Much has been written about what Al Mohler has called theological triage. I guess that Mohler first used the term in print in a 2005 article at albertmohler.com. At least that’s the earliest reference that my quick Google search turned up. In his article, Mohler identifies what he calls “three different levels of theological urgency.” He argues that there are first-level, second-level, and third-level theological issues.
Mohler defines first-level theological issues as those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Examples include doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture. He makes very clear the importance of these first-level theological issues when he writes, “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.”
Second-level theological issues are those doctrines where believing Christians may disagree, but where the disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. Examples include the meaning and mode of baptism and whether the Bible permits women to serve as pastors. Disagreement on second-level issues impacts fellowship and cooperation within churches and denominations.
Third-order doctrines are those over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. Eschatology is an example of a third-level theological issue. Christians within a local church or denomination can stand together on the most important issues while realizing that they may not agree on every single doctrinal position.
You need not know the terminology of theological triage to know that there are some doctrinal issues that are absolutely essential, others that are very important to our cooperation together, and still other issues where Christians can disagree and still cooperate together in serious and meaningful ways.
As Southern Baptists, we have an agreed upon statement of faith called the Baptist Faith & Message. It was last updated in 2000 at the tail end of the Conservative Resurgence. Within that statement you will find both first-level and second-level doctrines. There are doctrinal positions outlined within the Baptist Faith and Message that are essential to Christian belief like what we believe about God and the Scriptures. There are also doctrinal positions that are important for church life and partnership together that do not rise to the level of first importance such as the mode of baptism. Third-level issues have been intentionally left out of the BF&M.
I believe the principles behind Mohler’s theological triage can help us in the most recent SBC social media dust up over whether the Bible permits women to preach when the church gathers together on the Lord’s Day. I am intentionally framing the disagreement that way because I believe that words matter, and people matter even more. Much of the way this conversation has taken place in recent days has been demeaning to women. We should be able to have a legitimate discussion about what the Bible says, and do it in a way that honors our sisters in Christ as co-laborers in the gospel even when we come to different interpretations of the relevant Scripture passages.
Let me begin by putting my cards on the table. I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message that the office of pastor is reserved for men. I will go a step further and say that I do not believe the Bible permits churches to have a woman preach when the church gathers together for corporate worship. That includes Mother’s Day. However, I do not believe the Bible prohibits women from speaking or even leading in some ways in corporate worship. At the church I pastor, we have women read Scripture, pray, and lead the congregation in worship through music. On Sunday for Mother’s Day, one of our ladies gave a brief exhortation to the mothers from Proverbs 31. I believe all of those things are well within the boundaries of the biblical teaching regarding gender roles and corporate worship.
With that being said, I am not the least bit concerned that some SBC churches decided to have a woman deliver the Sunday morning sermon this past Sunday. I do not think they should have done it. I wish they would not. But I am happy to allow those churches to order their corporate worship services the way that they see fit according to what they believe the Bible teaches on this subject. Furthermore, I am happy to continue cooperating with such churches for missions and theological education under the big tent of the Baptist Faith and Message.
What I am saying is that while I do think the question of women serving as pastors is a second-level issue that does impact our ability to cooperate together, I do not think the question of whether a woman can deliver the Sunday morning sermon under the authority of the church’s pastors/elders rises to the same level of importance.
Here’s the way I think about it. I am not willing to partner together to plant churches that will have a woman serving as their pastor. This is not because I judge women incapable of pastoring. Rather, I believe the Bible is clear on this issue. I am, however, willing to partner together to plant a church that may, because of its own autonomy, decide to have a woman deliver the Sunday morning sermon one Sunday under the authority of the church’s pastors. I would not agree with their decision to do so, but I do not demand total agreement for partnership. Ultimately, I judge a church’s decision to have a woman preach to be a lesser eccelesiological error than a church’s decision to have a woman serve as a pastor.
I realize that this position puts me just about in the middle of the two sides of this discussion. Some will judge me to be a compromiser who is unwilling to stand up for what the Bible says on this particular subject. Others will judge my view to be more based on tradition than sound biblical exegesis. However, as long as they each will have me, I am eager to cooperate together with both sides within our convention for the advancement of the gospel here in North America and to the ends of the earth. While we have determined in our statement of faith that we are a complementarian convention of churches, we have chosen not to narrowly define complementarianism in a way that would exclude people on either side of this present discussion. It is my hope that we will continue in that direction.
Eh, so your approach is one of a lukewarm fence straddler!? 😉
Actually and seriously. Really Good article, Adam. It’s well articulated, completely reasonable and cooperative.
Adam, you have essentially defined the position that I hold to as well. I don’t think you are a middle-of-the-roader. I think you are entirely and truly biblical and Baptist on this issue (don’t really know where you stand on others, but if you affirm the BFM, I’m good with that).
It’s not much different to me than those who hold to a little different view of soteriology than I do. Depending upon how divergent it is, I will work together with them in gospel causes.
I picture a lot of these issues like a bell-curve where most of the ideas and beliefs within the space of that curve are acceptable for gospel cooperation purposes and those on the fringe (the outliers) are too extreme thus hindering cooperation.
Just my $.02.
David Roberts
Adam, I agree with what you’ve written here. I wouldn’t want to remove a church from our local association, for example, simply because they had a woman deliver the message on Mother’s Day or some other special occasion.
But I do think the dialogue is important enough to question the practice rather than leaving it alone as a matter of mere preference. (And I’m not saying you’re leaving it alone).
The relevant BF&M language is: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” When a woman preaches, teaches, or otherwise addresses both men and women in the congregation with the aim of expounding Scripture and urging the entire audience to apply it as taught, is she filling the “office” of pastor? Or does the “office” refer to a permanent leadership position, especially one recognized by formal ordination and title?
“When a woman preaches, teaches, or otherwise addresses both men and women in the congregation with the aim of expounding Scripture and urging the entire audience to apply it as taught, is she filling the “office” of pastor? ”
Excellent question. I think that gets to the point. I believe the answer to that question is “No.” I Corinthians 14:26-32 would indicate that preaching and teaching, expounding scripture, and providing inspiration to those listening is not a responsibility exclusive to the “office” of pastor. Though being able to teach is a requirement to be an elder, I Peter 5 notes that management is the role, not exclusively teaching or preaching. There are men who preach, but don’t pastor a church. And I’ve been in some Southern Baptist churches that just weren’t all that big on formal ordination or titles, either.
The discussion about Acts 2:17 and 2:18 and Joel 2:28-32 contrasted with 1 Cor. 11:5 and then I Cor. 14:33-34. The first discussion I remember about it goes back to the college dorm and did it mean that women shouldn’t be allowed in theology classes. It really comes down to being a local church interpretation.
Adam,
I agree with your position.
I disagree somewhat with Dr. Mohler that having some churches allow a woman to preach a Sunday sermon allows the wall to be broken and Atilla’s huns to storm in.
One thing I do see is the high profile of Beth Moore and the number of followers she has that makes this more of a hot button topic than it may really be.
But then again, she wanted the publicity. She wanted it for whatever reason. I dont care to speculate that her reaoning was good or bad.
I dont know her reasoning anyway.
I do see a greater problem that could possibly arise, due to her high profile, and given the state of the country as it is dealing with intersectionality and all that goes with that. Thats not to say the BM is involved in any of that, I dont know.
But rather since she does inspire many women, including many young women, and since I do believe the Scripture is clearly against women preaching and pastoring, yet the world is for empowering women and erasing gender roles, if this will be an ongoing problem that
will only increase in temperature and distract from the Gospel.
I agree Michael. If one reads a couple hundred of texts from her followers it would lead one to think they are in support of women pastors.
Thanks for being willing to address the issue. I see your position as a balanced position. As some say, “Blessed are the balanced.”
Thanks for the article Adam. Well written even if disapgree slightly with you.
This is exactly the posture, tone, and type of conversation needed by all sides if we are to continue to work together. This is stellar Adam. Thanks for writing it.
Adam, I think you did a really good job laying out a position where many people in the SBC are. It describes me.
I am pleased with the BFM and don’t want to see any tightening down or loosening up.
For me, this discussion has some features in common with the Calvinism discussion. I don’t want to see the BFM changed in that regard either.
But I believe pastors and people in the academy need to have robust discussions on this issue, Calvinism, and other issues.
The tone of those discussions is very important to me.
Is there some place in the BFM where it distinguishes between first level and second level doctrinal positions? And who makes that distinction?
It’s a statement defining doctrines that are considered the basis for cooperative ministry within a denominational context. It isn’t binding on churches, nor on any independent, autonomous body outside of the entities under SBC stewardship, mainly the six seminaries, Lifeway, the IMB, NAMB, ERLC, Annuity Board, etc. It doesn’t have a prohibition against women preaching, just states rather blandly that a woman shouldn’t serve as pastor of a church.
Lee:
I think that by virtue of the BFM addressing an issue to begin with makes those issues first tier or second tier.
Good question, Lee. The BF&M does not identify particular doctrines as first or second level issues. That terminology is not in the BF&M at all. However, we can understand first-level theological issues as those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Examples include doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture. Second-level issues would be other issues that the BF&M does address (like baptism, church autonomy, women serving as pastors, etc.) that are not central and essential to the Christian faith.
I’m going to ask a few questions for clarification of many of the statements I see here in the blog post and the comments.
This was Adam’s statement in the blog: “I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message that the office of pastor is reserved for men. I will go a step further and say that I do not believe the Bible permits churches to have a woman preach when the church gathers together for corporate worship. That includes Mother’s Day. However, I do not believe the Bible prohibits women from speaking or even leading in some ways in corporate worship. At the church I pastor, we have women read Scripture, pray, and lead the congregation in worship through music. On Sunday for Mother’s Day, one of our ladies gave a brief exhortation to the mothers from Proverbs 31. I believe all of those things are well within the boundaries of the biblical teaching regarding gender roles and corporate worship.”
“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” It’s repeated again in 1 Timothy. I don’t see how there’s a partial interpretation of that or where you’d draw that line if you take the whole passage literally.
Reading scripture or making the announcements might not constitute having authority over men, but praying, leading worship and giving an “exhortation” certainly would. And it would be hard to “keep silent” if you are leading worship or reading scripture.
That’s in contrast to a literal rendering of Acts 2 17:19 and the corresponding foundational passage in Joel.
Except in 1 Cor 11 you have women praying and prophesying to the church (remember the whole head coverings thing…) You’re right, it’s hard for them to keep silent when they’re praying and prophesying.
Unless, of course, “prophesying” in the Acts (and the Joel passage to which it references) and Corinthians passages is unique…..and different both in interpretation and application to teaching and preaching in the NT church.
It would be hard to make a case for that perspective from scripture, since the terms for “prophesying” and “proclaiming” or preaching are used interchangeably. And there are OT examples of women who proclaimed the word of the Lord and were known as “prophetess”.
This is one of those things that a favorite college professor of mine attributes to I Corinthians 13:9, that we only know and understand in part and that we see in a mirror “dimly,” as the ESV says. It’s a fact that there are women who preach and by any objective measurement, are blessed by God when they do.
Might I suggest that the second-level issue has two compartments.
Sub-level A is made of those issues that are not level one issues, but they have the practical effect of being level one when it comes to associating with the people. For example, if you believe that woman can be pastors and I do not, I will never associate with your group. I will never recommend someone join your group. I will never cooperate for a common goal, even a biblical one, because of this issue. Another example would be Roman Catholics that say they believe in salvation by grace through faith. I will never cooperate with them no matter what due to their larger association and error.
Sub-level B is made of issues of sincere disagreement but I can still cooperate to some degree. An example for me is covenant theology. I will never recommend a pedobaptist to anyone, but I can work with them on city-wide campaigns, for example. I will stand on the stage with them.