Theological Triage

John Samson would have been better to leave Mohler to own his own phrase and his own article. Fundamentalism is not characterized by a belief that all doctrines are first-order. It’s always nice to hear somebody caricature a position they don’t understand.

His opinions about the doctrines which are fundamental are far too broad to be of any practical use. For example, he quotes from an article where the author says “theology proper” is a first order doctrine. I could be wrong, but I’m not sure it’s actually possible to be more vague than that. Perhaps, instead of trying (badly) to re-invent the wheel on this one, he should look at what fundamentalists wrote about this issue 100 years ago. Or, barring that, he could just look at what fundamentalists are writing now …

I love reading what evangelicals write about separation. It’s like hearing my sweet boy 5 year-old read a Clifford book.

Unfortunately, while using the term “true fundamentalism,” he has described the later, confused derivatives. I thought maybe, that by “true” he meant “by the now popularly accepted definition”… which is a term you use for religious nuts of the sort who think they should blow themselves up in market places, etc. But even that doesn’t fit. There’s a huge chasm between believing “all doctrines are first order” and believing “everybody who disagrees should be destroyed.” And I don’t think he has that in mind. So I don’t know what why he would think what he has described would be the “true” form… Any one of Marsden’s histories even would clear that up (let alone histories by fundamentalists themselves)

(Tyler, thanks for the Clifford reference… not my favorite kids’ books, but still some great memories of reading several of those to the youngin’s. If you haven’t seen them yet, see if you can hunt down Poppleton the pig and Mercy the pig… I don’t know what is about pigs.)

I think what is happening is that evangelicals are realizing, in these dark theological times which try men’s souls, they (gasp!) need to “re-discover” the concept of ecclesiastical separation. They haven’t practiced it before, and they don’t know what it is. It’s like uncharted territory for them. They don’t know where to turn for resources or guidance.

They’ve heard of the concept, but until now, they’ve kept it in the shelf in their back closet, alongside the old Scrabble boardgame and 8th grade yearbooks. Now, they realize they need the doctrine because their big tent is burning down - which suggests that they’ve known about the doctrine all the time; they just didn’t want to deal with the implications.

In this context, reading John Sampson’s re-posting of two separate articles (which he combined into one single post), it’s like watching a little child just learning to read. You think, “How precious! One day, he’ll grow up and read big boy books!”

Perhaps it’s time to start marketing Ernest Pickering’s Biblical Separation or Fred Moritz’s Be Ye Holy to evangelicals. They seem to need some good advice in this area.

[TylerR]

John Samson would have been better to leave Mohler to own his own phrase and his own article.

Samson quoted Mohler’s article and Riccardi’s article, so your argument is with Riccardi not Samson. Riccardi is “…the Pastor of Local Outreach Ministries at Grace Community Church in Los Angeles. He also teaches Evangelism at The Master’s Seminary.”

Yes, I noticed that later, but didn’t go back to correct the first sentence. I still think both articles are basically so vague so as to be worthless. Riccardi’s article is much worse than Mohler’s. It is telling that evangelicals instinctively turn to Mohler’s 10-yr old short article when they want guidance on the doctrine of separation. They really don’t have any other resources to turn to.

I wonder what Mohler thinks of the SBC president speaking at a charismatic event where a Roman Catholic will be leading “worship.” How will he triage that one? I don’t ask out of malice, but out of genuine curiosity.

While it may be true that main-stream Christian Fundamentalism doesn’t treat all doctrines as first order, there are definitely plenty of offshoots (some of which do not even call themselves fundamentalists, because they think the fundamentalists are just a more conservative branch of evangelicalism, and still wrong) that do. Even though those groups may not characterize fundamentalism as it’s known from the inside, they make enough noise that they do, in fact, represent what much of those on the outside think about fundamentalism, at least when they are not thinking about those willing to kill or terrorize for their faith.

That is why many who participate here, myself included, don’t use or claim the term except in very specific contexts inside our circles where it is understood, and even then, only with qualifications.

I dearly hope and pray that Tyler is 100% correct that fundamentalism is not all about majoring on the minors, but Dave has a great point that all too often, too many of us to a great job of conveying that impression. For example, the KJVO faction, the Trail of Blood faction, and the IBLP faction come to mind.

(never mind that Bill Gothard’s definition of “grace” at least comes close to a rejection of Sola Gratia, in my opinion)

For that matter, I think that most fundamental churches ought to spend more time emphasizing core doctrines like the Fundamentals, the Solas, the Trinity, and ecclesiastical separation—and then following it up by (hat tip to dispensationalism post) making sure that we live out these distinctives in practice and doing some serious self-examination.

Think about it a minute; if the Fundamentals delineated who was, or was not, in the faith, how can we arrive at a point where we are simultaneously (a) concluding our fellow church members are not believers but (b) we do not cease ecclesiastical fellowship with them? Separation can be mis-applied, under-applied, or over-applied, but it’s a natural conclusion when we decide that someone is not in the faith, no?

I think both articles reproduced in this blog post (he could have done a better job helping us see that he was reproducing the articles in their entirety) are very insightful, and I’ve found the idea of “theological triage” or “first/second/third order doctrines” a helpful one. And really, Mohler and Riccardi didn’t come up with the idea—Paul did when he called the Gospel of “first importance.” Obviously this means that not every teaching in Scripture is of “first importance,” or the description becomes meaningless. When everything is of first importance, then nothing is.

I do believe the tendency of Fundamentalism is to make every doctrine a first order doctrine. Note that I said the “tendency” of fundamentalism, not the sina qua non of fundamentalism or that every fundamentalist does this.

by a Fundamentalist

http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/pages/about/default/0/7

is a series preached by Pastor David C. Innes, Senior Pastor, Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco, California. The link is to both the oral presentations and the supplementary written material.

I see that The Master’s Seminary has seen fit to re-run Mike Riccardi’s article on separation. He begins the piece with this bit of humor:

More than ten years ago, Al Mohler wrote a seminal blog post outlining what he called “theological triage.” Borrowing the term from the emergency room, Mohler discussed the need for Christians to prioritize certain doctrinal issues over others.

It is apparently standard practice in the evangelical world to turn to Al Mohler’s short article to understand the doctrine of separation. I mentioned before that I think it’s sad they have so little historical theology to cling to when it comes to this doctrine. They all turn, instinctively and reflexively, to Mohler’s little article. They have nothing else.

As evangelicalism sees their coalition collapsing from the weight of it’s own inconsistencies and degenerating into warm theological JELL-O, perhaps our brethren should turn to another group of Christians (many of them independent Baptists) who have been practicing and writing about the need for personal and ecclesiastical separation for a while now …

I close with this striking insight:

Yes, Al Mohler and someone who teaches at the Master’s Seminary have no understanding of historical theology. *eye roll*

Still not sure exactly what you find wrong with Mohler’s grid (it’s not just a “ten-year-old article,” it’s a system or grid or way of categorizing doctrines, which shouldn’t expire after 10 years).

I didn’t say they don’t understand historical theology. I’m saying that evangelicalism has no tradition of teaching or practicing actual ecclesiastical separation. They have no resources to turn to. They all seem to instinctively turn to Mohler’s little article. It’s all they have. If they had more, somebody else “important” would have written on this issue since then. They haven’t. That’s why Mohler’s article is so “seminal” for them. It’s a lost doctrine out there in the evangelical world. Most people have never heard of it.

Mohler’s triage concept is interesting, but Riccardi’s attempt to flesh that out is so vague so as to be worthless. What, exactly, does it mean that Christology is a first-order doctrine. What in particular about Christology is critical?

• Does it matter what you think of the kenosis?
• What about eternal Sonship?
• What about impeccability?

He seems to be groping his way towards some kind of list, some kind of category distinction, that has already been formulated and discussed for decades. He, and the other evangelicals, seem to be completely unaware of the body of literature at their disposal. That’s why I likened these articles to a 5 yr-old reading a Clifford book. It’s a good start, but they’re re-inventing the wheel out of necessity. The sad thing is that they don’t seem to realize that they’re re-inventing anything. They don’t seem to realize that other Christians have been serious about personal and ecclesiastical separation for a long time.

In his article he gave some specific examples. I wouldn’t think a blog post would be intended to be a comprehensive development of every aspect of how to flesh out the concept.

I’ve read much of the fundamentalist literature on separation (Ernest Pickering was actually my pastor up until I moved to Iowa at age 10) and I find much in it to commend. I’m also aware of the lack of discernment on the part of many in the evangelical world. That all being said, at this point I still lean towards a conservative evangelical understanding of the whole issue, as I find their emphasis on the Gospel “as of first importance” to be more biblical GENERALLY SPEAKING than much of what I see in many (not all) parts of fundamentalism.

So, while it does say everything that needs to be said about the subject, I find Mohler’s system to be very helpful as a lens or grid through which to view separation issues.