Albert Mohler recently wrote a brief article on the topic of theological triaging (HT: Sharper Iron Filings). The points he makes about prioritizing doctrines are very important and worthy of considering. He contends, and I agree, that fundamentalists err in not being willing to prioritize doctrine. This leads, as he points out, to unnecessary and harmful divisions in the church in general. I have stressed the importance of prioritizing doctrines elsewhere. For this post, I want to just reproduce most of Mohler’s article, with highlights and etc. added. I encourage you to consider what Mohler has to say.
In every generation, the church is commanded to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” That is no easy task, and it is complicated by the multiple attacks upon Christian truth that mark our contemporary age. Assaults upon the Christian faith are no longer directed only at isolated doctrines. The entire structure of Christian truth is now under attack by those who would subvert Christianity’s theological integrity.
Today’s Christian faces the daunting task of strategizing which Christian doctrines and theological issues are to be given highest priority in terms of our contemporary context. This applies both to the public defense of Christianity in face of the secular challenge and the internal responsibility of dealing with doctrinal disagreements. Neither is an easy task, but theological seriousness and maturity demand that we consider doctrinal issues in terms of their relative importance. God’s truth is to be defended at every point and in every detail, but responsible Christians must determine which issues deserve first-rank attention in a time of theological crisis.
…
The word “triage” comes from the French word “trier,” which means “to sort.” Thus, the triage officer in the medical context is the front-line agent for deciding which patients need the most urgent treatment. Without such a process, the scraped knee would receive the same urgency of consideration as a gunshot wound to the chest. The same discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the emergency room can also offer great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present age.
A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world’s framework for medical priority. With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological priorities found in current doctrinal debates.
First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.
…
These first-order doctrines represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and a denial of these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself.
The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident.
Second-order issues would include the meaning and mode of baptism….disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination.
Christians across a vast denominational range can stand together on the first-order doctrines and recognize each other as authentic Christians, while understanding that the existence of second-order disagreements prevents the closeness of fellowship we would otherwise enjoy.
…
In recent years, the issue of women serving as pastors has emerged as another second-order issue. Again, a church or denomination either will ordain women to the pastorate, or it will not. Second-order issues resist easy settlement by those who would prefer an either/or approach. Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding of the church and its ordering by the Word of God.
Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category…. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.
A structure of theological triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less than full seriousness. We are charged to embrace and to teach the comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There are no insignificant doctrines revealed in the Bible, but there is an essential foundation of truth that undergirds the entire system of biblical truth.
This structure of theological triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful. The error of theological liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the church’s treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal ambiguity is the inevitable result.
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided.
Living in an age of widespread doctrinal denial and intense theological confusion, thinking Christians must rise to the challenge of Christian maturity, even in the midst of a theological emergency. We must sort the issues with a trained mind and a humble heart, in order to protect what the Apostle Paul called the “treasure” that has been entrusted to us. Given the urgency of this challenge, a lesson from the emergency room just might help.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 \”¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Amen!
Triaging is my life, since I’m now a Presbyterian who finds himself worshiping and serving among less than Reformed (though mostly sympathetic, which in itself is a big improvement) Baptists.
I told Sharper Iron about the article…
Where’s my hat tip?
Check out the end of my post, now. Satisfactory?
Need a pat on the back as well?
(SI didn’t give you the HT so I was in the dark!)
John,
I just lost all respect for you. Presbyterian?!?
Just joking! You might be interested in some of the infant baptism discussion referenced from this blog from back in Nov. and Dec.
God bless,
Well, only theologically.
I’m a Presbyterian/Reformed “carrier” but I don’t get to enjoy all the simptoms. I just go around and do my best to infect others with what I’m carrying.
My logic is very simple: coming from the Landmark view of Baptist history and being convinced of the Baptist tradition’s true history, and how close theologically the Baptist tradition is to the greater Reformed tradition, Presbyterianism being simply the English-speaking form of the greater Reformed tradition, I reason, “If the Baptists agree with so much of Presbyterianism, what makes them think they’re wrong on the issue of baptism?”
In my view, Baptists took a step away from Reformation and toward “radical reformation.” That was the thinking that tipped me over the edge on that issue.
Interesting! I came very close to embracing Landmarkism, myself, at one point.
I am still not convinced of paedobaptism, but I have a lot more repsect for that position, and can understand how they come to it now.
Having come close to Landmarkism, you understand their rhetoric that claims they’re “not Protestants” but are “the Church that Jesus Built,” and the resultant anti-Catholicism. The idea that I would move from the “one true church” (the Baptist church in the Landmark scheme) to some movement that “came out of Roman Catholicism” is controversial enough, let alone going so far as to affirm paedobaptism (the kiss of death!there’s nothing more non-baptistic than that!).
The effect these two “heresies” of mine have had in my family explain why I yet remain among sympathetic, yet less than completely Reformed Protestant Baptists; in a word, compromise for the sake of those closest to me who remain unpersuaded.
I totally understand, John. Compromise is not always a bad thing.
“The Church That Jesus Built”–I own that book!
John, you should explore the landmarkism arguments over at your blog sometime. It might help to put everything down on paper, so to speak.
I wonder if a poll has ever been taken by Christians to determine what particular doctrines they thought were most important. I also wonder if anyone has studied denominational distinctives and splits over history that has ranked the doctrines that spawned new denominations and movements because of disagreement.
If I were a betting man, I’d say one of the top three issues was baptism. Personally, I was baptized as an infant, and again after my profession of faith when I was 18. My adult baptism was considered unnecessary by my current denomination (Presbyterian), and my infant baptism was considered illigitimate by the local church I attended during college. A few years later, the Grace Brethren church I attended considered both of those baptisms bogus since I wasn’t triple dipped, and wouldn’t let me become a member until I was rebaptized “correctly.” After much duress and heartache, I left that church over this very issue. I then joined a Presbyterian church (PCA), and after several years I finally started to appreciate and even semi-embrace paedobaptism. Ah, baptism…. (sigh)
What’s interesting, and what this “triage business reminds me of is the very fact that our denomination exercises a form of “triage” with respect to minimum requirements for church membership vs. requirements for elders and deacons. You don’t have to sign your name to every article in the Westminster Confession to become a member, but you would have to do that to become an elder (actually, I should qualify that abit. A prospective elder can exercise a less strict interpretation of issues like Sabbath/Lord’s Day keeping as it’s expressed in Westminster, and still serve as an elder. They would have to also agree not to create division over this issue).
-Steve
My only criticism of Mohler’s essay is his critique of fundamentalism. His definition needs to be more precise in that ‘extreme fundamentalists’ (IFBx) are the ones who are in error over applying all orders of doctrines to being equal to first order doctrines and xFundy applications of it (like separation). Historic Fundamentalists have been largely ignored, or worse, lumped in with the xFundy’s because of our perceived lack of recognition within fundamentalism.
Baptism? I’m a Baptist. Plain and simple. Baptism after conversion is the normal practice of the New Testament (and, this dispensation– eeek!). It’s a second order doctrine for Baptists, but it shouldn’t hinder my fellowship, academics, or limited cooperation with other conservative evangelical/fundamentalists of other denominations or persuasions. That said coming from a self-professed ‘thoughtful historical fundamentalist’.
Larry,
See my response to your comments under my “new and improved ‘about this blog’” post. It explains why I think Mohler can be given a break in that article.
Steve,
Interesting comments. I do think what your church does with elders is very similar to my church. The elders must agree with the Bethlem Baptist Elder Affirmation of Faith, but mere members do not. You can be a member and even be an Arminian!
Thanks for the comments, God bless.
I have to disagree with Bro. Lawton. The history of Fundamentalism is well set, as the men at the ACC said this past year. And that history is one of dividing over secondary doctrines.
It was Bob Jones, not Jack Hyles, who said that New Evangelicalism was “foul treason to the cause of Christ.” Foul treason… foul treason, he called it! He didn’t say “it’s a secondary issue that keeps us from the closest fellowship”, no he said it was foul treason.
That is the well-set history of Fundamentalism. Some are more crude and vulgar in their language of separation, but I’d be no more welcome at Detroit than I would be in Hammond or Pensacola.
I tend to agree with you, Ryan. Yes there is a gulf between Hammond and Detroit. Of course, Pensacola would say there is a gulf between them and Hammond too. But there is at least as big a gulf, if not larger, between Detroit/”historic” fundamentalists and the rest of orthodox evangelical, even conservative, Christianity.
I didn’t mean to lead you to believe I still subscribe to Landmarkism, that was then, now I admit the truth that all Baptists, even Landmarkists, are protestants. There’s nothing for me to work through.
Bob,
“I feel your pain”. I grew up in Ind. Fundy Circles, and endured scorn and hatred because my father dared go to Dallas Seminary, who at one point in time had Charles Ryrie on staff of the NAS Ryrie Study Bible, and the editors of the NIV. One quick story: I was 9 yrs old, and my Dad taught a SS class at our church of about 500. His class was the singles class originally and led to a large class of about 300. One Lord’s day morning, I was waiting for him to come out of his class, to walk with him to worship. As people were filing out of his class, the Assoc. Pastor was telling everyone who walked out of that class, to not go back, because my Dad used a Satanic Bible. This troubled me to think that my Dad might use a Satanic Bible. I asked him about it, he showed me his NAS and his Greek NT. Needless to say, he was the only one on campus who knew Greek. Long story short, God delivered my family from that… and my Dad is a PCA Pastor. God is kind!
Once you embrace Reformational Theology and hermeneutics, the slippery slope is Covenant Theology and ummm… (paedo-baptism). (;
Gage,
Sad story. Glad I haven’t experienced something that dramatically IFBX. Good to hear from you.
Still a Baptist,
Bob
[...] of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gives a positive treatment of this: he terms it “Theological Triage“. Brandenburg contradicts this view, believing it belittles the importance of all doctrine, [...]
[...] core doctrinal truths are far more important than peripheral matters. And I could also point you to Al Mohler or John MacArthur for excellent defenses of my position on this point. I can add Dr. Martyn [...]