Orders will be processed after the Christmas Holiday.

Podcast: Gracefully Dealing with Doctrinal Disagreement (Gavin Ortlund)

April 06, 2020 by: Crossway

This article is part of the The Crossway Podcast series.

Theological Triage

In this episode, Gavin Ortlund, author of Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage discusses what to do when you disagree with another Christian on some point of doctrine. He shares his thoughts on the pros and cons of having theological debates on social media, highlights the importance of theological humility when engaging with people who think differently, and explains why the metaphor of triage can be helpful when thinking about the relative importance of different doctrines.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Play | Spotify | RSS

Topics Addressed in This Interview

Finding the Right Hills to Die On

Finding the Right Hills to Die On

Gavin Ortlund

Pastor Gavin Ortlund uses four basic categories of doctrine to help church leaders consider how and what to prioritize in doctrine and ministry, encouraging humility and grace along the way.

Doctrinal Disagreements with Other Believers

01:17

Matt Tully
I want to open with a more personal question for you: if you can think back over the last 12 months or so, what's a significant doctrinal disagreement that you've had with another Christian, and what happened? What did that disagreement look like and where did it happen and what was the result?

Gavin Ortlund
One of the things that we're working through as a church is a study on the doctrine of creation. We received a grant from the Henry Center at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School to study that doctrine for this school year, and that's been an awesome blessing—been really grateful for it. But a doctrine like creation brings up different perspectives, and so this isn't the first time I've had to work through that doctrine in terms of just navigating differences that may come up among different Christians. It's just been a reminder of how important grace is, and humility, and really careful listening; and just how much these doctrines can unnecessarily divide us. I know there are necessary divisions that have to happen in the body of Christ based upon theological differences that we have that we just cannot work around. And a difference of conviction means that perhaps we cannot be a part of the same local congregation; but there are also doctrines where there can be unnecessary division. And so it's been a reminder for me as we've been reading through some books and just working at it. This Saturday morning we're going to have breakfast as a church and we have about sixty five or so people coming just to talk about creation and to talk about providence. I would say the big picture has been just a reminder that these doctrines can be really divisive, and we have to handle them so carefully so that they are not unnecessarily divisive.

Matt Tully
What form have these ongoing discussions related to the doctrine of creation taken over the last few months?

Gavin Ortlund
The way I've been framing it for people has been that the intent of this grant is to learn and to get us thinking, to get us talking about it. It's not to advocate for one view of creation over another view where there are differences among orthodox Christians. So we're not trying to push for a young earth view or an old earth view or for or against evolution and all the nuance that comes with that discussion. Our main purpose is simply to learn and to grow in understanding. And that's been helpful. And then we also try to situate this as a third-rank doctrine, which means it's a doctrine that, in terms of the specific question of the age of the world, this is not something that we feel we need to divide over. And so we keep emphasizing that and then just calling for charitable engagement. Share with others why you see it the way you do and then hopefully we can learn together.

Emotional Involvement in Doctrinal Disagreement

04:33

Matt Tully
Have you ever been surprised over the last few months with how strongly or emotionally you felt or wanted to respond to something that was happening or something that was said? Have there been moments where you felt surprised at yourself?

Gavin Ortlund
Yes. And as I look back over my life and over other situations as well, I can think of times when I wish I had communicated with more grace and with more humility. I think it's always easy to look back and notice how easy it is to not have sufficient humility when we're talking about a difference like this. I think one of the things I've noticed is that there can be an emotional component amidst doctrinal differences. There can be a kind of annoyance factor. There's some doctrines out there that we might not agree with, but they don't really annoy us—we're kind of okay with people holding to them. But there's other doctrines that when someone advocates for that, it really gets under our skin. It's just good to be aware of that and view it as an occasion to be really careful because when we're personally annoyed by something, it's much easier to fail to show grace and love for someone who holds that view.

Is Social Media Making Doctrinal Disagreement Worse?

05:53

Matt Tully
I think it's easy to point to things like "Christian Twitter" is often kind of thrown out there—that phrase, Christian Twitter—as representative of just how divided Christians are from one another these days. And I think we've all seen it: someone takes a shot at someone else on Twitter highlighting some kind of doctrinal problem with the person, and the other side responds with more of the same, and before long it kind of devolves into name calling and talking past each other and maybe little else. And then inevitably someone will make a reference to Jesus's words in John 13:35: "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." And so one question I have is, do you think doctrinal division is as big of a problem today as it is often made out to be? Or is social media, and some of that context, skewing our perception as to what's actually happening among Christians?

Gavin Ortlund
It does seem as though social media amplifies the sense of division and anger because in social media there's a particular temptation to operate in unloving and dismissive ways. The way we act on Twitter is kind of like when we're in our car and we're more likely to get angry with someone because there's a sense of safety from being in our car. If you're walking down the street, you're less likely to yell at someone because it's very vulnerable—you're right there with them. But if you're in your car it's easier to get road rage. I think of Twitter, and other forms of social media, like that—because there's a distance it makes it easier to be angry and so forth. So I'm sure that does escalate the perception of how divided we are. At the same time, just the fact that that comes out on Twitter is troubling because the verse that you mentioned from John 13 is really important. Our conversations on Twitter are being followed by people outside of the body of Christ. It does give people a perception and that is important. And then I would say, too, even apart from social media, there is a lot of division within the church. There's the formal divisions that make up different denominations and different sectors of Christendom, but then we also just have lots of relational fallout, lots of church splits. I know so many people who have been personally wounded by conflict within the church that is unresolved. And then there are doctrinal differences. There's also just a lot of suspicion—many people will regard those believers in Jesus who have different doctrinal leanings than they do with a sense of suspicion. And that's a temptation for us. Sometimes that suspicion may be warranted, but many times it may not be. We may be unduly suspicious or unduly skeptical of others. So I'm sure social media amplifies this problem, but even apart from social media it seems as though this is a continual area of need and a continual area where we need to be careful to get the nuances right. We don't want to let go of truth, but we also want to maintain love. And so we want to get the nuances right of how we maintain both truth and love.

Matt Tully
When speaking of nuances, do you think there is value in having these kinds of public theological let's call them "debates"—maybe that's a charitable way to talk about them—is there value in that when often there's a character count and the nuanced side of things is hard to capture, in addition to what you said earlier that the whole medium can encourage a more aggressive posture towards others—in light of all that, is there value in debates on social media and online? Or do you think we should just steer away from them altogether?

Gavin Ortlund
I definitely think there is value in having dialogue about our differences, particularly when it is done with humility and with love and with conviction. In fact, I think one of the challenges that may escalate doctrinal divisions unnecessarily is simply refraining from dialogue and discussion and we sort of stay within our little echo chamber. I've been thinking a lot about this because of the work of Jonathan Haidt about how our culture is becoming more polarized and just asking questions as a pastor, What can I do about that? How can we create opportunities for respectful, charitable dialogue and debate over areas where we may have differences? I imagine there's a lot of people out there in the pew who, on various secondary and tertiary doctrines, have a more dismissive attitude toward the other side and don't fully realize the complexity of the issue and why other Christians disagree because they've been at their church for many years— and in some ways this may not be totally their fault—they've just never really encountered people who are on the other side. We do tend to live in more polarized contexts these days. And so I can imagine someone who's in that situation having the chance to observe two other pastors, or three other pastors, on a stage together who differ on various issues talking that through and modeling the kind of dialogue that doesn't sacrifice the truth—people are holding to their convictions—but they're engaging in a charitable and respectful way within those convictions. And I think modeling that is really important because it seems as though, as a culture, we're sort of losing the ability to dialogue charitably about our differences. There seems to be so much outrage over the differences that we have that the ruling paradigm seems to be more and more to simply shout at the other side, or to assume that the other side is evil. It seems as though you have more disagreements today where the assumption is the other side isn't just wrong, they're actually evil—they actually have bad motives. I think that's increasingly true of political disagreements, for example. And so to be able to model charitable dialogue—and charitable dialogue involves assuming the best in my opponent, putting my ideological opponent's words in their best light, doing what Atticus Finch talks about in the book To Kill a Mockingbird where we try to see the world through someone else's eyes—and only at that point then articulating why we might disagree with that viewpoint once we've sympathetically considered it. I think those are values that increasingly we need.

Assuming the Best of Others

13:19

Matt Tully
What does it look like to assume the best about someone, when it comes to a theological disagreement, when it seems like oftentimes the whole disagreement is framed around ideas of who's being faithful to God's word and who is sort of drifting from God's word or who is not taking it as seriously as the other side is? In my experience, a lot—maybe even most—doctrinal discussions or disagreements—ones that actually mean something to people—are often framed like that. So what does it look like to assume the best about somebody when the whole conversation is framed that way?

Gavin Ortlund
One of the values that I have always affirmed as important but I have felt the importance of more and more as I've been working on this book is the importance of having theological humility. And I don't think humility about our theology means that we're wishy washy and we just sort of take an "anything goes" mentality, but I do think it means that we hold our convictions with an awareness that we are fallible and that our interpretations of Scripture are fallible. I think this is really worth drawing attention to when a discussion is, as you mentioned, framed around which side is faithful to God's word. What humility about our interpretations of Scripture can do in that discussion is to help soften us to a consideration that we are all approximating in our theology. None of us see our theology with the crystal clarity that God sees truth. All of us, as Paul says in 1Corinthians 13, see through a mirror. We are all imperfect. We make mistakes in how we interpret Scripture and in how we do theology. I've been feeling the importance of this because it's one thing to affirm our fallibility in theory, but then function as though we really think we're right. That's easy to do that, but it really makes a difference if we acknowledge our fallibility and we feel that. We feel the practical weight of that—it's not just a theoretical idea. We recognize that I really do have blind spots. There are things I will not get right on this side of heaven. Therefore I need to listen very carefully to other brothers and sisters in Christ with whom I have disagreements because I may see this issue as black and white. I just may see it as a matter of, The Bible says this and that settles it.

Theological Triage

16:00

Matt Tully
I think maybe that moves us into something you've alluded to already, but the notion that we should think in terms of a tier structure when it comes to the doctrines that we are discussing with one another and recognize that doctrines fall under different tiers. You draw on the notion of theological triage—a term first coined by Al Mohler. Why did you like that metaphor of triage as a way of thinking about this whole discussion?

Gavin Ortlund
Part of what makes a theological triage so important and part of why I think it's a helpful metaphor coming from a medical context—you think of a medic out there on the battlefield and there's so many wounds and they just can't repair them all at once, so they have to prioritize the most important injuries. And that is a pretty powerful image for the church today. We're not going to be perfect this side of heaven, there's going to be a lot of different breaches and weaknesses and divisions and problems and errors that we'll see and we want to prioritize the most important ones. The image to me is helpful because it captures the sense of urgency. And that's what I would say about this topic is that the most important reason for theological triage is the practical reality of our calling as the people of God. Theological triage is not a technical, formal enterprise that you go to seminary to do. Theological triage is a practical exercise. It is necessary for any church to function. There will be differences. All you have to do is talk to people enough and you'll disagree about something. So then we're into it right there. We have to decide what are the differences we're going to tolerate and what are the ones we're not going to tolerate. And I think the New Testament, and the Scripture as a whole, gives us some values that can shape our thinking about that. It's certainly not a doctrinal minimalism as though error doesn't matter. It's simply the desire to, for the sake of having minimal collateral damage on the kingdom of God, thinking through doctrinal differences with wisdom and with love and with humility.

Matt Tully
As you've thought about the metaphor of triage over the last few years, have any downsides to the metaphor come to your mind, or are there any ways that you think people could be prone to misunderstand or take it too far in an unhelpful way?

Gavin Ortlund
I think if someone has a passing familiarity with the idea it could be taken to minimize the importance of secondary and tertiary doctrines. I have heard people talk like this a lot where they'll say, Oh, such and such isn't a first-rank doctrine. Therefore, don't really worry about it. Sometimes the impression is given that triage means you figure out which are the doctrines that matter and then which are the doctrines that don't matter. And that's really not the intent with triage. In the book I lay out four possible categories of doctrines. First-rank doctrines are those that are broadly around the realm of orthodoxy—they're distinctively Christian. Second-rank doctrines are those that might divide us by denomination or church—they're really important, but they don't make you a Christian. They might bear upon our practice as the church or how we relate to other Christians in a pretty important way. Third-rank doctrines are doctrines that we don't need to divide over, but they still matter, so we should talk about them and study them. And then fourth-rank doctrines are doctrines that really don't matter at all and we shouldn't be too bothered until we can figure them out. So an example of a fourth-rank doctrine is the number of angels that exist. That's not something that ultimately has a huge consequence for our theology, or really any discernible consequence that I'm aware of—there are some medieval theologians who would disagree with me on that. So the intent of that little schema there—and certainly there are other ways than a fourfold categorization to do triage or to think about different rankings, someone could have five or six or seven—but the intent is to say even the third-rank doctrines matter. Even if it does not justify separation, it still is important to think about because it's taught to us in Scripture and God wouldn't have wasted that space in Scripture and it may have some consequence for how we follow Jesus.

Fourth-Rank Doctrines

20:56

Matt Tully
What would be some examples of doctrines that would fall in each of those categories? Let's start from the bottom, fourth-rank of doctrines, you mentioned the number of angels. Are there any other examples of fourth-rank doctrines that might be a little more surprising to people or might feel, in your opinion,a little bit more relevant or closer to home than something like the number of angels?

Gavin Ortlund
One of the examples that came up in various Reformed contexts in previous generations is the kind of musical instruments that we use in worship. This is something that may be very practically important from one context to another. It might be better to do a guitar and drums, and then an organ in a different context and so forth. So it's not that it has no relevance practically, but in terms of theological importance—in terms of one view being right and another view being wrong—this, to my mind, would be an example of a fourth-rank doctrine. There is not one right way to think about musical instrumentation in a church service. In the Puritan circles and in some Lutheran circles, they used a big word called adiaphora to describe some of these kinds of things and that just means things that are indifferent. Things that, one way or another, it is not theologically decisive. So that would be another example of a fourth-rank issue.

Third-Rank Doctrines

22:38

Matt Tully
How about a third-rank doctrine—what would be an example of that?

Gavin Ortlund
This depends on who you ask. In the book I make an argument that the doctrine of the Millennium is a third-rank doctrine. The Millennium, of course, is what is referred to in Revelation Chapter 20:1-6, this sort of golden era that John prophesies is going to come about. Different Christians interpret this passage differently. Some think that it will be before the return of Christ, others think it will be after the return of Christ, and there's three major views on that throughout church history. That's been a hugely divisive issue in recent church history, though not in previous generations. So I would say modern American evangelicals have tended to fight over that doctrine more so than Christians of previous generations. And I make the case in the book that that's a third-rank doctrine. By that I mean that it's important, it matters, there is a right view and a wrong view, we should study to get our theology straight about that; but I argue that we don't need to divide over it.

Second-Rank Doctrines

23:47

Matt Tully
So what's an example of a secondary doctrine? Another word you use to describe the secondary doctrines are "urgent" doctrines.

Gavin Ortlund
Why are second-rank doctrines different from third-rank doctrines? That's kind of the question I've been thinking about and the way I've finally thought about that is that it's not just that they are more important, though that's likely also to be the case. But as I've thought about the different second-rank doctrines I work through in the book, it's that they tend to have a more direct impact on our church life together. So two people may disagree upon the doctrine of the millennium, but in terms of how they share the gospel with their non-Christian co-worker, they could go out together over lunch and share the gospel together. Or in terms of how they might worship and organize a church service, it will have less of an impact upon that. The second-rank doctrines are more practically relevant to church life. One example of a second-rank doctrine would be baptism. And for example, whether we baptize the infant children of one or more believing parents, or whether we only baptize those who have made a credible profession of faith. These two views are sometimes called pedobaptism, or infant baptism, on the one hand, and credobaptism on the other hand. And this to me is an example of a second-rank doctrine. It certainly does not make you a Christian or a heretic which way you go on that; but it affects how we live together in the church. And if two people have a different view on that, it can be very difficult to have a fruitful unity in a church context. One person will be saying, We should baptize the babies. And another person will be saying, Well, we shouldn't. And that leads to challenges. Now there are people who hold to a dual practice view, and there's a lot of great churches in our nation—including some that I have a lot of personal connections with that I think the world of—that do a dual practice view. So that that would effectively make the baptism issue a third-rank issue. In the book I give a couple of reasons for why I'm sympathetic but ultimately unpersuaded of that. So people might, if they're interested in that, look that up. But baptism I would see is generally in the second-rank category. Other things that might be in this ranking would be things like different views of church government and church leadership. It's difficult to be a part of the same church if one person thinks we should have bishops as a third office alongside elders and deacons, and another person thinks that we shouldn't. Or views of spiritual gifts and other practices within the church can sometimes fall into a second-rank category.

First-Rank Doctrines

26:41

Matt Tully
What are some examples of some first-rank doctrines that we should, going by the title of the book, be willing to die for potentially?

Gavin Ortlund
In the book I give as examples of first-rank doctrines the virgin birth of Jesus and justification by faith alone. Another doctrine that I mentioned as a first-rank doctrine is the doctrine of the Trinity. I give some different reasons for each of those. With respect to justification, I make it clear that I'm not talking about the doctrine of justification in all of its nuances. There are genuine Christians who disagree on some of the details of justification, like how we understand the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us in its active and passive components. Well, Richard Baxter and St. Augustine will see that differently from John Calvin or Jonathan Edwards, and they're all Christians. So that's not necessarily first-rank, but based upon the book of Galatians and the way Paul categorizes the error of the Judaizers of the first century. I would see the basic fact—that we are made right with God by faith and not by our works—I would see that as a first-rank issue. Paul seems to say very clearly this is a matter on which the Gospel is won or lost. And if you accept a works righteousness—an explicit works righteousness—then as Paul puts it to the Galatians, "You have been severed from Christ" (Gal. 5:4). This is a very sobering judgment. Then I talk through the virgin birth as another example of the way that a rival ideology or worldview can function as a testing point for the gospel. I talk about John Gresham Machan's work on the virgin birth and his defense of that doctrine against its attack from the modernist, or liberal, Christians of his day who really were trying to recast Christianity in a non supernatural framework. And that's a first-rank doctrine when you've got it as a sort of testing point for whether you're going to go with a supernatural version of Christianity that accepts miracles, or a non-supernatural version that guts all of the miracles out of the Bible.

Advice for Engaging in Conversational Disagreement

29:11

Matt Tully
What are three tips that you would offer to the person who is going to be entering into a theological discussion and anticipates there being some level of disagreement in that discussion—what advice would you offer to somebody in that position?

Gavin Ortlund
I think one thing I'd want to encourage them to think about is that being a good theologian isn't simply about getting theology right and getting the right positions and checking the right boxes. It's also about the whole attitude and ethos and theological culture that we embody in the way we do theology. In Isaiah 66 when God says, "this is the one to whom I will look one who is humble and contrite and trembles at my word" (Isa. 66:2). There's a problem if we get all of our theology technically correct but there's no trembling at God's word in the process. So the first thing I would say is just to widen the goal from mere correctness to the kind of heart that God loves and that God calls us to in our theological dialogue and effort: wisdom, love, humility, seeking the fruits of the Spirit, seeking the character of Jesus. That's just a first step of what the goal is that we're aiming towards. And that's a theme of my book, that theological triage is not about being smart enough to get the right position. It's about the greatest help is love. If you truly love the church, that will cultivate the instincts that help us to do theological triage well. Another practical piece of advice I'd give is to pray for the people with whom we differ, and specifically to pray that God would give you a heart of love. I think that it's just so easy in the midst of theological disagreement to forget that we need to love each other. It sounds so basic, but it's easy to forget. I have a great quote from Spurgeon in the book where he's talking about how much he hates George Herbert's views of church government and it's kind of funny because he's very strongly stated about it. He says, "I hate his high churchism as my soul hates Satan." But then he says, "But I love George Herbert." And he goes on to say we need to have a warm corner in our heart for every single Christian, even if that Christian really annoys you, and even if their theology really troubles you. It's not wrong to be annoyed or to be troubled necessarily. There may be forms of unity that you can't express. Unity does not always manifest in local church membership, for example. But he says we still need to have a warm corner in our heart. And he says basically if Jesus loves them you have to love them too. If they are the people of Jesus, and if we love Jesus, we will love the people he loves. And so I think it's helpful to pray that God would help us to do that in the midst of disagreement. And the last thing that I would say is that we need to continually go back to the cross and to go back to the core gospel message and find our justification in that. It is so easy for a spirit of self-justification to come in with our theology. I think it was John Newton who said that self-righteousness can feed upon our doctrines just as it can feed upon our works. In other words, we can feel superior to the next Christian because we feed the poor. We can also feel superior because we understand Reformed theology or we understand the Trinity or we don't make the error that we see to be present at some other church or whatever it might be. And we need to always find our identity in the Gospel. We will have disagreements—that's to be expected—but the biggest problem comes in when our disagreements are accompanied by a haughty spirit, by a spirit of contempt or disdain for others who do not see it as we see it. It's so important to go back to the cross and say, I am right with God by Jesus alone. He is my righteousness. It is 100 percent the work of Christ that validates me. Nothing that I have done, nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling. Now that's in our hearts. If the Gospel is real in our hearts, it will help us to engage in theological disagreement—not without conviction—but it will help us to do so without any contempt for the other side, without disdain and looking down our noses at people. And so that's the third thing I would say is just always measuring each different issue in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ultimately it all boils down to him and he is the one we're serving, he's the one to whom we will give an account. So we want to measure every other doctrinal disagreement in relation to him and his gospel.

Popular Articles in This Series

View All

Podcast: Help! I Hate My Job (Jim Hamilton)

January 06, 2020

Jim Hamilton discusses what to do when you hate your job, offering encouragement for those frustrated in their work and explaining the difference between a job and a vocation.

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.