Finding the Right Hills to Die On

The Case for Theological Triage

Gavin Ortlund

• Publisher: Crossway
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781433567421
• eBook ISBN: 9781433567452
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Ministry

In theology, just as in battle, some hills are worth dying on. But how do we know which ones? When should doctrine divide, and when should unity prevail? Pastor Gavin Ortlund makes the case that while all doctrines matter, some are more essential than others. He considers how and what to prioritize in doctrine and ministry, encouraging humility and grace along the way. Using four basic categories of doctrine in order of importance, this book helps new and seasoned church leaders alike wisely labor both to uphold doctrine and to preserve unity.

Part 1

Why Theological Triage?

1

The Danger of Doctrinal Sectarianism

It is easy to lose your balance when you’re standing on one foot. The strongest posture is one of balance between both feet: one of poise. That’s why boxers put so much care into their footwork.

In our theological life as well, we need poise. The character of the gospel is complex. It contains both truth and grace, both conviction and comfort, both hard edges of logic and deep caverns of mystery. It is at one moment as bracing as a cold breeze and the next as nourishing as a warm meal. Faithfulness to the gospel, therefore, requires more than one virtue. We must at times boldly contend and at other times gently probe. In one situation we must emphasize what is obvious, and in another we must explore what is nuanced.

Jesus is the perfect blend of these diverse qualities—“gentle and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29) and yet unafraid to cleanse the temple (Matt. 21:12–13) or denounce the Pharisees (Matt. 23). Most of us, by contrast, tend to tilt toward either courage or gentleness, particularly when it comes to theological disagreement. For instance, we might be naturally careful about theological clarity but have a blind spot to the destructiveness of divisiveness. In the other direction, we might be horrified at the lack of love some Christians exhibit but naive about the effects of doctrinal erosion. As Martin Luther noted, “Softness and hardness . . . are the two main faults from which all the mistakes of pastors come.”1 The same could be said of all Christians.

This chapter therefore addresses the danger of doctrinal sectarianism, and the following chapter addresses its opposite, the danger of doctrinal minimalism. By doctrinal sectarianism I mean any attitude, belief, or practice that contributes to unnecessary division in the body of Christ. Doctrinal sectarianism often results from the inability to distinguish between different kinds of doctrine. So we must begin by asking what rationale we have to make such distinctions in the first place.

Are All Doctrines Created Equal?

People often claim that “all sins are the same in God’s eyes.” That sounds spiritual because it seems to take sin seriously. And it is certainly true that any sin is enough to make us guilty before a holy God. For instance, James 2:10 says that “whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.”

But on closer examination, there is much in the Bible that would discourage us from considering all sins equal. The prophets decried some sins as more heinous than others (Jer. 16:12; Ezek. 23:11). Jesus spoke of “the weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23) and of lesser and greater degrees of punishment for different kinds of sin (Matt. 10:15; Luke 12:47–48; John 19:11). The Old Testament law made provision for different kinds of sins, such as “unintentional” versus “high-handed” sins (Num. 15:22–31). First John 5:16–17 distinguishes “sin that leads to death” from other sins. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism explains, “Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.”2

In an analogous way, it might initially sound good to say that “all doctrines are equally important,” but it is a difficult statement to justify biblically. Paul, for instance, speaks of the gospel as a matter of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). On other topics, he often gives Christians greater latitude to disagree. For instance, in Philippians 3:15 he writes, “If in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.” On certain issues, he goes further and commands Christians not to “quarrel over opinions” (Rom. 14:1). Even on an important topic like baptism, Paul draws a prioritization for the gospel: “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17).

Why is it important to make doctrinal distinctions? What is at stake? For starters, equating all doctrines leads to unnecessary division and undermines the unity of the church.

Unnecessary Division Harms the Unity of the Church

Historically, theologians in the Reformed tradition have often drawn a distinction between essential and nonessential beliefs out of concern for the unity of the church. Writing in the seventeenth century, Francis Turretin provided a series of arguments that certain “fundamental articles” are more important than others.3 As he put it, some doctrines are “primary and immediate; such as the articles concerning the Trinity, Christ the Mediator, justification, etc.,” while others are “secondary and mediate,” and come into view only as a consequence of these primary doctrines.4 Turretin also observed that different doctrines serve different functions. Some doctrines are necessary to produce faith; others are necessary to perfect and grow faith.5 To support this observation, he drew attention to the distinction between milk and solid food in Hebrews 5:12–14. He saw solid food as a metaphor for more established and nuanced doctrines, and milk as a metaphor for “the basic principles of the oracles of God” (v. 12).

Turretin also maintained that there are different kinds of theological errors, with corresponding levels of severity. For instance, some errors are about doctrinal language or phrases only (he calls these “verbal errors”); others are about the doctrines themselves (he calls these “real errors”).6 Additionally, we can be in error about the substance of a doctrine or in error about its mode and circumstances. As an example, Turretin argued that the Greeks (those whom we often call Eastern Orthodox) are in error about the mode of the procession of the Holy Spirit but that this does not constitute an error about the Trinity itself or the divinity of the Spirit.7

Why was it so important for Turretin to distinguish between different kinds of doctrine and different kinds of error? In his own context, Turretin was facing two distinct threats. First, he was concerned by Socinian and Roman Catholic claims that their distinctive doctrines were fundamental truths of the faith. But, second, Turretin was concerned about ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Newsletter Signup
• Endorsements
• Other Crossway Books
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part 1 Why Theological Triage?
• 1 The Danger of Doctrinal Sectarianism
• 2 The Danger of Doctrinal Minimalism
• 3 My Journey on Secondary and Tertiary Doctrines
• Part 2 Theological Triage at Work
• 4 Why Primary Doctrines Are Worth Fighting For
• 5 Navigating the Complexity of Secondary Doctrines
• 6 Why We Should Not Divide over Tertiary Doctrines
• Conclusion: A Call to Theological Humility
• General Index
• Scripture Index