What Is the Goal of Theological Triage?

May I confess that theological triage, as commonly presented, does not work for me?

Some twenty years ago, Albert Mohler (2004) offered sage advice that Christians should discern between (1) those doctrines which are the “most central and essential to the Christian faith,” whose denial marks one as not being a Christian; (2) those doctrines which are recognized as preventing fellowship within a church or association; and (3) those variations in doctrinal belief which can be accommodated within a church or association. There is merit to this form of ranking, as it is centered on those things which are “of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3–4).

More recently, Gavin Ortlund, Rhyne Putman, and others have helpfully elaborated on this concept; although, some contributors have made it clear that their overriding goal is to dissuade Christians from dividing over disputed doctrines (Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, 2020, 148–49). Others are more intent on driving humility into our theological certitude, due to “the frailty of human interpretation” (Putman, When Doctrine Divides, 2020, 261–66). At Sharper Iron, contributions from Kevin Bauder (2006), Ed Vasicek (2022), and others have more properly stressed the importance of defending secondary doctrines, and not just the “core truths of biblical faith” (e.g., https://sharperiron.org/article/secondary-beliefs-matter).

Our friends over at dotheology.com have also improved on the triage model by fleshing out categories of primary doctrines, secondary doctrines, and doubtful things, while giving special attention to inerrancy, orthopraxy, methodology, and the relational implications of the three categories. In their podcasts, they’ve also expressed a need to be sensitive to the maturity level of Christians, when judging their alignment against the various criteria. I affirm and commend what they have accomplished.

Nonetheless, I still contend that the overall model is inadequate.

My triage goal is not to broadly recognize some group of people as being “authentic Christians” (Mohler 2004), based on some short list of doctrinal affirmations, while graciously allowing that there is another list of beliefs and practices which might preclude these authentic Christians from participating together in a given church or association.

The question that I need answered, the framework that I need, has a more linear orientation—that is, with whom can I share any real sense of Christian fellowship in the context of Paul’s commands that we are to admonish and not associate with (and not share the communion table with) those so-called brothers who are immoral, disorderly, divisive, or who do not obey and walk in accordance with Paul’s example, traditions, and teachings—that they might be ashamed (2 Thess. 3; 1 Cor. 5:11; Rom. 16:17; etc.). Likewise, Paul chastises those who would fellowship with any who teach a different Jesus, Spirit, or Gospel (2 Cor. 11:4). John also instructs that those who bring contrary teachings should not be received into fellowship, nor even greeted as fellow believers (2 John 10). Clearly, the NT practices and teachings which are in-view here go well beyond Mohler’s lists of first and second-order doctrines.

At the same time, we must recognize that the mandate to admonish is coupled with the mandate to “encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all” (1 Thess. 5:14 ESV). We need to welcome new Christians and those who are yet maturing, which is indeed the plight of all of us. Short of glory, we will all continue to struggle, and so we must support and bear with one another. We must be “kind to everyone,” while correcting opponents—whether Christian or not—with gentleness, that they might come “to a knowledge of the truth, … come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil” (2 Tim. 2:24–26). Walking worthy, “with all humility … patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1–3).

All that said, I need a triage process which

1. recognizes that the world is full of unbelievers;
2. discerns whether someone has made a credible profession of faith (e.g., per Rom. 10:9–10);
3. discerns whether the self-identified Christian is pursuing a lifestyle or affirming/denying doctrines which disallows Christian fellowship per the discussion above;
4. discerns whether there is strong enough alignment in practices and doctrines to allow meaningful fellowship, though perhaps in different churches and associations; and finally,
5. discerns those differences in practice and doctrine which can co-exist within a given church.

For those accustomed to the common theological triage paradigm, it may well appear that I’m trying to shuffle the order of the primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrinal lists, as I seek to establish a flow structure which accommodates my decision process. And this may well explain Mohler’s (2004) concluding jab at fundamentalism, which he characterizes as elevating all doctrinal beliefs to first order.

I suggest that the real issue here is that the theological triage model is chasing the wrong goal, as it is failing to provide an adequate framework for those of us who recognize that Scripture not only encourages unity but also places broader restrictions on Christian fellowship than what the existing triage model is structured to accommodate. Let us not forget that Paul not only called the Corinthians to unity but that he also affirmed and applauded the existence of “factions … in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor. 11:10, 19). To this end we need a triage model which properly balances the goal of fellowship with the goal of withholding fellowship.