(Ed Goodman writes an excellent blog called “Living with Fire” – well worth regular reading.)
It is both a privilege and a challenge to witness the events taking place in the Kingdom of God worldwide in what SBC President Bryant Wright calls “the Golden Age of Theological Education” for our denomination. Today, seminary graduates are biblically astute, extremely well-versed in systematic theology, and amazingly adept at articulating their theological convictions. These graduates almost always affirm two foundational concepts: 1) the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God; and 2) the doctrines of the Bible are deeply important.
However, with such a vast number of Bible scholars being produced by our great seminaries, there has arisen the “problem” of varying interpretations of Scripture. Within the ranks of people who affirm that Scripture is absolute truth, scores of different doctrinal “sects” fail to agree on what exactly constitues that absolute truth. In soteriology, you have Calvinists and Arminians; in eschatology, you have premillennial dispensationalists, historic premillennialists, and amillennialists (postmillennial adherents are the dinosaurs of the theological age, having gone extinct); and in ecclesiology, you have Landmark Baptists, seeker-sensitive Baptists, reformed Baptists, “traditional” Baptists (whatever that means), and cooperative Baptists (who proudly embrace their moderate stances and “balanced” journalism). With so many perspectives and practices out there, how do we know which positions are correct?
There’s a problem with simply going to the Word of God for answers: every single one of these positions have a solid scriptural basis! Arminians are not idiots, and Calvinists are not jerks. Premillennial dispensationalists are not hermeneutical criminals, and amillennials are not allegorical heretics. Each of these positions have strengths and weaknesses, and many of these “competing” doctrines must be held in tension with one another.
However, some people (such as Les Puryear) want to ambiguously claim that “all of God’s Word is equally important.” Well, I agree with that in principle, because no single jot nor tittle is unimportant. However, if certain doctrinal positions can’t be nailed down, even by the best of scholars, what do we do? Do we throw out the Word of God as impossible? Do we give up trying because none of us can intellectually contribute to the discussion like Mohler, Moore, Akin, Lemke, and Keathley? Absolutely not!
Instead, for the sake of missiological cooperation and Christian unity, we adhere to the principles of theological triage. This does not rate the “importance” of Christian doctrines, as all doctrine is important. Instead, theological triage rates the essentiality of doctrines. For instance, eschatology is important to the Gospel message, because Christ is coming back to bring judgment to sinners and joy to saints. However, the nature of the Second Coming, while important, is not “essential” to the Gospel message itself. One Christian can affirm a pre-trib dispensational view while still affirming the sainthood of a post-trib historic premillennialist. Eschatology is important, but not “essential” in determining Christian salvation or biblical fidelity.
I wish I could take the easy road of ambiguity and just tell you that “all Scripture is important.” While that is certainly true, the issue is too complicated to leave at just that. With the vast number of doctrinal positions and solid biblical interpretations in contemporary Christendom, unity must take precedence above needless doctrinal division in order to cooperatively fulfill the Great Commission. Theological triage is the best answer I have seen. Ambiguous piety and simple-minded theological conclusions just won’t do. Unless we can get the greatest scholars of the day on the same theological page in every category, then theological triage must remain.
Ed: Good words, although it is a shame that this isn’t self evident. We didn’t get very far over at Les’ blog. You got a couple of comments in but my comment didn’t make the cut. I’m not quite so much a stickler about the word “important”. I don’t mind saying one doctrine isn’t as important as another (eschatology vs baptism for example) but your word “essentiality” is probably better. What is more troubling about this is the idea that if you don’t teach storehouse tithing, for example, or if you are a moderationist, you “don’t believe the bible”. Utter… Read more »
Excellent words, Ed. Well written and in the kind of irenic spirit we need more of.
Plus, of course, I agree with what you have said.
Everyone practices theological triage. Some just will not admit it.
If you don’t have some system of triage going on, then you are required to be Independent. And even then, you’re going to be constantly cleansing your own church of heretics.
I’m with Dave, great post Ed.
The person who truly doesn’t practice theological triage simply is a one person “church.”
Before Tim Rogers ask, is Ed Goodman Southern Baptist? What church and state convention is he associated with? These are not serious questions; just having a little fun with Tim.
Great post, Ed. May your tribe increase.
Does Ed even exist? Perhaps he is a fictional character created by Dave to give the appearance of multiple viewpoints on Voices. Has anyone ever seen Dave Miller and Ed at the same time?
I’ve never seen Dave or spoken with any other contributor here (except Anthony Russo). As such, I’m convinced that these are all the multiple personalities of one individual. “SBCVoices” is code for “voices in my head.”
Gentlemen, the first rule of SBC Voices is that you never talk about SBC Voices.
Blessings,
Tyler
Dave is a genius. When he’s feeling all authoritarian, he posts as himself. When he just wants to be mean, he posts as Joe. When he’s feeling all sympathetic and squishy, he posts as Christiane. When he wants to show occasional flashes of brilliance, he posts as me. 😉
1) Immediate induction into the SBC Voices comment Hall of Fame.
2) Would have been better if you had just stopped after the first four words.
And some day, we’ll be back on topic—
I think when we’re generally in agreement, we talk about other things. Like each other.
That is kind of the heart of it. We can’t really have a good discussion until someone disagrees.
Maybe I’ll log in in one of my other identities and get something started.
I don’t think we should get back on topic. We need to argue about whether or not being topical is even relevant in this day of expository preaching. What is with all you anti-bible people and your topical approach? And people wonder what’s wrong with the church today. Topic this, topic that – give me EXPOSITION!
LOL . . . you figured me out !!!!!!!!
Now that you’ve blown my cover, I’ll have to stop feeling ‘squishy’ and ‘sentimental’.
too funny
Well, we are both kinda fat and wear glasses. He has more hair than I do. Oh, and he thinks he cheers for the greatest sports team ever whereas I know I do.
Dwight McKissic says, “Great post, Ed. May your tribe increase.”
Dave Miller says, “Amen.”
Was thinking (yes, I can do this too) about the concept of ‘triage’ as a way of centering Southern Baptists on what is important to them that they CAN agree about, and don’t have to agree about, and still remain ‘Southern Baptists’ and ‘get along with one another in community’. It reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote in the preface his book ‘Mere Christianity’ where he describes a way that he wanted to help Christian people with their many differing points of view, this: “like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring… Read more »
Everyone,
Just wanted to give a word of thanks for the encouragement and kindness shown here. This type of comment thread should be regularly seen on a Christian blog. My only concern is whether love would be considered a first- or second-tier issue. LOL
Love? Tertiary or Quaternary (?) completely optional!
I hate to rain on all the self-congratulations and attaboys going on here, 🙂 but I have asked this question several times and no one really answers it in a way that makes sense for me. While I understand the need for this “test” in the abstract, my question about this concept, is who gets to decide which is most important. In medical triage, it is rather obvious. So do our seminary heads or the pastors get to choose? I noticed that “certain eschatological questions” are 3rd tier issues. Having been a part of real triage on a battle field,… Read more »
Tom: I think Dave has addressed this in his Fences series, but I would say that the most essential doctrines are the ones with the largest negative impact if we get them wrong. In Baptist life, who gets to choose is trickier, since we don’t have a hierarchy, but I guess it is the framers of and voters on the BFM. If we get the resurrection wrong, we are lost. If we get eschatology wrong, then well, I’m not sure of any far reaching consequences. We should try to get things right, of course, but if amillenialists get raptured by… Read more »
Whew! With the current state of affairs, we certainly don’t want our seminary heads to make such decisions! I’ll just approach the battle line on this end as usual – relying and acting on revealed truth by the Holy Spirit. Education doesn’t produce one ounce of revelation.
In the end it comes down to personal conviction. How you respond to those who hold differing opinions depends on your convictions about those issues.
On a denominational level, the BF&M somewhat serves the role of triage, though different people might have a different take on the importance of this or that point in the BF&M.
Bill Mac said “I think Dave has addressed this in his Fences series, but I would say that the most essential doctrines are the ones with the largest negative impact if we get them wrong.” When the early church changed its ecclesiology to allow for a more authoritarian structure, the negative impact wasn’t seen for years, but eventually it led to the monolithic structure of the catholic church of the middle ages. It has been the same way with baptism resulting in the heresy of baptism of children and it having a value in salvation. So I would raise these… Read more »
“But much that is seen clearly as heresy now, was just seen as a minor difference of opinion about an obscure passage of Scripture years ago.”
I think we’ve moved the other way – many things once viewed as Scripture are now seen as not a big deal.
Tom, I use 1 Corinthians 15:3 as the key here. Certain doctrines are “of first importance.” These have to do with the gospel. So, dividing Brick Walls from Picket Fences (or primary from secondary) has a biblical rubric to use. “Does it affect the gospel?” Separating the second, third (and fourth – I’m getting to that) order of doctrines is harder. Here’s the question I ask: Can you worship and work together with a gospel-believing, gospel-practicing Christian who differs on this issue? Can I plant a church with a paedobaptist? Can I co-pastor a church with a pentecostal? These are… Read more »
Dave Miller: You will never know how much I love you in the Lord but I disagree that we use the issue of women pastors to remove them from the SBC world. That is just about the only issue the 2000 BF&M is being used to police. Use for all issues and I might have another view. Notice I said we disagree–You feel one way-and I’m just not 100% sure of my position and I really believe if the truth could be told there are many more SB folks just like me but they are very afraid to make their… Read more »
My point, Tom, is that a church either has to allow women pastors or not allow them, just like it cannot be both paedobaptist and credobaptist. Its got to be one or the other.
It is not an issue on which we can just agree to disagree, because we have to do one or the other.
That’s the point I’m making.
Great post, Ed. I agree that everyone does theological triage, whether they are aware of it or not. It must be said, though, that there is and inherent problem with triage: no doctrine can be wrapped up in a neat and tidy box. Each one affects other ones. So, while you are discussing soteriology and get into the atonement, you have crossed into some form of Christology as you talk about his works, which is tied to his very nature. You see where I am going, right? So, I think we all agree that this is right…there are some difficulties… Read more »
Ed:
Serious question. Where would the calling of a woman pastor fall into the triage?
It’s in the diagram above, Tom. Secondary, or Picket Fence for me. Hard for a church to eqivocate on this one.
Dave,
Wouldn’t you have to say that it depends on their argumentation? If the reasoning behind it is because they believe Paul was wrong or that Scripture is in error here, then it makes it a first level problem.
This is what I mean about the bleeding over between levels.
No question that there is overlap. For instance, I don’t think Calvinism has to be a divisive issue. But if someone believes that only Calvinists are faithful to the gospel, (or that Calvinists deny the gospel) obviously, there is a difference there.
For instance, I could fellowship with someone with charismatic leanings, but a cessationist could probably not. No question, there is some overlap on this.
Theological Triage is something of an art, not completely scientific.
Jason, doesn’t it ALL depend on argumentation, as you label it, the old ‘both can’t be right’ conclusion. If so, then pick your doctrine, someone is saying that those who don’t agree with them are wrong, unscriptural, unbiblical making it a first level problem; hence, all disagreements are first level problems.
Doesn’t such an approach completely negate any triage?
William:
For some we have only once choice–theirs.
Well, I would put the people who think anyone that disagrees with them on anything is not a believer in the second tier…and I would say we can’t fellowship and encourage them to find somewhere else to worship. 🙂
I think triage is a helpful baseline…but there needs to be some wiggle room as to what goes where and when. I don;t believe the problem areas negate the virtue of the principles espoused in a triage mentality.
Tom, I think women pastors fall into the second-tier category. Now, I understand that some people will disagree and make it grounds for total separation of cooperation/fellowship, but the issue is really a matter that should separate churches rather than the Kingdom of God itself. I consider it a healthy practice for each denomination, and even for each church in our convention, to adhere to its own interpretation of Scripture. I know that may sound shocking, and obviously there are some bodies that will lapse into heresy through such practices. However, if we affirm the liberty of conscience, we have… Read more »
Ed: You said to me:”Now, I understand that some people will disagree and make it grounds for total separation of cooperation/fellowship, but the issue is really a matter that should separate churches rather than the Kingdom of God itself” But that is what we are seeing happen, i.e, the Surry Baptist Association disfellowshipping of a church after calling a woman. The church was not disfellowshipped over homosexuality or any other issue, just that the church had recently called a woman pastor. Personally, I think the 2000 BF&M is being misused by some to further their one view of as you… Read more »
For me, it would depend on what you mean by cooperation. I mean, I could cooperate with a church that had a woman for a pastor in disaster relief or some sort of humanitarian aid. I would not cooperate with such a church in a missions endevor or church planting.
Hi Ed, While I think the triage you (and Mohler) have laid out is good, it is really only the beginning of the conversation. To add to Jason’s post above, let’s look at a couple of the “level 1” doctrines – the Trinity and the hypostatic union. While I think all of us would “affirm” the truth of these doctrines, how well do we apply them? How deep does the “rabbit hole” go? Baptists, for example, are historically notorious for affirming the Trinity yet behaving functionally as unitarians or binitarians. The Spirit has often received “third billing” behind the Father… Read more »
Jim G, You raise some extremely valid ideas and concerns. Without sounding too simplistic, I do believe that relying on the grace of God is the key here. Can anyone fully grasp the Trinity and all that encompasses? If no, then won’t every person, or at least every Christian, lapse into some semblance of heretical understanding regarding the Trinity? This is the difficulty of theological triage in a postmodern age. We affirm absolute truth, but we can never agree on what that absolute truth really is. Having said that, I also believe that faith will take us farther than our… Read more »
Hi Ed, Thanks for your reply. I don’t think we can grasp the Trinity exhaustively. What I do think we can do is be more consistent in applying the doctrine to other doctrines and life. That is why I said the triage is the beginning of the conversation. I think most Christians come to discussions like this with the approach of “faith seeking understanding.” The triage system is something that requires both faith and understanding. While I commend an appeal to faith, understanding is also required to work through the difficulties in the triage. I also thing a helpful distinction… Read more »
IF the ‘triage’ format was changed to a series of ‘concentric circles’ with the most important at the center, and the rest arranged in priority going outward,
WHAT would Southern Baptists place in the CENTER ? And why?
I can’t speak for everyone here, but my bulls-eye would be the triune God. The most important Christian doctrine is the doctrine of the Trinity. Everything else flows out from it.
Jim G.
Thank you, JIM G.
I can see that you understand that the mystery of the ‘relationship’ between the Persons of the Holy Trinity is ‘at the heart of the ‘whole Christ-Event’, more about which you have promised to write . . . and I look forward to reading what you write.
I enjoy the depth of your scholarship, and the clarity and, may I say, the simplicity, with which you write. Have you considered a career as an academic theologian?
Christiane, yes, I have considered it. It is what I do. :0)
Thanks for the encouragement.
Jim G.
Tom,
I see what you mean. Secondary issues are tough to pan out practically, because the question arises: Are these issues a matter of denominational-level or church-level separation? In other words, can churches in the same denomination have differing views of second-tier issues, or do these doctrines require a separate denominational distinction? The difficulty in the SBC involves church autonomy.
Ed:
The problem I have is that when a church is disfellowshipped it is usually done in a very dictatorial manner. There really is no open discussion about the possibility of differing views and very few people if they have a differing view will give it for fear of being labeled a liberal.
Well, I can speak for myself that I am very pleased that the SBC is committed to being complimentarian and that churches that call women as pastors are removed.
I hate being a one note charlie about this. In terms of allowing the BF&M to be our theological triage, but whose reading of it?
I am just going to read the comments from here on, because reading blogs – even this one – is way down the tier list for me. I appreciate the discussion.
I tried to answer some of your questions above.
Dave,
I know you tried. 🙂 And I understand your position, I just disagree. I think this opens up the real opportunity for whoever sets the triage standards for changing which is where. I trust the men leading our denomination now, but i am not sure that my grandson will read the same set of triage standards.
I’m not exactly sure where you are coming from here. So, I’d love to see you post a longer comment explaining how you handle this, or perhaps write a post which I could post.
Tom, I understand your perspective. Theological triage, like anything else in life (anger, food, medication, etc.), can be abused. The concept is not a universal solution, but a great tool for Christians to think through the importance of doctrines. Disagreement is inevitable when dealing with biblical truth, but as Dave Miller astutely pointed out, how we handle disagreement is the key element. I’m sure there are abuses of theological triage, but it isn’t hard to find fault or imperfection with most anything. As I stated in my article, theological triage is the best answer I have seen for doctrinal disagreements.… Read more »
Dave: You said to me:”My point, Tom, is that a church either has to allow women pastors or not allow them, just like it cannot be both paedobaptist and credobaptist. Its got to be one or the other. It is not an issue on which we can just agree to disagree, because we have to do one or the other. That’s the point I’m making.” We will just have to agree to disagree. I disagree with you and you disagree with me. You say we have to do one or the other and I just do not agree and BTW… Read more »
I’m not trying to hammer this, but could you explain how a church could both affirm women in ministry and not affirm it at the same time? I’m kinda confused.
If you are saying that this doesn’t have to be a point of fellowship for our denomination, well that is an issue we will certainly have to face in the next 5 years.
Dave:
You are hammering it.
I’m going to leave it alone, because I’ve already said more than I wanted to.
I guess for some I’m just SBINO. I can not possibly be one of you all.
Dave Miller: I paused took a deep breath and even ran for 30 minutes. I’m not sure what you are saying so let me guess: The SBC removed the noninerrantist The SBC removed the liberals The SBC removed women from places of leadership The SBC used the 2000 BF&M to remove some missionaries In the next 5 years the SBC will remove all churches with women pastors and also create turmoil in churches by making the folks attempt to agree on this issue–people in churches will have to take sides–most who view women pastors favorably will remain quiet while the… Read more »
Tom, I’m not sure why you go to a place like that with what I have said. It seems you are reacting emotionally to something I did not say. My point is that it is an issue that probably requires a picket fence. This is a kind of black and white issue. My church has to make a choice – either we will ordain women to ministry and have women as pastors, or we will not. We can’t be both. How can the SBC straddle the fence on this issue? It seems either we have to go all-in or we… Read more »
By the way, I do not admit the truth of your facts or perspective here.
This has been a pretty reasoned discussion, Tom. I wish you would just discuss the issue without the emotion.
Dave:
Are you kidding me? I believe you are just as emotional as I am. I’m just on the wrong side. I stand by what I said because I do know how the SBC works and I’m quite confident where you and if Joe B was a SB want to take it.
Do you and others like yourself ever think of all the lives that have been shattered and or ruined with this takeover mentality that persists to this very moment.
And as I type this I am actually very calm.
Tom, I am trying to address the issues of this post. If you would like to do that, please let me know.
I was asked and I answered – to me, gender roles would be a secondary or Picket Fence issue.
Jim G,
Thanks for your insightful reply. I do agree; theology is a matter that requires understanding. If I implied otherwise, please excuse my poor communication. I don’t dismiss the mind at all; I simply accept that many deep doctrinal mysteries (such as aspect of the Trinity) can never be fully known. What I don’t understand with my mind, I try to simply accept by faith.
Your tenor and substance suggest a well-reasoned understanding of theology and a very cooperative desire for unity. I’m encouraged by both, Jim G.
Hi Ed,
I agree they can never be fully known. I just want to pursue an ever-more-trinitarian faith. I suspect it might be a little different in some ways than what we have now. The doctrine of the Trinity was very dormant from the early 18th through the early 20th centuries. We have a lot of catching up to do!
Jim G.
Tom Parker, Your points are understood, but Dave IS really trying to discuss the issue at hand. Certainly there have been lives affected, ruined, and damaged through the events within our denomination. I don’t doubt that or question it. But I ask myself: how can I prevent such division from persisting needlessly as I press on in ministry? I appreciate your passion, Tom, and I know a man as reasoned as you can see the attempts by Dave to discuss the issue in a civil manner. Do you appreciate the desire for us move beyond the faults of the past… Read more »