A milder case of Modernism
During my exchange with Richard Abanes, we spent less time discussing the merits of The Purpose-Driven Life and Rick Warren's theology than Abane's notion that somehow "denominational distinctives" (i.e.,things which the Christian traditions disagree about) are ipso facto of secondary importance and non-divisive.
I can't say that I don't know where that idea comes from, because I do; it's as American as apple pie. It has its roots, not in any specifically Christian source, or even in the Enlightenment, but rather in that warped notion of tolerance which has come to dominate our culture: the idea that tolerance consists, not of acknowledging our disagreements and treating each other with respect and forbearance, but rather in pretending that disagreements, by their very nature, cannot matter; that truth is unknowable, that to claim to know the truth is arrogant, and that reasonable, tolerant people never, ever suggest that those with whom they disagree are wrong, and they themselves right.
It originates in philosophical Modernism. Which is not to say that "Evangelicals" are even aware of the connection; certainly Abanes isn't. In fact, such a thing goes contrary to their intentions. But that doesn't make their relativistic view of "denominational distinctives" and matters upon which conservative Protestants, at least, disagree a bit less modernistic.
Neither Abanes nor "Evangelicalism" generally would hesitate to tell those who deny the agreed-upon "lowest common denominator" of historic Christianity that they are wrong; "Evangelicalism" differs from mainline Protestantism in that the disease of Modernism has not yet penetrated so deeply. But it's the same disease, and it's significant that it completely escapes conservative "Evangelicals" afflicted with it that it is utterly incompatible with the approach the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the Reformers, or Church historically has taken to matters of doctrinal disagreement.
Glen Piper of Territorial Bloggings points out that Dr. Al Mohler- a Southern Baptist with whom the Lutheran blogosphere frequently finds itself in agreement- has sadly also been bitten by this bug.
Not until late in Dr. Mohler's "A Call for Theological Triage" does he buy into Abanes' notion that we are not called to contend for the whole counsel of God's Word if other Christians disagree. He spends the first part of his article making a point with which confessional Lutherans have no trouble-although Abanes, sadly, couldn't seem to understand this. There are doctrines, Dr. Mohler points out, which quite rightly divide Christians, and which cannot be compromised by anyone concerned without violation of conscience and loss of integrity (he uses as an example the Baptist belief that baptism is proper only when one has reached the "Age of Accountability," contrasted with the Presbyterian tendency to see infant baptism as corresponding to circumcision in the Old Testament). He also includes the ordination of women in this category.
Where Abanes would be in a hurry to simply declare such matters "non-divisive," Mohler instead points out quite reasonably that disagreement about them does have implications for the degree to which the eschatological unity of the Church can be manifested with integrity here and now- but should not prevent the parties in question from recognizing each other as believing Christians.
To this, a confessional Lutheran can only say, "Amen!" We don't claim (contrary to Abanes' charge) that Baptists and Presbyterians and others who trust in Christ as their Savior aren't believing Christians. The slander that we believe that "Missouri (or Wisconsin or ELS) Lutherans will be the only ones in heaven" is not only false, but absurd. We can certainly recognize Christians of other denominations as brothers and sisters, cooperate with them in externals, respectfully dialog with them in an effort to reduce the barriers between us, pray with them (at least if we're Missouri!), and accord them all the courtesy and honor befitting brothers and sisters in Christ- short of joining with them in public worship and thus confessing a degree of unity which does not, in fact, exist.
But then, Dr. Mohler goes a step too far. Besides "first order doctrines" (the great teachings of the Creeds and the first seven Councils, to which all conservative Christians adhere; he includes the doctrine of justification here, unable to see the difficulties which his own tradition, among others, have with this most basic of doctrines) and "second order doctrines" (disagreements about the sacraments, polity, and other matters which impair external fellowship without preventing Christians from recognizing each other as brothers and sisters in Christ), he goes on to speak of "third order doctrines-" concerning which disagreement can be tolerated even within a single congregation, and which are not divisive at all!
Such "third-order issues," Mohler writes,
But such a view implies that the Scriptures are not clear on these subjects- which they are. Amillennialism is biblical; the premillennialism which is so strongly- and loudly- adhered to by most of "Evangelicalism" is contrary to Scripture. Like Lutheran teaching on the Sacraments, our amillennialism is the position of the overwhelming majority of all the Christians on earth- and, while some significant figures in the history of the Church have taken the premillennial stance, amillennialism is the predominent teaching of the Church of the ages.
Not (contra Abanes!) that consensus proves anything- other than that we're dealing here with a subject concerning which most Christians today and in the past have not found the Bible's teachings to be all that difficult or obscure!
Dr. Mohler goes on to say:
Clearly, compared to Abanes, Dr. Mohler has a relatively mild case of the Modernist sickness. And so do we all. It's impossible to live in our society- and especially to have grown up in it- without absorbing it with the air we breathe.
Thus, Dr. Mohler writes:
But he fails to recognize that there is a third option: to deny that such a thing as a third-order doctrine exists, while recognizing the precise distinction Dr Mohler (if I understand him correctly) makes between first and second-order doctrines.
Well, perhaps not precisely the distinction. Dr Mohler probably would be as uncomprehending of the confessional Lutheran refusal to participate in joint public worship even with those with whom our disagreements are of the second order as Abanes is. But that very incomprehension springs from the same source as the concept of "third-order" doctrines: the notion that the Bible is unclear about the subjects in question.
My own pet theory is that the Reformed concept that "the finite is not capable of the infinite" (actually stated backwards; the real issue is whether the infinite is capable of the finite) plays a role here. The notion that doctrine (at whatever level) ought not to be divisive springs- at least among those who recognize the divine origin and authority of Scripture- lends an explanation for doctrinal disagreements among Christians who differ in good faith about precisely what Scripture teaches which our Modernist society finds congenial indeed. We, after all, are sinful creatures, capable of making mistakes. Therefore, the logic goes, we ought not absolutize even our own firmly-held convictions about what the Scriptures teach on a given subject.
At one point- exasperated with Abanes- I asked him on another blog who had died and made him Pope. Why does he get to decide which doctrines are "fundamental," and which are not? Consensus won't work; as we've seen, the consensus of Christendom, today and throughout the ages, would endorse the Lutheran view of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and reject precisely that which "Evangelicalism" teaches about both!
The Lutheran answer would be, "God does- and that rules out the need to ask the question!" We can give that answer because we recognize that our incapacity isn't the issue. Granted, there are complex and difficult things in the Bible. But to assume that they are things about which we cannot know the truth is to assume either that God inspired a great deal of useless writing through His prophets and apostles, or that He, Himself, is too weak and inept a Deity to express Himself on even complex subjects in such a way that sinful, fallible people like us can, with a good-faith effort, intellectual honesty, and the intelligence He gave us, fully understand what He's driving at.
The real issue isn't our fallenness or incapacity, but God's implied ineptitude. Doubtless Abanes and Dr. Mohler would be as horrified at this idea as at the notion that they were, in any sense, Modernists.
But there it is. If there can be such a thing as a "third-order" doctrine, God has failed to do His job of inspiration adequately.
Perhaps He didn't intend to. Perhaps, for reasons of His own, He wanted to confuse us. But we're told by the Apostle that He is not the Author of confusion, and the idea that He deliberately created the doctrinal differences which divide the Church seems untenable.
But otherwise, we have only two choices. The first would be to take the idea that the infinite is not capable of the finite as our point of departure, and conclude that God is not sufficiently omnipotent to communicate infallibly with fallible sinners. The consequences of such a position, of course, are not simply far-reaching; they are nothing short of disasterous.
Or perhaps its the case that the Bible is, in fact, clear on these subjects- but that human beings have the persistent and sinful habit of interjecting their own philosophical presuppositions into the task of interpretation, and dictating to God what He can or cannot mean by a certain text. This is the explanation confessional Lutherans would give for the doctrinal divisions among Christians who recognize the authority of the Bible, and it seems to me to be the only viable one.
But if this is the case, the solution to the problem is not to make lists of essential and non-essential doctrines, or first, second, and third-order ones. It's to examine our presuppositions, discuss the matter, dialog about our differences, and seek to overcome them- recognizing that, precisely because Scripture is both clear and authoritative, we cannot treat any deviation from it as not having consequences for fellowship.
That certainly doesn't mean that we can't recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, and rejoice in such unity as we can, with honesty, manifest, while recognizing that our true unity is never more powerfully- or poigniently - exhibited as when, recognizing precisely our lack of unity, we honor and respect our differences. In the interim we're in a situation in which,as my vicarage supervisor said to the local Church of Christ pastor about baptism-, "You're just going to have to do it your way- and we're going to have to do it His!"
I can't say that I don't know where that idea comes from, because I do; it's as American as apple pie. It has its roots, not in any specifically Christian source, or even in the Enlightenment, but rather in that warped notion of tolerance which has come to dominate our culture: the idea that tolerance consists, not of acknowledging our disagreements and treating each other with respect and forbearance, but rather in pretending that disagreements, by their very nature, cannot matter; that truth is unknowable, that to claim to know the truth is arrogant, and that reasonable, tolerant people never, ever suggest that those with whom they disagree are wrong, and they themselves right.
It originates in philosophical Modernism. Which is not to say that "Evangelicals" are even aware of the connection; certainly Abanes isn't. In fact, such a thing goes contrary to their intentions. But that doesn't make their relativistic view of "denominational distinctives" and matters upon which conservative Protestants, at least, disagree a bit less modernistic.
Neither Abanes nor "Evangelicalism" generally would hesitate to tell those who deny the agreed-upon "lowest common denominator" of historic Christianity that they are wrong; "Evangelicalism" differs from mainline Protestantism in that the disease of Modernism has not yet penetrated so deeply. But it's the same disease, and it's significant that it completely escapes conservative "Evangelicals" afflicted with it that it is utterly incompatible with the approach the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the Reformers, or Church historically has taken to matters of doctrinal disagreement.
Glen Piper of Territorial Bloggings points out that Dr. Al Mohler- a Southern Baptist with whom the Lutheran blogosphere frequently finds itself in agreement- has sadly also been bitten by this bug.
Not until late in Dr. Mohler's "A Call for Theological Triage" does he buy into Abanes' notion that we are not called to contend for the whole counsel of God's Word if other Christians disagree. He spends the first part of his article making a point with which confessional Lutherans have no trouble-although Abanes, sadly, couldn't seem to understand this. There are doctrines, Dr. Mohler points out, which quite rightly divide Christians, and which cannot be compromised by anyone concerned without violation of conscience and loss of integrity (he uses as an example the Baptist belief that baptism is proper only when one has reached the "Age of Accountability," contrasted with the Presbyterian tendency to see infant baptism as corresponding to circumcision in the Old Testament). He also includes the ordination of women in this category.
Where Abanes would be in a hurry to simply declare such matters "non-divisive," Mohler instead points out quite reasonably that disagreement about them does have implications for the degree to which the eschatological unity of the Church can be manifested with integrity here and now- but should not prevent the parties in question from recognizing each other as believing Christians.
To this, a confessional Lutheran can only say, "Amen!" We don't claim (contrary to Abanes' charge) that Baptists and Presbyterians and others who trust in Christ as their Savior aren't believing Christians. The slander that we believe that "Missouri (or Wisconsin or ELS) Lutherans will be the only ones in heaven" is not only false, but absurd. We can certainly recognize Christians of other denominations as brothers and sisters, cooperate with them in externals, respectfully dialog with them in an effort to reduce the barriers between us, pray with them (at least if we're Missouri!), and accord them all the courtesy and honor befitting brothers and sisters in Christ- short of joining with them in public worship and thus confessing a degree of unity which does not, in fact, exist.
But then, Dr. Mohler goes a step too far. Besides "first order doctrines" (the great teachings of the Creeds and the first seven Councils, to which all conservative Christians adhere; he includes the doctrine of justification here, unable to see the difficulties which his own tradition, among others, have with this most basic of doctrines) and "second order doctrines" (disagreements about the sacraments, polity, and other matters which impair external fellowship without preventing Christians from recognizing each other as brothers and sisters in Christ), he goes on to speak of "third order doctrines-" concerning which disagreement can be tolerated even within a single congregation, and which are not divisive at all!
Such "third-order issues," Mohler writes,
are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category. Christians who affirm the bodily, historical, and victorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ may differ over timetable and sequence without rupturing the fellowship of the church. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.
But such a view implies that the Scriptures are not clear on these subjects- which they are. Amillennialism is biblical; the premillennialism which is so strongly- and loudly- adhered to by most of "Evangelicalism" is contrary to Scripture. Like Lutheran teaching on the Sacraments, our amillennialism is the position of the overwhelming majority of all the Christians on earth- and, while some significant figures in the history of the Church have taken the premillennial stance, amillennialism is the predominent teaching of the Church of the ages.
Not (contra Abanes!) that consensus proves anything- other than that we're dealing here with a subject concerning which most Christians today and in the past have not found the Bible's teachings to be all that difficult or obscure!
Dr. Mohler goes on to say:
A structure of theological triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less than full seriousness. We are charged to embrace and to teach the comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There are no insignificant doctrines revealed in the Bible, but there is an essential foundation of truth that undergirds the entire system of biblical truth.
This structure of theological triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful.
Clearly, compared to Abanes, Dr. Mohler has a relatively mild case of the Modernist sickness. And so do we all. It's impossible to live in our society- and especially to have grown up in it- without absorbing it with the air we breathe.
Thus, Dr. Mohler writes:
This structure of theological triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful. The error of theological liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the church's treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal ambiguity is the inevitable result.
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided.
But he fails to recognize that there is a third option: to deny that such a thing as a third-order doctrine exists, while recognizing the precise distinction Dr Mohler (if I understand him correctly) makes between first and second-order doctrines.
Well, perhaps not precisely the distinction. Dr Mohler probably would be as uncomprehending of the confessional Lutheran refusal to participate in joint public worship even with those with whom our disagreements are of the second order as Abanes is. But that very incomprehension springs from the same source as the concept of "third-order" doctrines: the notion that the Bible is unclear about the subjects in question.
My own pet theory is that the Reformed concept that "the finite is not capable of the infinite" (actually stated backwards; the real issue is whether the infinite is capable of the finite) plays a role here. The notion that doctrine (at whatever level) ought not to be divisive springs- at least among those who recognize the divine origin and authority of Scripture- lends an explanation for doctrinal disagreements among Christians who differ in good faith about precisely what Scripture teaches which our Modernist society finds congenial indeed. We, after all, are sinful creatures, capable of making mistakes. Therefore, the logic goes, we ought not absolutize even our own firmly-held convictions about what the Scriptures teach on a given subject.
At one point- exasperated with Abanes- I asked him on another blog who had died and made him Pope. Why does he get to decide which doctrines are "fundamental," and which are not? Consensus won't work; as we've seen, the consensus of Christendom, today and throughout the ages, would endorse the Lutheran view of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and reject precisely that which "Evangelicalism" teaches about both!
The Lutheran answer would be, "God does- and that rules out the need to ask the question!" We can give that answer because we recognize that our incapacity isn't the issue. Granted, there are complex and difficult things in the Bible. But to assume that they are things about which we cannot know the truth is to assume either that God inspired a great deal of useless writing through His prophets and apostles, or that He, Himself, is too weak and inept a Deity to express Himself on even complex subjects in such a way that sinful, fallible people like us can, with a good-faith effort, intellectual honesty, and the intelligence He gave us, fully understand what He's driving at.
The real issue isn't our fallenness or incapacity, but God's implied ineptitude. Doubtless Abanes and Dr. Mohler would be as horrified at this idea as at the notion that they were, in any sense, Modernists.
But there it is. If there can be such a thing as a "third-order" doctrine, God has failed to do His job of inspiration adequately.
Perhaps He didn't intend to. Perhaps, for reasons of His own, He wanted to confuse us. But we're told by the Apostle that He is not the Author of confusion, and the idea that He deliberately created the doctrinal differences which divide the Church seems untenable.
But otherwise, we have only two choices. The first would be to take the idea that the infinite is not capable of the finite as our point of departure, and conclude that God is not sufficiently omnipotent to communicate infallibly with fallible sinners. The consequences of such a position, of course, are not simply far-reaching; they are nothing short of disasterous.
Or perhaps its the case that the Bible is, in fact, clear on these subjects- but that human beings have the persistent and sinful habit of interjecting their own philosophical presuppositions into the task of interpretation, and dictating to God what He can or cannot mean by a certain text. This is the explanation confessional Lutherans would give for the doctrinal divisions among Christians who recognize the authority of the Bible, and it seems to me to be the only viable one.
But if this is the case, the solution to the problem is not to make lists of essential and non-essential doctrines, or first, second, and third-order ones. It's to examine our presuppositions, discuss the matter, dialog about our differences, and seek to overcome them- recognizing that, precisely because Scripture is both clear and authoritative, we cannot treat any deviation from it as not having consequences for fellowship.
That certainly doesn't mean that we can't recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, and rejoice in such unity as we can, with honesty, manifest, while recognizing that our true unity is never more powerfully- or poigniently - exhibited as when, recognizing precisely our lack of unity, we honor and respect our differences. In the interim we're in a situation in which,as my vicarage supervisor said to the local Church of Christ pastor about baptism-, "You're just going to have to do it your way- and we're going to have to do it His!"
Comments
And, great job on your posting -- you fleshed out the points/issues very nicely. Tying in the running debate you had with Abanes was also very nicely done, and effective in making the overall point.
-ghp