Unbiblical ideologies are rarely adopted wholesale overnight; instead, they are often introduced and consumed bit by bit. Thus, when any Christian leader seriously errs, it is worth asking whether such error is an anomaly or part of a larger pattern of error and compromise.

In his epistle, James cautions his readers that “not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (Jas. 3:1). He then gives the reason for this caution: “For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body” (Jas. 3:2). James here affirms two realities simultaneously: that all men at times err in what they speak, and that those who occupy positions of teaching should be held to particularly high standards in this area. In our modern world, teachers of influence are not necessarily limited to those holding teaching positions in local churches; instead, we see a proliferation of individuals aiming to instruct the broader church through a variety of means, from writing books to hosting podcasts to posting on social media. In light of James’s warning to teachers—as well as his affirmation that everyone sins in their speech at some point—how should we generally evaluate the errors made by Christian public figures in their teaching ministries? In other words, when has a teacher, writer, or thought leader who claims the name of Christ simply “gone too far” or proven themselves to be someone to avoid rather than heed? Don’t even godly Christians sometimes say the wrong thing or hold erroneous views? How do we distinguish between public ministries that contain a good deal of meat with some bones to spit out and those that are dry or poisoned wells capable of serious harm?

To resolve this tension, it is tempting to simply fall back on the framework of theological triage—that is, the evaluation of the importance of any given doctrinal conflict or disagreement to the Christian faith as a whole.[1] The main purpose of theological triage is to determine which controversial issues of our day are the most important to address and demand our most immediate attention. But we often tend to only evaluate the errors of a teacher/leader solely based on which categories of triage their errors fall into. For example, some might say that only those teachers who err on first tier matters (that are necessary for salvation) should be viewed as essentially false teachers and confronted or warned against accordingly. If the issues are deemed second tier, however, then while I may not be able to join the same church as that teacher, I can at least continue to view them as a solid and trustworthy Christian voice on other matters—or so the sentiment goes. Therefore, in this view, it would be entirely inappropriate to warn others that these figures might be untrustworthy guides or potential wolves. Again, one can think of the frequent camaraderie between those on opposite sides of the infant baptism debate: it would be inappropriate for a Baptist to call a Presbyterian a “false teacher” merely for their views on baptism, or vice-versa. But do all second tier issues carry the same weight?

My concern with applying theological triage in this manner is that when it comes to a particular teacher/leader’s public ministry, this approach is both insufficient and oversimplistic. It’s true that some doctrines are more fundamental to the faith than others.[2] A denial of doctrines such as the Trinity or Christ’s two natures is a non-starter and automatically puts someone outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. Christians should also be able to discern when a debate requires little to no heat and should be treated as nothing more than a friendly disagreement over matters of conscience or interpretation. But between these two ends of the spectrum, the seriousness of a given disagreement can vary quite drastically from one issue to the next. This is why, as David Attebury has rightly pointed out, we need to discern which second-tier issues directly undermine first-tier doctrines, and which second-tier issues—while still preventing Christians on opposing sides from joining the same church or denomination—nevertheless do not provide a serious impediment for Christian fellowship in almost any other sphere.

To Attebury’s helpful observations, I want to add two additional factors that often get left out of these kinds of discussions and that further highlight the insufficiency of theological triage when used by itself. These factors stem from the fact that when discerning which teachers are solid but sometimes wrong on important topics and which ones have proven themselves generally untrustworthy guides at best (or wolves at worst), we are dealing not just with doctrines and ideas but with people ministering in a particular time and place.[3] People are not simply walking doctrinal systems; instead, our decisions and views are shaped by a whole host of factors too numerous to list here. We are sinful human beings who fall far, far short of a perfect understanding of God and his Word, making errors and inconsistencies inevitable. These realities complicate the picture and make it more difficult at times to gauge the soundness or unsoundness of someone’s overall public presence, especially if we are only relying on a three- or four-tiered system of doctrinal evaluation. To aid in this messy work of discernment, I propose two additional questions that need to be asked whenever an individual who claims to represent Christianity in the public square expresses an erroneous, unbiblical opinion.

1. Does Their Error Coincide with the Spirit of the Age?

Relying on the theological triage model by itself creates the potential danger of automatically considering any individual who signs off on first-tier doctrines like the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the resurrection of Jesus, the Imago Dei, and salvation by grace alone as a co-laborer ministering in good faith, regardless of how many other significant issues they get wrong. However, this line of thinking ignores the reality that we live within a culture that is directly hostile to Christian teaching at specific points (issues of gender and sexuality, for example). Faithful Christians will inevitably find themselves face-to-face with spiritually destructive ideas that directly contradict the teachings of Christ, and they must be able to respond accordingly (2 Cor. 10:3–6; Eph. 6:10–20). Scripture makes clear that followers of Jesus should expect hostility from the world (John 15:18–25; 17:14; 1 John 3:13; 4:4–6). Therefore, while we should love even the unbelievers who persecute us (Matt. 5:43–48) and seek to win them to the gospel (Matt. 28:18–20), we must also be careful not to yearn for the world’s approval, instead striving to be “in” the world while not “of” it (John 17:6–19; 1 John 2:15–17).

Because of this dynamic, the areas in which a public figure falls short of biblical teaching can reveal something about the authenticity or strength of their witness. To put the matter frankly: if a professing believer is only willing to publicly affirm historic Christian teaching in ways that don’t cost him much social credit while tending to err in directions that the wider culture would approve of, then I have good reason to suspect that he is unduly driven by a desire for the world’s approval (cf. John 12:42–43). In most cases, a Christian public figure is not going to be blacklisted for affirming the doctrines of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ; but they will earn the ire of secular news outlets, social justice advocates, universities, progressive political figures, celebrities in the entertainment industry, and social media influencers for taking firm-but-unpopular stances on issues like abortion, egalitarianism, homosexual rights, transgenderism, and reparations.[4]

Read More