Albert Mohler recently wrote a brief article on the topic of theological triaging [old link, new link is here] (HT: Sharper Iron Filings). The points he makes about prioritizing doctrines are very important and worthy of considering. He contends, and I agree, that fundamentalists err in not being willing to prioritize doctrine. This leads, as he points out, to unnecessary and harmful divisions in the church in general. I have stressed the importance of prioritizing doctrines elsewhere. For this post, I want to just reproduce most of Mohler’s article, with highlights and etc. added. I encourage you to consider what Mohler has to say.

In every generation, the church is commanded to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” That is no easy task, and it is complicated by the multiple attacks upon Christian truth that mark our contemporary age. Assaults upon the Christian faith are no longer directed only at isolated doctrines. The entire structure of Christian truth is now under attack by those who would subvert Christianity’s theological integrity.

Today’s Christian faces the daunting task of strategizing which Christian doctrines and theological issues are to be given highest priority in terms of our contemporary context. This applies both to the public defense of Christianity in face of the secular challenge and the internal responsibility of dealing with doctrinal disagreements. Neither is an easy task, but theological seriousness and maturity demand that we consider doctrinal issues in terms of their relative importance. God’s truth is to be defended at every point and in every detail, but responsible Christians must determine which issues deserve first-rank attention in a time of theological crisis.

…

The word “triage” comes from the French word “trier,” which means “to sort.” Thus, the triage officer in the medical context is the front-line agent for deciding which patients need the most urgent treatment. Without such a process, the scraped knee would receive the same urgency of consideration as a gunshot wound to the chest. The same discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the emergency room can also offer great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present age.

A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world’s framework for medical priority. With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological priorities found in current doctrinal debates.

First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.

…

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.

The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident.

Second-order issues would include the meaning and mode of baptism….disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination.

Christians across a vast denominational range can stand together on the first-order doctrines and recognize each other as authentic Christians, while understanding that the existence of second-order disagreements prevents the closeness of fellowship we would otherwise enjoy.

…

In recent years, the issue of women serving as pastors has emerged as another second-order issue. Again, a church or denomination either will ordain women to the pastorate, or it will not. Second-order issues resist easy settlement by those who would prefer an either/or approach. Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding of the church and its ordering by the Word of God.

Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category…. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.

A structure of theological triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less than full seriousness. We are charged to embrace and to teach the comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There are no insignificant doctrines revealed in the Bible, but there is an essential foundation of truth that undergirds the entire system of biblical truth.

This structure of theological triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful. The error of theological liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the church’s treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal ambiguity is the inevitable result.

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided.

Living in an age of widespread doctrinal denial and intense theological confusion, thinking Christians must rise to the challenge of Christian maturity, even in the midst of a theological emergency. We must sort the issues with a trained mind and a humble heart, in order to protect what the Apostle Paul called the “treasure” that has been entrusted to us. Given the urgency of this challenge, a lesson from the emergency room just might help.

While I was preparing for my recent post on secondary separation, I stumbled across this joke.    I thought it would lighten the discussion and add humor to my latest discussion of secondary separation. However, it also illustrates the extremes to which secondary separation can digress.

There was a man who was about to jump from a bridge to end his own life. A passerby stopped to try to prevent it. The passerby tried to start a conversation and told the jumper, “I am a Baptist”. The jumper said, “me too”. “Oh really, that’s great”, said the passerby, “are you a pre-millenialist Baptist?” The jumper replied, “yes I am”. The passerby said, “great, me too”. The passerby asked, “are you a King James version only Baptist or will you use other versions?” “King James only” said the jumper. “Me too” said the passerby. “Are you a 5-point Calvinist?”, asked the passerby. “No” replied the jumper. “Me either” said the passerby. “Would you recognize baptism from a Baptist Church where the pastor did not attend a Baptist seminary?” The jumper replied “Yes”. The passerby then shouts, “Die! Heretic! And pushes the jumper off the bridge.

[The above joke was given in a comment by Ron Bean (who states it is not original to him) in the discussion of an article entitled “Unity is Fundamental”  on Sharper Iron.]

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Secondary separation, the belief that the Bible requires separation from those who do not separate from apostates (primary separation), is at the heart of what it means to be a fundamentalist today. It is not enough to believe in the fundamentals of the faith, or even to “do battle royal” for them (through separating from apostates). No, one must separate from those who, although they believe in the fundamentals themselves, do not separate (at least to the degree we think they should)  from apostates. One must furhter separate from those who associate with those who do not separate from apostates.     Only then is one truly a fundamentalist.  

This position inevitably (and actually) results in the wholesale rejection of all of orthodox evangelicalism (besides fundamentalists, of course). In short, if you are not one of us, then we must separate from you. Why? Because you are not one of us, of course!

Nathan Busenitz  recently addressed this very issue in a series of blogposts on his group blog  Faith and Practice  (HT: Ben Wright). Nathan is a personal assistant to John MacArthur, and like Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs fame)  he has interacted  with fundamentalists on the issue of separation. Since many fundamentalists respect MacArthur’s ministry, Phil and Nathan legitimately wonder why fundamentalists cannot/do not  associate with them.

I found Nathan’s assessment of secondary separation  to be immensely helpful. What follows is a brief summary of  his three posts, with excerpts. I encourage you, however, to read them in full on your own.

Nathan begins with a post entitled “History’s Blurred Line of Separation”  where he traces early fundamentalism’s inconsistent positions on ecclesiastical separation (separation at the church or public/institutional level). He points out that W. B. Riley, “Fighting Bob” Schuler, and Bob Jones, Sr. all remained in denominations tainted with liberalism for many years. He also demonstrates that John R. Rice preached against secondary separation. Concerning fundamentalist history Nathan writes:

…we see various approaches, applications, and controversies regarding the issue of ecclesiastical separation. There was clearly no unified, one-size-fits-all model of separation, especially with regard to separating from conservative brothers who remained within the mainline denominations (second-degree separation). Some didn’t even believe such separation was right. And yet these men were all equally committed to the fundamentals of the faith and the absolute authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible.

After presenting the confusing history of early fundamentalism he offers the following suggestion:

Could it be that, for many of the first-generation fundamentalists, second-degree separation was not viewed as an explicit biblical doctrine, but rather as a wisdom issue in which biblical principles were to be applied on a case-by-case basis?

Next, Nathan focuses on 2 Thess. 3 in response to some comments positing that this passage is a Scriptural justification of secondary separation at the ecclesiastical level. His brief post on 2 Thess. 3  does a good job at critiquing the fundamentalist understanding of this passage. It furthers his case that secondary separation is not explicitly prescribed in Scripture and thus should be treated as a wisdom issue.

His final post We Do Believe in Separation emphasizes that MacArthur and his  church  clearly believe in separating from apostates and even those associated with apostates. But he wraps up the whole discussion as follows:

Where we differ with typical fundamentalism, I believe, is at the third- and fourth-degree separation levels (if I can even speak of such levels of biblical separation). We find primary separation explicitly taught in the New Testament. It is, therefore, a non-negotiable for us. But we do not find secondary (or tertiary) separation explicitly taught in the New Testament. Thus it is treated as a wisdom issue in which biblical principles must be brought to bear on a case-by-case basis.

To conclude my discussion of Nathan’s posts, let me highlight that secondary separation at an ecclesiastical level  is not explicitly taught in the New Testament. This is what makes it a wisdom issue. All of us are required to apply the principles of Scripture to our associations, and often some form of secondary separation is found to be wise (as in the case of Billy Graham, for instance). But since it is not explicitly commanded, it is wrong for me to demand the same level of secondary separation from others before I fellowship with them. It is wrong to elevate  my wisdom positions to the level of a fundamental doctrine. This is an area where I must part ways with fundamentalists. This does not mean they lose my respect–I respect many of them. It means I differ with them on this point.

Any of you fundamentalist readers want to comment on this? I would be glad to discuss this issue further. But for now, Nathan’s posts seem to clearly express my own disagreement with fundamentalism on this issue.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7