Is Mohler Contradicting Himself on Theological Triage and the Issue of Women?

Al Mohler has recycled a post on theological triage  he wrote for his blog July 12, 2005 in a recent Baptist Press article.

I raised the issue of a possible Mohler contradiction on June 1, 2006 when I tried to reconcile Mohler's  theological triage article, specifically his statements about the women's issue being a second-order issue, with the Together For The Gospel statement of faith article on women.

In Article XVI of the Together for the Gospel statement of faith, Mohler, et. al, affirm three propositions about women in the church and then state three denials.  The last denial reads, "We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel."

The question for me comes down to this: what do Mohler, et. al., mean by the phrase "damaging its witness to the Gospel" in Article XVI of the T4G Statement?  The word "Gospel" has many uses, and thus different levels of meaning, in Church history and in the Church today.

I ask this question because a significant portion of the T4G Statement concerns protecting what Mohler called (in his earlier theological triage article) the first-order nature of the Gospel, specifically justification by faith alone.  Since much of the language of the T4G statement is about this first-order doctrine called the Gospel, it makes me wonder if the signers are using "the Gospel" in the same first order vein in Aricle XVI on women.

If Mohler, et. al, are usingthe term  "the Gospel" in an ultimate, first-order sense in Article XVI, then Mohler seems to be contradicting his explicit words about the women's issue being a second order issue.

However, perhaps Mohler, et.al. do NOT use the term "the Gospel" in this ultimate, first-order sense when they use it in Article XVI.   Maybe they have one of the many alternative meanings of the Gospel in mind, a meaning that is not about the first order issue of justification.

If I'm reasoning correctly, and I may not be, and thus I invite gracious correction, it seems to me that either Mohler means something of a second-order nature when he uses "the Gospel" in Ariticle XVI or he has contradicted his words in the theological triage article about women issues being second-order.

Or, still another alternative, perhaps Mohler believes that even errors on second order issues damage a church's witness to the first-order matter of the Gospel.

In sum, I'm curious about this possible contradiction and hope someone in the know can either correct my thinking (probably what needs to happen) or else explain Mohler's seeming differences on the importance of the women's issue from the theological triage article 7/12/05 to the T4G Statement of Faith in 4/06.

Comments

[Warren Dodson]

I am not sure the issue is the understanding of "the Gospel," rather that of "witness." Article VII of the T4TG statement states, in pertinent part: "We deny that the substitutionary character of Christ's atonement for sin can be compromised without serious injury to the Gospel or denied without repudiating the Gospel." Likewise, Article XIII, in pertinent part, states: "We deny that any teaching that minimizes, denies, or confuses justification by faith alone can be considered true to the Gospel. We further deny that any teaching that separates regeneration and faith is a true rendering of the Gospel." Here are two doctrines that the T4TG signatories would clearly regard as first-order. The statements indicate that error with respect to these doctrines injures, repudiates, or is untrue to "the Gospel" itself. Article XVI instead envisions the church having a "witness to the Gospel" which is damaged when there is error on gender-role issues.

The same difference in language can be found in the opening: "Compromise of the Gospel has led to the preaching of false gospels, the seduction of many minds and movements, and the weakening of the church's Gospel witness." In other words, it is conceivable that a teaching could weaken the church's Gospel witness without being a false gospel. This makes sense. If a church got the atonement or justification wrong, that would seem to strike at the heart of the gospel itself. However, if a church got those doctrines correct, but was (in the understanding of the T4TG signatories) in error on gender-role issues, the gospel might be intact, but the church's witness to the gospel would be weakened in some way.

I would rather the T4TG statement had not been produced, but I do not think Dr. Mohler can be accused of taking contradictory positions.

[GL]

Warren,
Your suggestion is plausible and I'd be interested to hear what Mohler, et. al., say about it. It depends on what they meant by "witness to the Gospel," because there might be multiple meanings of that phrase. Perhaps one or more of the signatories will address this.

[centuri0n]

My Friend:

I think you do not understand Dr. Mohler's essay on theological triage completely, and it has lead you to conclusions here that are a little overblown.

I want you to consider the primary example of second-order issues which Dr. Mohler covers in his essay, which you linked: baptism. His specific example of the contrast between Baptist and Presbyterian baptism is extremely helpful in understanding his point -- because he's not talking here about the distinction between CoC or Catholic "regenerative" baptism and some kind of plain-jane "only a symbol" version. Dr. Mohler is here exercising a comparison in which the two sides have little soteriological bacon in the fire, but significant systematic bacon in the fire.

You know: baptists don't deny the existence of covenants, especially not the New Covenant in Christ's blood, amen? But they also do not make covenantalism a cornerstone in understanding the existence and practice of the church -- they take (if it is fair to say so) a "low view" of covenant and (again, if it is fair to say this, as a broad brush) relegate it to "dispensational" action in time. On the other hand, the Presbyterians take a high view of covenant, and see it as an outworking of God's faithfulness. In that, God makes promises in which we can establish action, and the church is a result of those promises.

That difference in covenantal theology is the real difference between paedo- and credo-baptism, and it is no small difference.

Whew. :)

OK: now that we understand the kind of thing Dr. Mohler has assigned to this second-order of beliefs, let's keep in mind that he is not saying these are small differences, and he is not saying these are incidental differences. In fact, he plainly says that these differences are "disagreement[s which] will create significant boundaries between believers". They are (as he also says) denominational lines in the sand, and also that these "prevent the closeness of fellowship we would otherwise enjoy".

A Baptist in good conscience really cannot join to a body of Presbyterians -- because he conscientiously objects to the baptism of infants. There is no question that a Baptist frankly and honestly will attest, regarding infant baptism, that "[no] church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel." That does not mean that Presbyterians aren't Christians. It means that they have applied baptism in a way which (as the Baptist sees it) is confusing or distorting the message of the Gospel -- which is indubitably stated succinctly, "Christ has died for our sins in accordance with Scripture; repent of sin and be baptized." (Acts 2; 1Cor 15:1-4)

That said, there is no question that female eldership is exactly this kind of issue. That is: while the Presbyterian and the Baptist would never consider such a thing, for the Methodist it's hardly an issue at all. And on this basis (and others, to be sure) local fellowship and cooperation is frankly impossible. Does it destroy the proclamation of the Gospel? Why no -- it doesn't. Because it violates complementarianism, does it seem to violate presuppositions of the Gospel? The Presbyterian and the Baptist would both say "yes". Dr. Mohler specifically says yes to this in his essay to which you are linked.

It is not a first-order truth, but it is a clearly in the second order of truths -- things open to discussion where disagreement interdicts fellowship.

Now, consider it: I don't speak for T4G, but it seems to me that the reason for this association is specifically to overlook one set of second-order truths for the sake of the unequivocal bounds of the first-order truths necessary for the proclamation of the Gospel: the centrality of Scripture in the life of the church, the person and work of Jesus Christ, the importance of the local church, and the glory and supremacy of God. In short: old-time reformed theology, in the broadest sense.

In a very real sense, the matter of complementarianism is frankly a reformed confessional issue. Man and woman are "mutual helpers" by the account of both the LBCF and the WCF, but they have separate roles; they are different. Because the men here issuing the statement are frankly of one kind or another either baptistic or presbyterian, they issued a statement which captures the whole of their agreement, and Article XVI is in that vein.

If your complaint is that T4G ignores the paedo/credo issue for the sake of unity but does not ignore the complimentarian issue even though it is the same order of issue, I would point out to you that it may be the same order of issue, but it is a second-order issue which those men who established the association agreed upon. I can't blame them for saying they all agreed when they did, in fact, agree -- especially when the matter of complementarianism is critical in standing firm agains the culture we live in as Americans today.

Hope that helps.