Learning Together: An Approach to Sustaining a Community of Learning based upon a Lutheran Perspective on Adiaphora (Part 3)

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 17^th 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 20^th 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 16^th and 17^th centuries and in more recent controversies within the Lutheran Church in Germany in the 20^th 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.

Learning Together: An Approach to Sustaining a Community of Learning based upon a Lutheran Perspective on Adiaphora (Part I)

A Faculty Learning Group Research Project sponsored by the

Handong Educational Development Center

 written and submitted by

Cordell P. Schulten, MA, JD

Associate Professor of American Law

with

Ellena Ceu, Research Assistant

14 January 2012

Introduction

In any community where people seek to live, learn and work together, there will arise questions about whether certain ideas expressed or practices performed are acceptable and beneficial.  How the community goes about addressing these questions will often determine both the nature of that community’s existence and the quality of the community’s capacity for development and growth.  

This is especially true within Christian communities, such as local churches, ministry organizations and educational institutions.  When Christians seek to worship and serve together in community, they will be faced with the need to resolve questions regarding doctrines and practices that are essential for all the community’s members to agree upon and those teachings and activities that are open to alternative positions in matters of belief and conduct.  The latter category of questions has often been referred to in Christian Theology as adiaphora – a classical Greek word that essentially means “things that are indifferent.”

Because any Christian community will need to address questions over matters where there may be a variety of different positions, it is important to learn from followers of Christ in the past who have sought ways of dealing with adiaphora.  This is especially true for a community of students, professors and administrators who compose a university that endeavors to engage in learning in ways that reflect the character and mind of Christ.  

This article will first undertake a brief survey of the concept of adiaphora from its philosophical origins through, more specifically, its development in Lutheran theology from the time of the Reformation to its 20^th century uses within Lutheran dialogue.  Finally and most importantly, this paper will seek to advance a model for addressing matters of adiaphora that is based upon dimensions Lutheran theology.  

The model suggested will allow for the possibility of matters of adiaphora with the understanding that, while a given idea, teaching or activity may, in and of itself, be indifferent or morally neutral, the intention that prompts the idea or motivates the act as well as the consequences that flow from the idea or conduct will nonetheless have moral implications.  Thus, this application of adiaphora will not lead to an “anything goes” attitude within a community of faith and learning, but rather it will provide a means for sustaining the value of diversity in thought and practice tempered, though, by the ultimate twin goals of glorifying God and edifying others.

This first use of adiaphora can most likely be traced back before the Christian era to the ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho (~ 365-275 BCE).  He used adiaphora to describe one of three characteristics of the nature of all things.  To Pyrrho all things were by nature adiaphora (i.e. “indifferent and thus, undifferentiable”), astathmêta (i.e. “unstable and thus, not measurable”), and anepikrita (i.e. “indeterminable”).  His thesis on the nature of things is more a statement about the limitations of human observations and understanding about the things humans seek to examine.  

Pyrrho taught that unless a person acknowledged this lack of ability to make ultimate discernments about the true nature of things the person would be unable to experience happiness  (Stanford Encyclopedia).  While Pyrrho’s use of adiaphora is much broader in scope than the use of this term by later Christian theologians, especially those of the Reformation era, his point about the nature of things is still quite instructive.  When we approach questions on which there may be a variety of possible answers, we need to acknowledge our own human limitations that impair our ability to understand and evaluate the ideas and activities of others.   Pyrrho reminds us that we must start from a position of humility.

Following upon Pyrrho, the Stoic philosophers developed the idea of adiaphora beyond a foundational ontological category into an ethical dimension of life.   For them, all ethical questions were divided into those actions which are good, those which are evil, and those which are morally indifferent or adiaphora.  Indeed, the Stoic Aristo is often regarded as the originator of adiaphora as an idea within the field of ethics (Diogenes Laertius, VII, 37).  Aristo’s notion of adiaphora was also influenced by the Cynics.  From these two emerged the prominent Greek usage of adiaphora.  To put their view of ethics simplistically:  virtue was good, vice was bad, but external, material things were adiaphora  (More, 70).  

The implications of this idea led to the conclusion that there is no difference in value between things morally indifferent. (Diogenes Laertius, VII, 2).  To be even more specific, this Greek conception of adiaphora taught that pleasure and freedom from pain are without value and “there was absolutely nothing to choose between the most perfect health and the most grievous sickness.” (Cicero, De Finibus bonorum et malorum, II, 13, 43).  Extended then to its ultimate conclusion, all experiences of life, such as health or humor, poverty or disgrace, or even sickness and death are all adiaphora.

The extremes to which the Greek philosophers took the notion of adiaphora were substantially abated, and one might even say “redeemed” by the understanding of “things indifferent” expressed and applied by later Christian theologians as they discussed the teachings of the Bible, in general, and of Jesus and Paul, in particular, under the category of  adiaphora.  

It is not the purpose of this short paper, however, to delve further into either the classical philosophical idea of adiaphora, nor to chart the development of its early Christian conception.  That task will be more ably undertaken by my colleague in another portion of this project.  Instead, the purpose of this paper is to explore the development and use of adiaphora both within the context of the Lutheran response to the Protestant Reformation in the 16^th and 17^th centuries and in more recent controversies within the Lutheran Church in mid-20^th century Germany.  

Based upon such an exploration, this paper will seek to discern an approach to questions regarding: (1) what qualifies as adiaphora and (2) how a community should respond to matters of adiaphora.  Finally, using this Lutheran approach to adiaphora as an exemplar, this paper will suggest a model for sustaining a community of learning through an openness to understanding the range of ideas and activities that may be appropriately considered as adiaphora and an allowance for a variety of perspectives on adiaphorist matters.


(Part II will focus on a Lutheran perspective on the explanation and application of Adiaphora)

There Arose a Reasoning Among Them . . .

Bonhoeffer & his students

In every community of faith and learning there come times of conflict.  Conflicts arise because these communities are composed of humans who are finite and fallen.  At every university where I've taught over the past sixteen years there have been conflicts – conflicts between students and faculty members; between faculty and fellow faculty; and between faculty and university administration.  

A university is in many respects like all other human communities that experience conflict from within among its members.  Universities founded upon a common faith are no less prone to experience conflicts since like every church fellowship since such a university is made-up of humans.  So it should come as no surprise that a Christian university, especially one that is in its early years of growth and development, would experience conflict between some of its faculty and its administrative leaders.

Brother Bonhoeffer knew the reality of conflict from within a fellowship.  During his days leading the Confessing Church’s seminary at Finkenwalde, he experienced it.  When he wrote about this experiment in Christian community in his little book Life Together, he began the fourth chapter with this warning:

“'There arose a reasoning among them, which of them would be the greatest’ (Luke 9:46). We know who it is that sows this thought in the Christian community.  But perhaps we do not bear in mind enough that no Christian community ever comes together without this thought immediately emerging as a seed of discord.  Thus at the very beginning of Christian fellowship there is engendered an invisible, often unconscious, life-and-death contest.  ‘There arose a reasoning among them’; this is enough to destroy a fellowship” (90).

Bonhoeffer’s insight exposes the root cause for many, if not most, of these conflicts in our communities.  It is the human desire for greatness or ascendancy over others.  He continues, “It is vitally necessary that every Christian community from the very outset face this dangerous enemy squarely, and eradicate it.  There is not time to lose here, for from the first moment when a man meets another person he is looking for a strategic position he can assume and hold over against that person.”

Bethge & Bonhoeffer - student & teacher

“There are strong persons and weak ones.  If a man is not strong, he immediately claims the right of the weak as his own and uses it against the strong.  There are gifted and ungifted persons, simple people and difficult people, devout and less devout, the sociable and the solitary.  Does not the ungifted person have to take up a position just as well as the gifted person, the difficult one as well as the simple? . . . Where is there a person who does not with instinctive sureness find the spot where he can stand and defend himself, but which he will never give up to another, for which he will fight with all the drive of his instinct of self-assertion?”

“All this can occur in the most polite or even pious environment.  But the important thing is that a Christian community should know that somewhere in it there will certainly be ‘a reasoning among them, which of them would be the greatest.’ It is the struggle of the natural man for self-justification. He finds it only in comparing himself with others, in condemning and judging others.  Self-justification and judging others go together, as justification by grace and serving others go together “ (91).

If this then is indeed the case, how may members of a community who are presently experiencing such conflict eradicate it?  Bonhoeffer offers a potential path in the remainder of his chapter.  There he addresses seven “ministries” that we owe to one another in community.   Each bears upon me and my colleagues here at Handong if we would be peacemakers and ones who are committed to the growth of our community of learning into wholeness and mutual blessing that flows to all.

Those within our Handong community who would advance and seek to protect  the students’ “right to learn” owe the ministries Bonhoeffer commends to professors, students and fellow administrators.   Those, on the other hand, who uphold and see to maintain the professors’ “right to teach” likewise owe these ministries to all others within the community of learning.

Rather than dispute over issues of control and authority, the ministries that Bonhoeffer teaches us to engage express avenues of service that lead toward mutual edification and the ultimate achievement of the goal of our community – the forming of whole persons who act responsibly in the service of others according to God’s calling upon their lives.

The first of these ministries, as Bonhoeffer describes them, is “the ministry of holding one’s tongue.”  “Often we combat our evil thoughts most effectively if we absolutely refuse to allow them to be expressed in words” (91).    We are admonished in Scripture to be “slow to speak” (James 1:19), so we would do well to hold our tongue and think thoroughly we express comments, especially when they are criticisms of others.

Bonhoeffer advises that “where this discipline of the tongue is practiced right from the beginning, each individual will make a matchless discovery.  He will be able to cease from constantly scrutinizing the other person, judging him, condemning him, putting him in his particular place where he can gain ascendancy over him and thus doing violence to him as a person.  Now he can allow the brother to exist as a completely free person, as God made him to be” (92-93).

The second ministry is meekness. “He who would learn to serve must first learn to think little of himself” (94).  This is not self-loathing, but rather a proper view of self.  “Only he who lives by the forgiveness of his sin in Jesus Christ will rightly think little of himself” (95).  Such a perspective, Bonhoeffer acknowledges, leads to a challenging conclusion: “To forego self-conceit and to associate with the lowly means . . . to consider oneself the greatest of sinners. . . If my sinfulness appears to me to be in any way smaller or less detestable in comparison with the sins of others, I am still not recognizing my sinfulness at all. . .  He who would serve his brother in the fellowship must sink all the way down to these depths of humility” (96).  

Holding one’s tongue and meekness lead naturally to the third ministry we owe one another in community – that of listening. “Just as love to God begins with listening to His Word, so the beginning of love for the brethren [i.e. for others] is learning to listen to them” (97). To be an effective listener, though, is a skill we must be devoted to developing. Our tendency is merely to “wait to talk” when in conversation with others. What we need to be doing is authentic listening. Bonhoeffer warns that “he who can no longer listen to his brother will soon be no longer listening to God either; he will be doing nothing but prattle in the presence of God” (98). 

By listening we are enabled to understand the needs of others and so reach out to them with the ministry of helpfulness. “This means, initially, simple assistance in trifling, external matters . . . Nobody is too good for the meanest (i.e. lowest) service. One who worries about the loss of time that such petty, outward acts of helpfulness entail is usually taking the importance of his own career too solemnly” (99).  

The next service we owe is the ministry of bearing. “’Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ’ (Gal. 6:2). . . Bearing means forbearing and sustaining. . . The Christian . . . must bear the burden of a brother. He must suffer and endure the brother. It is only when he is a burden that another person is really a brother and not merely an object to be manipulated” (100). As we extend this service, Bonhoeffer calls us to bear both the freedom of the other person as well as his sin through regularly practicing forgiveness. 

The thoughtful engagement of these first five ministries – holding one’s tongue, meekness, listening, helpfulness and bearing – provides the only sure foundation for the next – the ministry of proclaiming the Word. This ministry is not the “preaching of the Word” but rather “that unique situation in which one person bears witness in human words to another person, bespeaking the whole consolation of God, the admonition, the kindness, and the severity of God” (103-104). “We speak to one another on the basis of the help we both need. We admonish one another to go the way that Christ bids us to go. We warn one another against the disobedience that is our common destruction” (106).  

Bonhoeffer concludes with the ultimate service we owe -- the ministry of authority. This ministry, however, can only be exercised by those who have first fulfilled the all that come before it because “Jesus made authority in the fellowship dependent upon brotherly service” (108). “Every cult of personality that emphasizes the distinguished qualities, virtues, and talents of another person, even though these be of an altogether spiritual nature, is worldly and has no place in the Christian community . . . The Church does not need brilliant personalities but faithful servants of Jesus and the brethren” (108-109).  

Indeed, no community of faith, no community of learning, needs brilliant personalities. What we need are faithful followers of Christ who seek daily, by His grace, to serve one another according to the call of God. What is needed to eradicate the attitudes and actions that destroy our community of learning are men and women possessed with the mind of Christ that seeks not their own interests and rights but those of others. Such an approach to sustaining our community of learning and faith will not pit the right to learn against the right to teach. Rather, it will serve others by taking seriously the responsibility to teach and the responsibility to learn as we seek together to obey the call of Christ and serve the needs of others in the here and now.

There are few earthly things more splendid . . .

Some months ago during my final semester teaching at Fontbonne, Dr. Dennis Golden, the University's President shared these words from the English Poet Laureate, John Masefield spoken by him at the University of Sheffield in 1946.

"There are few earthly things more splendid than a University. In these days of broken frontiers and collapsing values when the dams are down and the floods are making misery, when every future looks somewhat grim and every ancient foothold has become something of a quagmire. Wherever a University stands it stands and shines: wherever it exists, the free minds of men, urged on to full and fair inquiry, may still bring wisdom into human affairs.”

“There are few earthly things more beautiful than a University. It is a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see; where seekers and learners alike, banded together in the search for knowledge, will honor thought in all its finer ways, will welcome thinkers in distress or in exile, will uphold ever the dignity of thought and learning, and will exact standards in these things.

“There are few things more enduring than a University. Religions may split into sect or heresy; dynasties may perish or be supplanted, but for century after century the University will continue, and the stream of life will pass through it, and the thinker and the seeker will be bound together in the undying cause of bringing thought into the world.

“To be a member of one these great Societies must ever be a glad distinction." ~ John Masefield