theocast like Kool-Aid. Their viewpoint, at first, offered so much comfort to my soul, as I typically am one who struggles with assurance.

However, my eyes were opened when I was called on to preach 1 John 2 in church. I have never toiled so much over how to present a biblical text. I realized after that sermon that I had become, for a very short time at least, an antinomian. I virtually told the congregation, "This is what John said, but this is not what he means." I was so afraid of stealing someone's assurance that I was willing to take all the teeth out of every biblical text in order to avoid it. I have since repented of that grave error.

The Theocast folks have good motives, I believe. They hate Pietism. So should we all. Yet, they have, in my opinion, made a serious mistake when they take their theme doctrine—namely, that assurance is of the essence of saving faith—and made it all too central in everything they do. Sure, there are some disagreements, for example, between the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession regarding assurance, but I would say that, in the main and taken in the whole, they are saying the same thing about assurance.

They do have one thing very, very wrong, however. As I understand them, they do not believe that the Law has anything to do with sanctification because sanctification, just like justification, is entirely by faith. But this, it appears to me, is neither the biblical nor the confessional position. Of course, that is not to say that sanctification is by Law and not by faith. That would be the opposite error. The point is that sanctification is by faith by means of obedience to the Law. It is both/and, and Theocast is trying to make it one-sided.

That is my assessment. I could be totally wrong about them. However, I simply had to stop listening to them when I began to realize that my theology was for a time in shambles because of their teaching about sanctification.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

They hate Pietism. So should we all.

Why should we hate piety?

Yet, they have, in my opinion, made a serious mistake when they take their theme doctrine—namely, that assurance is of the essence of saving faith—and made it all too central in everything they do.

Isn’t it even more sad that they take a false doctrine and make it central to everything they do?

 

[Taylor]

Why should we hate piety?

They don't hate piety, but Pietism. There is a difference, and I think they are right to hate it.

See Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 2:642 ff.

 

[Aragorn Skywalker]

I went through a period a couple years ago where I drank Theocast like Kool-Aid. Their viewpoint, at first, offered so much comfort to my soul, as I typically am one who struggles with assurance.

However, my eyes were opened when I was called on to preach 1 John 2 in church. I have never toiled so much over how to present a biblical text. I realized after that sermon that I had become, for a very short time at least, an antinomian. I virtually told the congregation, "This is what John said, but this is not what he means." I was so afraid of stealing someone's assurance that I was willing to take all the teeth out of every biblical text in order to avoid it. I have since repented of that grave error.

The Theocast folks have good motives, I believe. They hate Pietism. So should we all. Yet, they have, in my opinion, made a serious mistake when they take their theme doctrine—namely, that assurance is of the essence of saving faith—and made it all too central in everything they do. Sure, there are some disagreements, for example, between the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession regarding assurance, but I would say that, in the main and taken in the whole, they are saying the same thing about assurance.

They do have one thing very, very wrong, however. As I understand them, they do not believe that the Law has anything to do with sanctification because sanctification, just like justification, is entirely by faith. But this, it appears to me, is neither the biblical nor the confessional position. Of course, that is not to say that sanctification is by Law and not by faith. That would be the opposite error. The point is that sanctification is by faith by means of obedience to the Law. It is both/and, and Theocast is trying to make it one-sided.

That is my assessment. I could be totally wrong about them. However, I simply had to stop listening to them when I began to realize that my theology was for a time in shambles because of their teaching about sanctification.

Thank you for your response. It is very helpful. I would want to agree that I do believe Theocast means well and is seeking to aid those who have suffered from different forms of neonomianism and outright legalism. Many things they say are encouraging and helpful. But as you said, their positions don't quite seem to line up with the confessions. Because they claim to be propagating reformed theology it seems like some kind of response/critique is warranted.

 

[Kinghezy]

Are they all from the same church or church + church plant? It seems like there are two churches but the church websites seem to be very similar (e.g. about both have "7 core values" with same symbol). http://communitysouth.org/ & http://cbcnashville.org/

Do they subscribe to the 1689 (it seems like the two churches do) and if so, do they say something contrary to the 1689 or is this concern not addressed in the 1688?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

They don't hate piety, but Pietism. There is a difference, and I think they are right to hate it.

See Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 2:642 ff.

Unfortunately I don’t have that work. If you’d like to post that particular section relevant to the discussion, it would be much appreciated.

From what I understand, men like Tullian (or “free gracers”) have a distaste for experimentalism or a type of reformed “pietism” that puts reflection into action and change.

 

[Taylor]

Unfortunately I don’t have that work. If you’d like to post that particular section relevant to the discussion, it would be much appreciated.

From what I understand, men like Tullian (or “free gracers”) have a distaste for experimentalism or a type of reformed “pietism” that puts reflection into action and change.

Gotcha. Sorry about that. It is mainly a short section by Brakel—who we all know was supremely interested in piety—in which he rejects Pietism.

Basically, Pietism is not the same thing as pursuing piety or experimentalism. Pietism is an over-focus on the inner life of the Christian, a morbid concern with what is going on inside of us, often to the exclusion of doctrine. Historically, Pietism was and is a protest against doctrinal precision, since orthodoxy and doctrine are, spiritually speaking, "dead." Furthermore, Pietism often includes, whether implicitly or explicitly, the idea that while justification is by faith, sanctification is entirely by work and effort. This is often to the extent that really a believer's justification is itself maintained by the level to which he has achieved holiness.

This is not really good as far as definition, but I am merely trying to show that a biblical and godly pursuit of piety has almost no similarity whatsoever with Pietism.

 

[ZackF]

Unfortunately I don’t have that work. If you’d like to post that particular section relevant to the discussion, it would be much appreciated.

From what I understand, men like Tullian (or “free gracers”) have a distaste for experimentalism or a type of reformed “pietism” that puts reflection into action and change.

In a bizarre way, the incessant wailing about ‘freegrace’ is a kind of pietism whether they admit it or not.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Unfortunately I don’t have that work. If you’d like to post that particular section relevant to the discussion, it would be much appreciated.

From what I understand, men like Tullian (or “free gracers”) have a distaste for experimentalism or a type of reformed “pietism” that puts reflection into action and change.

I think the problems with Tullian are far more serious even than that.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Gotcha. Sorry about that. It is mainly a short section by Brakel—who we all know was supremely interested in piety—in which he rejects Pietism.

Basically, Pietism is not the same thing as pursuing piety or experimentalism. Pietism is an over-focus on the inner life of the Christian, a morbid concern with what is going on inside of us, often to the exclusion of doctrine. Historically, Pietism was and is a protest against doctrinal precision, since orthodoxy and doctrine are, spiritually speaking, "dead." Furthermore, Pietism often includes, whether implicitly or explicitly, the idea that while justification is by faith, sanctification is entirely by work and effort. This is often to the extent that really a believer's justification is itself maintained by the level to which he has achieved holiness.

This is not really good as far as definition, but I am merely trying to show that a biblical and godly pursuit of piety has almost no similarity whatsoever with Pietism.

Who would be examples of pietists that we should be wary of?

 

[Charles Johnson]

I like Theocast and I learned at lot from them when I was first becoming reformed, though I'm aware of their deficiencies. I would say the greatest of these is having an essentially Lutheran view of the law and the gospel, much like some of the teachers at Escondido (one of which is a routine guest on their show). This is to say that, while they appropriately distinguish the law and the gospel, they overly separate them by failing to acknowledge that the relationship between the law and the gospel is far more comprehensive than is summed up in the three uses. One of the most obvious doctrines lost in such a paradigm is that of gospel threatenings - that there are legitimate threats for disobedience and disbelief issued with the proclamation of the law and the gospel and that such threatenings are not only in force but perhaps more so within the visible church - after all, Christ said it would be worse on the day of judgment for the men of Capernaum than the men of Sodom. They like to say things on the show like "this bad thing didn't happen to you because God was angry with you". Well, maybe it did - and even if not, we shouldn't hesitate to call any suffering God's fatherly discipline, even though we don't have the authority to claim it to be a punishment for any particular sin.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Who would be examples of pietists that we should be wary of?

Everyone that says that "in order to grow in your relationship with God, you need to do this thing", where "this thing" is nowhere commanded in Scripture. For the Papists it's the mass and holidays, for the Pentecostals it's goofy worship, for the evangelicals it's filling your entire calendar with bible studies and other pious cell meetings.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

It is mainly a short section by Brakel—who we all know was supremely interested in piety

godly pursuit of piety

I greatly enjoyed this lecture by Dr Beeke on Piety in a Covenantal context, given as the 2018 Martyn Lloyd-Jones memorial lecture for 2018 https://www.londonseminary.org/resources/MLJ

Dr Beeke recently produced a small book on this too.