Recently, I was wrestling with an issue where Bible-believing Christians often have differing views, and trying to decide whether I thought the issue was worth fighting over. Or to put it another way, I wanted to know whether this was something where Christians could agree to disagree – or whether they should seek to come to agreement even if it meant some people might get hurt in the process. Of course, Bible believing Christians take the Bible as their ultimate source of authority, but there are still some issues where the teaching of the Bible is not sufficiently clear that all Christians necessarily agree.

In thinking through this, I asked a friend whether he could recommend any good resources, and he pointed out a book he had seen discussed, Gavin Ortlund’s Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage. He said he couldn’t recommend it personally, but he had seen Tim Challies review it and the review seemed to match what I was looking for. So I got the book and read it, and it really helped clarify my thining in this area. Here, I want to go over some key highlights from the book.

First, why is this so important? Christians disagree with one another on a number of points, and if we treat every point of disagreement as a “hill to die on”, we probably won’t have many friends left. On the other hand, some issues are so important that without taking a firm stand, we won’t even be able to define or retain true Christianity or ensure that the church continues to function properly. As Tim Challies puts it:

Yet it really is the case that some doctrines divide Christian from non-Christian and thriving Christian from wandering Christian. For this reason we need a way to prioritize some over others, a way to distinguish the ones that are most essential from the ones that are less so. Several years ago, Albert Mohler coined the term “theological triage” to describe this process, and in his book Ortlund relies on that metaphor, though he also expands it beyond Mohler’s original and relatively basic outline.

Before reading Ortlund’s book, I read two reviews or supplements which do a fairly good job of summarizing key take-aways, so I recommend checking these out:

  • Tim Challies’ review
  • A separate article from Desiring God which provides some other supplemental resources on the topic and a slightly different framework for thinking about the seriousness of a particular disagreement

Additional take-aways from the book

Ortund argues that, in general, there are two major errors each of us may be prone to, when it comes to theological disagreements (essentially, the two ditch theory). One is to be too “hard”, to divide over even minor theological differences and to not care enough about loving other people and being united with God’s people. We often need people who are very different from us because they are precisely the people who will spur us to see our own blind spots and grow in areas we wouldn’t have otherwise, so differences are necessary for our health and that of the church. If we love Christ, he argues, we will love all those who belong to Christ, even if we might differ from them over some truly significant issues. He cites an example of a theologian writer whose “high-Churchism” he hates, but whose heart for Christ he loves. He notes that this “hard” error often comes with a kind of pride, where we might look down on those who disagree with us.

The opposite error is to be too “soft”, to be too focused on being “loving” to be willing to fight or divide about anything. He calls this a kind of “least common denominator” Christianity which regards only “essentials” as worth fighting over. This approach, if it remains Christian at all, is typically not healthy for the individual or the church, and partly because it is hard to define what is “essential” and can easily result in igoring or neglecting most of Scripture, including things which are critical for the health of the church. It is necessary, then, for Christians to be somewhere between these two extremes – genuinely seeking to unite with Christians who disagree with us over only minor issues, but holding firmly to important doctrines even if they aren’t necessarily “essential” to Christianity.

After going through the essentials of theological triage (as I’m not doing here – refer to the posts linked above and the book itself), Ortlund goes on to provide some practical advice. One of the perspectives he offers is to look at great theologians of the past and see whether those we respect, and who had a high view of Scripture, had differing perspectives from us. As an example, he cites young earth versus old earth Creationism, and differing views on the milennial reign of Christ, and cites key, sound historical Christian figures with high views of Scripture who took a wide variety of positions on both issues. Thus, while these issues might be important, this helps us realize that well meaning and theologically sound Christians – whose work we otherwise admire and benefit from – will differ from us in these areas, reminding us that some level of humility is thus needed. If all these great theologians of the past differ from us, then it’s likely the case that our view is not the ONLY Biblical view on the subject.

Ortlund also notes that part of the reason we are so prone to errors with respect to theological triage is that we very much dislike ambiguity, and there is therefore a great temptation to draw clear dividing lines when they aren’t necessarily warranted. We dislike saying “This is a second-tier (important but not critical) issue if … but a third-tier issue if…”, because that makes it dependent on details and circumstances, and we would rather draw clearer lines. We like to say that Christians must believe exactly a certain thing. I’d add that this means we want to draw clear lines like “All Christians should do X” rather than “The best choice with respect to this issue might depend on your circumstances, your motivation, and how God is calling you to invest your time and energy.”

Finally, Ortlund emphasizes that humility is “everything”, first, second, and third. Of course, truth is important – but we must always approach these issues with humility and love. There is a great temptation to look down on those who hold other views, but we instead need to approach others with real love, and with a sincere desire for their good.

Other observations

Ortlund’s book is primarily focused on theological disagreements, not practical ones. He notes that there are a number of very practical issues where Christians frequently disagree, and mentions homeschooling versus alternatives as one area of common disagreement, along with whether Christians ought to drink alcohol, among others. He specifically does not address these, as they are not theological issues (though I plan to touch on related issues myself in a subsequent post).

Overall, I thought this was a very helpful book, especially in terms of theological disagreements. It doesn’t attempt to specifically categorize a broad range of theological disagreements for us, but it provides a variety of helpful principles and a useful framework in which to think about theological disagreement. It even helped me understand a little more about my own approach to disagreements and how it’s evolved as I’ve grown. As a young Christian, as I first studied theology, I developed a firm position on nearly everything and I was ready to make sure everyone knew it and knew I thought they were wrong if they disagreed. Over time, though, I’ve come to believe some truths are worth fighting over, whereas others are less essential – but I’d not thought that carefully about exactly where to draw the line, and this book was helpful in thinking through that. Overall, then, I found it helpful and I generally recommend it.