Post by Kerrick on Apr 5, 2017 12:58:01 GMT -6
I’ve been meaning to make this thread for a little while but I think it’s still very relevant. A few weeks ago I was telling my wife about some of the discussions we were having here and she brought up this article which I think really well articulates what may be the root of some of the frustrations we’ve been having here. I highly recommend reading the entire article, entitled "A Call For Theological Triage And Christian Maturity", but its gist is that “theological seriousness and maturity demand that we consider doctrinal issues in terms of their relative importance” – and then distinguishes between three categories of varying importance: first-, second-, and third-order issues. First-order issues are those that are of utmost importance. If you aren’t aligned with these pillars of Christianity, you’re not a Christian. Second-order issues are those that might prevent two Christians (who agree on the first-order stuff) from being in the same congregation. The author of the article used the example of infant baptism. It’s a fairly big deal and has some major theological implications of how one understands salvation and God’s character… but it’d be unfair for someone to claim another is a heretic for believing differently in this. These are typically separated by different denominations of churches. Third-order issues are little things that two Christians may disagree on, but doesn’t prevent them from being in the same congregation. An example may be pre/mid/post-tribulation or something along those lines: in the big scope of things, not too critical. What I found most helpful and insightful in the article was how the author then described the spectrum of people in this. The “liberal” has a tendency of demoting issues to lower than they are, while the “fundamentalist” has a tendency of elevating issues higher than they truly are. (You can guess which end of the spectrum I fall onto hahaha…)
So I guess what I would like to ask is this: do you agree with the below statements and why/why not?
For the record, I absolutely agree that ALL of God's Truth needs to be taught/defended/discussed. BUT... we need to 1) properly understand what level it is and 2) do so in humility, knowing which side of that spectrum we may err on. And that humility goes both ways: in suggesting that someone is mistaken on their assessment of which level something is, but also in being told that you may have an incorrect understanding of the importance of something. (And of course in discussing the opposing views of whatever the topic at hand is.) This would mean properly, respectfully, and humbly carrying that "heresy hammer" Thomas speaks of and never wielding it in the wrong way. Anyways, food for thought.
So I guess what I would like to ask is this: do you agree with the below statements and why/why not?
God’s truth is to be defended at every point and in every detail, but responsible Christians must determine which issues deserve first-rank attention in a time of theological crisis. [...] 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.
For the record, I absolutely agree that ALL of God's Truth needs to be taught/defended/discussed. BUT... we need to 1) properly understand what level it is and 2) do so in humility, knowing which side of that spectrum we may err on. And that humility goes both ways: in suggesting that someone is mistaken on their assessment of which level something is, but also in being told that you may have an incorrect understanding of the importance of something. (And of course in discussing the opposing views of whatever the topic at hand is.) This would mean properly, respectfully, and humbly carrying that "heresy hammer" Thomas speaks of and never wielding it in the wrong way. Anyways, food for thought.