Theological Triage and Statements of Faith

The following post refers extensively to the framework that Dr. Al Mohler articulated in his own blog post of 12 July 2005 entitled "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity." You can find that article here.

The official statement of faith for the Southern Baptist Convention is the Baptist Faith & Message. I have signed this document several times. And, in point of fact, not only have I signed it, but I also have read it and I agree with it. My signing of this document has been a matter of informed consent.

And yet, agreeing entirely as I do with the content of our statement of faith, I'd still like to toss out something to consider about the document's format. Although it would make these documents slightly more complex, would it be a good thing to organize statements of faith according to the varying priorities of the doctrines listed therein?

At the very least, one might create a statement of faith that acknowledged Dr. Mohler's three-tiered system of theological triage by organizing the doctrines into three tiers. The document could begin by stating: "These are the essential doctrines of the faith. Whoever does not affirm these truths, let him be anathema. Any so-called 'church' not embracing these truths in teaching and practice is a cult." And afterwards, the statement could give a list of cardinal, tier-one doctrines.

In the next section, the preamble could go along these lines: "Following are the distinctive beliefs that identify a Southern Baptist. Any church not embracing these truths in teaching and practice, although it may genuinely be a Christian church, is not qualified to cooperate within the Southern Baptist Convention." The statement could then go on to list which are these tier-two doctrines.

In the final section, the document could stipulate: "The following can be identified as important Southern Baptist beliefs both in our history and in our current practice, and yet we acknowledge that diversity of opinion has and does exist within our convention on these matters, and that some level of cooperation is possible even among those who disagree. Therefore, although we require that the ministries of this convention be conducted in accordance with and not contrary to these beliefs, we do not believe that they rise to the level of importance that would warrant the breaking of fellowship among sister churches due to differences over these matters." And then the doctrinal statement could enumerate those matters that belong in this category.

Of course, I acknowledge that it would be an absolute political bloodletting in the Southern Baptist Convention actually to work through this process. Nevertheless, I want to make something absolutely clear: I believe that we ALREADY have and are using something like this. It's just that most Southern Baptists didn't get a say in how the tiers were created and applied, and the scheme (or schemes), however they exist in the minds of Southern Baptist leaders, aren't published for anyone's review or correction.

I know that significant discussion and disagreement might ensue in the comment section over which particular items belong where, and that's fine, but I hope that you'll also all make some statement about the overarching concept—whether a tiered statement of faith would be a good idea in general, presuming that doctrines were placed correctly. I think the idea would provide greater clarity than we now enjoy.

As a final note, I should acknowledge my own friendly interaction with Mohler's Triage (which I published here) in which I suggested that triage is a bit more complicated than a rigid three-tier system could accommodate. This being the case, I believe that a local church's statement of faith might include even more levels than these three.

Bill Maher Is a Playground Bully

Expect to hear a good bit about Bill Maher's new film "Religulous" in the coming days. Awakened by a soggy, hungry, sleepy two-year-old in the wee hours of this morning, I caught a 4:00 am discussion of the film, including an interview with Maher. Clips showed Maher ambushing Arkansas (Democrat) Senator Mark Pryor, ridiculing an Islamic clothier, and the like.

Maher's view is that religion is (quoting him from last night's interview) "silly and…dangerous." Regarding the affirmations of religious faith of Maher's favored presidential candidate, Barack Obama, Maher stated his opinion that Obama was lying in order to hope to be elected (OK, so I'm not inclined to reject that charge out-of-hand!). Confronted with the idea that so many great thinkers of the past were not exactly confirmed atheists (e.g., Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, etc.), Maher opined that they were, all of them, victims of some sort of neurological disorder.

So let's get this straight, Billy Boy—some of what are demonstrably the greatest minds in all of human history were neurologically deficient, while you, a professional court jester, have it all figured out? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Please note: I AM NOT suggesting that all of those listed above were exactly confirmed Christians, either. Merely that none of them seemed to share Maher's view that belief in God is, ipso facto, delirium.

But note this about Bill Maher: His film will not include a Paige Patterson or an Albert Mohler or a Francis Collins or a Russell Moore or an Emir or Ergun Caner. His work and that of any other Michael-Moore-wannabe will, in the classic modus operandi of a playground bully, prey solely upon the unsuspecting or the ill-equipped. He possesses neither the courage nor the honesty to do otherwise.

The Beholder of Our Eyes

Don't tell my wife that I'm blogging. She failed to notice that my laptop was within reach of the bed.

Please understand this first of all: There's nothing seriously wrong with my eyes. I've got a really bad upper respiratory infection (i.e., a cold), that somehow a burst of Rocephin and Penicillin did not conquer. It has somehow crossed over into my left eye, which is pretty angry with the world right now. The ER doc today says it must be something "peculiar" (an unusual bug), that those two antibiotics somehow missed, so he followed up with something that sounded like a ten-sided regular polygon to me: Decadron. That and some Zythromyacin (I swear not to ANY of these spellings) and I'm to see whether I'm not good as new by Monday.

What about Sunday? Well, I do have a five-year-old son whose closet includes a pirate costume. An eye patch, a hook, I could preach on Jonah…anybody got a parrot I can borrow?

Right now the eye is pretty much matted over. So long as I leave my eye that way it doesn't hurt. It's going to get better. I'm happy for that. Right now it is just an inconvenience, thanks to the blessings of modern medicine.

I've been thinking a lot over the past few days about Dr. Al Mohler. I recall two years ago watching him struggle with the bright lights at the pastor's conference, suiting up injured in a way that inspired us all, I'm sure. His painful squints were painful to me—I wanted to run up onto the stage, hold him down, and force some Stevie Wonder glasses upon his face right then and there. His visage was not beautiful to see in his painful condition, but his commitment to the cause of biblical truth was (and that comes from someone who agrees with the position that Dr. Patterson articulated that day). Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the Beholder of our eyes, who gave them to us that we might use them to His glory, as Dr. Mohler did that day.

Anyway, as I've been Captain Hook for the past few days I've been thinking about him and giving thanks to God for the ways in which He has shepherded Dr. Mohler through difficult times. It keeps my little sick-day in perspective. A good friend who went to the Together for the Gospel conference tells me that Dr. Mohler was there, robust and enthusiastic. Praise the Lord who have given the complete and total healing for which we all prayed! By all accounts, Dr. Mohler is even healthier than he was at the beginning of the year.

Mohler Surgery Successful

Dr. Albert Mohler expects to enjoy a full recovery from his surgery earlier today. Here is the press release:

March 20, 2008
For immediate release

Mohler recovering from surgery

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has undergone successful surgery for the removal of a pre-cancerous tumor from his colon. The surgery was performed in Louisville on March 20. Results of pathological testing on the tumor are not yet available, but doctors expect Mohler, 48, to have a full recovery. The tumor was discovered during a routine colonoscopy in February.

The Mohler family has expressed appreciation for all concern, prayer and encouragement.

A Great Interview with Dr. Frank Cox

I encourage you to listen to Peter Lumpkins's interview with Frank Cox over at SBC Today. It is no secret that I was enthusiastic about Dr. Al Mohler's candidacy for the presidency of our convention. Although I am glad that he is taking the steps necessary to continue as a leader in our convention for years to come, I was disappointed to see the possibility of his election end before it had really begun.

The interview with Dr. Cox assuages my disappointment somewhat. Surely Dr. Cox sounds like a godly man who knows what he believes, is a genuine conservative Southern Baptist, and has as firm and appropriate grasp on some of the key issues that face us as Southern Baptists today. I was particularly encouraged to read his comments about the Garner Motion. When the time comes to decide how to cast my ballot, Dr. Frank Cox will receive serious and positive consideration from me.

Prayer Request for Dr. Al Mohler

What follows is a press release from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will require additional surgery after a scheduled colonoscopy on February 11 revealed a tumor in his colon. An initial biopsy indicated that the tumor is pre-cancerous and further tests are to be scheduled, along with surgical options.

Mohler, 48, underwent major abdominal surgery in late December 2006, complicated by the development of bilateral blood clots in his lungs. Doctors will take special precautions to prevent a recurrence of the blood clots with this new surgery. Specialists are consulting on the case, and a decision on the date and location for the surgery is to be made in the very near future. The procedure is likely to require an extensive period for recuperation and recovery.

Mohler expressed gratitude to God that medical personnel found the tumor this early.

“Sometimes we take it for granted that we live in an age like this one, in which God has given us the blessing of medical technology,” Mohler said. “For most of human history, a tumor such as this one would have gone unnoticed until it was too late. I am thankful for modern medicine, but I am even more thankful that we live in a world in which our God hears us when we pray, a Father who listens to his children.”

Mohler said that Southern Seminary “would not skip a beat” during his recuperation.

“I have absolute confidence in the seminary leadership team. We will move forward with momentum,” Mohler said. “God has blessed and is blessing Southern Seminary. We do not take that for granted, and we pledge to be good stewards of that blessing, even through this time.”

Mohler said that his time of recuperation would necessarily alter some of his plans as he gives first priority to his health and his family.

“Some have asked how this new development affects my nomination to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis this June,” Mohler said. “I have decided to give my greatest attention right now to addressing this new challenge and to ministering to my wife and children. This is clearly not the right time for me to accept this nomination. I have asked my good friend Robert Jeffress not to proceed with nominating me for president of our Southern Baptist Convention this year.

“Frankly that decision is made much easier by my knowledge that there is at least one strongly conservative, committed pastor who intends to be nominated in Indianapolis,” Mohler said.

Southern Seminary will release additional information as it becomes available. The Mohler family has expressed appreciation for all concern, prayer and encouragement.

Principled Objection or Situational Objection?

Around the Internet and elsewhere various people have objected to the nomination of Dr. Albert Mohler for election as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Among the reasons for objection have been the claim that Dr. Mohler's election would represent a conflict of interest, since he presides over the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Nobody has been able to offer any specific credible suggestion as to how a seminary president might advance his personal interests or the interests of the seminary as SBC President. Furthermore, the SBC has elected so many entity heads as SBC President in the past as to make the phenomenon not even noteworthy any longer. Yet still some people will persist in this objection. Why?

I make this observation: I have yet to encounter anyone who raises the conflict of interest objection who has absolutely no other objections to Dr. Mohler's election. In other words, the "conflict of interest" objection seems not to have strong enough legs to stand on its own. People who have other reasons to object to Dr. Mohler's election, according to my theory, latch upon the "conflict of interest" objection to buttress their real reasons for objecting to his election.

As evidence, I encourage you to do a little blog searching regarding this scenario. The office of First Vice President has the sole responsibilities of consulting with the President regarding appointments, presiding over portions of the annual meeting, and stepping into the presidency upon the inability of the President to fulfill his responsibilities. The only qualification for being First Vice President is to be able to be the President if required. If a person is unfit to be President, that person is necessarily also unfit to be First Vice President.

Last year, International Mission Board employee David Rogers was nominated for the office of First Vice President. His nominator suggested that a missionary—an employee of the SBC—was precisely who we "should have…leading us." I do not recall anyone from any point of view suggesting last year that it would be a conflict of interest for an employee of the IMB possibly to be in a position to influence the selection of trustees for the IMB (consulting with the President to make appointments, and possibly winding up as President himself to make the appointments).

If you can locate for me anyone who both objected to David Rogers's nomination last year on the basis of "conflict of interest" and is objecting to Dr. Mohler's nomination this year on the basis of "conflict of interest," then we will have located someone who is demonstrably operating out of a personal conviction (however misguided it may be) about conflict of interest.

Conflict of Whose Interests?

Wade Burleson has advanced three reasons (see here) why he will not be voting for Dr. Al Mohler to preside over the SBC. Those reasons are:

REASON NUMBER ONE Southern Baptists are now desiring gospel cooperation, not the separatism of Fundamentalism.

REASON NUMBER TWO: It is at best unwise, and at worst a conflict of interest, to have an entity President simultaneously serving as President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

REASON NUMBER THREE: The Southern Baptist Convention needs the leadership of a man who sets the example for generous giving through the Cooperative Program.

Now that the tent peg is firmly in the forehead of objection number three, I direct my attention to the remaining two objections.

Conflict of Interest

The phrase "conflict of interest" has slightly different application in different fields. As it pertains to leadership within the Southern Baptist Convention, a suitable definition appears on the website of the New Jersey State Legislature: "CONFLICT OF INTEREST A situation occuring when an official's private interests may benefit from his or her public actions."

Burleson has given two examples that he believes illustrate a conflict of interest in the election of entity heads to the presidency of the SBC.

First, he has highlighted Dr. Paige Patterson's (I wonder how he chose HIM to pick on?) appointment of the BF&M 2000 committee, resulting in an unprecedented affirmation of biblical gender roles in the revised statement. Patterson's selection of this committee is somehow supposed to show conflict of interest in electing entity heads as SBC presidents.

Now I ask you, how did the inclusion of this language in the BF&M advance the private business interests of Dr. Patterson or the pecuniary interests of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary? The answer? Not at all. The BF&M committee appointments did not advance Dr. Patterson's private and personal interests. They did not advance the seminary's interests in any way to the detriment of the SBC as a whole.

Rather, Burleson's beef is with the fact that the BF&M committee advanced the ideological viewpoint espoused by Dr. Patterson, the Conservative Resurgence, and the majority of SBC messengers who elected him (and, not coincidentally, an ideology not shared by Burleson). Yet this point has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the president in question (Dr. Patterson) just happened to be presiding over SEBTS at the time. I submit that, if Dr. Patterson had appointed said committee before coming to the helm at SEBTS, or if he had done so after retirement from all convention activities, the results would not have been one iota different. It simply has nothing to do with Dr. Patterson having been an entity president. Burleson's beef is simply that he lost—that the decision made was one with which he disagreed.

Burleson's second illustration comes closer to the mark. He asserts that the election of Mohler would put him into a position to enact a special offering for seminaries. Personally, I think that a special offering for our seminaries is a wonderful idea. In fact, our church is going to collect one this year (more about that planned for a later post). But Burleson's point is to suggest that Dr. Mohler's interests (as president of a seminary that would receive such an offering) would lie in conflict with the convention's interests that Dr. Mohler be objective in populating such a committee.

Burleson suggests that the push for a seminary offering began "two years ago." Actually, seminary presidents have desired to have a special offering for the seminaries for at least sixty years. The effort two years ago was merely the latest attempt. This is relevant, because the issue was alive during the SBC presidential tenures of seminary presidents Scarborough, Hamilton, Patterson, and maybe even Sampey. None of those seminary presidents took advantage of the SBC presidency to advance the idea of a seminary offering. Indeed, of the seven seminary presidents who have served as SBC presidents, no one has undertaken to demonstrate a single real instance in which their concurrent service actually impeded their performance in either task.

Furthermore, the seminary presidents get to deliver a report at each year's annual meeting, yet they have not employed that forum to call for a special seminary offering. They have the same ability as any of us to rise to a microphone and propose the offering to the Southern Baptist people. Yet they have not done so…have never done so. Personally, I wish that they would have. Why is the Executive Committee afraid to allow the Southern Baptist people to discuss the concept and bring it to a vote? But I digress. The point here is that, with ample opportunity to do so, the seminary presidents have not even used the means available to them every year to press for a special offering.

Many have pointed out that previous seminary presidents have served as SBC presidents; what has not received ample consideration is the fact that previous seminary presidents have served well in leading the SBC. The leadership of E. Y. Mullins, in the era containing his presidencies, to bring us the Cooperative Program and The Baptist Faith & Message comes to mind. What would we be if we could go back in time and eradicate the leadership of Boyce and Mullins, Sampey and Scarborough? Much less than what we are.

Also, we must note that we are electing a president, and not a pope. Whoever wins the gavel this summer, he will not be able to accomplish anything until he has gained the consent of the ballot-lifting masses at the annual meeting for each measure. I predict that President Mohler will accomplish a great deal, not through sinister finagling, but by virtue of the statesmanlike leadership that he has already brought to our convention and will exude from the platform.

Our seminary presidents have, while serving as SBC presidents, consistently acted in the best interests of the SBC. Dr. Mohler will do likewise, and the people's affirmative verdict on that count will be reflected in their overwhelming support for his leadership.

Fundamentalism

I turn finally to Burleson's initial point. Essentially, when you decipher the code-language, Burleson has placed into the lead-off position his objection to the fact that Dr. Al Mohler is not a part of Burleson's movement (What's a Fundamentalist? Anyone more conservative than I am). Granted, Dr. Mohler is not a part of the Burleson coalition. But, neither is Dr. Mohler anybody's lackey. He's an intelligent, articulate spokesman for conservative Baptist Christianity. All of the reasons why a Mohler presidency excites me are doubtless reasons that discourage Burleson.

I can understand that. I can sympathize with it. Who couldn't? I just don't know that it makes for a very compelling reason why anyone ELSE ought to be opposed to electing Dr. Mohler as President of the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis.

Highview Baptist Church Corrects "Erroneous News Reports"

Here's the Statement from HBC Pastor Kevin Ezell:

Highview Baptist Church has received numerous inquiries from around the world about our giving to missions and missions-related causes, and we are more than happy to address those questions.

As a church, we are committed to The Southern Baptist Convention and to its mission of reaching people for Jesus Christ in our community, our state, our country, and all over the world. Being “Great Commission Focused” is one of our core values. Our church has a history of missions- related giving and of sending career missionaries and volunteers to the field. We are more excited and more committed to missions now than at any time in our church’s history.

In the wake of various erroneous news reports, we do think it’s important that we clear up any misunderstanding about Highview’s contribution to the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong missions offerings.

In 2006, Highview gave a total of $724,984 to missions. In the Associated Church Profile (ACP) we submitted to the SBC in 2006, we simply chose not to specifically categorize our missions giving. Frankly, at the time, we did not think such categorization was necessary to promote our church.

In 2007, we gave $836,681 dollars to missions. Last year, we did specifically categorize our contribution in the ACP report. Highview gave $64,158 to the Lottie Moon fund and $13,752 to Annie Armstrong.

As for our Cooperative Program giving, Highview has chosen to give the majority of our cooperative funds directly to the SBC instead of funneling the funds through the Kentucky Baptist Convention. The reason is simple: The KBC retains 64% of those funds, and we want to ensure that more of our dollars went directly to evangelism, missions and other programs that Highview supports.

Highview Baptist Church understands that some of the questions about our missions giving come following the announcement that one of our teaching pastors, Dr. Albert Mohler, will be nominated for the presidency of the SBC. We are proud to have Dr. Mohler and his family as active members of our church.

Our giving, our going, our praying, and our serving has always been out of a desire to make Jesus’ name famous all over the world.

Missions and evangelism are at the core of Highview Baptist Church, so in the wake of some misinformation, we thought it necessary to set the record straight. To that end, we are attaching our 2008 plan for missions giving, which our congregation unanimously approved in November of 2007.

Imagine my surprise to learn that the anti-Mohler forces have promulgated erroneous information in their rush to judgment. Imagine how simply they could have made a phone call or email to discover the truth. Imagine my anticipation to see what they will say next.

Update: HBC has established a new campus across the Ohio River in Indiana. It is my understanding that the 2008 CP money from HBC will be going to support missions via the traditional CP arrangement, but through the Indiana Baptist Convention rather than the Kentucky Baptist Convention.

Subsequent Update: The fine folks over at SBC Today have posted the PDF for Highview's 2008 "Millions for Missions" brochure here.

Highview Baptist Church to Issue Statement

Highview Baptist Church of Louisville, KY, is expected to issue a statement later today regarding recent online analysis of their ACP historical data.

Of Muslims and Mohler's Triage

This post is the culmination of a series of posts. For your convenience, I list them all here:

1. Reading the Camel: Before
2. Of Muslims and Mormons
3. Of Muslims and Mohammed
4. Of Muslims and Mohammed: Redux
5. Of Muslims and Mars Hill
6. Of Muslims and Middle-Eastern Culture
7. This Post: Of Muslims and Mohler's Triage

The results of my July sidebar poll were overwhelming. More than 97% of respondents believed that reverence of Mohammed as a prophet and of the Qur'an as valid scripture were incompatible with Christianity. To become a Christian necessarily involves, for the Muslim, the rejection of the prophet Mohammed and the Qur'an—or at least so say I and most of you. The book The Camel does not include these concepts in its presentation of the gospel to Muslims.

So, this is an issue dealing with the very nature of the gospel. A bona fide tier-one issue.

Obviously, I have no problem with taking a stand on tier-two issues. I'm even willing to offer a forceful opinion on tier-three issues, although these ought not to mark denominational boundaries. Anything in the Bible is worthy of discussion and our earnest attempts to understand it. But we're constantly chided for daring to acknowledge the existence of genuine tier-two issues. We're told that we should only draw lines on tier-one issues—only in connection with the gospel itself.

Well, here, by definition, is a tier-one issue. I am not asserting thereby that every question regarding the Camel has been definitively settled, but I am asserting that the subject matter is the very nature of the gospel. This is a tier-one question.

I've found myself wondering often whether the "irenic" among us really want to discuss even tier-one issues—whether there is an implicit and false presumption that tier-one issues were all settled long ago and therefore that the task of earnestly contending for the faith does not remain for us today.

In a comment on an earlier post on this blog, Wade Burleson made me aware that items concerning the Camel have come to the table in IMB board meetings. Here is an example of a tier-one issue coming before one of our trustee boards. I have completed my analysis of the Camel, and will leave the ball entirely in other people's courts—Greeson's to make revisions, the IMB's to reconsider its endorsement, other missionaries to share how they correct the Camel in their practice, someone to demonstrate where the Camel is incompatible with C5 and C6, someone to make a convincing case for the compatibility of Christianity with revering Mohammed and the Qur'an, etc.

As I watch how other people deal with this issue (or ignore it altogether), it will tell me a lot about whether people are opposed to needless division only, or whether they are simply opposed to certain personalities, or even to the idea of theological distinctives at all. Certainly there exists the temptation to take every question, even a tier-one issue, and sweep it all into the category of tier-three. This temptation is especially pronounced among ecumenists, as evidenced by the current status of the World Council of Churches. Let us remember that they did not start out where they are today, but eventually succumbed to the temptation to demote biblical doctrine to the category of adiaphora in virtually all cases. Dr. Mohler had a name for the result of succumbing to that temptation. Let us pray that any advance of such an approach will fall to defeat within the Southern Baptist Convention (and indeed, wherever it may be advanced).

Dr. Mohler's Second Home Run

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's report was NOT just another report. I think that Dr. Mohler has spoken a word that will encourage and unite Southern Baptists. Don't miss it.

Splinting Theological Triage

Dr. Albert Mohler's commentary "A Call for Theological Triage" (see here) is a fine, thoughtful, timely piece of writing. I agree with every word. I do not agree with every way that it has been applied by others. I observe three ways that this article has been used improperly IMHO:

1. It has been misquoted and misapplied by those who need to go back and read it more carefully. We all ought to make sure that we understand what each tier represents. Also, we ought to acknowledge that only Mohler's third tier is designed to contain doctrines that ought not to be matters of division within the SBC.
2. It has been heralded as a solution, when actually it is only a description of the problem. Don't get me wrong: It is a great description of the problem. The tension in the SBC today is, essentially, a difference over what belongs in "tier two" and what belongs in "tier three." But knowing that this is the nature of the conflict does not provide any help whatsoever in deciding what belongs in what tier. I don't think Dr. Mohler was even offering this as such.
3. It has been elevated to a level of precision that it does not deserve. In medicine, "triage" is a pretty blunt tool, generally reserved for catastrophic situations. In the course of day-to-day business, medical professionals like to take their time to assess and treat every case individually. In the same way, Mohler's three-category approach, while accurate, is very general.

I think that this concept, accurate and appropriate as it was in its initial offering, has been broken by misuse and misapplication. I would like to apply a splint and put it back out there.

First, let us recognize that these three categories describe ranges on a continuum. For example: I am

1. A Christian.
2. A Protestant (sorry, Bro. Graves).
3. A Free-Church Protestant.
4. A Congregationalist.
5. A Baptist.
6. A Missionary Baptist.
7. A Southern Baptist.
8. A Southern Baptist Inerrantist.
9. A Southern Baptist Inerrantist A Posteriori Cessationist.
10. A Southern Baptist Inerrantist A Posteriori Cessationist Premillennialist.

Obviously, this list represents more than just three tiers!

It is, I think, fairly easy to see that the first item belongs to tier one and the last item belongs to tier three. Everything down through 'A Baptist" definitely falls into tier two as employed by Dr. Mohler. But what about the rest of the list? What is the difference between a "Southern Baptist" and another "Missionary Baptist" of a different stripe? Do those differences belong in tier two or tier three? Ought those differences to preclude cooperation? I'll propose my answer later.

For right now, let us simply agree that the whole situation is vastly more complex than three categories can exhaustively describe.

The Tier in Question

Tier one is pretty airtight. Nevertheless, there are complexities and nuances even within it. Some things in tier one you must affirm to be a Christian. Others you merely must not deny. I was not thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity when I received Christ at the tender age of five, but once I became acquainted with it, I affirmed it.

Tier three is vast and multifaceted, but I think we all know what to do with adiaphora.

Tier two is the tier in question.

Mohler defines tier two descriptively, not prescriptively. These second-level issues are those which "will create significant boundaries between believers." That, ladies and gentlemen, is the voice of history rather than theology. How do we know which issues are the ones that will create significant boundaries between believers? We look to see which ones have created significant boundaries between believers.

Yet (in spite of how much I obviously love history) I'm not sure history is a good place to look for the answers here. Things change. Issues that were historically important have a way of fading into relative obscurity. New issues arise that the churches must address without the benefit of precise historical precedent.

Here are two examples:

In the seventeenth century, Baptists were all a twitter about "laying on of hands." This had nothing to do with ordination. Many (most?) Baptists allowed for the practice of laying hands upon a newly baptized convert to pray for Holy Spirit guidance for that believer in the life of the church. Some Baptists not only allowed for this practice; they required it. Congregations split over this practice. Denominations formed around this practice. It was, in the seventeenth century, definitely a tier-two issue.

Today, only boring old academics (and a few adherents to an obscure surviving sect) even know that the controversy existed. Most decidedly tier-three.

Today, Baptists face the various manifestations and daughter movements of the Pentecostal movement. This movement began around a century ago. Spiritual gifts were a tier-three issue in the seventeenth century. The Pentecostal movement has made this a tier-two issue in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (even though some of our readers will differ as to which parts of this movement belong in tier two or tier three, I think all of our readership will concur that the subject as a whole has components or implications that are unavoidably tier-two).

So, this second tier grows, shrinks, and otherwise readjusts as Christian history marches onward. I think that we are in the midst of just such a realignment today. And neither Dr. Mohler nor anyone else has given us any formulaic criteria by which we may predict where the boundary between these two tiers will land when we are done.

Better Than Tiers: Cooperative Expediency

Here's how I view the whole idea of cooperative parameters:

First, I am a strong believer in the primacy of the local church. I am much more concerned about intracongregational unity than intercongregational unity. It seems to me that the former is much more difficult to achieve than the latter and that the absence of the former is much more damaging to the body of Christ. Associations and conventions are, in my view, only slightly above the level of being a vendor to the local church. In no way do I regard the Southern Baptist Convention as a church.

The existence of the Southern Baptist Convention is not necessary. My church can preach the gospel, disciple believers, pursue missions, and do every necessary function of a church while remaining an entirely independent congregation. Furthermore, without one iota of institutional connection with any other church, my church can exist in Christian unity with other churches and other believers. Consequently, what the SBC does or does not do has no bearing, in my mind, on the concept of unity in Christ or the validity of my church.

Second, I approach SBC decisions with a sort of pragmatism. I believe that affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention helps my church to perform its tasks more effectively. The SBC is not necessary, but it is helpful. The SBC is not a church; it is a tool for churches. What doctrinal constraints ought we to have in the SBC? Those that make the SBC a better tool. Those that improve its effectiveness. Those that are cooperatively expedient.

Theological laxity is a danger to the effectiveness of the tool. If our institutions stray from orthodoxy, they will begin to harm our churches rather than to help them (e.g., by supplying them with pastors who do not believe the Bible). Also, if our institutions become seedbeds for the promotion or distribution of minority views, there is the danger of offending and driving away the majority of churches that provide support for the institutions.

Theological micromanagement is also a danger to the effectiveness of the tool. If the theological requirements for employment become too severe, churches may find that their pool of eligible denominational employees is so small that the SBC cannot employ enough quality employees to provide value to the ministry of churches. A seminary that cannot find and hire qualified professors is of little utility to anyone. A mission board without missionaries is less effective than an independent congregation.

Finding the right spot to mitigate these two dangers is an exercise in constant adjustment. The whole enterprise involves constant theological thinking, yet the final arbitrer is a sort of pragmatism. Often it boils down to political pragmatism.

In Southern Baptist life, the great complicating factor is the fact that the vast majority of people involved will not participate in the formal decision-making process. Most of the churches are unrepresented. Denominational employees are much more likely to participate. Thus, the inherent trend is toward laxity rather than micromanagement. We live in an exceptional age that has witnessed a strong push away from laxity. That age will not last forever. Some view the current troubles as a rescue of the convention from micromanagement. Others view it as the beginning of an inexorable return to laxity.

Dr. Mohler avoided specifics in his "Theological Triage" paper. Because of his position, he needed to do so. Lacking any position, I might as well go ahead and be specific.

Baptism is the ultimate tier-two issue. We ought to have our beliefs about baptism nailed down pretty concretely. I think that the IMB regulation really needs work, but in no way can I say that any serious aspect of the doctrine of baptism is a tier-three issue.

"Private prayer language" is a manifestation of the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave movement. Using Dr. Mohler's framework, this certainly is an issue that has created significant boundaries between believers. New denominations have arisen. Countless congregations have split. History suggests that this movement belongs in tier two. People will differ over the idea of including every aspect of the movement in tier two. I'm not sure that I include every aspect of the movement in tier two. But the alleged "gift of tongues" has been the core of this movement, and anything having to do with that concept clearly belongs in tier two, IMHO.

Using my framework, I think that the SBC is more useful to my church when it holds clear views on baptism. I also think that it is more valuable to my church when it remains clearly outside the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Third Wave movement. We are outside that movement, and we have no desire to subsidize it.