Theological Triage

Al Mohler hits another home run with his May 20th blog entry: "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity." Just as emergency rooms have a triage procedure which enables them to sort the most seriously wounded from the rest in order to give the appropriate care where it is needed, so the chuch needs a theological triage system to sort out which doctrines are worth fighting over and which are not. He advocates three levels of doctrine.

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.

And:

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.

He defines and describes the second order issues thusly:

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. Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism. The practice of infant baptism is inconceivable to the Baptist mind, while Presbyterians trace infant baptism to their most basic understanding of the covenant. Standing together on the first-order doctrines, Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians, but recognize that disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination.

Finally,

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.

Coming from a Presbyterian perspective I would add the following caveats.

For us infant baptism is a third order issue for church membership but a second order issue for church officers. What I mean is that we believe a credible profession of faith is the requirement for salvation, thus, someone with a credible profession of faith is entitled to membership in the church. There is a sense in which the requirements for membership in the church are the same as the requirements for salvation. Thus, a particular view of baptism is not a requirement for salvation, so we can accept those who hold to believers-only baptism. We do believe that someone must be baptized to become a member, either as an infant or as a believer in the absence of infant baptism, but we would not withhold membership from someone who, baptized as a believer, disagrees with our view of baptism. So, for members, baptism is a third order issue.

However, for church officers, infant baptism would be a second order issue. I would put the discussion of the place of charismatic gifts in this category as a third order issue for members and a second order issue for officers. To be an officer you must affirm our stance on these second order issues. There is probably some disagreement on this, but I would put eschatology in the second order category for officers, while leaving it in the third for members.

Eschatology is heavily backloaded with theology affecting other areas. For us, any of the historic eschatological positions would be acceptable for an officer - amil, postmil, or historic premil. Things get tricky when you get to dispensational premillennialism. If someone is a studied and convinced dispensationalist, they could not be an officer because dispensationalism would go completely against the grain of covenantal theology, which is as central to our system of doctrine as the five points of Calvinism. So, what of the unknowing dispensationalist? This is what most folks are - their preachers and teachers have always taught them that Jesus is going to rapture the church before a seven year tribulation, and this is what the Bible teaches, end of story. Most folks don't understand that this entire theology is built upon a particular understanding of the nature of the church and Israel which is contrary to our system of doctrine. They may be holding to a pre-trib, premil scheme and affirming the unity of Israel and the church as expressed in covenant theology. Theoretically, such a person could probably be an officer in our church, but we would try to give him a little more education to show him the inconsistencies involved in the covenantal position and his view of the end times.

In any case, the triage model is helpful. Debates about baptism, charismatic gifts and eschatology are second order inter-familial disputes which should not prevent us from putting on a unified front on first order issues. Also, understanding the second order issues should help us in our choice of churches. If I am strong in my view of infant baptism, I shouldn't go to a Baptist church and ask them to change their view - its part of their identity - its who they are. The onus is on me to decide if this particular issue is so important to me that it will determine whether or not I join a particular church. Also, by noting that there are third order issues in churches, this doesn't mean that we don't preach on them from the second order perspective. I welcome anyone into our church, regardless of their view of baptism, charismatic gifts, or eschatology (I should mention that if someone is a full preterist that would pose a unique problem), but I am going to preach it from our perspective, and will even try to convince the skeptic of the validity of our position. The one who doesn't agree with us on this particular issue will have to realize that we will preach from our position, and furthermore, they shouldn't try to stir up any discord over their take on the third order issue. but at the same time, this doesn't give me any kind of just cause to ostracize them and I don't have to belabor the point in their presence. We can agree to disagree and remain friends.

Comments

[Warren]

I loved this article, though I disagree with Doc Mohler's definition of true Fundamentalism. The Fundamentals are all first-order -- it is modern fundamentalism that has elevated everything to first order.

Of course, I'd better like Dr. Mohler -- I'm hoping to be in his Systematic Theology I class this fall!!

[Jeremy Pierce]

Our congregation takes a third-order stance toward baptism, and to be an officer you need to sign on to that, i.e. to taking baptism as a third-order stance. So the meta-view about baptism as a third-order issue is itself a second-order issue for officers. I don't think there are any second-order issues in my congregation if you don't count what's required for officers. Maybe that's what you think second-order issues are also.

Your comment about full preterism raises some questions. It seems to me that full preterism, open theism, and denying inerrantism are positions that lead to a denial of the gospel if you take them to their logical conclusion. However, they also seem to be the kind of thing that someone can believe and not see that conclusion and therefore also believe the gospel that conflicts with the conclusion of their other views. I don't how to classify it then.

[David]

Jeremy,
So, are you saying that what your officers don't take a position relative to infant or believer baptism, but rather they agree to not make that point of contention?
The full preterism and open theism things really trouble me. I can see how someone can come to Christ and not understand the intricacies of inerrancy. For instance, maybe they have an evolutionary view of origins and think that there is no way Genesis 1 can be true. Maybe they've believed the gospel but just haven't seen their way clear to believe everything else in the bible.
But it seems to me that for someone to arrive at a full preterist or open theism view, they have to have studied their way into it. Who would ever believe that Jesus has already returned if they hadn't studied it?
As I am writing this I guess I could see how someone might default through ignorance to a kind of open theism view, but I can't see how anyone would default or bring a full preterist view with them into the faith.
Any more thoughts you care to share on this?