Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Wouldn’t it be nice if Christians just agreed on everything? Instead, we see church after church split over seemingly unimportant technicalities of church doctrine, practice or style.

Sometimes you have to wonder: Do these differences really matter?

Can’t Christians just ignore our differences and get along?

In my opinion, such an attitude would be to swing too far to another extreme — leading us to minimise often substantive issues.

So, how do we know how to disagree well? What issues are deal-breakers? Which are relatively unimportant? And how do we tell the difference?

Thankfully, the Christian theological toolbox has some handy resources to help address this dilemma. One of these is a concept called “theological triage”.

Theological Triage: A Helpful Tool

You will sometimes hear theologians refer to doctrines that are “first-order” or “primary”. But what does this really mean?

R Albert Mohler Jr, a prominent Southern Baptist theologian and the president of the influential Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, popularised the term “theological triage” to draw a comparison between priority care given in medical contexts and the need to distinguish between more and less important doctrines.

In other words, theological triage is a helpful model that helps us to determine between core doctrines, important doctrines and those that are less important (although not necessarily unimportant).

There are three categories in theological triage. Let’s look at each.

First-Order: Dogma

Firstly, dogma — or first-order doctrine — refers to those beliefs that are essential to the Gospel. They are a test for Christian orthodoxy and cannot be knowingly denied by anyone who calls themself a “Christian”.

Vincent of Lérins, a fifth-century Gallic monk, established a threefold test to determine if a teaching can be considered a part of basic orthodoxy: namely, has it been believed 1) everywhere (universality), 2) always (originality) and 3) by all Christians (consensus)?

C.S. Lewis famously referred to this most basic set of Christian beliefs as “mere Christianity”.

If one can establish the universality, the originality, and the consensus of a particular doctrine, it can be classified as “dogma”.

Second-Order: Doctrine

Secondly, you have doctrines — or second-order beliefs — which are those teachings that are fundamental to the ordering of the church, but not to the Gospel.

Differences of this nature — around, for example, the nature of communion or baptism — will typically lead Christians to serve and worship in different local congregations.

This is typically the level at which Christians choose to form different denominations — Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Orthodox or Lutheran.

Note that these are all still “Christian” denominations (in that they believe in the fundamental tenets of orthodoxy). However, the nature of their disagreements makes it difficult — if not impossible — to serve or worship together in the same local assemblies.

While second-order (doctrinal) differences are essential to church order, they are not essential to the Gospel and they shouldn’t restrict Christians of various denominations from cooperating for the sake of the Gospel.

Third-Order: Opinion

Finally, there are opinions — or third-order doctrines — which are essential neither to the Gospel nor to church order. In other words, they are neither a test for orthodoxy nor should believers refuse to fellowship in the local church over them.

Professor Adam Harwood points to “one’s view on the millennial reign of Christ” or “the precise nature and sequence of events at the return of Christ” as examples of third-order doctrines (although some would contest this).

It is important not to minimise third-order differences as “unimportant” and just refuse to discuss them. They certainly are important.

However, Christians should not seek to divide the local church over such matters.

Harwood uses the doctrine of revelation to provide an example of dogma, doctrine and opinion:

• Dogma: Is Scripture God’s Word? (If you answer “no”, you are not a Christian.)
• Doctrine: Should apocryphal/deuterocanonical books be considered Scripture? (This is a crucial difference between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants.)
• Opinion: Who wrote the book of Hebrews? (This is an example of a less-important third-tier issue.)

Says Harwood:

“This order of priority assumes all Christians affirm Scripture as God’s Word, Christian movements differ on whether apocryphal books should be considered Scripture, and they hold various opinions (including uncertainty) on the authorship of the book of Hebrews.” (p. 25)

How do we classify doctrines?

Apart from the very objective and clear test for first-order doctrines (namely, whether it has been believed everywhere, always and by all Christians), there is a degree of ambiguity around which doctrines are assigned to which level of importance.

Thankfully, we don’t just have to rely on instinct.

There are several objective metrics we can use to measure the priority of a teaching—and, thus, we can determine whether it should be considered a first, second or third-order doctrine.

Historical Testimony

Firstly, we can examine the attention that is devoted to it by Christians throughout history, especially in formal confessions and ecumenical councils.

The more that particular doctrines are discussed (no matter what position a particular author takes on them), the more likely they are to be of core importance.

Scriptural Weight

Secondly, we can look at the quality or frequency of texts in Scripture that provide obvious support to particular doctrines.

As Harwood notes, this helps us to distinguish “between major and minor themes in Scripture”. The more major a theme — like the return of Christ (Matt. 24:30; 26:64; John 14:3; Acts 1:11; 1 Thes. 4:15-16; Titus 2:12-13; Heb. 9:28; Jas. 5:7-8; 1 Pet. 1:7, 13; 2 Pet. 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28; Rev. 1:7) — the more likely it is to be considered a “dogma” or a first-order doctrine.

The fewer times a doctrine is referenced — for example, the millennium (Rev. 20:1-8) — the more likely it is to fall into the category of “opinion” or third-order doctrine.

Of course, this does not mean that minor themes of Scripture are unimportant — and, crucially, fewer mentions do not mean that such teachings are untrue — it simply means that Christians should not divide over such things.

To quote Harwood:

“The paucity of biblical references to the millennium does not mean the doctrine is not true or should not be affirmed, but the emphasis and confidence when formulating doctrine should be granted to those matters that hold the abundance of biblical references.” (p. 26)

Pastoral Relevance

The third and final test we can apply is what Harwood calls “Pastoral relevance” — namely, would the doctrinal question “resonate as significant to biblically literate believers”?

This is not to say that we shouldn’t ever preach on more obscure teachings, but just that such preaching should be framed in the wider context of doctrinal priorities.

Conclusion

Christians don’t need to agree on everything to consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ and to cooperate in Gospel ministry; but neither should we minimise significant doctrinal differences. Theological triage provides a helpful framework for deciding which theological “hills” we should die on — and which are less important.

While the entire testimony of Scripture is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV), there are some issues that the Bible itself treats as of “first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ESV), while others are treated with more lenience.

Historical testimony, scriptural weight and pastoral relevance can all help us to decide whether theological questions are of first, second, or third-order importance.

---

You can listen to a casual discussion on theological triage in the first episode of The Echo Chamber.

---

Further reading:

• Adam Harwood, Christian Theology.
• C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
• Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage.

Image courtesy of fauxels.