We hear two voices in the Christian world today. One voice tells us to be faithful to our doctrine, to our denominational distinctives, to the sound teachings of the Word of God. It is a voice we cannot easily dismiss. God’s Word is given as a lamp for our feet and a light for our path. It steers us toward the path God wants us to walk and away from sin. No Christian should easily sacrifice sound doctrine.
The other voice tells us that God wants us to walk in unity with others in the Body of Christ, even those who do not agree with everything we believe. And that voice should not be ignored either. I have actually heard preachers question the validity of the faith of those who disagree with them about eschatology. Is eschatology important? Yes. But does it rise to the level that those who disagree on the issue should be labeled heretics? I think not.
All of us see the need for what Dr. Mohler calls theological triage. Instinctively, we know that all doctrines are not created equal in importance. Does the doctrine of baptism carry the same import as the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ? Does the deity of Christ matter theologically more than questions about gender roles? I think that we all know instinctively that there are doctrines that matter more than others.
The Heart of the Matter: The “Unity Response”
But some have criticized the theological triage principle for implying that some doctrines just are not important. That is not the purpose of this exercise. I believe that all doctrine is important. The key is not how important doctrine is, but what we need to do when someone disagrees with our position. The key is not the importance of doctrine, but the response to disagreements over that doctrine. Would you put someone out of your church if they advocated that there was salvation found outside of Jesus Christ? I certainly hope so. Would you put them out for believing differently about the second coming? Probably not. We respond differently to disagreements over different doctrines.
The focus of this discussion is not which doctrines matter and which do not. Everything the Bible teaches is important. The question is how we are to respond to those who disagree with us on various doctrines.
As I identify each of the four levels of doctrine I will suggest here, I will also give a corresponding “unity response” for each. If we disagree at level 1, here is the unity response. If we disagree at level 2, here is a different unity response, and so on with levels 3 and 4.
The Proposal: Speaking the Truth in Love
It seems to me that there has to be a middle ground between the harsh condemnation that some theologically astute people display and the extreme ecumenism that has taken hold in so many parts of the Christian world. There has to be a way for someone to love the Word of God without disrupting the unity in the body of Christ. Paul told the Ephesians, in Ephesians 4:15, to “speak the truth in love.” Every word they said was supposed to be governed by these two ideals – truth and love. These ideals are often in conflict – truth can be harsh and love can be blind to truth. The church needs to find a way to speak the truth without sacrificing love – maintaining both pure doctrine and sweet fellowship. We do not have to be “blown about by every wind of doctrine” nor do we have to blow up the church with our divisiveness. We can look to God’s Word to find a template for maintaining sound doctrine and essential oneness in Christ’s body.
The answer is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3. Paul, in this passage, is confronting those who denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. In verse 3, he identified the facts of the gospel (the death and resurrection of Christ) as “of first importance.” If these doctrines are of first importance, does not that imply that there are other doctrines that are of secondary importance? They are important, but not as important as the doctrine of salvation. Is my view of baptism, or the second coming, or of church polity, as important as whether I hold a biblical view of salvation? Of course not. It is by recognizing the different levels of importance that certain doctrines have and responding appropriately to them that we can maintain doctrinal purity without fracturing the unity of the body Christ died for.
Four Levels of Doctrine
In this study, we will picture the Christian world as a community, a place where all true Christians dwell. Each home in that community is a local church. Denominations might be seen as neighborhoods in the larger community. Our goal is to develop a plan by which we can live together in the community of the redeemed in obedience to the Word of our Lord and in fellowship and cooperation with one another. We will use this metaphor to understand each level of truth.
I am proposing that there are four levels of doctrinal truth. Level One is the highest level, Level Four the lowest. As I said above, for each level there is an appropriate “unity response.” If someone disagrees with you at this level, this is how you respond. If we will understand these different levels of truth, properly assign doctrines to each level, then respond appropriately to one another when we disagree at each level, we can balance the competing values of doctrinal soundness and unity of Christ’s body. In subsequent chapters we will look at each of the four levels, starting with the highest, and define the appropriate response at each level.
Brick Wall Doctrine
Around some doctrine, we must erect a brick wall of separation. There are truths that are absolutely essential to the faith we proclaim. We will designate such truth as “Brick Wall” Doctrine. At this first level of truth, we must erect that brick wall to protect the church from doctrines that would undermine and destroy the community of faith. Great damage is done when we compromise on these truths, or when we cooperate with those who advance these truths. These are primarily the truths that are essential to the proclamation of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Around Level 1 truth we must erect a brick wall of separation to protect the church from false doctrine that would destroy it.
If we do not stand on these doctrines, we give away our faith. Some things cannot be compromised.
Picket Fence Doctrine
Some doctrines do not require a brick wall. For them, a friendly picket fence will do. That is Level 2 in this rubric, “Picket Fence” Doctrine. There are some doctrines that do not touch the core of the doctrine of salvation, but do affect the way that we fellowship together as believers. They affect our fellowship so decisively that it is better to worship separately according to our own convictions than to try to hammer out every point of doctrine or to compromise those truths. A picket fence is a friendly divider between neighbors that defines boundaries.
But just because we do not live in the same house does not mean that we can’t be friends. We can be good neighbors and even share some time together, while maintaining our separate homes. It has often been said as a truism that denominations are divisive. I will argue that if we have the right attitude, the opposite is actually true. At Southern Hills Baptist Church, we can worship as we believe is best and proclaim our understanding of truth. Across the street, our friends at the Morningside Assembly of God can follow their convictions. We can maintain fellowship and even partner together on some ministries, but we keep our separate homes. Separate churches and separate denominations allow us to maintain our convictions while also maintaining friendly relationships.
Picket fences do not divide, they simply define.
Dinner Table Doctrine
Has your family ever sat around the dinner table and had an animated discussion. “I liked this movie.” “I didn’t.” You disagree about politics or other preferences. You talk and argue, but the relationship is not affected. Some doctrine is “Dinner Table” doctrine. I believe there are many doctrines that, while important, affect neither the gospel of salvation or the fellowship and functioning of the church. On those doctrines, we discuss, disagree, but continue our fellowship unhindered and uninterrupted. To divide over these issues, to break fellowship or change churches because of disagreements over Dinner Table doctrine is silly. This is what Dr. Mohler labeled as “tertiary” (third-level) truth.
Again, I am not saying that this doctrine is unimportant. I am just saying that we can disagree on this doctrine without building any fence at all. We can live together in the same church family and walk in unity in spite of these kinds of disagreements. We study God’s Word, discuss it, and try to hammer out truth in these areas. But we do not divide.
Personal Space Truth
There are some truths that Paul defines as subject to our personal conscience, what I am calling “Personal Space” truth. Paul gives specific instructions on this in Romans 14 and 15, and in 1 Corinthians 8-10. The church had to make decisions about things like whether to eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. There were other decisions related to the Jewish law, like should Christians observe the Sabbath and what dietary laws should be followed. Paul told us to follow our own conscience on these matters, permit others to do the same and not to attempt to force our brothers and sisters to conform to our views on these matters.
There is a subtle difference here between Dinner Table doctrine and Personal Space truth. This level does not concern doctrine so much as it does specific lifestyle choices. At the Dinner Table doctrine, you are discussing interpretations of scripture. At that level we still seek truth and try to convince others that our view is correct. We just do not separate when we disagree. But at the Personal Space level, we are specifically told by Paul not to attempt to make others conform to our views on these issues. If I choose to observe the Sabbath, fine. I am just not allowed to condemn those that do. If I choose not to observe it, just as fine. I am not allowed to disdain those who have the conviction that they should.
It is amazing how often our fights and disagreements are actually over issues that Paul specifically tells us are issues of personal conscience – Personal Space truth. On these issues, we do not have to agree.
So, we have four levels of truth, each with an appropriate unity response. On Brick Wall doctrine, we stand strong and refuse to compromise, even if it causes division. Some doctrine is worth fighting over. At the Picket Fence level, we maintain our own homes, but we also seek to maintain friendly relationships with others in the community of faith. Some doctrine we just talk about over the Dinner Table and do not separate at all. On other issues, we maintain our own Personal Space and allow others to do the same.
Tearing Down the Castle to Build the Wall
At one of the Southen Baptist Conventions during the height of the Conservative Resurgence, Joel Gregory preached a powerful message. In the midst of that nasty (and I think necessary fight) he gave us a warning that I would like to give today. He told the story that I am about to tell you and that principle stuck with me.
In England, a wealthy man bought an old stone castle. The wall around the estate, made of the same stone as the castle, had fallen into disrepair. He hired men to rebuild the castle walls and told them to use stone identical to that in the castle. He left on a long trip while the men carried out the work. He received a message from them that they were having trouble finding the stone they needed to fix the wall. He sent back word that the wall had to be rebuilt, and they should do whatever they had to do to find the stone and complete the work, regardless of cost or consequence.
Some time later, the man received word that the wall was done, and returned from far away to see the results. As he rode up, he was thrilled to see the wall of the castle fully restored. But when he rode through the gate, his joy turned to horror. To fix the wall, the men had taken stones out of the house. The wall was repaired, but the castle had been destroyed.
I will tell you what the preacher told us that day. Yes, we need a wall of doctrinal protection around the church. But let us not, by our actions or attitudes, tear down the castle to build the wall. We have lived as if there are only two options. Some say the wall does not matter. Who needs a wall of theological protection? Who needs discernment and truth? Others are willing to tear down the castle to build a wall of orthodoxy and doctrinal purity.
Friends, there has to be a better way. We need to repair the wall. We must stand for fundamental truth in an uncompromising way. But we must not tear down the house to build it. Can we not believe that the God who built the house will provide stone so that we can build a wall of protection without tearing down the castle of unity?
That is my prayer.
Now, back to writing about authority and gender!
In future posts, though, I intend to try to define Brick Wall, Picket Fence, Dinner Table and Personal Space doctrine more specifically.
Dave,
I think these two quotes from Thomas Watson harmonize with your series:
“We love a saint, though he has many personal failings. There is no perfection here. In some, rash anger prevails; in some, inconstancy; in some, too much love of the world. A saint in this life is like gold in the ore, much dross of infirmity cleaves to him, yet we love him for the grace that is in him. A saint is like a fair face with a scar: we love the beautiful face of holiness, though there be a scar in it. The best emerald has its blemishes, the brightest stars their twinklings, and the best saints have their failings. You that cannot love another because of his infirmities, how would you have God love you?”
“We love the saints though in some lesser things they differ from us. Perhaps another Christian has not so much light as you, and that may make him err in some things; will you presently unsaint him because he cannot come up to your light? Where there is union in fundamentals, there ought to be union in affections.”
–All Things For Good (Pg. 82)
Interesting quotes. Good to hear from you, Benji.
I can’t understand why people don’t get this. No one who says all doctrine is first order doctrine really believes it, or lives that way. We have recently seen Dr. Mohler taken to task for his stand on Yoga in the context of his theological triage system, as if his stand on Yoga destroys the validity of his triage system. I believe his stand on Yoga may be a poor application of the triage system, but I don’t see the logic that his stand on Yoga refutes it.
One of the points I am trying to make is that just because a doctrine is not a “Brick Wall” doctrine doesn’t make it unimportant. The issue is the “unity response.”
Some doctrines demand division.
Some doctrines demand that we worship separately, but not separate as brothers and sisters.
Some doctrines demand no separation at all.
Theological triage is not about how important the doctrine is, but how we should respond to it.
I didn’t really follow Dr. Mohler’s thing on yoga much – not a subject of much interest to me.
Here’s the thing – even on a “Dinner Table” doctrine (Mohler’s tertiary level) – we can still advocate our position.
I can say, “I believe that Yoga is wrong.” The question is, if a member of the church takes a Yoga class, do I kick him out of the church?
I don’t think that Dr. Mohler saying, “I think Yoga is wrong” is necessarily a violation of the triage principle.
Just working through it.
Mohler saying that yoga is wrong in no way undermines his theological triage…
People who think that are clueless about what Mohler is saying about Yoga OR the entire point of theological triage.
Those guys Yoga hit with his lightsaber sure didn’t need triage. It was too late for them.
famous Jedi master Yoga quote:
“”On many long journeys have I gone. And waited, too, for others to return from journeys of their own. Some return; some are broken; some come back so different only their names remain.”
very scary stuff, yes . . . much worse than Halloween, Mormons, and Muslims, combined !!!!!!
Must on all accounts avoided be. 🙂
“”I can say, “I believe that Yoga is wrong.” The question is, if a member of the church takes a Yoga class, do I kick him out of the church?””
I don’t know but I’ll offer my guesstimate: “if someone in Mohler’s church (though he may work through his pastor) was actively recruiting people to the practice of yoga, there might be a conflict.
To my knowledge, Mohler is not in a position of authority in his church. (Maybe he’s an elder, I don’t know)
I’ve thought of it, generally, like this:
There’s doctrine I’ll divide up a town for evangelism purposes with, there’s doctrine that I’ll do my best to keep out of town.
There’s doctrine I’ll go on missions trips with, doctrines I’ll pray for their missions trips and go on my own, and doctrines I’ll go on a mission trip to where they’ve been to straighten out!
An idea for ‘Dinner Table’ Doctrine:
become engaged as a ‘participant’ in the Word by attempting to answer among yourselves, from the many questions Jesus asks in Scripture:
Using questions as a way of teaching (doctrina) was a part of His tradition in the temple. Here are some of His questions:
” 1. And if you greet your brethren only, what is unusual about that? Do not the unbelievers do the same? (Matt 5:47)
2. Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your lifespan? Matt 6:27
3. Why are you anxious about clothes? Matt 6:28
4. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye yet fail to perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? (Matt 7:2)
5. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)
6. Why are you terrified? (Matt 8:26)
7. Why do you harbor evil thoughts? (Matt 9:4)
8. Can the wedding guests mourn so long as the Bridegroom is with them? (Matt 9:15)
9. Do you believe I can do this? (Matt 9:28)
10. What did you go out to the desert to see? (Matt 11:8)
11. To what shall I compare this generation? (Matt 11:6)
12. Which of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? (Matt 12:11)
13. How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and take hold of his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? (Matt 12:29)
14. You brood of vipers! How can you say god things when you are evil? (Matt 12:34)
15. Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? (Matt 12:48)
16. Why did you doubt? (Matt 14:31)
17. And why do you break the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition? (Matt 15:3)
18. How many loaves do you have? (Matt 15:34)
19. Do you not yet understand? (Matt 16:8)
20. Who do people say the Son of Man is? (Matt 16:13)
21. But who do you say that I am? (Matt 16:15)
22. What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life and what can one give in exchange for his life? (Matt 16:26)
23. O faithless and perverse generation how long must I endure you? (Matt 17:17)
24. Why do you ask me about what is good? (Matt 19:16)
25. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink? (Matt 20:22)
26. What do you want me to do for you? (Matt 20:32)
27. Did you never read the scriptures? (Matt 21:42)
28. Why are you testing me? (Matt 22:18)
29. Blind fools, which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred….the gift of the altar that makes the gift sacred? (Matt 23:17-19)
30. How are you to avoid being sentenced to hell? (Matt 23:33)
31. Why do you make trouble for the woman? (Matt 26:10)
32. Could you not watch for me one brief hour? (Matt 26:40)
33. Do you think I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than 12 legions of angels? (Matt 26:53)
34. Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to seize me? (Matt 26:53)
35. My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me? (Matt 27:46)
36. Why are you thinking such things in your heart? (Mark 2:8)
37. Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed rather than on a lamp stand? (Mark 4:21)
38. Who has touched my clothes? (Mark 5:30)
39. Why this commotion and weeping? (Mark 5:39)
40. Are even you likewise without understanding? (Mark 7:18)
41. Why does this generation seek a sign? (Mark 8:12)
42. Do you not yet understand or comprehend? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes and still not see? Ears and not hear? (Mark 8:17-18)
43. How many wicker baskets full of leftover fragments did you pick up? (Mark 8:19)
44. [To the Blind man] Do you see anything? (Mark 8:23)
45. What were arguing about on the way? (Mark 9:33)
46. Salt is good, but what if salt becomes flat? (Mark 9:50)
47. What did Moses command you? (Mark 10:3)
48. Do you see these great buildings? They will all be thrown down. (Mark 13:2)
49. Simon, are you asleep? (Mark 14:37)
50. Why were you looking for me? (Luke 2:49)
51. What are you thinking in your hearts? (Luke 5:22)
52. Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I command? (Luke 6:46)
53. Where is your faith (Luke 8:25)
54. What is your name? (Luke 8:30)
55. Who touched me? (Luke 8:45)
56. Will you be exalted to heaven? (Luke 10:15)
57. What is written in the law? How do you read it? (Luke 10:26)
58. Which of these three in your opinion was neighbor to the robber’s victim? (Luke 10:36)
59. Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside? (Luke 11:40)
60. Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbiter? (Luke 12:14)
61. If even the smallest things are beyond your control, why are you anxious about the rest? (Luke 12:26)
62. Why do you not judge for yourself what is right? (Luke 12:57)
63. What king, marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king marching upon him with twenty thousand troops? (Luke 14:31)
64. If therefore you are not trustworthy with worldly wealth, who will trust you with true wealth? (Luke 16:11)
65. Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God? (Luke 17:18)
66. Will not God then secure the rights of his chosen ones who call out to him day and night? (Luke 18:7)
67. But when the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth? (Luke 18:8)
68. For who is greater, the one seated a table or the one who serves? (Luke 22:27)
69. Why are you sleeping? (Luke 22:46)
70. For if these things are done when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry? (Luke 23:31)
71. What are you discussing as you walk along? (Luke 24:17)
72. Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter his glory? (Luke 24:26)
73. Have you anything here to eat? (Luke 24:41)
74. What are you looking for? (John 1:38)
75. How does this concern of your affect me? (John 2:4)
76. You are a teacher in Israel and you do not understand this? (John 3: 10)
77. If I tell you about earthly things and you will not believe, how will you believe when I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3: 12)
78. Do you want to be well? (John 5:6)
79. How is it that you seek praise from one another and not seek the praise that comes from God? (John 5:44)
80. If you do not believe Moses’ writings how will you believe me? (John 5:47)
81. Where can we buy enough food for them to eat? (John 6:5)
82. Does this (teaching of the Eucharist) shock you? (John 6:61)
83. Do you also want to leave me? (John 6:67)
84. Why are you trying to kill me? (John 7:19)
85. Woman where are they, has no one condemned you? (John 8:10)
86. Why do you not understand what I am saying? (John 8:43)
87. Can any of you charge me with sin? (John 8:46)
88. If I am telling you the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 8:46)
89. Are there not twelve hours in a day? (John 11:9)
90. Do you believe this? (John 11:26)
91. Do you realize what I have done for you? (John 13:12)
92. Have I been with you for so long and still you do not know me? (John 14:9)
93. Whom are you looking for? (John 18:4)
94. Shall I not drink the cup the Father gave me? (John 18:11)
95. If I have spoken rightly, why did you strike me? (John 18:23)
96. Do you say [what you say about me] on your own or have others been telling you about me? (John 18:34)
97. Have you come to believe because you have seen me? (John 20:29)
98. Do you love me? (John 21:16)
99. What if I want John to remain until I come? (John 21:22)
100. What concern is it of yours? (John 21:22)”
sorry for length 🙁
Do you think the conflict is a misunderstanding of different doctrinal levels, or a disagreement over what level various doctrines fall in? Alcohol is in my mind, clearly a dinner table doctrine, or personal doctrine. But many I think would place it in the picket fence category. Gender roles are officially a picket fence category, whereas I would put it on the dinner table.
Bill, I think that both happen.
There are some who act as if theological triage is an insult to any doctrine – as if saying that a doctrine is not essential to the gospel somehow nullifies it.
That is why I emphasize the unity response.
Also, I think that the devil is in the details. When I start spelling out what I believe is Brick Wall doctrine and what I think is Picket Fence doctrine, that is where we will get a lot of discussion.
Liked what I read in a devotional this morning, commenting on Jude 3-4, about contending for the faith. The writer said that at times the most urgent thing we can do is contending for the faith (which is not to be confused with being contentious about the faith). I read a lot of bloggers’ comments who probably would pride themselves as contending for the faith but who come across as being contentious about the faith.
And, of course those bloggers happen to be conservatives, but that’s just a “coinky-dink”, right?
On the other hand, as I said in the other thread, there are a certain group of bloggers who, in their blogs and comments, make it clear that doctrinal walls should be like the “walls” in Les Nessman’s office (WKRP)–just some tape on the floor. It doesn’t really do anything and you just pretend like it’s there, but if anyone asks you can say “Oh, we believe in doctrine” even though it’s no more substantive than the tape on the floor.
Of course, the only people who treat doctrine like that are those of the moderate theological persuasion. In other words, people that don’t matter.
I think you are exactly right, Gary. The trick is knowing when to contend and when not to contend.
Thanks, Joe, for providing an illustration of my point with your comment that moderates casually dismiss doctrine and therefore they don’t matter. Your consistent global smear of folks who interpret passages of Scripture differently than you do as non-Christians, heretics, or barely human makes my point quite nicely.
Gary,
Your existence makes mine.
Oh, and as to the point about whether moderates believe in standing for doctrine, would a church that believed the following be welcomed to fellowship with the SBC or the CBF:
1) The miracles recorded in scripture are not to be taken literally. Jesus did not feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and two fish, He was not born of a virgin, and He did not rise from the grave.
2) God speaks to people through various religions. While salvation is only found in Christ, those who follow other religions can be saved by God through Christ without them realizing that it is Christ who saved them.
3) Paul’s comments about homosexuality in Romans 1 reveal his Jewish prejudice and do not apply today. Individuals in commited homosexual relationships should be affirmed. They are not committing sin.
Now, of course such a church would not be tolerated in the SBC but would be welcomed and affirmed in the CBF. You will say “Not all CBF churches believe those things”. True. That is true. However, they would not withhold fellowship from a church that did. Willingness to tolerate unbiblical doctrines is just as bad as holding to those unbiblical doctrines.
Just plain old every day COMMON SENSE is the solution. You can’t buy it, give it or receive it. Good people don’t fight each other and do steer clear of the crazies to form a majority which silently rules while the screwballs hurl insults and “discover” minute details to quibble and draw attention to themselves or some idea that won’t fly. Acts 9:36 was an example in my humble opinion.
Yeah, you never did make your point with that. What was it?