Southern Baptists Defining 'Second Tier' Issues: A Simple Test Case

Recently I enjoyed a sermon by a major SBC leader who extolled the virtues of making proper distinctions between first, second, and third tier doctrines. Though not the speaker, Dr. Al Mohler, President of SBTS, made this practical hermeneutical overlay popular, referring to it as a theological triage (A Theology of the Church, pp.930-31). Though not necessarily intended to be more than a practical example of discerning priorities within a congregation, particularly from a pastoral perspective, the theological triage, has, in many respects, been baptized as the official hermeneutical trajectory in Baptist circles, serving as the lens through which we relate both to one another as Baptists as well as other Christians in the non-Baptist world   >>>

Defining Second Tier

In addition, Wayne Grudem gave us a nifty little tool with his theological continuum whereby "true churches" was one polarity and "false churches" another. A middle line of demarcation separated true from false, with varying degrees of "more pure" and "less pure" on the side of the "true churches"(Systematic Theology, p.867ff). Though Grudem didn't make such distinctions, it may follow that "more corrupt" and "less corrupt" could fit under the "false churches" side of the continuum.

Personally I've employed a similar tool through the years I got somewhere (I'm quite sure it's not original with me) composed of concentric circles, the outer circle representing the "least pure" doctrinal belief and the inner being the "most pure." The "most pure" is also the absolute non-negotiable core of Christian belief. We used to call the core "orthodoxy" or "basic Christianity" or "fundamentalism."

I'm confident other tools exist to offer general perspectives of our theological place on the ecclesial terrain. Nevertheless, none of these interpretative overlays becomes an end in itself nor can, with mathematical precision, offer a definitive position where we are theologically and certainly not where we ought to be. If doing theology or doing church was that simple, all we'd require is software--key the data in and out pops the correct answer.

In the same message mentioned above, the definition to 'second tier' beliefs was indicative of beliefs essential to church life and order but beliefs which do not define the gospel. Beliefs which do define the gospel include the full deity and humanity of Christ, the Trinity, the atonement, and justification by faith alone. 'Third tier' issues were also discussed as those that do not threaten local church fellowship or denomination. Debates over second coming timing fit here. Yet, while important, third tier doctrines do not constitute ground for separation among believing Christians. Indeed second and third tier doctrines may actually distract from the mission thrust of the congregation.

The Dilemma of Second Tier

Given the above, I confess my confusion how this teases out both in cultural engagement and denominational participation. I offer the following as a simple test. Suppose we have a denomination that:

• Accepts The Apostle's Creed perhaps the most ancient extra-biblical creed known
• Accepts The Nicene Creed again, another early and well-known historic creed embraced by most all branches of the Christian Church
• Confesses explicitly the "one triune God, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, of one substance and of three persons...That Jesus...the Christ...is God incarnate, of human birth, fully God and fully human...The Holy Spirit is God...Every person is justified by grace to God through faith in Jesus Christ."

As the denomination's faith statement makes clear, they agree with historic Christianity's "first tier" beliefs--indeed every first-order doctrine mentioned in the speaker's list, the denomination embraces. Of course, some may have already guessed which denomination accepts "first tier doctrines"--which definitively constitute the most important doctrines--though obviously we do not accept them as a Christian denomination: Metropolitian Community Churches.

For me, MCC poses a good example of what can go horribly wrong if we employ a parsing guide as if it is a definitive hermeneutic principle. Why? Consider: if MCC embraces first tier doctrines, why do we not accept them as a Christian denomination? If the reason we do not accept them as a Christian denomination is not based upon their rejection of first tier doctrines, it must be we do not accept them as Christian based upon their rejection of either a) second tier doctrines or b) third tier doctrines. However, it cannot be b) because third tier doctrines are not doctrines over which to divide. Hence, it must be we reject MCC because of second tier doctrines.

The tension we face with MCC is lessened none in the least, however. For we are rejecting a denomination as Christian which embraces the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and first tier doctrines we embrace, but rejecting them based upon second tier belief.

In my view, homosexuality is a serious breach in biblical morals, an ugly but accurate picture of human depravity when "God gives over" to the desires of the flesh. Homosexual behavior is condemned in the strongest terms Scripture gives.

Nonetheless, once we've made such Scriptural discernment clear, unless an argument is forthcoming which demonstrates being homosexual is intrinsically connected to and consequently affects the definition of the gospel, we cannot, based upon the tiered overlay we've considered above, reject MCC as a Christian denomination. Biblical sexuality is a Scriptural doctrine but not, according to the above template, a doctrine which qualifies as first tier. Hence, there must be other grounds to reject MCC as Christian than first tier alone.

Frankly, this puts MCC on the same level as the PCA. We reject affiliation with PCA based upon infant baptism, a supposed second tier belief (other second tier beliefs too). Similarly, we reject MCC based upon a second tier belief, homosexuality (other second tier beliefs too). The dilemma is, PCA is not rejected as Christian while MCC is. Why?

The Deficiency of Second Tier

In conclusion, I have to wonder just how far we can get on a tank of gas like 'tierism' affords. An interpretative principle which continually parses out doing theology and doing church, ever looking for the lowest common denominator which makes us "like them" or them "like us," appears to me a colossal waste of time. In some lecture somewhere I heard famed Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul make a statement pertaining to another subject but incredibly applicable here, "It's lousy, rotten, stinkin' scholarship to look for similarities and ignore differences."

Why not be who we are and let it stand? Even more, why not stop comparing ourselves among ourselves and look to Him if we're bent on being like someone else?

I fully appreciate (I think) the dilemma in conflicting absolutes, at least in moral theory; that is, when moral absolutes collide (as inevitably they will) in a fallen world (e.g. Does one lie to save a life and, if so, is it the right thing to do?), making excruciatingly tough decisions based upon the dilemma requires courage, humility, and, in some sense, compromise. In other words, given both absolutes cannot be fulfilled, one must be chosen, the other sacrificed. But the absolute is suspended only when forced in a genuine moral dilemma. Originally, medical triage worked in similar "emergency" situations. All things equal, every patient would receive equally quality treatment.

Even so, a moral construct cannot be built on exceptional cases as those above any more than theological principles can be constructed upon the barest biblical bones possible. The reason is clear: the Bible itself gives little, if any, indication to us what first, second, and third tier doctrines are.

For myself, I cannot imagine parsing Jesus' words into first, second, and third tier importance. For example, most of us think being a worry-wart would surely fit the third tier category, would we not? However, in the space of a few verses, Jesus has this to say:

• "Don't worry about your life..."(v.25)
• "Can any of you add a single cubit to his height by worrying?" (v.27)
• "And why do you worry about clothes?" (v.28)
• "So don't worry, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear?' For the idolaters eagerly seek all these things...(vv.31-32)
• "Therefore don't worry about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself" (v.34)

Given the three-tier paradigm we're offered, Jesus surely has gone morally overboard, making much out of little--at least little the way we see it. Furthermore, Jesus had a pattern of doing things like this. In the same context, any way one slices it, Jesus turns what appears to be a second or third tier issue into a primary one:

"You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder , and whoever murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Fool!' will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, 'You moron!' will be subject to hellfire" (Matt. 5:21-22)

Who would ever, in a million years, think calling people names would be a serious moral breach? Yet our Lord makes no neat distinction for us that treating people less than made in His image is a second or even third tier belief or behavior. In the same sense, who has the moral authority to monkey with the gospel order given by our Lord when it comes to the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper? I openly confess I don't, and I openly insist you don't either.

From my view, we really need to think through this particular solution as a universal interpretative principle before we not only embarrass ourselves but more importantly dishonor our Lord and Savior. Perhaps the theological triage is a good, practical example to illustrate how significant discernment is. However, going beyond the practical and serving as a universal template to parse biblical theology may not only ask more of the triage than it is capable of delivering, but also lead to irresolvable conflict none of us desire.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Byroniac]

Peter, you never did acknowledge my question on the other post, concerning baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Christ's Apostles. I was thankful to interact with Luke on it. It was just out of curiosity, anyway. And no one has responded to this yet, so I thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth.

You have shown me my error of thinking here: I thought even homosexuality could be considered a second tier issue, but clearly it cannot. After reading Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6, I see that it fits a first tier issue according to the Scriptures. It most definitely is a grave spiritual error of an unregenerate heart in Romans 1.

The MCC statement of beliefs is interesting. I was with them right up to and including the part that begins, "That Jesus...the Christ...historically recorded as living some 2,000 years before this writing, is God incarnate, of human birth, fully God and fully human." Then my red flag went up with the rest of that statement, which ends with, "and that by being one with God, Jesus has demonstrated once and forever that all people are likewise Children of God, being spiritually made in God's image." The MCC has confused being made in God's image with being children of God (which requires salvation). This proves they reject Scripture (at least portions of it), because Christ righteously accused some of being "of your Father, the Devil" (John 8:44) to those who nonetheless were made in God's image. Thus I can in all good conscience completely reject the MCC as even being Christian, though I do not so with the PCA (though I disagree with them on Baptism and other issues of ecclesiology).

Lastly, the order of the terms of accusation in your post is reversed in Matthew 5:22. It is the accusation of "moron" (Raca) which is mentioned first, and then the accusation of "Fool." I think your point remains, though, about our words causing serious moral breach. I know I still smart a little from the instruction you gave.

I am not sure about tiered levels of importance and the theological triage when it comes to doctrine. I believe where Scripture speaks, we are to obey, and where it is silent, we have liberty (so there's at least two tiers there, I guess). If we all had perfect knowledge, and a perfect heart, there would be no divisions of doctrine or fellowship among us as Christians, but sadly that is not possible in this world. We must follow Christ as best as we can.

[peter]

Byron,

Thanks. First, just because MCC thinks humans are 'children of God' does not mean they necessarily equate it with all humans being redeemed. Evangelical theologians have historically and routinely made a distinction between children of God via creation and children of God via Christ. That MCC confesses 'salvation through faith in Jesus Christ' is indicative of the latter.

Second, I haven't a clue your point about reversal. Third, I have nor real difficulty in accepting 'tiers' when we look at doctrine. But Mohler's tiers, like Grudem's continuum are tools, not hermeneutical universals to parse our Lord's words apart.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Gilliam]

My hope is built on... Jesus blood and righteousness.
All other ground is sinking sand
All othere gound is sinking sand, (to which I shed teirs).

THanks for helping us think thru this!

Chris

[Byroniac]

Peter,

It does not matter to me what the MCC thinks. I see your point, but they cannot escape the full force of Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians 6. It comes down to the fact that having the right "lingo" is not enough, that definitions of words do matter (e.g., Mormonism). I was trying to hint at my main point, but I'll say it directly: the error of the MCC dwarfs the error of the PCA according to the Scriptures. I reject both, but only one is non-Christian.

Second, my point was that you have misquoted Matthew 5:22.

Third, I agree. Your thinking has helped me here.

[Byroniac]

Peter,

Sorry, I am the one who is mistaken. I was not aware you were quoting from the HCSB which I have no real familiarity with. Why is its translation different than others (such as NASB, ESV, and KJV). Sorry, the fault is mine.

[Wayne Smith]

Peter,

AMEN to your word on DISCERNMENT FOR OUR Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

From my view, we really need to think through this particular solution as a universal interpretative principle before we not only embarrass ourselves but more importantly dishonor our Lord and Savior. Perhaps the theological tirage is a good, practical example to illustrate how significant discernment is. However, going beyond the practical and serving as a universal template to parse biblical theology may not only ask more of the tirage than it is capable of delivering, but also lead to irresolvable conflict none of us desire.

Wayne

[Wayne Smith]

Peter,

Dr Charles Stanley preached the Sermon of all Sermons this past Sunday on Conflict and Discernment. You can listen to it here.

http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.4943195/k.95DD/This_Week_on_TV.htm

Wayne

[selahV]

Wayne, that was a good sermon. I emailed it to a friend. selahV

[joe white]

Peter,

I am in agreement with the issues you have raised in this post. The points of concern that I have with the Theological Triage model that is being presented is twofold. Number 1, who gets to decide which doctrines and commands of our Lord go in what tier? For example: what if someone wants to lower baptism or at least baptism by immersion to a tier 3 level doctrine. Who gets to decide? Number 2, the labeling and relagating of some doctrines and commands of our Lord to the level of non-essential or non-necessary. It seems to me, if we are to become a true GC denomination that we must at least endeavor to "teach them to observe ALL things whatsoever the Lord has commanded".

By the way, I think Dr. Akin's Axioms has gone along way in defining for me this GCR. I am hopeful and moderately excited.

[Tim G]

Well done Peter.

I wondered how to best put my concerns with this whole triage issue. You have done it for me!

Thank you!