Trinity and Theological Triage
In 2005, Al Mohler published a very helpful essay entitled “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,” wherein he draws upon the use medical triage in hospitals which allow them to quickly evaluate and make decisions regarding order of care in a hospital. Virtually everyone has experienced this on some level, even as a patient. No doubt you have probably visited the emergency room at night for some kind of pain, reaction, accident, or some other issue, and found yourself waiting far longer than you had hoped or imagined to be seen by the doctor. This waiting, as inconvenient to you as it may be, is necessary because someone who was in far worse shape than you (who may have come in after you) was bumped to the front of the line. This is the result of medical triage.
With this in mind, Mohler calls for Christians to employ a theological triage in order to help settle doctrinal debates. To summarize Mohler’s proposal, first-tier theological issues are those which touch the very heart and core of what it means to be a Christian, such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, monotheism, and the bodily resurrection, just to name a few. Simply put, one must believe these issues in order to be Christian.
Second-tier issues are those which separate denominations, such as baptism, church polity, or charismatic gifting. Thus, one can be a Christian and deny infant baptism or presbyterian polity (though I wouldn’t risk it!). This disagreement does not necessarily keep one from salvation, but it does set an important boundary on worship and denominational fellowship.
The final tier consists of doctrinal beliefs that even Christians within the same church can disagree on but brings no need to separate. The most common example is eschatology. One can be amilleninal and still worship and fellowship in the same communion as one who is post-millennial.
This method of theological reasoning helps equip Christians to earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3), while also maintaining healthy Christian fellowship and communion. Thus, appropriate zeal can be properly placed in the right categories, as well as charity where disagreements arise.
Mohler’s counsel is wise and remains as relevant for today’s doctrinal debates as it was when he first penned the essay in over two decades ago. Currently, there continues to be a growing division between Christians, even those who are in the broader reformed(ish) evangelical world over first tier theological loci, such as theology proper and Christology.
Triage for Trinitarian Debates?
This is perhaps no more clearly evident than in the ongoing debates regarding the relationship of the Son to the Father in the immanent Trinity. Despite being a decade removed from the “Trinity debates” of the mid 2010s, the issue remains alive and well.
Recently in an interview with Sean Demars on the “Room for Nuance” podcast, Owen Strachan reiterated his views in support of the eternal relationship of authority and submission of the Son (ERAS). This was followed by a call for theological triage regarding these debates, insisting that eternal subordination is not a first-tier issue.
There has been no shortage of ink spilled over this topic, and I have already responded to some of Strachan’s comments before. Additionally, many theologians of much greater abilities and knowledge than I possess have addressed the unorthodox view of the eternal subordination of the Son with clarity and precision, and so retreading the same arguments of why ERAS should be considered outside the bounds of orthodoxy is not really necessary.
Instead, however, I want to make a brief case that ERAS is indeed a first-tier issue. Afterall, it has been asserted by proponents of ERAS that “there is no Holy Trinity without the order of authority and submission.”[i] Thus, I aim to show its first-tier importance by demonstrating that it strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith in three key areas: theology proper, Christology, and soteriology. Due to space, I can only aim to catalogue some of underlying the issues rather than give full explanations of how ERAS violates each theological loci. As we will see, each category is inseparably tied to the others. I encourage readers unfamiliar with this topic to engage in the mountain of literature already published.
Striking at the Vitals
To begin, ERAS strikes at the vitals of theology proper because it teaches an unbiblical hierarchy of the divine persons.
ERAS demands that the Son (and the Spirit) be ontologically inferior to the Father. For example, Bruce Ware states that the Father is “supreme among the persons of the Godhead,”[ii] and “has absolute and uncontested supremacy, including authority over the Son.”[iii] One may contest that this authority is in function only. Yet, to quote Ware again, the Father has “ontological primacy” over the Son and Spirt.[iv] In order for this type of hierarchy among the persons ad-intra to be true, it would require at least these four elements: (1) a redefinition of what a divine person is, (2) a denial that the divine persons are identical with the divine essence (3) a rejection of the classical doctrine of simplicity, and (4) individual wills within the Godhead. As you can see, these four elements also have great bearing on the doctrine of Christ. Ultimately, The classical doctrine of God must be entirely rewritten in order to affirm eternal subordination.
Secondly, ERAS strikes at the vitals of Christology because it teaches that the Son’s will ad-intra is distinct from the Father.
In order for there to be true submission between persons, one must submit their will to another. This means that by definition, the Son must have a distinct will with which to submit to the Father. Multiple wills are not just a recipe for disaster in theology proper, but also Christology. If the Son’s will is distinct from the Father, then we must place will as a property of personhood and not of nature. Thus, the incarnate Son assumed our human nature excepting a will. It is difficult to see how proponents of ERAS avoid Monothelitism. If a proponent of ERAS attempts to hold that will is a property of nature as classically understood, then that means that Christ’s divine nature is not identical to the Father’s nature. Either scenario brings disastrous consequences.
Lastly, ERAS strikes at the vitals of soteriology because a one-willed Christ cannot save.
If Christ has only one will, then the believer has no hope for salvation. Our salvation hinges on the reality that the Jesus Christ is not only truly God but also truly man. If Christ does not have a human will, then our will can never be freed from the bondage of sin. As Gregory of Nazianzus so helpfully states, “that which is not assumed is not healed.” One of the grand and glorious truths of the gospel is that the eternal divine Son assumed humanity in the fullest, without sin, in order to live a perfectly obedient life and fulling the covenant of works on our behalf. This perfect righteousness is credited to us by faith alone. As J. Gresham Machen said on his deathbed, “I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” A Christ without a human will gives us less than the perfect active obedience required for our redemption.
Conclusion
The logical conclusions of the ERAS position negatively strikes at these positions. I am thankful that in many cases, ERAS proponents are inconsistent and do not follow their beliefs to their logical ends. Be that as it may, the teaching itself has negative ramifications on the Christian faith, therefore it remains a first-tier issue. To treat it otherwise, would be to treat a gunshot wound to the head with the same urgency as a broken toe.
[i] Owen Strachan and Gavin Peacock, The Grand Design: Male and Female He Made Them (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2016),87.
[ii] Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 46-51.
[iii] Ibid., 153.
[iv] Bruce Ware, “Unity and Distinction of the Trinitarian Persons,” in Trinitarian Theology: Theological Models and Doctrinal Application, ed. Keith S. Whitfield (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), 36. Kindle.
