Spiritual Triage
August 30, 2010
Dear Friends,
Let’s say you happen upon the scene of a car accident. There are three people involved in the accident. One man has been thrown from the car and it is obvious from his injuries that he will not survive. There is a woman who is relatively uninjured except for a gaping wound in her thigh which, if untreated, will cause her to bleed to death within minutes. There is also a child in the accident. It appears that the child has a broken arm and a few minor cuts, but is otherwise not seriously injured. You are the only one at the scene. Who do you help and in what order?
This scenario is a classic example of triage — the process of determining who receives medical treatment and in what order when there are multiple people in need but not enough resources to help them all. It is essentially a medical term for setting priorities. There are protocols established to say who gets helped first under differing circumstances.
I use this term all the time to convey the idea that we need to handle things in priority order. For anyone who has ever been in a position of leadership in any organization, we can all cite situations where we plainly didn’t practice taking things in priority order but spent too much time and effort on things which didn’t amount to anything of consequence. Perhaps you have been in a meeting at church where everyone takes an hour to discuss the need for new gutters and doesn’t leave any time for discussing the needs of the couple who are about divorce. All too often this is the rule about the way we do things rather than the exception. I have a theory as to why this is. It seems to me that no one likes to talk about the hard things. Who wants to talk about someone’s marriage falling apart or about someone dying? Those topics are messy and fraught with all sorts of landmines. It is so much easier to talk about gutters or whether to order the new hymnbooks than to talk about the messy conditions in which we, as humans, find ourselves.
There is a serious and obvious flaw however in not practicing spiritual triage. If make the mistake of taking care of the child first in the accident scenario above, we risk the woman dying unnecessarily because of our flawed priority setting. Likewise, if we don’t put things in the ecclesia in priority order, we risk losing people’s eternal lives. It seems pretty obvious when considered for a minute that Jesus would want us to make the couple whose marriage is in trouble a priority over the gutters. When he returns, I’d much rather stand before him guilty of ignoring the needs of a physical building rather than his spiritual house. Understand, though, that the plea is for prioritization, not ignoring the other more mundane business matters altogether.
One of the common areas where we fall short in this area is setting minor doctrinal areas above important matters of walk. As many of us tend toward the scholarly side of discipleship, we are far more comfortable arguing over some point of doctrine than we are actually helping people in their walk. I know many a brother who would much rather have their nose stuck in a Bible than actually have to talk to someone about a sensitive issue. Which do you think the Lord would have us do? Would He rather us go and retrieve the lost sheep or debate on the exact definition of a sheep?
In our ecclesia, our board found that we didn’t always prioritize things very well. We made a new rule a few years ago that, as a board, we would always talk about the flock and their issues first before we delved into any other matters of business. In all honesty, this wasn’t the most comfortable thing for everyone. Some people would inevitably clam up during this discussion. That’s OK. Triage is a learned behavior. We’ve become better and better at it as time has progressed so that it is much more natural for everyone. It still may not be the most pleasurable part of our meetings, but it is definitely the most important. We still might not always the right treatment for people’s spiritual ills, but we can’t be faulted for not trying or not making it a priority.
Have a great week,
Comments»
Hi Kyle. Someone linked this on FB.
The gist of the post is good… who really needs our help… what priorities must we adopt?
I couldn’t help but think of the ‘offence’ issue… the people who claim to be ‘offended’ are often the ones in least danger of losing their commitment to the community. Whose feelings should we consider first?
There are a couple of assumptions underlying your position above…
Isn’t group discussion essentially a persuasion exercise, where each seeks to influence the others to our POV? Does it matter what POV emerges? The lost member and the lost marriage will only be assisted on an individual pastoral level, really.
Deb,
Your points are well taken and your questions are excellent.
I am definately assuming a “shepherding” model in my answer so, in my mind, the divorce and the death are in that charter. The basic idea of the shepherding model is that they are brethren, who by excellence in both personal conduct and wisdom, have earned the right to serve their brethren in this role. Their role is to guide people toward the Kingdom of God.
Now, in my present understanding (and I realize this is a big debate now), only men would be in the role of “bishop” while both men and women could be “deacons.” Therefore, it seems that the shepherds, in their wisdom, might very well introduce a female perspective into this. I think this goes back to the wisdom part. If these men are really wise, they are not going to discount and exclude such a valuable resource or that help in possibly resolving the issue.
I think it is not only ethical to discuss this away from people, but necessary for the exact reason you mention. We find out about a problem — hopefully through being diligent shepherds we get first-hand information. We try, as individuals, to resolve it. However, at some point, it becomes obvious that this requires more help and is brought to the shepherds. Now the “persuasion exercise” or iron sharpening iron exercise starts. Brethren come in with differing perspectives. Each one gives his BIBLICAL case for his perspective. Through this process, people get to hear different ideas about “what the Lord would have us do.” In most cases, a consensus is reached and a plan is established. At this point, the people who need to know and need to act are brought in. As you correctly point out, this will typically be done through individuals, but more importantly, the right individuals — the people with the greatest chance of bringing about a godly resolution. The nice thing is, though, that a group of supposedly wise, Biblical astute, loving, caring individuals have spent time and effort trying to figure out the best possible way to help. And, if there are some strange ideas represented in the group (which does happen), the majority are persuaded to discount those ideas by a strong Biblical case.
Thanks again for your insights and questions.
Hi Kyle…
re the same 3 points:
Of course the “excellence in both personal conduct and wisdom” is um… hopeful. The operative word is in your point 3: “supposedly” :-). The reality is that often very ordinary, unscholarly and even dysfunctional brothers are put in the position of discussing and actioning others’ marriages, faith, morality and health crises. It is worth imagining what it would be like to [shock!] find that you are being discussed. This meditation can change our evaluation of our AB’s qualfications to do such things.
The arranging brothers are equivalent to ‘bishops’?! I think this is not a common view. I have heard it declaimed outright. As I recall, we have 7 ABs as per the 7 deacons in Acts 6. RR says (EG.28) “arranging brethren… will be a literal description, and not a name of honour”. So gutters and hymnbooks it is :-) There is not an equivalent role to ‘bishop’ in the CD ecclesial structure… it seems there was only one per city, whose role included representing and defending the Christian community in the wider society which was, in places, hostile. Thankfully we do not need this role filled now.
I think the best way to evaluate the ethics of such group discussions about personal affairs is to imagine that it is your marriage break-down or your children’s behaviour that this idealised group of ‘shepherds’ are discussing. Who can really know about the inner workings of your marriage and family but you, your wife, your children and God? Would you like your own ABs to debate their “differing perspectives” on your circumstances without you present? And what if you disagree with the “consensus” and the “plan” which is remotely reached and established? Knowing that some of their own marriages and personal affairs are not in any better order (as is often the case), how would it feel to be the object of a plan of concerted intervention?
I have known many ABs who are manifestly unable to put Biblical cases for their perspectives, but who are nonetheless in a position of power that can destroy someone’s trust and attachment to the community, with devastating effects on family, faith and future. This happens so regularly as to be deemed common. Decision-making would be improved considerably if women were also eligible to these positions, for a committee of men-only discussing personal matters involving both genders is deplorable. But better still to adjust the job-description.
Let’s empower all individual disciples to operate as friends and peers to each other, in good times and in bad, and let the arranging committee take care of the rosters, bills and… arrangements :-)
that’s supposed to be 1. 2. and 3. above.. the intervening paragraph threw it out.