A Suggested Model for Addressing Matters of Adiaphora within a Community of Learning
In order to properly assess whether a matter, be it an idea, a teaching, or a particular activity, is adiaphora we must first determine an appropriate standard by which this question may be discerned. For Luther that standard was the Bible and more specifically the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith through grace alone. Any idea, teaching or practice that was inconsistent with or distracted one from this foundational doctrine of salvation could not be adiaphora. In the formulation of the doctrine of adiaphora that was later set forth in the Book of Concord, the standard was what God had commanded or prohibited in his Word. What was neither expressly commanded nor forbidden by God’s Word was deemed adiaphora.
For the later Lutheran theologians of the 17th century, who engaged with Calvinists in debates over the use of music in worship, the standard for determining adiaphora combined both Luther’s particular demand for consistency with the Gospel with the general rule that considered matters indifferent when they were neither divinely commanded nor expressly prohibited in Scripture.
Even into the 20th century, Bonhoeffer’s reliance upon the Formula of Concord’s articulation demonstrates that the Lutheran standard for discernment of indifferent matters continued to exclude from adiaphora anything that would “obscure and pervert the truth of the gospel.” Thus, Bonhoeffer concluded that the German Church’s adoption of the Aryan paragraph could not be an adiaphoron because it struck at the very substance of the truth of the Gospel and the nature of the church which is the Body of Christ. In every case, the standard remained the essential truths of the Gospel as set forth in God’s Word.
In light of the standard used by Lutheran theologians, an approach to using adiaphora within the context of a community of faith and learning, such as a Christian university, should at its foundation recognize the authority of God’s Word as the principle means for determining what matters may be regarded as adiaphora. But to hold up the Scriptures as the standard could very well prove meaningless if the Word were to be subject to individualistic interpretations of its doctrines.
Rather, for a Christian community of learning, the commonly recognized and historic articulations of the essential elements of the faith must serve as a guide for its standard. The historic confessions of the Church set forth in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are clearly fundamental and so may serve to establish an objective limitation upon the numerous interpretations that might be offered from the variety of faith traditions composing a Christian community of learning. Thus, the assessment standard for the adiaphorist approach suggested here may be stated as follows:
An idea, teaching or activity that is not expressly commanded nor prohibited by God’s Word, as understood through the expressions of the historic Christian faith in the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed, and does not obscure or distract from the truth of the Gospel may be considered adiaphora.
This standard is itself, though, open to debate and revision. The final articulation of a standard should be the product of dialogue among those participating in the community of faith and learning. The standard offered here may serve as a starting point for such a discussion. Once a standard for determining what qualifies as adiaphora is agreed upon, then the members of the learning community may begin to raise particular issues for evaluation.
For example, is the teaching that God created the universe adiaphora in a Christian community of learning? To resolve this question one need only look to Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3 as well as the First Article of both the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed. Based upon these Scriptures and the historic confessions, we may firmly conclude that the belief that God created the universe is a foundational and essential teaching of the Christian faith. So the answer is that the teaching that God created the universe is not adiaphora.
In contrast, though, when a question within the broader subject of origins is presented in a more specific form the outcome may be different. For example, is the teaching that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days adiaphora within a Christian community of learning? If this question is examined by the Biblical passages that recount creation, one may view these Scriptures as supporting an interpretation of a six-day creation as one possible explanation.
When those same Scriptures are viewed through the lens of the historic confessions of the faith, however, the essential truth is limited to the proposition that God created all things. The First Article of the Nicene Creed confesses: “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.” By what means and when God’s creative acts occurred is not addressed as an essential element of the faith. Thus, the best answer to the question presented is that the teaching that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days is adiaphora.
It should be noted that the characterization of an idea, teaching or activity as one within the category of adiaphora does not mean that this particular subject is unimportant or deserving of less attention than essential matters. Rather, the use of an adiaphorist approach to subjects on which a variety of beliefs exists will, it is hoped, help to encourage an appropriate openness to discussion and dialogue that should be the hallmark of a Christian learning community that holds to the absolute nature of truth while humbly acknowledging that humans are limited in both their ability to apprehend and understand truth.
Those matters that God has clearly revealed in His Word – the truth, for example, that He created all things – are essential elements of the historic Christian faith as testified by the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Those matters which are not essential to the faith – not foundational to the Gospel – and which have no bearing upon our justification by God’s work of grace through the gift of faith may rightly be considered adiaphora.
Once an idea, teaching or activity is characterized as adiaphora, we are presented with a second and potentially more significant concern. Since matters of adiaphora may be addressed by a variety of diverse positions, should all positions and perspectives be welcomed and accepted within a Christian community of faith and learning? In other words, if it is adiaphora, does that mean “anything goes”? In answer to this question, the instruction of the Apostle Paul on the adiaphorist issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols provides essential guidance. (1 Corinthians 8:1 – 10:33).
Though Paul considers food, since it is an external matter, to be indifferent to our salvation (1 Cor. 8:8), the use and consumption of food is still to be guided by two essential objectives: the glorification of God (1 Cor. 10:33) and the edification of others (1 Cor. 8:9-13; 10:23-24). Based upon this Biblical pattern we may set forth the following guidelines when a community of learning seeks to evaluate what positions or practices within the realm of adiaphora should be respected:
First, does the idea, teaching or activity glorify God? Does it direct the attention of others primarily toward God or toward the one engaging in the advancement of the idea, teaching or practice?
Second, does the idea, teaching or activity edify others? Does it direct the other to Christ and his Word or does it focus on individualistic experiences without consideration of the practice’s influence upon others?
To illustrate a practical application of this aspect of the adiaphorist approach, we may use it to address a contemporary dimension of the debate over worship practices. As we have seen above, questions involving what practices should be allowed in Christian worship has been the subject of considerations of adiaphora since the days of the early Protestant Reformation. It should then be no surprise to any Christian community composed of a variety of faith traditions that questions would arise over what practices should be included in the community’s worship.
One practice that poses such a concern is the use of speaking in unknown tongues in public worship. It was an issue within the Corinthian church to which the Apostle Paul wrote his first epistle. (1 Corinthians 12:1 – 14:40). This passage of Scripture contains explicit instruction regarding the use of the spiritual gift of tongues. It may be properly deemed adiaphora because the possession and practice of this gift is clearly not essential to the Gospel, nor is it expressly commanded or forbidden. Paul demonstrates that it is but one of a number of spiritual gifts that may or may not be granted to a believer depending upon the will of God.
Whether this gift should be practiced as a part of worship must then be discerned by the community. The guidelines for making this evaluation are whether the practice would glorify God (1 Cor. 14:20-25) and whether its practice edifies others (1 Cor. 14:13-19). Following these guidelines, the community should discern both: (1) whether the activity of publicly speaking in unknown tongues causes those who hear it to direct their attention to God or, instead, to the one who is speaking the unknown tongue, and (2) whether this activity is edifying those who hear it.
One this second part of the evaluation, Paul gives further instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 as follows: “If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.” In this case, edification of others requires that meaning be conveyed through what is publicly spoken. If the means of conveying that meaning (i.e. an interpreter) are not present, then Paul instructs us that there should be no public speaking of an unknown tongue as a part of the worship of the community.
While not all matters of adiaphora may be addressed by a direct appeal to Scripture, the principles that are set forth in the Word of God will still provide for our guidance to engage the question. This approach to adiaphora recognizes that, while some matters may be allowable since they are indifferent to the essential elements of the historic Christian faith, an adiaphorist idea, teaching or practice will none the less always have an influence upon those who hear, see and participate in it.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper has been to explore the development and use of adiaphora both within the context of the Lutheran response to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries and in more recent controversies within the Lutheran Church in Germany in the 20th century. From this exploration, we have discerned an approach to questions regarding: (1) what qualifies as adiaphora and (2) how a community should respond to matters of adiaphora.
Using this Lutheran approach to adiaphora as an exemplar, we have suggested a model for sustaining a community of learning through an openness to understanding the range of ideas and practices that may be appropriately considered as adiaphora. Such an openness will allow for a variety of perspectives on issues that are adiaphora. The first step in the model considers adiaphora to be any idea, teaching or activity that is not expressly commanded nor prohibited by God’s Word, as understood through the expressions of the historic Christian faith in the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed, and does not obscure or distract from the truth of the Gospel.
Once a matter of adiaphora is identified, though, the model provides that the community of learning must evaluate whether the adiaphoron glorifies God and edifies others. If it meets these objectives, then the adiaphoron should not only be respected and allowed, but encouraged so that the community of faith and learning may be sustained and continue to grow through a mutual interchange of thought and life.
No comments:
Post a Comment