Five years ago, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Al Mohler, put up a short piece on his blog entitled “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,” a piece he probably did not realize at the time would become a hermeneutical shibboleth for some in Southern Baptist circles >>>
In the short essay, he suggested doing community theology was like doing emergency room triage: “In recent years, emergency medical personnel have practiced a discipline known as triage–a process that allows trained personnel to make a quick evaluation of relative medical urgency.” Triage discerns which injury needs the most attention most quickly, providing a healthy utilitarian outcome—the greatest good for the greatest number of patients. Scraped knees are put on hold while gunshots to the head are tended.
Triage Concept
Mohler’s basic analogical premise was just as a triage officer in the medical context is the front-line agent for deciding which patients need the most urgent treatment, the triage model offers “great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present age.” With this idea in mind, Mohler offers his initial tiered or triaged interpretative platform for doing theology.
First-level theological doctrines would include central doctrines essential to the Christian faith including the Trinity, the deity of Christ, justification by faith, and biblical authority. Denying first-tier doctrines, in essence, denies historic Christianity and faithful orthodoxy.
Second-order issues include the meaning and mode of baptism. However, unlike denying first-level doctrines, denying second-tier doctrines does not forfeit Christian orthodoxy. Mohler explains
“[While} Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism… [they] eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians…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”
Finally, third-tier doctrines are beliefs which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within the same local congregation. Mohler places the timing of Christ’s second coming into this category.
Triage Popularity
Mohler’s triage model got further exposure when he expanded his blog post into a chapter entitled, “The Pastor as Theologian” in A Theology for the Church (B&H, 2007), a standard seminary textbook for theology classes. Southeastern seminary’s president, Danny Akin, served as editor of the volume and later spoke in his famous “axioms for a GCR” sermon: “No one has been more helpful in helping us think rightly and wisely in this area [theological discernment] than Dr. Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His paradigm of “theological triage” gets to the heart of how we can think well theologically.”
Indeed nowhere is triage taken more seriously than at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS). In fact, SEBTS may be the quintessential proponent of triage as hermeneutical shibboleth. Southeastern’s blog remains jammed with adherence to triage (for example see, Danny Akin [here, here], Nathan Finn [ here, here, here, here], Bruce Ashford). Hence, it seems like, according to SEBTS (and presumably others as well), triage remains the centerpiece for keeping doctrine hermeneutically sound on the one hand and keeping denominational strife at a minimum on the other.
A couple of observations if I may
First, while doing triage appears to be an inescapably wise procedure in medical room settings where emergencies are the norm, there seems no apparent reason to believe triage is the norm in medical settings where emergencies are not the norm. In other words, triage seems to work when two or more actions cannot be done simultaneously, a nifty little either/or procedure. Hence, it’s either attend to a scraped knee or a gunshot to the head but not both. Of course, the unspoken presumption is, it is impossible to do both since presumably resources are limited. However, all things being equal, wise medical protocol insists all injuries are treated properly and has, on hand, the resources to do so.
The difficulty in bringing over the triage concept from the medical setting centers on the nature of doing biblical theology. That is, what makes the hermeneutical question a matter of perpetual emergency where an either/or state of affairs exists which demand we place one biblical doctrine in the background as less significant than another? Or, put another way, why should triage, a procedure specifically designed for emergencies, serve as the normal standard protocol in non-emergency settings? Presumably, it wouldn’t and doesn’t in normal medical settings. Then, why should triage serve as the normal standard in hermeneutical settings? For those interested, I posted a response sometime ago which teased this particular criticism of triage out further.
Second, in light of Al Mohler’s recent cultural exchange over yoga, I cannot resist the obvious question: is yoga a first-tier, second-tier, or third-tier issue?* I think an answer is especially significant since Dr. Mohler has been so aggressive in tackling the yoga issue. One particular statement Dr. Mohler made stirred some media dust which I later logged in a post entitled, “Al Mohler and Moral Reasoning as Applied to Yoga & Perhaps Another Thing or Two.” Said Mohler,
"Christians who practice yoga are embracing, or at minimum flirting with, a spiritual practice that threatens to transform their own spiritual lives into a `post-Christian, spiritually polyglot' reality. Should any Christian willingly risk that?" (link)
More recently, Dr. Mohler has this to say about the exchange he’s had over yoga:
In Sunday’s edition of The New York Times…Paul Vitello writes about “a surprisingly fierce debate in the gentle world of yoga.” Well, welcome to my world…It all started when I was asked to answer a practical pastoral question: Should Christians Practice Yoga? My answer was the answer long offered by those committed to orthodox biblical Christianity — No” (embolden mine)
Coupling Mohler’s curious moral reasoning in the first instance (see my thoughts on the insufficiency of Mohler’s moral reasoning in the piece linked above, “Al Mohler and Moral Reasoning…”) with his latest assessment on whether yoga is morally and doctrinally acceptable in genuinely Christian communities in the more recent instance casts a doubtful shadow over triage remaining intellectually sound not to mention pragmatically usable. In fact, yoga may very well be the end of hermeneutical triage--the fatal flaw, so to speak.
Why would his words cast doubt on triage?
Note Dr. Mohler’s conclusion as highlighted above. The answer to whether yoga is acceptable to the Christian community is clear, at least from Mohler’s perspective:
“My answer was the answer long offered by those committed to orthodox biblical Christianity — No”
So, orthodox biblical Christianity definitively judges yoga as morally wrong, hence unacceptable Christian practice?
But I thought first-tier issues like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, justification by faith alone, and biblical authority constituted the essence of faithful orthodoxy and biblical Christianity. Mohler seems to equate “those committed to orthodox biblical Christianity” with those who answer “No” to practicing yoga. Nevertheless, it seems to me by no stretch may one make yoga into a first-tier issue which is precisely what Mohler has apparently done, a practice judged unChristian, and therefore, off moral limits, by those committed to orthodox biblical Christianity. Indeed for triage advocates, it seems practicing yoga is--or at minimum implies--far more serious and morally repulsive than baptizing babies, since paedo-baptism remains a second-tier issue according to the hermeneutical triage while an anti-yoga position is explicitly associated with Christian biblical orthodoxy.
Again the logic for choosing yoga upon which to take a morally cultural stand escapes me, especially coupling it with what is traditional, orthodox biblical Christianity. For example, compare the social destruction intoxicating substances wreaks on our society. The 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that among high-school students, when asked whether, during the past 30 days, had alcohol been consumed, 45 percent drank some amount of alcohol. Also, an estimated 46 million persons ages 12 or older are “binge drinkers.” ** More than one-fifth (23.3 percent) of persons aged 12 or older participated in binge drinking at least once in the 30 days before the survey in 2007. This translates to about 57.8 million people.
Even more disheartening is the fact that although the numbers decrease with age, a shocking number of heavy drinkers begin at the tender age of 12. In 2006—the latest available statistics (when I researched it a year ago)—117,000 “binge drinkers” between the ages of 12 and 13 were boozing it up. Imagine: on average in excess of 300 drinking “binges” per day by 12- to 13-year olds alone. Overall, underage drinkers consumed about 11 percent of all the alcohol purchased in the United States in 2002, with the overwhelming majority of alcohol consumed in a risky fashion. In addition approximately 90 percent of alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 years in is “risky” drinking (i.e.,binge drinking).***
One has to ask, how many families are destroyed because of yoga? How many teens are addicted to yoga? How many people are killed by yoga? How many crimes can be directly correlated to practicing yoga? Does yoga inhibit a child from learning in school? Does yoga inevitably lead to more destructive practices? Does yoga lead to child abuse or wife beating? Does yoga burden the socio-health system we have in place? When is the last time one heard of yoga so distorting one’s judgment, a head-on collision between two automobiles took place on the freeway? When is the last time one heard of a new study which linked yoga with any number of serious diseases?
The questions are endless I assure concerning a comparison between alcohol’s destructive effects, which are empirically verified, and yoga’s apparent innocuous effects on our culture.
Conclusion
If I am correct, how it remains conceivable for one to legitimately judge yoga as a morally unacceptable, unworthy practice by “those committed to orthodox biblical Christianity” but judge as morally adiaphorous those who not only believe in the social acceptance of consuming intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes but who also consume the intoxicating substances themselves (//link, link, link). Is not one dangerously close to morally straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?
No amount of sophistry can scrub the clear and verifiable destructive effects intoxicating substances wreak on socio-culture and judge the pleasurable use of such a dangerous drug to be “third-tier,” non-significant, negotiable belief and behavior which all those nonetheless committed to orthodox biblical Christianity may take or leave at will, while at the same time judge an innocuous practice**** like yoga as incompatible with orthodox biblical Christianity. Who can intellectually embrace such moral nonsense? Is this the hermeneutical triage in action?
Sweet heavens, I hope not!
For my part, what we see in the issue of yoga is the complete meltdown of the oft-quoted triage as a viable interpretative principle doing theology. At best, triage is an interesting idea and may at times be a useful tool for special occasions. But let’s be clear: triage is not the handyman’s choice, a standby he keeps in his tool belt for all jobs he tackles as he solves interpretative issues in Scripture. And, it’s not even close to what Dr. Akin describes it as—the hermeneutical “paradigm” which “gets to the heart of how we can think well theologically.”
I hope and pray our SBC leaders will see how Christian ethics is stood on its head when we can crusade against yoga but judge one’s view of and participation in the social acceptance of intoxicating substances to be left to the area of “Christian liberty,” sorta an I-like-chocolate-you-like-vanilla perspective.
With that, I am…
Peter
*the reader should be aware that I am making no decisive judgment in this piece as to my position on whether yoga is acceptable or unacceptable for believers; rather, using yoga, I’m pointing out the insufficiency of triage as a viable, comprehensive hermeneutical principle as advocated by its passionate adherents
**According to the Center for Disease Control binge drinking is defined for scientific purposes as “drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion (i.e., at the same time or within a couple of hours of each other) on at least one day in the past 30 days”
***Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence (Hannibal Books, 2009, pp16-17)
**** “innocuous” surely so far as socio-cultural effects are concerned
Excellent logic Peter.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that there is a lack of consistency when a Southern Baptist condemns those Christians who practice yoga while not participating in the evil practice of worshipping false gods but then refuse to condemn those Christians who drink alcoholic beverages without participating in the associated evil of drunkenness.
I hope people see the benefit of avoiding both legalistic stances and fellowship around the tertiary belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ.
Again, excellent logic.
Posted by: Wade Burleson | 2010.11.30 at 02:31 PM
Peter, I too wonder about the 'priorities' Christian people have sometimes.
Something like yoga, compared to the great need in our world for the Saving Lord, is not worth a minute of our time by comparison.
There are so many more important concerns for Christian people. The silly 'distractions', that pull us away from serving Lord Christ, should bring us to our knees in shame:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POm7_WBMJTI
Posted by: Christiane | 2010.11.30 at 05:28 PM
All analogies eventually fail, simply because of their nature: an analogy is a comparison which has enough congruence to offer insight, while not claiming to be a systematic proof. Peter, you have assumed that the analogy of theological triage is flawed because you find a point at which the comparison fails--and yet, that always happens with analogies. Consequently, what you have discovered is not of great consequence. It is built on a faulty assumption, an assumption of sand, and not a firm foundation.
Now frankly, I am not as enamored with Dr. Mohler's concept of theological triage as some apparently are. I am not even sure it is of great significance itself, although it has some pragmatic usefulness--at least if a group of people can agree on what belongs in which tier, which is apparently not an easy thing to accomplish. But the fact that doing theology is not limited by either the same urgency or the same limited resources as medical triage is not a fatal flaw in the analogy, but simply a point at which the analogy breaks down.
John
Posted by: John Fariss | 2010.11.30 at 05:31 PM
"Again the logic for choosing yoga upon which to take a morally cultural stand escapes me, especially coupling it with what is traditional, orthodox biblical Christianity."
I think the answer is really quite simple. Yoga is a false religion. It's not about morality as much as about idolatry. I think perhaps you're comparing apples and oranges.
Posted by: Darby Livingston | 2010.11.30 at 08:18 PM
Christiane,
Thanks. I think you are right about distractions though I do feel strongly that remaining strong on certain moral positions are essential to being salt and light in our cultural context. I appreciate your logging on.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.11.30 at 08:46 PM
John,
I'm unclear about your meaning, John. I do not disagree with your denial that analogies constitute "systematic proof" but I offered nothing in my piece to indicate analogies do so. Hence, your conclusion my points are "built on a faulty assumption, an assumption of sand, and not a firm foundation" makes entirely no sense.
The fact remains, analogy is the basis of most all human thinking, especially inductive inferences. Indeed without analogy (comparisons) it would be virtually impossible to communicate at all. Nor does imperfection completely void analogous thinking. Maps are pieces of paper which look absolutely nothing like the terrain of the country one is travelling. However, there is enough structural identity between the terrain and the map for us to reasonably infer we're headed in the right direction.
Nor am I under the illusion the analogy of theological triage is flawed because I found a point at which the comparison fails. Instead my point was and remains, the triage analogy is flawed not because there is "a point" at which the analogy fails; rather the analogy fails because the primary component in the analogy of comparing medical emergency triage with standard biblical hermeneutics has virtually no structural identity to compare. Hence, if there is no structural identity in the inference, there is no sound analogy (by "sound" I do not mean "proof" but only reasonable inference by comparison).
Thus, John, I really don't think your conclusions about analogies are either sufficiently thought-through or applicable to my piece here.
Thanks.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.11.30 at 09:22 PM
Darby,
The answer is hardly so simple as "yoga is a false religion." Please, brother. Last month patriotism was idolatry.
Just because yoga is still practiced in its purer forms in India makes for exactly nothing toward the practice of yoga in America. If one insists that the "spiritual" yoga in its eastern forms constitutes the mainstream forms practiced by mostly women and children in the states for mere exercise and balance, then I suggest we go after martial arts as well. For if yoga cannot be separated from its spiritual roots, neither can martial arts be separated from the spiritual roots upon which it is based.
And, while I have no personal experience with yoga, I surely do martial arts and can personally attest to its intellectual rootedness in eastern mysticism. Maybe both Southern and Southeastern seminaries should get rid of their karate classes on campus. What do you think?
Moreover, if the origins of a particular practice seals forever the specific nature of the practice, then the argument against yoga can safely be placed into the kooky category of condemning Santa Claus, the easter bunny, and, oh yes, the godless druid worship and satanic service that kids do on Halloween. Is this really the way we want this cultural conversation to head?
Sweet Georgia peaches, I surely hope not!
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.11.30 at 09:44 PM
“Then say Shibboleth,” and he said, “Sibboleth.” LOL. BTW, is it weird that Wade agrees with your logic!? As an aside: Am I still banned!?
Posted by: kevin | 2010.11.30 at 10:34 PM
Fine, you win Peter. No more Karate. :)
Posted by: Darby Livingston | 2010.11.30 at 10:48 PM
Kevin,
I love the passage with the 'password' to cross the river. Extra-cool.
As for the weirdness of Wade's agreement with me, you should recall the past Wade and I unfortunately have. Under no circumstances is Wade attempting to throw polish and spitshine my logic; rather he wrongly thinks (and his pattern of criticisms bear this out nicely) that somehow consistency *is* the summum bonum of belief and behavior.
The obvious error is, of course, one may hold a position which is perfectly consistent (Wade's point about consistently either accepting or rejecting both yoga and social drink) and also strangely wrong. Logical consistency is never a test for truth; it is only a negative test for error. That is, logical inconsistency determines a position to be false (my point concerning the crusade against yoga but acceptance of social drink) but consistency does nothing to determine a position's truth (Wade's point about accepting both yoga AND social drink). Enough about that...
No, you are not banned.
Have a great day and thanks for logging on (and for following my blog ;^)
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.12.01 at 06:54 AM
Darby,
Good one! :^)
Have a great day, bro.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.12.01 at 06:56 AM
Peter, you wrote of me:
"...he wrongly thinks (and his pattern of criticisms bear this out nicely) that somehow consistency *is* the summum bonum of belief and behavior."
It seems, Peter, that you are the one pressing for consistency. You wrote in your post above:
"Again the logic for choosing yoga upon which to take a morally cultural stand escapes me, especially coupling it with what is traditional, orthodox biblical Christianity. For example, compare the social destruction intoxicating substances wreaks on our society."
Are you not saying that Al Mohler is illogical for condemning the practice of yoga by Christians and not the practice of drinking alcohol by Christians? It seems most readers would assume that you are pressing consistency. I commend you for this.
We agree that it is illogical (your word) and inconsistent (my word) to condemn one and not both. Your comment to me above seems to be an unintentional diss of the logic of your own post.
Smiling.
Posted by: Wade Burleson | 2010.12.01 at 09:59 AM
Dear Wade,
If I had hope an exchange with you would be worth my time, I'd gladly oblige. Sadly, hope remains absent. Alas...
Frowning...
With that, I am...
Peter
P.S. Have a good day...
Posted by: peter | 2010.12.01 at 10:04 AM
Peter,
Darby is right that you are comparing apples and oranges. Mohler's theological triage is exactly that - theological. Nowhere have I seen him or Akin apply triage to alcohol (or yoga). He speaks of triage in reference to DOCTRINE. Every article you linked spoke of the triage in terms of first-tier DOCTRINES such as the Trinity, second-tier DOCTRINES such as baptism and, third-tier DOCTRINES such as eschatology.
Thus, when you force the application of alcohol and yoga, which are ETHICAL issues more so than THEOLOGICAL, you twist Mohler's paradigm in such a way that you in essence create a straw man, which you easily defeat. Perhaps one should create an ETHICAL triage where such issues can be understood appropriately. Then you could legitimately argue against Mohler's placement of yoga as a 1st tier ethical issue (should he place it as such). Until then, you are only assuming Mohler's views, applying it to your triage paradigm (which is NOT Mohler's), then attacking him based on those assumptions. Thus the logic of your entire post is seriously flawed.
Posted by: D.R. Randle | 2010.12.02 at 03:59 PM
On a related note, it seems to me that the issue of yoga is much more applicable of an issue to the stumbling block passages than is alcohol, since meat sacrificed to idols is related to idol worship, whereas alcohol is not specifically related to idol worship. And the fear in those passages is that brothers would fall into idol worship (or assume that idol worship is compatible with Christianity - legitimately a concern given Israel's history), not into an addictive behavior.
Posted by: D.R. Randle | 2010.12.02 at 04:01 PM
D.R.
Thanks.
Darby is right about what? That “yoga is a false religion”? If he is, then it’s hard for me to see how you are right when you suggest, “Nowhere have I seen him or Akin apply triage to alcohol (or yoga). He speaks of triage in reference to DOCTRINE.” If yoga is religion as you (presumably agreeing with Darby) appear to embrace, then does not false religion concern doctrine? On the other hand, I think it’s nothing short of easy to demonstrate cultural yoga we see so popularly displayed here in America is far short of being established religion.
Even so, I’m more puzzled why you think Mohler would not be doing triage with yoga. After all, he is the one who explicitly wed an anti-yoga position with being biblically orthodox. Indeed Mohler makes yoga more about belief than behavior. Did you not read what he wrote about whether yoga was acceptable to the Christian community? Let me remind you:
Also, Mohler spoke of “biblical truths” in general being under triage:
And further, Mohler says,
In addition, Finn says,
Triage not being considered for biblical truths or ethical issues other than “DOCTRINES”? I don’t think so.
More problematic for you is precisely how you slice a clean cut between biblical doctrine on the one hand and biblical ethics on the other. I suggest you rethink your strange dichotomy, D.R. I ‘m afraid you’d be hard-pressed to defend it.
If I am correct, then your conclusion I forced Mohler’s triage concept consequently creating a “straw man” easy to defeat hardly follows. Nor does your further assertion concerning the logic of my entire post being “seriously flawed.” If there is any serious flaw, I think it’s easy to see just whose critique matches your conclusion—unfortunately, yours.
Finally, I offered no “triage paradigm” as you imply. Nor did I “attack” Mohler. Please be precise when you make such outlandish accusations, D.R. I fundamentally dealt with Mohler’s idea showing how I believed it to be inadequate. I wasn’t “attacking” him nor even his idea for that matter. I do my best to be cautious with my language; it is only appropriate for you to do the same.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. Whatever point you were making concerning “stumbling block” and the connection with anything written here is, from my perspective, vague at best. And, since you’re introducing something not germane to the OP or the thread, it’s best to let it lie for another day.
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.12.02 at 08:12 PM
Peter,
I'm not terribly surprised at how you dealt with my comment (deal more with side issues of language and very little with the argument itself - though I am sure you will disagree with my take). The idea that is most important is that you take a triage directed toward theological beliefs (doctrine) and apply it toward ethics (practice). The two are distinct disciplines and do require distinct approaches. And we all recognize that. Universities and Seminaries recognize that by conferring separate degrees for each and having distinct departments for theology and ethics and distinct classes on each. We live with the assumption that the two are distinct (it's why we can both affirm that Jesus died on the cross, but potentially disagree on how that should affect how we view the death penalty or other ethical issues).
Mohler's own statements reflect this distinction by how he treats the issue of yoga. Never does he attempt to place the practicing of yoga on the same plane as the denial of the Trinity, or the Resurrection, or salvation by faith alone (only you make that sort of jump in conclusion). You just don't seem to want to admit the distinction because doing so pretty much deflates your poor attempt at once again using anything you can to further your crusade against alcohol. The fact that you can't see that or aren't willing to shows the flaws in your ability to think critically and rationally about your own statements.
Additionally, regardless of whether you recognize the clear distinction between belief and practice, you still have to deal with the problem that Mohler has never placed practice within his theological triage (the assumption that underlies your entire post). (Here Finn is alone in his application of such, though even his statement you quote is vague at best regarding whether he would place ethical issues along side of doctrinal issues or if he would simply look at them with a similar, but not identical paradigm. Yet, still that's Finn's views and not Mohler's, whose system you are claiming is flawed). The statements you quote from Mohler do not at all prove he has conflated doctrine and practice, nor that he has placed the practicing of yoga by Christians on the same plane or within the same paradigm of assessment as the denial of the Trinity and other 1st-tier theological issues. He has remained consistent in his statements and in his application of triage by directing it SOLELY to theological issues.
So despite how you read Mohler (which I often think you do poorly), you can't argue that he ever mentioned triage in reference to yoga. His comments easily (and I would argue are better) understood in terms of "orthodox Biblical Christian" PRACTICE. That's clearly what he was trying to communicate and clearly what he's addressing.
Therefore, for you to (yes) force the issue of yoga into a paradigm it was clearly not meant to be assessed through the lens of, then claim that this one issue results in "the complete meltdown of the oft-quoted triage as a viable interpretative principle doing theology" is not only logically fallacious, but is, in fact, quite laughable.
Now, I am not expecting you to agree with me or concede anything I've written (as I've never seen you concede any criticism of anything you've ever written and I really don't think you are capable of such), but that doesn't change the fact that on this issue, your logic (and the assumptions upon which it is built) is severely lacking.
Posted by: D.R. Randle | 2010.12.03 at 01:40 AM
D.R.
First, you assert you’re not terribly surprised at how I dealt with your comment apparently because I (habitually?) dealt more with “side issues” than your argument itself. Interesting, D.R. As I scan back over my comment, I dealt with:
Anyways, that’s how I view my earlier response to you, the one about which you were not “terribly surprised.”
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. I’ll deal with bulk of your response in another comment below
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.12.03 at 04:50 AM
D.R.
Second, you assert:
Who says I do not recognize a “clear distinction” between belief on the one hand and behavior on the other, D.R? I not only recognize a clear distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but would insist upon it. The OP nor this thread illustrates what you’re attempting to suggest I deny.
What I do deny is a separation between the two. Recall my initial words to you, D.R.:
There is no hint in these words I do not recognize a distinction between belief and behavior. What I deny and you are apparently attempting to defend is a separation between the two. We may distinguish belief and behavior but we never separate belief from behavior. Nor is such a focus on a “side issue,” D.R.; rather it’s a crucial point we make in everyday conversation—all A is B but not all B is A.
On the other hand, you’re treating the “clear distinction” as if it means completely separate. You write,
Laying aside the curious “we all” in your words, that “separate” degrees are bestowed from “distinct” departments is supposed to demonstrate what? Belief and behavior are not both under the comprehensive umbrella of biblical truth? Please, D.R. Talk about “side issues”! The way you’re framing it is as if there is no significant overlap between the two which, in my view, is absurd. I simply cannot understand such an obviously irrelevant point is solicited to demonstrate how belief and behavior are separate.Again you assert,
Look, D.R.; try as you will to defend Mohler’s statement by reinterpreting it to read “"orthodox Biblical Christian" PRACTICE” you’re only making things worse. Indeed such is actually an insult to Mohler’s integrity as a nuanced, credible theologian. He’s usually not loose with his public commentary but very careful. Hence, he simply did not use the phrase, “Christian PRACTICE” rather he wrote, “committed to orthodox biblical Christianity.” Belief, D.R., belief—committed to orthodoxy not orthopraxy. And, his whole premise demonstrates he was speaking concerning belief because he criticizes yoga as being irrevocably connected to Indian philosophy and religion. You’re arguing against Mohler’s proposition not for it!
Nor is it helpful to single Dr. Finn out as if he is the lone culprit here. My OP point was raised not only against Mohler’s view because triage was his brain baby, but also others (especially SEBTS) who took the idea and ran with it as if it was the centerpiece of sound hermeneutics. And to say Finn is “vague” is just simply wrong. Finn was very clear and explicitly tied triage to the area of ethics. And not just triage but theological triage. Unfortunately, your response to Finn was
Yet he specifically said “theological” triage when speaking about a discipline you think is completely different from theology—ethics. I’m afraid you cannot have it both ways, brother (contradiction—alas, another “side issue” I’m afraid ;^)
Further, you apparently think because Mohler did not specifically say “yoga” (or alcohol for that matter) in his triage explanation, it cannot count. What did you want him to do in explaining a principle, make an exhaustive list of areas in which it applies? Again, you are only making Mohler look like a theological buffoon. Mohler specifically mentioned, in the context of explaining triage, Christians disagreeing “over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts” and/or “matters of common disagreement.” He spoke clearly about “any biblical truth” as we examine the “comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.” Unless one wants to slice ethics completely out of the area of “biblical truth” or the “comprehensive truthfulness” we have “revealed in the Holy Scriptures,” I cannot understand you insisting Mohler never placed practice within his theological triage. The burden of proof is upon you, D.R., to demonstrate otherwise.
Moreover, Mohler also specifically mentioned the ordination of women as pastors in his explanation of triage, an example which hardly can be sliced away from practice. Unless you’re willing to demonstrate how ordination concerns belief alone and significantly not behavior, I suggest you drop the point you’re attempting to make contra Mohler himself (incidentally, one could also bring up homosexuality which is specifically mentioned in the BF&M as yet another example where it’s very easy to show how belief and behavior cannot be completely sliced apart like you’re attempting to do, D.R; the list actually could take awhile to exhaust).
Finally, I’ll leave it to others to make their own judgments whether or not I “poorly” read Dr. Mohler’s words. I have a gut feeling, however, that after your attempt at defending Mohler by arguing contra Mohler, it may end being you who has to stand in the corner and suck his thumb.
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.12.03 at 06:24 AM
D.R. Randle,
I believe, kind sir, that I owe Dr. Mohler an apology. Your crystal clear writing and cogent logic has convinced me that I assumed something of Dr. Mohler, through Peter's writings, that is not true.
I now see that Dr. Mohler was not advocating that Southern Baptists place a ban on Christians practicing yoga by making the practice of yoga as an important an issue as the doctrines he places in the first tier "theological" triage that he advocated a few months ago.
I assumed this was what Dr. Mohler was doing through Peter's writings. It seems that Peter wishes that Southern Baptists would treat the use of alcohol in the same manner we treat the denial of the deity of Christ -- both should be placed, in Peter's mind, on the first tier level of determining whether or not there should be fellowship among Southern Baptists.
Thanks for clearly clarifying that Dr. Mohler has not succumbed to this kind of ethical legalism.
In His Grace,
Wade
Posted by: Wade Burleson | 2010.12.03 at 09:05 AM
I would say, D.R., your view has just been submarined with Wade's outstanding endorsement. Ah, but there may still be hope yet.
After all, it was Wade's giddy excitement toward my "Excellent logic Peter...Again, excellent logic" which mesmerized him so he came here to celebrate his discovery.
Now drips the same anointing oil on your head proclaiming you special for your outstanding "crystal clear writing and cogent logic."
What a double West Georgia hoot! My day is made...
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.12.03 at 09:35 AM
Peter,
I'm glad I could continue to making your day better. :) Seriously, I do hope you have a great weekend.
The logic of your post, affirmed in my first comment, stands with one big caveat -- IF Al Mohler wishes to make the practice of yoga a "first tier" issue of fellowship, but refuses to make the drinking of alcohol "a first tier issue" then he is inconsistent and "illogical" as you rightly point out.
But, D.R. has clearly shown that Dr. Mohler's triage was for theology, not behavior, and to confuse make practices on par with beliefs in terms of a "triage" of importance is to confuse apples and oranges.
But, of course, one of the marks of genuine legalism is the desire to place cultural prohibitions, religious traditions, and personal convictions on the same level as foundational doctrines and demand everyone else conform.
Have a great day, Peter! Enjoyed the conversation.
Wade
Posted by: Wade Burleson | 2010.12.03 at 10:26 AM
Unfortunately, Wade, my posture remains from yesterday--I'm really not interested in exchanging with you. it's consistently unfruitful
Suffice it to say, my own guess is, you logged on today not to show how my responses to D.R. were not well-taken any more than you logged on yesterday to praise my "excellent logic." Instead you logged on the latter time to voice your vote toward my final line in two lengthy comments: "I’ll leave it to others to make their own judgments whether or not I “poorly” read Dr. Mohler’s words." You simply wanted to publicize how, after all, I allegedly "poorly read" Dr. Mohler.
For my part, I haven't a single reservation concerning whether I've "poorly read" his words. From the weak criticisms offered by D.R. and exactly none from you, I think my reading has fared quite nicely in fact. And, the nonsensical separation of theology from ethics you now are echoing suffers the same criticism I gave toward D.R.'s position.
I suggest, therefore, if you're going to log on again, please at least read Mohler first before you make such flaky conclusions again.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.12.03 at 11:23 AM
If it is o.k. I will share with everyone a quick example on how theo triage is a helpful "tool" in doing min. When working in a closed country planting chches there are many organizations from differing denoms doing the same thing. We are there to fulfill the GC. We use triage to determine which orgs we will partner with to do certain tasks.
If we are planting chches we would use the "triage method" to determine how far we would go with each in planting a chch. Most of the time we will help plant a chch only with our board workers.
But If an org agrees with the essential doctrine of the first tier and the second then we would work more closely with them. If not then we would probably only do social programs with them. Ex. We would not plant a chch with a "Cath" org.
We could work closely with the "Meths" in teaching B stories but we again would not plant a chch with them.
Now I hope this makes sense on how "triage" is at work where we are. It is not something that we sit down and say "oh there are three levels. Where does so and so fit? Hum I think they are in agreement with first but after that...um, no." Rather is an instant thought process that is embedded from reading scripture and taught in our SB chches. If we stick to our Bptst thoughts then we will know which "tier" certain people or orgs fall into. I don't allow it to be part of my herm but I do allow my brain to order theo importances in work instances.
I hope that made sense. I have to watch language. Sorry for all the short word and code.
One more short thought. I don't believe that theo-triage can be compared to medical triage. It is not for emergencies but rather can actually be thought about over a period of time. It is a process of determining which doctrines are really worth conversing and debating over certain kinds of fellowship.
As for the Yoga thing. Pretty funny. I found this
http://yoga.org.nz/what-is-yoga/yoga_definition.htm
It says not a religion. My wife does it (usually listening to Bebo Norman or Chris Tomlin). It strengthen core muscles, increases balance and really hurts when I do it :).
Thanks for the space on the page
James*
Posted by: Jame *** | 2010.12.03 at 04:09 PM
Peter,
Again I think it is funny how you spend more time on the side issue of pointing out that you are not dealing with side issues than you do actually dealing with my argument. And it again shows your inability to think critically about your own positions. But I digress.
1) You completely missed my point about the distinction between belief (theology) and ethics (practice) and assumed (another flaw in your logic) that I was attempting to completely divorce belief from ethics. I assure you I am not. Clearly there is overlap. Clearly how we practice is influenced by what we believe. But that's not the issue at hand here.
2) The issue that you have failed to deal with is whether we ought to view beliefs and practices within the exact same paradigm and if that paradigm is Mohler's theological triage. You have failed to prove your assumption that Mohler treats yoga as a first-tier theological issue (or as a theological issue at all). First, because he never asserts that the practice of yoga is a theological issue, second, that he seems to clearly use the triage only for issues of systematic theology (Trinity, baptism, salvation by faith alone, Resurrection of Christ, etc.), and third, that he never mentioned the practice of yoga in terms of theological triage (as he does when discussing issues such as the Resurrection of Christ, baptism, etc.).
3) Based on this false assumption that belief and practice should be viewed through the exact same paradigm (and that Mohler's intent is to do just that), you contend that you have shown "the complete meltdown of the oft-quoted triage as a viable interpretative principle doing theology".
But unless you can prove:
1) That belief (theology) and practice (ethics) have no discernable distinction whatsoever (which no one would agree with),
2) That Mohler sees no distinction between the two,
3) That Mohler views ethical issues through his theological paradigm,
4) That Mohler intended the practice of yoga to not only be viewed through his theological paradigm, but also intended it to be placed within that paradigm as a first tier issue, and
5) That being a first-tier issue, Mohler sees those who practice yoga as false Christians, even as he sees those who reject the Trinity as false Christians (he never goes there on yoga, but does on the Trinity and the bodily resurrection),
Then, your entire post is severely flawed and you have not shown "the complete meltdown of the oft-quoted triage as a viable interpretative principle doing theology".
When rightly applied to theological issues alone, the theological triage is useful and (as James has shown us) virtually indespensible. However, when you use it to assess ethical issues, which it was never designed to do, then it loses its positive effect.
My suggestion is to build a new paradigm (an ethical triage so to speak) in order to assess ethical issues. For instance 1st tier issues might be things such as homosexuality and adultery - practices completely incompatible with Christianity and whose presence in one's life reveals that they are not of Christ. Second tier issues might include yoga (in light of Mohler's comments), which are incompatible with "Orthodox, Biblical Christianity", but which aren't specifically spelled out in Scripture, yet are dangerous and could lead to destruction. Third tier issues could be things like alcohol use and gambling, issues that Christians differ sharply on and while dangers exist, could be handled by mature Christians in moderation. There could even be a 4th tier (quadage anyone?) of issues that Christians could disagree sharply on, but might not be dangerous, such as the ownership of guns, the borrowing and lending of money, and the necessity of homeschool.
Just attempting to show an ethical triage paradigm reveals the complexity of such an undertaking, which is why Mohler doesn't place issues of ethics and practice within his theological triage and why you, Peter, shouldn't try to force them in there either.
Posted by: D.R. Randle | 2010.12.03 at 05:53 PM
D.R.
If you think something is funny, then I encourage you to laugh. But could you pause long enough to deal with what’s going on here? Since response from you is becoming more and more emotively complicated (at least three times now you’ve asserted my “inability to think critically about your own positions), I’m going to change my own format a bit. Your words are embolden, my response follows:
DR: “You completely missed my point about the distinction between belief (theology) and ethics (practice) and assumed (another flaw in your logic) that I was attempting to completely divorce belief from ethics”: Nice try. If I did “miss your point” it was because you were not clear about it. Going back, you wrote:
To come away now complaining I “missed your point” is hardly acceptable, D.R. You are the one who argued for a separation of theology and ethics insisting triage for one cannot be triage for the other. When one says, “I’m talking about apples but you are talking about oranges,”he is not speaking about qualities that overlap but differences so significant the two—apples & oranges—must be placed into separate categories. Hence what’s said of one cannot be said of the other. Your analogy of university degrees follows the same pattern—separate degrees, one for theology, one for ethics, etc. Thus, to make this about me “missing your point” is ridiculous.
What’s even more ridiculous is, when I explained how one may distinguish between theology and ethics but one may not separate theology and ethics, you cite that as your own point and accuse me of suggesting you wanted to completely separate them! I hardly know what to say, D.R. For a man who has three times now insisted I am unable to critically think about my own position, perhaps you’re due a bit of self-reflection. What a hoot…
DR: You have failed to prove your assumption that Mohler treats yoga as a first-tier theological issue (or as a theological issue at all). Begging pardon. I’ve quoted Mohler numerous times with language which suggests he places no separation between theology on the one hand and ethics on the other. That’s the lens through which *you’re reading* Mohler, DR. And, for the record, not one single time have you disputed the quotes I offered where Mohler speaks of doing theological triage on “any number of issues related” to the interpretation of “difficult texts” or “matters of common disagreement., ” arguing about “any biblical truth we discover concerning the “comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith” as “revealed in the Holy Scriptures.” He offers not one slither that we are to separate theology and ethics when thinking triage. Again, that’s your assumption. But Mohler makes no indication this is so. Nor have you commented upon the quotes I offered; instead you ignore them.
The lone phrase of Mohler’s I quoted that you actually acknowledged—““My [Mohler’s] answer was the answer long offered by those committed to orthodox biblical Christianity — No” (embolden mine)—how did you deal with it? By changing it! Literally changing his words! You make him say, “orthodox Biblical Christian" PRACTICE.” Is this the way you do exegesis on Scripture, D.R.? Do you change the meaning of the textual words? No? How do you like someone literally changing your words? Mohler said absolutely nothing about orthodox “practice” but orthodox “Christianity.”
D.R.: [Mohler] never asserts that the practice of yoga is a theological issue, second, that he seems to clearly use the triage only for issues of systematic theology: I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve read any of the links I offered or perhaps if you’ve even read with care the comments I’ve left, D.R. I have to tell you, this is very frustrating. Aside from the language listed immediately above and sprinkled throughout this exchange with you, clearly Mohler applies triage to issues other than “systematic theology”—(e.g. ordaining women as pastors). More significantly, to argue in the face of of the mountain of evidence to the contrary that Mohler “never asserts that the practice of yoga is a theological issue” reveals to me where this conversation is going—nowhere. I have had few exchanges where the plain words we can all read have been more ignored than the present exchange with you, D.R..
Here’s Mohler in his latest yoga piece where he describes a particular email as “vindication” of his argument about yoga: “Central to my argument was the fact that Yoga is inseparable from Hinduism.” D.R. if you do not take these words Mohler himself wrote as indicative that he asserts yoga to be a theological issue, know I’m done. I have nothing else to say to you about this. Let the readers decide for themselves if central to Mohler’s objection to yoga is a theological objection. In fact, if Mohler’s wordsdo demonstrate the theological nature of yoga, then it’s hard to see how you make stick your chief objection against my piece.
Finally your “list” is completely absurd, DR. Unless I can “prove” the list you concoct? Are you kidding? More ridiculously, you demand I “prove” Mohler’s “intentions”! I’m virtually speechless. While I’ve had people to ask me not to judge motives no one has ever insisted I must know someone’s “intention” before. Sweet Georgia peaches! What in the world are you thinking, man?
As for your suggestion we “build a new paradigm (an ethical triage..” know had you read the link I offered I already dealt with “ethical” triage. But again, you’re merely begging the question, assuming as you do, Mohler parses ethics out of theology when it’s only your notion, not anything implied from his words.
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.12.04 at 01:52 PM
LOL...literally. I originally thought your use of the word "yoga" in the title was supposed to be some witty way of comparing yoga to some faulty spiritual problems. I was quite surprised that Mohler really is on the Yoga attack.
Whereas, I do agree Yoga (the spiritual religious kind) is wrong and counter-Christian, I completely agree with you on this!
If he wanted to "attack" some spiritual issues today, TV is FAR more damaging. Alcohol is destroying millions of families around the world. Public schools are (by and large) hell holes today, training our children to ignore God and thumb our noses at Him. Yoga? Can't think of one. single. family. involved in it.
However, I wouldn't mind trying Yoga...the stretch moves and learning to relax, that is. I'm pretty sure satan won't attack me because I touched my toes and didn't cry about it. But my muscles might rebel because of it. That does make Yoga sound evil, doesn't it?
Blessings,
Michelle
Posted by: Michelle | 2010.12.05 at 12:52 AM
James,
Know I appreciate you logging on. And, your approach is, from the way I understand your description, a simple "common sense" evaluation we all face day to day rather than an a priori interpretative grid to judge doctrinal worth.
Also, I think you captured the spirit of my objection when you described "medical" triage as being completely unsuited for normal theological evaluation, a point our brother D.R. never appeared to grasp.
Thanks again.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.12.06 at 01:15 PM
Michelle,
Thanks for logging on. It's always a breath of fresh air to read your perspective. Yes, it is quite ridiculous, from my standpoint as well, to place in the same category both religious Hinduism and pop yoga in American culture. As I mentioned earlier, we might as well ban Karate from "biblical orthodox Christianity" if we're going to criticize yoga on the basis of religious rootedness.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.12.06 at 01:20 PM