Theological Triage

Perhaps it’s worth noting that a lot of the evangelical denominations did in fact separate from other churches—the CBs came out of the American Baptists after the GARBC, the OPC and other evangelical presbyterians came out of the PCUSA (or Southern Presbyterians), etc.. So I would somewhat disagree with the claim that evangelicals have no experience of separation—you’ll hear about it when you talk to the gray heads in established congregations, really.

What is going on, though, is that a lot of evangelical congregations serve as refuges for people dissatisfied with liberalism and fundamentalism—I remember discussing this with a friend at an EFCA church I attended, and we agreed that the big challenge of the EFCA (and that church in particular) was to transition from being a refuge to simply being a great church.

As a result of this, it’s no surprise that a lot of people have something of an emotional response to the idea that they ought to further separate. Combine that with the (sad and) well-known phenomenon of a church split being a “glorious Spirit led church plant” in too many fundamental contexts, and it’s easy to confuse how each side practices separation.

I find myself agreeing with Tyler that evangelicalism does not have a prolific history of teaching separation. After all by the definition of a “Fundamentalist” that SI uses, it is one who believes the fundamentals and is willing to separate from apostasy. So while there have been many evangelicals, or at least those who would decry the label “fundamentalist”, who have separated (Machen, Lloyd Jones, etc.) they really don’t identify with the SI definition at least. In practice they may do so but its not something that a lot of evangelicals would articulate, at least in my experience. This is probably another one of those times where labels don’t do much. It’s also probably one of the, admittedly few, times that evangelicals could benefit by actually interacting with fundamentalism.

All kidding aside (I did like the meme, myself), I would tentatively propose that doctrines are nonnegotiable when they are explicitly or implicitly taught in Scripture. This is from Dr. Oats at Maranatha, and I think it’s probably the best and most Biblical approach. That would move us away from a mere “list” of doctrines, and force us to go back to the Scriptures to examine matters. As Doug McLachlan wrote a while ago, “If there is no clear cut, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ we shouldn’t judge and neither should we separate (Rom 14:10-13),” (Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism, 122-123).

Nobody will ever agree on what these explicit or implicit teachings are, but people who are committed to Bible exposition and interpretation should come to a consensus on most of them. Ultimately, each local church has to figure this out for themselves.

The problem, of course, is that evangelicalism has historically been about building coalitions. Coalitions have a tendency to lower the bar for orthodoxy and doctrine so the tent is big enough for the largest amount of people. The fundamentalist movement fractured over implementation of separation. This is why this movement has such trouble building coalitions. I am encouraged by the recent efforts which resulted in the Baptist Congress. There’s nothing wrong with loose coalitions. I do wonder how long this effort will go on, or what the end goal is.

Ultimately, I don’t believe any evangelical coalition in today’s age of theological madness and apostasy can hope to survive without significant compromise. You have to choose the coalition or the local church. I don’t see Al Mohler leaving the SBC over his President’s foolish move. He’ll choose to be political, and no doubt hope for reform. I understand his point, but I believe that is choosing the coalition over the local church. At that point, why bother talking about separation at all? Put it back on the back shelf, between the old Monopoly game and the photo album. You’re not serious about it anyway.

If committed Christians would begin to think seriously about which doctrines in Scripture are explicit and implicit, and then ponder the implications for their personal and ecclesiastical life, then we would see some serious changes.

It just makes me smile to read that Al Mohler is “not serious” about separation. Have you heard or read anything about his tenure at SBTS? How as a man in his early 30s he was hired to clean house and change the SBC’s flagship seminary from liberal to conservative? How his inaugural convocation address, “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There” emphasized the need for every faculty member to stand on, adhere to, and teach the “fundamental principles of grace” upon which the seminary was founded? (I would encourage you to read it, as he goes point by point through the EXACT doctrines upon which he was calling everyone at SBTS to stand, including the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and every point of the Gospel, and called out as “heterodox” liberal theology.) How he and his family were subject to harsh criticism and even demonstrations from faculty, students, and the Louisville community?

So basically a man who risked his academic career rooting out liberals at SBTS is “not serious” about separation. He may not draw the lines of separation where you do, Tyler, but please.

It makes me smile to know that you’re smiling.

I saw the documentary last year. I am aware what he and Patterson, and others, achieved with the conservative resurgence. How will he triage what is happening to his denomination today? If he doesn’t publicly speak out about what his President is doing, then he’s not consistent. I will be waiting to hear.

I’m not speaking like a smug critic. He did a wonderful thing at Southern Seminary. I’m interested to see how he triages what his President is doing. I suspect that he won’t say anything, but if he does, I’ll be very grateful.

Our loyalties shouldn’t be to a system or group - they should be to the Word. Some fundamentalists separate from everybody. Some fundamentalists, perhaps in the interests of coalition building, will not call out heresy within their ranks. Evangelicals are far worse, but the problem is the same. There is some bizarre sense of loyalty to a organizational structure beyond your local church, and leaders (fundamental and evangelical) are often reluctant to criticize those structures because of fear, politics, etc.

If so-called “theological triage” were actually applied and implemented in denominations, or in para-church organizations, they would simply collapse. They would implode. They’re willing to talk about orthodoxy at the local church level, but where are those principles at the denominational level? At the para-church level? That is why I don’t believe evangelicals are serious about separation. That is also why, in the end, I think the NT clearly teaches that local churches should be autonomous. I don’t need to worry about the compromise and apostasy of an organizational structure above me.

To refer to “evangelicalism” is to be so broad as to be meaningless. Of course there are evangelicals that no nothing of separation. But then again MacArthur is an evangelical, too. Or do you consider him not to be “serious” about separation either?

Of course Mohler’s actions 20 years ago do not earn him a free pass from any current criticism. But again, to say he’s “not serious” about separation is just a ridiculous statement when he actually stood before a body of liberal seminary professors, declared war on them for the sake of the Gospel and the Word of God, fought the battle, endured harassment, and risked his career.

Obviously he doesn’t need me to defend him, but I think this deserves a little more respect than a wave of the hand, a dismissive comment about seriousness, and an analogy that he’s like a child reading a Clifford book. (Because he’s OBVIOUSLY never read ANYTHING about separation. Again…*eye roll*)

Greg:

• MacArthur isn’t tied into a denominational structure, and good for him
• The article by Riccardi too vague to be of much use. It outlines the outer limits of what it means to be a Christian - nothing else.
• I’m waiting to see what Mohler says about what the SBC President is doing. This is the pitfall of being part of a very large denominational structure
• I’m sorry you didn’t like the Clifford reference - I thought it was pretty good. I don’t like Diego, but I was tempted to use it.

Have a lovely Thanksgiving.

Tyler,

You mentioned Dr. Oats’ statements. Is there more published on this viewpoint (which I would also favor)?

While a local church is ultimately the curator of their own views on the subject, it must be one that is based on Bible exposition, as you stated. I’m living through a congregation choosing the coalition (driven by a church with mega-designs) rather than the local church. As a pastor, it eats at you. It is a battle for hearts and minds and many value what is said in Christian media over what is said in their local church.