Theological Triage

By on June 16, 2011 in Theology

The newest issue of “Southern Seminary Magazine” is out and there is a great short article that addresses the topic of theological triage. In essence it is R. Albert Mohler’s perspective on what doctrines are most important to those that are not. He offers three levels of theological “urgency” that one will find in theological debates today. Below is a representation of what he published, which I happen to agree with, but with one addition I made—that is the understanding of spiritual gifts.

Adapted from "Southern Seminary Magazine" | Summer 2011

  1. The upper level represents those doctrines upon which Christianity stands or falls. If one were to deny any of these there is no Christian Faith.
  2. The second level, or middle level, often cause division and disagreement. These issues are important and often will cause separate churches and the formation of denominations.
  3. The bottom level are items of discussion that where there is disagreement close fellowship can still persist—even within the same church body.

 

  • http://www.mularsmusings.com Peter Mular

    G,
    Wouldn’t miraculous gifts fall under difficult texts? Just a thought.

    • http://gadietrich.com G. A. Dietrich

      Peter, I think they certainly could. However, since there is such a strong arm out there against miraculous gifts I wanted to highlight the fact that it is not a separation issue. You and I both learned going through our undergrad programs that it was an issue to separate over. So I am probably reacting against that, but I see your point. Thanks for chiming in.

  • http://www.mularsmusings.com Peter Mular

    In that context it makes perfect sense.

  • http://www.debgerard.com deb Gerard

    You always offer such interesting stuff! In Campus Crusade lingo, these categories would be called conviction, persuasion, opinion! Love your stuff! God bless ya, my friend!

  • http://www.craighurst.wordpress.com Craig Hurst

    So where would the reality of a literal heaven and hell fit?

    Also, a few weeks ago I read the book “The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family” by Andrew Himes (review here – http://craighurst.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/book-review-the-sword-of-the-lord-by-andrew-himes/). He points out that it is interesting that the doctrine of the trinity was not part of the 5 fundamentals of the faith for Fundamentalists. I think that is an astute observation. That being said, I like seeing it in this formulation.

    • http://gadietrich.com G. A. Dietrich

      I saw something about Himes’ book not long ago and heard it was a good read. I’m sure I’ll eventually get to it. The guy certainly can offer a unique perspective on fundamentalism.

      Regarding a literal heaven and hell…I feel like it should go in the top level, but I am not 100% convinced in my own mind yet. Certainly it cannot go in the bottom level though. I would have to really work through that and I haven’t yet. I guess part of the question for me is if there is a denial of hell, is there a denial of heaven as well? Are we talking annihilation? Universalism?

      Good thought to ponder, thanks Craig.