Adiaphora... yes or no?
Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 9:33AM There have been a handful of discussions on the Church Herald Blogs lately that have raised a basic question for me: Is there such a thing in the RCA as adiaphora?
From Wikipedia:
Adiaphoron (plural: adiaphora from the Greekἀδιάφορα "indifferent things")...in Christianity refer to matters not regarded as essential to faith but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.
I guess, more directly, the question I'm asking is how do we define what is adiaphora and what isn't? Obviously we hold that somethings are adiaphora (not everything we believe is on the same "level" of importance). But how do we determine it?
As we have seen, some people consider a particular position on women in ministry fundamental... others not. Some consider a particular position on homosexuality fundamental... others not. There is at least one denomination that uses formal church discipline against ministers who don't preach that creation happened in seven, 24-hour days... obviously not true for the RCA.
It's an important question, I think. If we don't have a clear understanding of what is fundamentally necessary and what isn't, we end up spending a lot of time arguing about things that really don't matter. On the other hand, some things are worth dying for.
Please don't give me your list of fundamentals or adiaphora, and please don't just say "I believe in the Bible" -- I don't mean to sound rude but neither one is helpful to the discussion. Instead, how do you make that distinction? Who do you turn to for help making such decisions? Are there different lists of "unbendables" for ministers? Elders? Deacons? Members? Adherents?
etc. etc....
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Reader Comments (6)
hmmmmmm.....I turn to you Tim.
Tim:
While your question is insightful, I don't think it is answerable in any helpful sense. You see, the reality of hermeneutics will come again into play. For example, I would say my "adiaphora" would be the Apostles Creed. Others may say the same. And yet we will still disagree on what applications and/or implications specifically are essential and not. That is a hermeneutical move.
A second note--by asking what is o "adiaphora" in the church, you are by implication asking when does a church (or individual) become anathema. That is a daunting question.
Blessings,
David Vandervelde
Mr. TenClay,
The adiaphora question gets at the heart of the confusion and tension in these discussions. I understand adiaphora to be teachings and practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden in scripture. The examples you provided, gender roles and homosexuality, are dealt with in scripture. Therefore, the current discussion, in my understanding, does not qualify as adiaphora.
To answer the question, I deal with true issues of adiaphora on the basis of conscience and wisdom. Do we need red-velvet carpet for the sanctuary? Do we need solar panels on the side of the building? I seek wisdom and decide based on my conscience.
To answer the true question, how do we decide on adiaphora, I ask myself the following question: Is this issue important, unimportant or vital to Christian unity? I first turn to scripture for an answer. If scripture is silent I then turn to wise counsel. After considering wise counsel I go with my conscience. If you run the color of carpet through this process the answer is clear-adiaphora. If you run homosexuality through this process it gets stopped at the first step. (Please know that I speak of homosexuality because it has been a recent topic of discussion. I have friends who embrace, struggle and reject their homosexuality. This is not a “topic” for me this issue has a face.)
To sum up: scripture, wisdom, conscience.
Jeremy Visser
To be clear: when I say "adiaphora" I'm using it in the sense of real or practical unity in the church. We can disagree on elder issues (even if we think it's clear in scripture) and still work together without saying people have become anathema.
Just wanted to clear that possible thought up before someone brought the pain! :-)
Jeremy Visser
Raymond Brown in his book "a Once and Coming Spirit at Pentecost" on the lectionary passages between Easter and Pentecost writes this about the debate between Jews and Gentiles:
First, as incredible as it might seem, such a fundamental issue as whether one should proclaim the kingdom to Gentiles and whether they had to become Jews was not detectably an issue solved by Jesus in his lifetime. There are those today on both extremes of the ecclesiastical spectrum (ultraliberal, ultraconservative) who think they can appeal to the words or deeds of Jesus to solve any question in the church (parochial, diocesan, or universal). If Jesus did not solve the most fundamental question of the Christian mission, we may well doubt that his recorded words solve most of our subsequent debated problems in the church.
Second, Peter is not presented as solving the problem by his own initiative or wisdom. He says in Acts 10:28 that God has shown him that he should not consider others unclean.....In other words we have another instance of Christians facing an unforseen problem and solving it, not by appealing to a previous blueprint for the church, but by insight (gained from the Holy Spirit) as to what Christ wanted for the church.
Now I know that Raymond Brown is not a Reformed Theologian, but I do think he has studied the New Testament more than probably anyone else living.
There are issues that emerge over time in new ways that were not even on the radar of the writers of the Bible, but the one caution I have received from Prof. Brown and more importantly the book of Acts is that we need to be careful who and what we call unclean...and be open to new things that the Spirit will show us, and to remember the Church has always been reforming and will continue to do so.
Feel free to apply Prof. Brown's wisdom to any of the current debates of this blog.....
Adiaphoron (plural: adiaphora from the Greekἀδιάφορα "indifferent things")...in Christianity refer to matters not regarded as essential to faith but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.
Regarding "whats allowed in church" or in my past "whats allowed in a church service"
Tim this doesn't answer your question but it just brings up an example of struggles congregatons face in dealing with essentials in worship. My church leaders were emphasizing the importance of having a casual Sunday AM worship environment for seekers. As a result, taking coffee into the service was permitted, even encouraged. Some members were upset about this casualness and the need for some leave the service for refills. I countered with the idea of continuing with the current coffee liberties but adding a cooler of cold drinks in the back of the sanctuary, if pleasing the seekers was truly the goal. While I was kidding, this idea was viewed as inappropriate.......but for some reason hot drinks were okay????
So in my experience, may "essential" things simply come down to a person or groups' personal preferences or what they deem to be "salvation" or "non-salvation issues"