Dr. Al Mohler has a helpful discussion on what he labels "theological triage" - how to assess those issues that are direct attacks on the integrity of the church as compared to those issues that cause certain levels of disagreement between genuine Christians.
I have found this a useful way to think through certain issues. Mohler writes:
"Second-order issues would include the meaning and mode of baptism. Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism. The practice of infant baptism is inconceivable to the Baptist mind, while Presbyterians trace infant baptism to their most basic understanding of the covenant. Standing together on the first-order doctrines, Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians, but recognize that 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. A church either will recognize infant baptism, or it will not. That choice immediately creates a second-order conflict with those who take the other position by conviction."
My question, however, is if such a disagreement dictates the same response in every case? Is it a logical necessity that I separate from those with whom I have a second-order disagreement? In some cases, this seems like the only option. For example, Mohler raises the isse of women elders:
"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."
I can see a sort of "functional necessity" to separation with this issue. The actual running of the church would be hindered by continued fellowship. But is this the case in every area of second-order disagreements?
I often wrestle with this kind of separation when it comes to the issue of baptism. Do not think for a nano-second that my convictions on Believer's Baptism wane! May it never be! But I tend to believe there are ways for a local church to function smoothly made up with those who disagree on this second-order doctrine.
So my question for you, dear reader, is this: Do you think Christians can remain unified (in one local church or one denomination) while firmly disagreeing about a second-order doctrine? And if they can, how would it work out? And if they cannot, then why not?
Depends if the the doctrinal differences are really "2nd order". The covenantal views of many paedo-baptist traditions impinge upon the nature of the church and the vital doctrine of salvation itself. eg. baptismal regeneration, presumed regeneration, seeing their children as "in Christ", the practice of paedo-communion etc... Is that a "2nd order" difference? One thinks of Spurgeon's words where I believe he described paedo-baptism as a "damnable heresy because it had condemned millions to hell".
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, while the church in which we grew up practiced paedo-baptism, their notion of the covenant was very vague. Essentially, while being part of the "covenant community" was seen as a privilege, there was really no efficaciousness in it, they ( thankfully ) recognized the need for each person to be born again coming to faith in Christ.
I very much doubt it would be possible for Baptists to "function smoothly" with paedo folks who take their covenantal views to its "logical" conclusion and mess up their soteriology. However, it may be possible with other paedo communities who see it as little more than a dedication.
O.H.
ReplyDeleteThat was very helpful. Thank you!
This is one of those questions that always makes my head hurt. I'm not sure how you work these issues out. Perhaps you end up with a "liberal" baptist pastor that is ok with letting a father baptism his infant son, or you end up with a "liberal" paedo-baptist pastor that is ok with letting a family decided if they want their kid to grow up before being baptized.
ReplyDeleteI could almost imagine a church where the option was given to the families. Just imagine John Piper and Ligon Duncan starting a church planting ministry. I'm sure they could find a way to work it out. In fact...That would be a fantastic question for the Shepherds Conference...
"This question is for Dr. Piper and Dr. Duncan...Could you guys be members at the same church? Or would you have to split over baptism."
It's actually a question I often ask myself when I am at conferences with I guys that I love, respect, and spend hours with. I'm well aware of the issues that bring them together, but I'm also aware of what separates them. It would be a shame if they could not find a way to all be members at the same church together.
I think the other thing that is highlighted for me is something that Mark Driscoll talked about the DG conference (I don't recall if it was at the conference or in the videos.) Mark talked about how, for all practical purposes, denominations really don't mean anything anymore. Now, to you, me, and a handful or other informed readers; we can talk about the differences and understand what they are. But to the majority of Christians...They don't have a clue. Someone who is new to the faith would be quick to include catholics, mormons, and JW's in the list of "Christian" denominations.
So what's the solution? We can spend our time with those who are growing in the faith and help them grow by taking them through the history of baptism, the strengths and weakness of each position, the splits that have occurred over this, ect, ect, ect. Our...The majority of the time can be spent preaching the gospel and making sure that people have the knowledge of Christ, the Cross, and His Kingdom.
Or, the other option is to wait for the "Together 4 Baptism" conference.
Well...hopefully my odd ramblings make some sense.
Unity is not a matter of agreeing on everything. It is a matter of loving one another when we disagree on the "secondary Doctrines". Your question mentions denominatins and local churches. I have seen unity in denominations but it is much harder in local churches. In our church there is much unity despite many divergent opinions. I think the matter of baptism is a uniquely difficult matter.
ReplyDeleteLeaving that one aside, in our church we have sovereign grace and non sovereign grace, cessationists and charismatics, Zwinglians and Calvinists (regarding the Lord's Supper), egalitarians and complementarians .. and other areas of disagreement. The pulpit does not equivocate on these matters. The preaching is sovereign grace, complementarian, non charismatic (non cessationist too)...
We believe the large variety of opinions and the ruling peace are possible because of the personality of the church. We are a community church (meaning that it serves a geographic community and people come because of its convenient location) in an inner city community that is seeking to touch poor, hurting, single parent,abused people, immigrant people.
The pulpit rings out with calvinistic teaching but I think the people come because they are cared for. They meet people who are glad to see them because they know that life is hard and one of the purposes of the church is to be a refuge and a respite and a preparation for more of the roughness that is sure to follow the next week.
It works in our church because these wondeful people love each other. It works because the leadership knows that change does not occur overnight. Sure, we would like everyone to see things in the infallible way that we do but God has given them to us despite the fact that they don't and change comes very slowly. It works because these people love the Lord even though they disagree with each other on various things. It works because we strive to know what is worth fighting over. Love overlooks a multitude of sins. It works because we know that God puts people who disagree over the secondary stuff together in order to prove out the superior ethic of the Gospel. Love must be tested. How will we know it is patient, kind, forgiving, etc. if we are all the same? It works because those who hold views that differ from the official teaching of the church do not make issue of them. Sometimes I fear that the reason they do not is because they just don't know what the issues are and they wouldn't care if they did. But I think some really have learned what to fight over and what to love over.
I am not sure if this is the kind of thing you were asking about because there is no official disagreement in the leadership. But we sure are divergent and we sure do get along even though we disagree.
I think it's probably a definitional thing. If it's something important enough to separate over, then it's second order.
ReplyDeleteI certainly couldn't go to a church that had women leading, or played fleshy, worldly music.
"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."
ReplyDeleteThe question then, is how to identify (or rather define) what makes you a Christian. Some Protestants would label Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as Christians. Some Protestants would not label Catholics as Christians. (Luther himself alternatively called the Pope a great leader and lots of nasty things regarding the Anti-Christ, so his words on this are no great illumination.)
"So my question for you, dear reader, is this: Do you think Christians can remain unified (in one local church or one denomination) while firmly disagreeing about a second-order doctrine? And if they can, how would it work out? And if they cannot, then why not?"
No, IMO. I liken the followers of Christ to an army advancing across a battlefield. There are orders about how to do it and what is right. (Theology) Some go backwards, and they are in trouble indeed. (people in the wrong about 'primary issues') Others are moving sideways (Secondary issues). They are still basically going in the right direction, but they are not together doing it.
(Warning: the following part of my post meanders quite a bit. And even I can not quite figure out when or if I get to my intended point. Nor can I remember what it was. Please accept my apologies.)
To look on unity another way: When there are two (or more) contrasting positions on any theological issue, a maximum of one of them is right. (1 Peter 4:11 indicates that preachers gettign it right is VERY important, but that's minorly tangential to my point.) Anyway, if a theolgoically-curious (or theologically-knowledgeable) seeker comes to such a church, they will find that its members disagree. To them, oftimes (in my admittedly limited experience) they will nto see them as united, and will have troubles working out who is right. When people look for the Real Truth, they look for an entity that claims to know what it is. Preferably more than a small fragment... and 'Christian' denominations and such agree on only a few things. Its really a short list, made barely longer for people who exclude Catholics and Orthodox. The secular world does not see Christiantiy as unified, on a large scale, so why should we? I'm not just referring to the Anti-Christians either. Even the Protestants are seen as deeply divided, and the church kerux talks about seems to cover at least a decent chunk of the range of beliefs.
In conclusion:If unity of a chruch is 'I'm a Canadian'-style untiy, yes. If its about what poltiical party is supported, (Stephane Dion won Liberal leadership today, btw if you didn't already know) or much mroe than that, I would say no.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One.
A recent World magazine issue carried a very interesting interview with Wayne Grudem. In that interview he talks about his latest book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? (Crossway, 2006). I believe you must be a subscriber to see the entire article ( so I shouldn't post it here in its entirety!! ), but I'll post a couple quotations since it speaks very directly to the question of women in leadership roles in the church and the importance of that issue.
ReplyDeleteGrudem's states "my research found at least 25 well-documented arguments, widely used by evangelical feminists, that undermine or deny the authority of Scripture. Once people give in to these feminist arguments, they accept methods of interpretation that lead them down the path toward liberalism".
In another section of the interview he states: "I trace a trend toward liberalism in several denominations in this book, and in every case when a denomination abandons the inerrancy of the Bible it moves quickly to approve women as pastors and elders. But I also show historically that the strongest resistance to ordaining women comes from the several denominations that hold firmly to the inerrancy of Scripture (for example, the Southern Baptists, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Missouri Synod Lutherans)".
Based on what I think Grudem's saying, women in leadership is, at the very least, the thin edge of the wedge, the slippery slope, at worst, an indication that the church has forsaken the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. Grudem also comments on the exegetical gymnastics necessary to worm out of the plain meaning of passages found in 1 Timothy and Titus that prescribe gender roles / activities within the body. Based on Grudem's research, is the ordination of women elders / pastors a "2nd order" issue? Methinks not. If you give up the inerrancy of scripture, what do you have left?
And, with apologies to Redeeming the Time, Grudem identifies the neutered language of the TNIV as supportive of the evangelical feminist movement. ;-)
With all due respect to Wayne Grudem, his criticism of the TNIV is naive and reductionistic. I am firmly convinced of complementarianism when it comes to the roles of men and women. That biblical position is not threatened by the TNIV whatsoever and any suggestion to the contrary is hard to take seriously. One problem is that too many Christians are not the least bit aware of the of the issues surrounding the translation process and so they rely upon the advertising hype of the companies marketing the various versions and the list of personalities who endorse this or that version. From what I have been able to glean I do not think there is any one translation that is far and away superior to the others. Some are better than others and individuals will have their preference for one reason or another. But to demonize some of the versions out there and to present others as though are far superior is just plain inaccurate and irresponsible to say the least.
ReplyDelete"World Magazine" is interesting but its slant on things should never take the place of reading what those who are involved with translation are saying. Before anyone goes off quoting Grudem and company they need to read what other complementarians have said about the TNIV and the translational issues involved. A good place to start is with this fine article by Carson who can hardly be accused of being an evangelical feminist or liberal.
http://www.tniv.info/pdf/Carson.pdf
"Some are better than others and individuals will have their preference for one reason or another. But to demonize some of the versions out there and to present others as though are far superior is just plain inaccurate and irresponsible to say the least."
ReplyDeleteUnless of course, some translations were actually far superior than others... obviously an opinion you do not hold. But I do. And twenty articles this way or the other probably won't change my position, at least unless it is defined for me what the 'superior' characteristics of a 'superior' Bible would, in fact, be. (Or rather, what would make one translation inferior to others.)
Regardless, unless it says in Scripture that all translations of said Scripture are equal, (by the virtue of Sola Scriptura,) this is, for the moment, purely opinion, with evidence that can be used to support both sides.
So please, don't call me irresponsible without backing it up. Maybe you'll convince me. I've changed my mind on a great many issues throughout my recent life.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One.
PS: For the record, I rely on reading the different translations themselves, and comparing them myself.