;)
Tweaking Al …
Posted by Guest Author in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
Today’s Guest Author is Taran, a Baptist blogger and regular reader at sbc IMPACT!
***
Over the last few years in the Baptist blogosphere, folks of all stripes have kicked the tires of a three tiered approach to doctrinal questions. This theological triage was devised by President Mohler at Southern Seminary and while it is an imperfect model, I think that it has a valuable place in discussing a process of theological triage for the church.
In my role as an intentional interim pastor, I am currently serving a church that has had a degree of conflict in the past. Having a way to prioritize how much personal energy and emotional effort into a theological conversation becomes critical. Because of this background, I have personally found the Tiered approach fruitful. First, a brief recap:
Tier One: Those doctrines that divide Christianity from the other major religions (Sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for us, Virgin Birth, etc). You cannot be Christian and deny these doctrines.
Tier Two: Those doctrines that divide Baptists from other Christians (baptism by immersion, security of the believer, etc). You cannot be Baptist and deny these doctrines.
Tier Three: Those doctrines that divide Baptists one from another (Reformed theology, Eschatology, Open v. Close(d) communion, etc)
I’ve intentionally tried to give common examples in each category that most SBC Impact readers would agree with. I understand that one of the weaknesses is that there are widely divergent views on how to prioritize various controversial doctrines (e.g. private prayer language, women in ministry, alcohol consumption, etc).
But I’ve noticed that the vast majority of conflicts I’ve seen at the local church level don’t fit in any of these tiers. The reason is simple: most church conflict is not theological in nature at all. So when I’ve shared this Tiered system with churches, I have begun recently to tweak Dr. Mohler’s approach by adding a fourth Tier, a tier I refer to as a Cultural Tier. (I’m indebted here in my thinking to Art Rogers’ excellent series on Institutional v. Missional churches).
I propose the following:
Tier Four: Those cultural activities distinctive to this particular church that divide us from other churches.
With this fourth tier, what I have in mind are those issues that are not inherently theological, but cultural. Things like:
- Worship must start at 11:00 on Sunday morning
- EZ Worship must be used in the corporate service
- Two revivals (spring and fall) must be held each year
- Choir members must wear robes
- The pastor must wear a Hawaiian shirt
- Sunday evening services must exist
- The color of the church carpet shall be red
- Contemporary worship is the only acceptable approach
- The deacons must sit together
- The church will not cancel evening services on Labor Day.
Why do I propose another Tier? What I’ve noticed is that as you move down the tiers in importance (First through Fourth), the topic of conflict in your typical Baptist church increases. To put it another way, the local Baptist church (as opposed to a national or state entity) is more likely to fight over the proposed location of the church storage shed than over the necessity of the virgin birth.
By breaking down the sources of conflict into these Tiers, I encourage the church to invest a proportional amount of energy into each area conflict. Fight like cats and dogs over the Tier one issues, but recognize that that Bible doesn’t speak to Tier Four issues and that good Baptists can disagree amicably.
I also find this to be a valuable way for the church to begin to think about all of their different practices that are rooted in culture rather than in biblical practice. It helps the church to see that we need to remain faithful in Tiers One, Two and Three and fluid in Tier Four. (And as a note to pastors, I would add that you would be wise to spend an enormous amount of time and energy simply learning about the Fourth tier issues when you arrive at a new church.)
Certainly adding another Tier doesn’t solve all of the problems with this theological triage. Some will no doubt say that the LAST thing we need is another Tier. But I think it’s a good starting point.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Nice title. Seems to be some unstated assumptions however.
First of all, I think the last two tiers should use the term “distinguish” instead of “divide.” While distinguishing doctrines and cultural practices may divide, my experience has shown this to ber neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of division. If these practices are so divisive, why then do we find parachurch ministries and venues like Christian concerts capable of transcending them? I believe there are plenty of reasons, not all of which relate to Baptist polity, but that is not what I’d like to discuss. Rather, I point this out only to highlight that the presumption of division is actually a cultural assessment rather than a theological or practical necessity.
The second assumption is that these differences are the source of conflict. Once again, a pretty presumptive leap. I believe all of these may be OCCASIONS for conflict, but I would never be so hasty as to label them sources of conflict. I believe that comes from a more nefarious place – the depths of the human heart. This is related to the question that is never asked in this article – “Why are these sources of conflict?” – if they are indeed sources. I believe the answer(s) to this question will illustrate why this assumption of doctrinal/cultural division as a source of conflict is a false one. The answers point to an internal condition in us rather than an external condition of the elements in each tier.
Finally, I want to heartily endorse the creation of this final tier. Al certainly needed to be tweaked in this regard.
Indeed, most church conflicts center on these issues and even in the few cases where the issues are stated in the third tier, that is often a smokescreen for fourth tier issues or personality conflicts or power plays. The next issue we need to address is how we are to use this system. I don’t think it will eliminate conflict since I believe such conduct is endemic to our species, but I do believe it can put the conflict into context. Few people will complain about your view on the Masoretic text, but many will complain about which version you use in the Sunday morning service. Rarely will a church member confront someone on ecclesiology, but they all have an opinion on what the order of services needs to be and why we cannot do it differently. To label these disputes as petty is entirely correct. To treat them as trivial, however, is inherently dangerous.
I agree with Rick’s push for “distinguish” instead of “divide” on tier two, since Baptists shouldn’t be encouraging divisions among Christians. I disagree with using the term “distinguish” for tier one, since tier one is where the division occurs. Christians and Mormons and Jews should be able to get along with each other, but we shouldn’t accommmodate each other’s beliefs. I don’t think Rick was suggesting that, but I had to say it.
Taran said:
Perhaps it should read instead:
I think this is more the norm and the problem Taran highlights in his post.
It seems that the fourth tier relates to a churches personality. There will be an evolvement over the next few years to make the distinct divisions; however, it may implode eventually. We cannot be that individual in the body of Christ without some congestion. It will eventually have to work itself back to basics. The less the church is influenced by the world the more it will resemble its Author. That is the true direction of all churches, isn’t it?
Thanks to each commenter. This is a work in progress and I appreciate you taking the time to address (and strengthen) my thoughts.
Rick,
You make several excellent points. I agree with your thoughts on distinguish v. divide in the last two tiers, but I note that I do use the term distinguish in my description of the fourth tier. But using the term “distinguish” would be more helpful to my overall point that these tier three and four practices ought NOT to divide. Good thoughts and I will incorporate them into future use.
I agree that the last few tiers are often used as an occasion rather than a source of church conflict. (And, I think you receive extra blogger bonus points for using the term “nefarious”). Oftentimes, in church as in personal health, there are causes underlying the explicit conflict. But I would not want to make so broad a statement as to say that church conflict is never over cultural issues (I note you do NOT make this point). In other words, sometimes I think there is genuine disagreement over Tiers three and four, just as there are genuine disagreements in one and two.
On your last point, we are in complete agreement, except you wrote it more concisely and mroe clearly than I did. Which fills me with rage.
Andrew,
Agreed!
Bruce,
My primary focus on this tiered system has been its application to the local church. As Rick noted above, the true strength of this system for me is how it puts church conflict into context. It helps us to see more clearly what we are fighting over. Dr. Mohler’s concern for the Tiered system (as I understand it) has primarily been its application to convention life.
Brother Taran,
I think you have unintentionally given me a topic for a future post when you said….
“In my role as an intentional interim pastor, I am currently serving a church that has had a degree of conflict in the past.”
It would be a good topic to discuss if an “intentional interim pastor” is a real critter in Christ’s church.
…………………………
Your post though has brought out the trivial level of religious practice. These fourth tier listings remind me of a group of toddlers that have spent about ten minutes longer in the giant sandbox than intended. I do think you are right that the typical Baptist church of late is more prone to whine about a storage building or placement of the flowers in the sanctuary….the reason,…because they probably have a stake in that game (buying a door on the shed, or buying the flowers asking their aunt placed them nicely on one end of the remembrance table while accidentally moving the big white bible out of its spot).
Maybe a simple solution is get rid of “all” of the stuff and begin to worship God in spirit and truth. That would really heat up the bench warmers!
Blessings,
Chris
I like how the tier system lays out the points as you have provided and I agree. It just seems that the fourth tier is more of a church personality which could be mixed up to fit many many different small groups. We could say, “I worship this way (I’m of Paul) or I worship that way (I’m of Apollos)” and we could see these styles becoming carnal if we are not careful. I see this as a point where we may see more of an evolution in the church because of styles rather than purpose. As the world needs change so the church will follow. Whether tradition or contemporary or tra-temporary, it will change enough to meet the demand. I also see good in this as it expands our freedoms in Christ. I agree with what you are identifying. I’m just looking past it a little to see what and why these items may now exist. Good points and a good comments.
Taran,
It’s interesting that you put closed communion in tier 3. It makes me wonder if we need yet another tier. You can disagree about closed communion and still be Baptist, but you can’t disagree about it within one particular church. There are a few other doctrines that would fall into this same category such as plurality of elders, the role of church discipline, etc.
Taran, sorry to enrage you. I’ve been cursed with verbosity from an early age and only lately been able to overcome it through strict discipline. Nor is it easy for me to speak succinctly on every occasion. With that excuse, I will blather on….
To expand on the last two sentences, and bounce off Chris’s post just a little, I agree that these are petty issues. However, I warned against treating them as trivial because it is these very issues that form the bitter root of church splits. Churches don’t split over the virgin birth or Manichaeism. Churches split over petty things, not because they are petty people or even because the things themselves are that important. They split because they feel marginalized or polarized or somehow disenfranchised from the decision making process. Whether this is justified or not is an interesting question.
One does not hear of Catholic churches splitting (at least not since the Great Schism), in part because the congregation is already disenfranchised. At the root of our church splits is the expectation that all members have an equal voice and each opinion has as much weight as any other.
This is why I say that the issue is petty, but not trivial. It goes to the very root of our polity and setting expectations in our congregations. We value the voices of the congregation and imbue them with power. Whether the voices use this power responsibly is a whole ‘nother issue and one worth discussing. What are our pastors doing to equip members to be responsible with their voices?
Chris,
I enjoy your posts and I eagerly await the one you have previewed. I too have thought of the sandbox metaphor.
Bruce,
We’re on the same page. One weakness with my suggestions that that the first three tiers are doctrinal while the third is clearly cultural. So these four tiers represent beliefs moreso than doctrines.
Daniel,
I think the third tier stands pretty well on its own. Each of these beliefs could be used as a litmus test for church membership in any one particular (or Particular:) Baptist church. (But so could a Tier Four belief as well). I like Rick’s comment above. These could distinguish Baptists, but need not divide Baptists. To use your example, you could have a minority in a church that believe in closed communion, but the majority favoring open (or vice-versa). Thus you have a belief that “distinguishes” Baptists within a single congregation.
Brother Daniel,
In your post you have brought out “truth” vs. practice. It is truth that we remember Christ in His communion. It is truth that all churches have plural qualified leadership. It is truth that we restore (Matthew 18) all those in the church. These are non-negotiable according to the Holy Spirit.
The practice of such seems to be where the mud slinging gets started. Many churches ignore restoration, aspiring leadership, and communion in a variety of methods, which is indicative of the maturity of those (everyone) called to serve Christ in His church. You show me a church that restores the unity provided by the Spirit, intentionally affirms qualified men to lead and remain qualified, and is careful to observe the table of the Lord….there you will find a group of sinners returning to their first love.
Blessings,
Chris
When we look at Tier Four and find that these things can be grouped as petty or otherwise we could consider them important based upon the providence of God. It would depend on, I think, the process by which the body has agreed upon each item. God told Moses to tell each tribe to choose a leader to go spy out Canaan. It prooved that the heart of the people was not ready to accept God’s promised land. The disciples chose the replacement of Judas by casting lots. It was all about God deciding for the group. Why can’t we establish similar processes to allow God to select some of our petty issues. If the church agreed to move this way, maybe God would have better control. If I was a pastor, I would think I could build off of what we as a church have established. Is this wrong thinking? I know there would be more to the process, however, the idea of God controlling things the way He did before education and technology may be an answer. Hope that didn’t offend anyone.
As I see it, the items listed in Mohler’s three tiers are all in some sense “biblical doctrines,” that is, issues in some way addressed in the biblical text. The issues you list in your fourth tier are not. These I would place in the context of “preferences” or “customs,” rather than biblical truth. The debates on these “fourth tier” issues tend to be many and vehement, but seldom do they involve the interpretation of scripture. You are correct that these issues may consume an inordinate amount of our time and energies in church life, but we are wise to keep them in the context of “I think” or “I feel” rather than “The Bible says…” I’ve seen when this corrective is brought into the discussion (what I call “biblical convictions” vs. “personal preferences”), it tends to take some of the heat from the argument and eliminates much of the pontificating. We need to be united on our biblical convictions, but on personal preferences, even within a strong marriage, there can be still be differences of opinion. “Forbearance” (i.e. putting up with some things for the sake of the relationship) will keep such a fellowship strong.
Kevin,
You are right on. The initial three tiers are as different from the fourth tier as are the proverbial apples and oranges. And that’s my point: the harshest discussions in the local church often surround non-biblical (i.e. cultural) issues. I find that this tiered taxonomy of beliefs helps the local church to gauge how much we should invest in these conflicts.
I particularly like the way you compare this to marriage. By the way, I’ve often distinguished my leaving socks around the house and hesitance to vacuum the living room as “cultural differences of opinion” between me and my wife. She doesn’t buy it.
On a personal note, in the last century you were a grader for one of my SWBTS professors (Dr. Kent maybe?) substituting for him on occasion. Those classes instilled in me a passion for the OT that continues to this day. Thanks! (Though I should’ve received a higher grade on my term paper: “An Argument for the Mosaic Authorship of the Didache”).
Wow, Taran, you have me pegged! Yes, I was a grader for Dr. Kent for 6 years. He had a great impact on my life as a student of God’s word, and I was proud to learn more than a few lessons from him in how to teach it. Dr. Kent passed away in Fort Worth last year, but he left and indelible impression on hundreds, if not thousands, of students.
You are not the first former student who harbors some ill feelings towards the grader (consider us like sports referees). If it makes you feel better, send it back to me, and I’ll take another look at it.
You’re on your own on the marriage thing! I’ve got issues of my own.