There’s an old saying – “There is no doctrine a fundamentalist won’t fight over, and no doctrine a liberal will fight over.”

Not every error is a heresy. And when the error we oppose is fatal heresy, the goal should be to heal, not to destroy. Most Christians have a tendency in one direction or the other———to engage in conflict over doctrine too much or too little. Sadly, some of the most divisive issues in Christendom today revolve around cultural and political issues, not doctrinal matters. We must be strong enough not to always fight unless absolutely necessary.

I hear some Christians ask if we can just stop arguing and simply “love Jesus.” The problem is . . . who is Jesus? How do we understand him? To do that, you must engage in doctrine. The Mormon conception of Jesus is radically different from that of Jehovah’s Witnesses or from that of orthodox Christianity. It is impossible to avoid discussions of doctrine.

A common phrase dating from the early 17th century (and often falsely attributed to Augustine) is “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity (love).” While commendable, the phrase has weakness for it divides everything into only two categories: essential and nonessential. That level of distinction is insufficient.

Al Mohler coined the phrase “theological triage” defining it as developing “a scale of theological urgency” for Christian doctrines and beliefs. Some beliefs are more foundational that others. Not every hill is a hill worth dying on. We need to know when to fall on our sword. Theological triage helps us prioritize our apologetic efforts. Mohler sorts beliefs into three categories:

• Primary (what all Christians must believe)
• Secondary (what denominations can disagree about)
• Tertiary (what individuals or local churches can disagree about within their denominations)

First-rank doctrines (Primary) are essential to the gospel and are hills to die on. Examples include: the Triune Godhead, Deity of Christ, Hypostatic Union, Christ’s Bodily Resurrection, Substitutionary Atonement, Justification by faith, etc.

Second-rank doctrines (Secondary) are important for denominational adherence. Examples would be credobaptism [believer’s baptism practiced by Southern Baptists] versus pedobaptism [infant baptism practiced by Presbyterians], glossolalia [speaking in tongues—a mainstay in Assemblies of God], the manner and frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper, etc.)

Third-rank doctrines (Tertiary) are important but not enough to justify separation. Examples incldue: your position on the Rapture or Millennium, continuationism versus cessationism (whether miraculous gifts continue), age of the Earth, etc.

Gavin Ortlund, in his excellent book “Finding The Right Hills To Die On”, divides doctrine into 4 categories:

• doctrines essential to the gospel
• doctrines urgent for the health and practice of the church (Christians divide denominationally over them)
• doctrines important for one branch of theology or another, but not such that they should lead to separation
• doctrines unimportant to gospel witness and ministry collaboration

Ortlund cautions that some foolishly disavow any kind of theological triage. For some, every hill is a hill to die on, every belief worth falling on your sword for. Others resort to what Ortlund characterizes as “LCD” theology (Lowest Common Denominator theology); what is the least anyone should affirm to be a Christian?

Ortlund cautions that some flatten out all doctrine either because they want to fight about everything or fight about nothing. (Ortlund, 17, Kindle) He wisely counsels, “Pursuing the unity of the church does not mean that we should stop caring about theology. But it does mean that our love of theology should never exceed our love of real people, and therefore we must learn to love people amid our theological disagreements.” (Ortlund, 36, Kindle)

Know what theological hills you’re willing to die on.