During my first year of college, I realized, after slogging my way through textbooks with a dictionary in hand, that my vocabulary could use some help. So, I began a word-a-day improvement plan. Perhaps the most bizarre (and since-college-least-used) word I learned was “Procrustean.”
It comes from the Greek myth of Procrustes, a murderer who would lay his victims on an iron bed. (His name means “the stretcher”). For those who were too small, he would stretch them out to fit the dimensions of the bed. For those who were too large, he would cut off any limbs that exceeded the boundaries of the bed. In modern-day usage, for something to be Procrustean would mean that it conforms all things to its rigid rules.
I believe that the current discourse on the ordination of women pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention has been constrained by a Procrustean set of rules known as theological triage and that, to rightly discern the danger of certain theological commitments, we need more precise theological categories.
What is Triage?
Albert Mohler wrote an article in 2005 calling for theological triage. In his analogy, he advocated that theology should be treated like an emergency department’s triage ward, where different injuries are treated differently according to their severity. A heart attack is not on the same level as a broken finger.
Theological triage helps answer important questions that directly relate to issues of cooperation in ministry. There are first-order doctrines (Can I call you a Christian?), second-order doctrines (Can we be a part of the same church or denomination together?), and third-order doctrines (Can we agree to disagree on this minor issue?). The denial of the divinity of Christ (first-tier) is not on the same level as debating whether it is appropriate to mow our lawns on Sunday, with some judging one day above another (third-tier). On the first, Paul would decry an anathema; on the second, Paul would say that each “must be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
But theological triage has severe limitations. According to the Procrustean bed of theological triage, the issue of women’s ordination gets automatically lumped into the 2nd-order category since it is not essential for salvation. But is the issue of women’s ordination on the same second-tier level as infant baptism? Are these two things equal? Or could it be that some second-tier issues undermine first-tier issues?
Unequal Weights & Measures
For all the good it has done, I am concerned that theological triage is being used as a Procrustean bed that silences objections to women pastors because the issue is “merely a second-tier issue (just like baptism).” Denny Burk has rightly argued that this oversimplifies the issue because
history has proven that complementarianism is a second order doctrine that frequently implicates first order doctrines. In this way, complementarianism isn’t like other second order doctrines (e.g., baptism). . . . we are going to need more discipleship and more biblical grounding for God’s people.
Agreed. And I believe we have reached the point in the SBC where our need for biblical grounding requires us to clarify the terms we use to categorize errors. We must admit that theological triage, as it stands, is being used as an iron bed by bad actors and overly-simplistic thinkers in a way that is hampering an honest conversation in the SBC about women’s ordination. We need to reevaluate our categories.
In the words of Edward Leigh, a seventeenth-century Westminster divine, “Be careful to make a wise choice of principles; one false principle admitted, will let in many errors, and erroneous principles will lead men into erroneous practices.”
Three New (Old) Terms
A better way forward is to evaluate theological errors (in a way complementary to theological triage) in the following additional categories that Edward Leigh put forward:
Errors are either 1. Contra, against the foundation, which subvert the foundation, as that of the Papists who deny the all-sufficiency of Christ’s once suffering. 2. Circa, about the foundation, which pervert the foundation, as the Lutherans opinion of the ubiquity of Christ’s body. 3. Citra, merely without, these divert the foundation, as in the controversies of Church Government, whether it be Social or Solitary; this strikes not at the foundation.[1]
1. Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity (London: William Lee, 1654) pages 10–11 of the prolegomena. I was first made aware of Edward Leigh and his three-fold categories in this helpful article called “ ‘Theological Triage’ is way older than Mohler” (blog), which argues for many of the same things.
In a margin note, Leigh further explains the difference between 1. Contra and 2. Circa-foundational errors, beginning with a quote from Voetius: Not every error is heresy, but only those that are against the foundation or within the foundation of faith, and are persistently defended [should be considered heresy].
In other words, what he defines as Contra-foundational errors is heresy—a direct and stubborn denial of the foundations of our faith. According to theological triage, we might call these “first-order doctrines.” But what of serious errors that are not Contra-foundational?
In the example of the Lutherans (in the second category, Circa), Leigh goes on to admit they are a true church. Still, he had grave misgivings about their doctrine because he believed their type of error (in the mixing of categories between the divinity and humanity of Christ) would lead to worse errors.
Again, Leigh writes: “Some errors do not touch the foundation, others do concuteré [causing movement or disturbance by shaking or vibrating], and others do evertere [turning something upside down, destroying its structure, or causing its downfall].”
This was how Leigh viewed the Lutheran’s view of Christ’s two natures. One day, if taken to further logical conclusions, he worried, it may destabilize the structure of the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints.
Triage is for Friends; Leigh is for Foes
Theological triage is a peacetime paradigm that works well when we’re all on the same side and seeking to build the Kingdom. Can we work together? First-order says, “No, we cannot work together because we disagree on the fundamentals of the faith.” Second-order: “Yes, we can work together, but in limited ways with our different institutions.” Third-order: “Yes, we can work together, but with love and forbearance within our institution.”
Theological triage lets us shake hands often over low fences. It is not a defensive tool that can protect our institutions. By itself, triage allows bad actors and naive peacemakers to smuggle ungodly council over the fence. Therefore, let’s not leave triage by itself. It needs a friend. The categories that Edward Leigh introduced are a shield to protect the work of Triage. If Triage asks, “What is the level of our cooperation?” then Leigh asks, “What is the level of danger posed by this error?”

If the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints is the orthodox foundation, then the institutions we build are the different neighborhoods and city quarters of the Kingdom of God here on earth. We might imagine the Baptist quarter, the Lutheran quarter, and so on. We stay within our own areas, but we try to be good neighbors to each other.
Some errors, however, are a direct assault upon the foundation of our catholic faith (Contra-foundational). Examples: denying the divinity of Christ; denying true immortality of the soul; denying the Trinity; etc. Those would be first-order doctrines.
Other errors dig out the dirt of the foundation, destabilizing the structure (Circa-foundational). Under theological triage, these would be second-order issues that implicate first-order issues. These errors are not direct denials of the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints but erode the foundation over time. Examples: egalitarianism; can a Christian attend a homosexual so-called wedding; inerrancy; Side A, B, Y or X Christianity; etc.
Other second-order issues divide us into differing suburbs and districts. We believe that these are errors that are serious enough to divide over, but these errors do not harm the Kingdom’s foundation (Citra-foundational). Examples: paedo- or credo-baptism; open, close, or closed communion; elder-rule vs elder-led; Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Baptist church governance; autonomy of the local church; should miraculous gifts be practiced in the main gathering of the church; multi-site or not, other questions of polity; etc.
When evaluating errors, we need to ask:
- Is this a direct assault upon the foundation of our faith? (First-order errors)
- Is this a digging out of the foundation? (Second-order-implicating-first-order errors)
- Is this merely dividing us into districts? (Second-order errors)
- Is this requiring forbearance within our own district/house? (Third-order errors)
A Word to the SBC
Evangelical egalitarianism is not heresy. But it is an error that digs out the soil around the structure’s foundation. For example, the egalitarian hermeneutic functionally undermines the sufficiency of Scripture by banking the authority of interpretation on extra-biblical historical backgrounds (that don’t even exist!)—as when they posit a situation in Ephesus of uneducated women as the rationale for why 1 Tim. 2:12–13 only applies to uneducated women—even though no extra-biblical background mentions uneducated Christian women at Ephesus!
Egalitarianism would have us believe that Paul’s prohibition of women teaching or having authority over men is, in fact, not a prohibition (1 Tim. 2:12-13). It would be to claim that Paul did not prohibit women from addressing the assembly of the church in a teaching role (1 Cor. 14:34). It would be to claim that a husband’s headship in marriage is not a headship (Eph. 5:22-23). It would be to claim that the wife was not created as a helpmate to her husband (Gen. 2:18).
Ultimately, this line of thinking questions God’s authority in His Word because egalitarianism is not a foundation-neutral position. It requires a hermeneutic that denies what the plain text says, and therefore, it will lead to worse things. For that reason, it is an often-proved slippery slope toward affirming gay clergy. It is “second order,” but more than second order. It digs out the foundation of the faith once-for-all delivered to the church and will bring the downfall of the structure by destabilizing it. Therefore, it must be opposed.
We must say without embarrassment that if egalitarianism is embraced, then it will be the eventual downfall of the SBC. Any church that adopts it will ultimately be turned upside down. Remember Leigh’s warning: Be careful to make a wise choice of principles. One false principle admitted will let in many errors.
Extra-biblical categories are excellent servants but terrible masters. If we defend evangelical egalitarianism as merely a second-order issue on the same level as paedo-baptism, then we have submitted ourselves to theological triage as Procrustes submitted his victims to his iron bed. We will be stretched or dismembered. And if our categories for defining error are actively being used to hamper theological discourse, even actively being used to give camouflage to serious error, then we need new categories. Don’t let a Procrustean bed hinder you from rightly diagnosing the patient in triage.