Theological Triage

There is a similar theological triage which is needed amongst Christians, and in many senses, we have seen this at work in the Council of Jerusalem. They had to make careful judgements between what was primary and what was secondary. Space does not permit a detailed discussion, but let’s focus comment on three levels: primary, secondary and tertiary.

Primary doctrines are the essential foundation of the Christian faith and include such doctrines as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of scripture. In theological triage, second- order doctrines are important but not so urgent – they are doctrines where Christians who agree wholeheartedly on first- order truth might nevertheless disagree with one another, for example by belongingsuch that they belong to different denominations or particular congregations. Such second- order truths might include the nature and purpose of baptism, or the issue of women serving as pastors, or perhaps the nature and exercise of charismatic gifts.

To call them ‘secondary’ does not mean that they are unimportant: there are no unimportant truths in scripture, and all truth is God’s truth. But they are not essential foundation truths as far as the gospel is concerned, and fellow evangelicals – who by definition should enjoy cooperative fellowship on the foundation of primary truth – might now disagree on these second- order matters, and will choose their denomination or congregation accordingly
Tertiary or third- order doctrines might be the paracetamol doctrines, to sustain the illustration: . These are issues which Christians even in the same church might see differently. They might agree on the primary truth of Christ’s return, but they might disagree about the exact details of timing and sequence of events.

If we belong to Christ and live under his Lordship, then we must live his life. This is to be seen in the way in which we treat our fellow believers, including those with whom we disagree.
It is all too easy for our priorities to become distorted. We fight each other rather than the enemy; we give our energies to internal wrangling rather than to the desperate needs of a broken world. Seek first the kingdom, Jesus urged.
The reason why our churches are often dysfunctional is that too many of us have failed to place our lives under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Pride is an insidious enemy which lurks behind many church divisions, and Paul addresses it head on in his letters. Conflict may at times be necessary, but all conflict needs careful handling...

‘When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned’ (Gal 2:11).

At first sight, this confrontation is shocking. It is very dramatic and very public. It concerns two fellow believers, two apostles who were respected across the churches, and whose ministry God was using significantly in the advance of the gospel.

The background to this event relates to themes we have addressed in earlier chapters. We have seen from Ephesians that God has broken down the wall that separated Jew and Gentile, creating one new humanity in Christ. In Acts 10, we saw how Peter came to understand this, and in Acts 15, we saw that gospel unity enabled true fellowship for Jew and Gentile. Well, Paul’s letter to the Galatians is a substantial defence of these realities, as is the sharp confrontation between Paul and Peter which is recorded in Galatians 2:11-21.

The charge which Paul made against Peter was that his behaviour and his theology were deficient. Peter had previously crossed the barriers and had been enjoying fellowship with Gentile believers, sharing meals and expressing Christian solidarity. But then, with the arrival of Jewish believers from Jerusalem, he had withdrawn from fellowship with Gentiles, evidently afraid of what the Jewish pressure group might think of him. And worse, others were following his example (2:13).

Paul not only saw this as hypocrisy on Peter’s part (2:13), but also saw this as a challenge to the realities of the gospel itself: they were not acting in line with the truth (2:14). The verses which follow introduce the big theological themes which are at the heart of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, but what concerns us at this point is the nature of the confrontation between two believers. Paul saw that the stakes could not be higher. He was willing to confront Peter directly because he knew how serious Peter’s behaviour and teaching could be, specially influencing young believers and young churches.

Many have asked whether Paul was in contravention of his own call to restore people ‘gently’ (Gal 6:1). But we know that the direct manner of confrontation that Paul deployed arose from the seriousness of the issue itself. People also wonder why Paul had to do this publicly – surely a discrete [correct ‘discrete’?] and private conversation with Peter would have been more appropriate? Some writers suggest that Paul probably would have started with a personal conversation with Peter, and that may well have happened, but the public confrontation was necessary because of the public nature of Peter’s behaviour, and the fact that already others were now following his unfortunate example.

There are several significant issues for us to consider.

First, no leader is immune from fear and failure, and just as Peter denied Christ for fear of what others thought (Luke 22:56,57), so here in Antioch he made a fundamental error for fear of others. We must pray for our leaders, for their consistency and integrity, their loyalty to the gospel, and their courage in the face of fears and temptations of all kinds.

Second, we must keep alert to the influence of pressure groups within the Christian community. A form of tribalism can easily develop, which can, in turn, become intimidating to other believers. It may not be a gospel issue as it was here in Antioch, but it can still produce negative reactions, fearful responses, and inappropriate judgments.

And third, we must be ready publicly to confront error within the Christian community if that becomes necessary. We can understand the appeals for personal conversation before public rebuke, and in many senses this echoes the instructions from the Lord Jesus given to us in Matthew 18:15-20. In most situations, starting with personal conversation is vital, not least to ensure our understanding of the situation is correct, as well as to ensure that this is a primary issue which must be addressed. At the same time, there are casesmoments when a public response is needed

Jonathan's book on unity, Essentially One, is packed with biblical and practical advice. For one image of how to 'live his life', Jonathan's book on Integrity is a modern classic. Find these two, and some other recommended resources, below.