Theological Triage
Discrediting Christianity is not too difficult these days: “Why work too hard or get our hands too dirty, when applying the labels Fundamentalist and Evangelical will do the trick of sending those pesky Christians back to the hills where they belong,” some think. These are the tactics of many media outlets. There is no denying that the Church is at odds with the things of this world. Though the world despises the Gospel, Christians refuse to abandon this Gospel that we love and take so seriously.
Yet it is also apparent that many Christians are at doctrinal odds with one another. From Calvinist, pedobaptist Presbyterians to Arminian, credobaptist Free Will Baptists, even conservative Christians have their differences. We rightfully take these differences seriously because we take biblical fidelity seriously. While worthy of friendly debate, the differences between infant baptism and believer’s baptism are certainly not Christians’ most important disagreements. Open Theism and the rejection of an historical Adam represent much more urgent matters for Christians to confront. And while it may appear rudimentary to some, many Fundamentalists and Neo-evangelicals fail to properly deal with these important theological issues.
In this article, I will briefly recount how Fundamentalism and Neo-evangelicalism sought to confront theological liberalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. This will help us understand why we as Christians have the differences we have—at least some of them. Then, I will suggest R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s “theological triage” as a useful tool for Christians to categorize and address current theological debates.
Fundamentalists, Neo-evangelicals, and Protestant Liberalism
To those outside of the Christian faith, the labels Fundamentalist and Evangelical are synonyms for Christian extremism. However, informed Christians understand that these terms represent an attempt to preserve orthodox Christianity. Fundamentalism came about in the late-19th and early-20th centuries to combat Protestant liberalism. Liberalism had pervaded many mainline denominations and theological seminaries. Many had felt that the battle for “fundamentals of the faith” was being lost within mainline Protestantism. Because of this, many began to separate from mainline Protestant denominations, not seeing any possibility of maintaining Christian fellowship.
However, as Fundamentalism’s approach to cultural engagement gradually appeared increasingly inadequate, Neo-evangelicalism was born. Christian thinkers such as Carl F.H. Henry and Charles Fuller led the way as this new movement began to flourish. Henry and others pursued degrees from prestigious universities. They began to directly combat Protestant liberalism through writing (e.g. Christianity Today) and rigorous, conservative scholarship. Henry and Fuller were not alone in their efforts. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott, Billy Graham, and J.I. Packer are several others.
Gradually Fundamentalists and Neo-evangelicals became two distinct groups within conservative Christianity. Billy Graham’s allowance of Catholics into aspects of his ministry drove an even deeper wedge between Fundamentalists and Neo-evangelicals. While some Neo-evangelicals today have accommodated theological liberalism, many hyper-fundamentalists have become overly separatistic. Yet neither accommodating liberalism, nor running for the hills, should be viable options for those who care about the Gospel and the Church. We must be able to deal with our theological differences in a serious manner.
In this vein, let us examine R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s “theological triage” as a model for addressing theological disagreements.
Theological Triage
First, “What is triage?” Triage is a method that hospital emergency rooms use for deciding which patients are given medical attention first in crises times, based on the extent of their injuries. Therefore, theological triage is a method used to assess the urgency of theological disagreements, giving first attention to the most urgent things. Theological triage also helps Christians of different traditions determine whether they can likely have fellowship with one another based upon the severity of their disagreements.
Using theological triage, Mohler provides three levels or orders of urgency:
a. First-level/order theological issues
Mohler explains: “First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture” [1]. Essentially, first-level issues are the “fundamentals of the faith”—what Fundamentalists and Neo-evangelicals fought so hard for.
Christians cannot compromise such issues, or simply ignore them when they’re denied. Not only is Scripture clear on these fundamental doctrines, but the early Church universally confronted and rejected every divergence from them. In the same way, when these essential doctrines are denied by a local church or denomination, they must be confronted with Scripture as heresy. Mohler states that, “Denying these doctrines represents nothing less than eventually denying Christianity itself” [2].
b. Second-level/order theological issues
Second-level issues are those that lead to significant disagreement about important biblical doctrines, but do not represent a rejection of the Gospel when disagreed upon. However, it is not likely that those who disagree on second-level theological issues will be comfortable existing within the same local church or potentially even the same denomination.
Baptism represents an example of a second-level issue. “Baptists and Presbyterians, for example,” writes Mohler, “fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism. The practice of infant baptism is inconceivable to the Baptist mind, while Presbyterians trace infant baptism to their most basic understanding of the covenant” [3].
One might even add the debate between Calvinists and Arminians to this category. The Southern Baptist Convention is an example of a denomination where both Calvinists and non-Calvinists coexist. However, this is not always a peaceful coexistence and is likely even less peaceful when disagreed upon within a local church.
Christians can disagree on second-level doctrines and maintain significant unity by their affirmation of the most essential first-level doctrines of the faith. However, this does not mean that debates over second-order issues may not become tense at times. As Mohler insightfully reminds us, “Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding of the church and its ordering by the Word of God” [4].
c. Third-level/order theological issues
Third-level issues are those doctrines that believers can disagree upon and remain in close fellowship. Mohler gives one particular example: “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” [5].
It is not uncommon to hear of local churches or state associations that require members to affirm a particular eschatological view. While I do not think that it is particularly appropriate to do so, it is helpful to remember that such issues are third-level doctrines that shouldn’t be elevated beyond their proper place.
Another third-level theological issue may be Bible translations. Certainly some versions are more faithful to the original manuscripts than other translations, and different translation philosophies are stricter (and arguably more cogent) in their approach. And certainly, we should carefully consider a Bible translation’s accuracy and reliability in using them in our local church and personal study—there are numerous Bible translations that conservative scholars have recognized as faithful to the original text. However, though we should be zealous for a Bible translation’s biblical fidelity, we mustn’t act as if God has inspired any one particular translation.
Christians may disagree on many other third-level issues and still remain in the same denomination and local church. Scripture is very difficult to interpret at times, and there is no need to require absolute agreement on every minute issue. Mohler succinctly summarizes this point: “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” [6].
Conclusion
In our zeal for biblical fidelity, we should be able to evaluate doctrinal differences while also maintaining Christian unity wherever possible. It will not do to label one another as heretics and call it a day. But should we simply overlook doctrinal divergences even when a denomination, local church, or theologian departs from historic orthodox teachings? I think not.
Our natural tendencies are either extreme passivity towards dangerous teachings or heresy hunting with regularity. Neither should suffice. Liberals tend to deny or redefine first-level theological issues altogether. Hyper-fundamentalists tend to overstate the importance of second and third-level doctrines. Defending the “fundamentals of the faith” ought not mean crying heresy every time we encounter someone who disagrees with us on second and third-level issues. Disagreement is not equivalent to heresy.
Theological triage helps us to examine the potential intimacy of our fellowships. We can gather together in local congregations with those with whom we agree on third-level issues, but we can also join hands with neighboring congregations in defending the essential first-level doctrines. We can even convene conferences where we unite around these first-level issues, and have friendly discussion on second-level doctrines. It is not as if theological triage is without potential error, but it undoubtedly provides a way forward in defending the faith and edifying the Church.
_______________________________________
[1] R. Albert Mohler Jr., “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Ministry,” http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/07/12/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity/
[2] R. Albert Mohler Jr, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, (eds.) Andrew David Naselli and Collin Hansen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 78.
[3] Mohler, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Ministry.”
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
Recent Comments