The Theological Serenity Prayer

I completely agree with you on one point, that is, arguing with another over theological positions is really just a lack of personal humility because the arguer is just wanting to prove himself right, which is pride. However, the question that arises in my mind when you talk about things being gauged by essential vs. non-essential is this: who decides what is essential vs. non-essential? There’s really only two options, The Church (Orthodox) or the individual. When the individual decides what is essential vs. non-essential, then you have the never-ending arguing over “theology” with each person trying to prove he is right which has lead to the literally never-ending multiplying of new denominations, “churches” for 500 plus years. New “churches” pop up like dandelions in the spring time all because some individual decides that they have it all figured out because “this is what the Holy Spirit revealed to me.” Each church under the Protestant umbrella, and that includes the Anglican Church, was started by an INDIVIDUAL. [The Roman Church, in my Orthodox opinion, separated itself from the The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the 11th century when the bishop of Rome tried to assert his authority over the rest of the bishops in the east and when they also tried to unilaterally introduce new doctrines without consent of the eastern bishops (filioque, etc).]

Three years ago, I surrendered my private interpretations and throne of personal papism to The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which is The Orthodox Church (EOC.) I had already been struggling with this idea of “why so many Protestant denominations” before I had even discovered Church history or The Orthodox Church. Discovering the OC, and church history , for me was a slam dunk and answered all the nagging questions I had as an evangelical. From now on, I let the Church decide for me what is “essential.”

I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments and you are much smarter than I so it’s not my intention to “argue” theology with you. Actually, I am grateful to you because it was your Theology program that introduced me to church history which lead me on my journey home so I want thank you.

May I offer a prayer of my own from one the great saints of the Church for humility:

O Lord and Master of my life!

Take from me the spirit of sloth,
faint-heartedness, lust of power, and idle talk.

But give rather the spirit of chastity,
humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.

Yea, Lord and King! Grant me to see my own errors
and not to judge my brother,
for Thou art blessed unto ages of ages. Amen. (St Ephrem the Syrian)

Forgive me Lisa….I saw this blog on Michael’s Facebook and assumed he had posted it.

@Kevin: May I humbly suggest you read Michael’s post on Essentials vs Non-Essentials (that Lisa mentions)!

So Kevin, does that mean I’m not smarter than you? 😉

Ok just kidding. Seriously, you said

“However, the question that arises in my mind when you talk about things being gauged by essential vs. non-essential is this: who decides what is essential vs. non-essential? There’s really only two options, The Church (Orthodox) or the individual. When the individual decides what is essential vs. non-essential, then you have the never-ending arguing over “theology” with each person trying to prove he is right which has lead to the literally never-ending multiplying of new denominations, “churches” for 500 plus years.”

I would say that revelation determines what is essential. And by revelation, I mean what God has disclosed to us concerning himself. We have this revelation written and so the question arises how can we understand it to determine what is significant and what is not. A consistent hermeneutic that correlates and synthesizes all scripture to glean the overall picture is important. So its not so much that individuals are not meant to understand it, but divergence has happened because of inconsistent and unchecked hermeneutics. I don’t think that means an either/or but a synergy between the church and the individual, as we strive as best as possible to understand God’s written revelation.

Great stuff Lisa!

Oh yes Lisa…you too are much smarter than I. A can of soup is smarter than I….LOL.

“I would say that revelation determines what is essential. And by revelation, I mean what God has disclosed to us concerning himself. We have this revelation written and so the question arises how can we understand it to determine what is significant and what is not. A consistent hermeneutic that correlates and synthesizes all scripture to glean the overall picture is important. So its not so much that individuals are not meant to understand it, but divergence has happened because of inconsistent and unchecked hermeneutics. I don’t think that means an either/or but a synergy between the church and the individual, as we strive as best as possible to understand God’s written revelation.”

Yes, God has revealed Himself to us. But who determines what revelation is? The Holy Scriptures certainly are a part of God’s revealing himself to us. Who decides what the “consistent hermeneutic” is? What about the poor & illiterate? How are they going to understand a “consistent hermeneutic?” Who decides for them? Who’s job is it to make sure that everybody is doing proper hermeneutics? The only proper hermeneutic is one that is read within the context of the Church…..since that very Church gave us the scriptures anyway.

“So its not so much that individuals are not meant to understand it, but divergence has happened because of inconsistent and unchecked hermeneutics.”

Divergence has happened because the Bible was never meant to be read outside of the context in which it was written. It was written by the Church, for the Church. Now, Martin Luther was right to protest what was going in Rome….his objections to the sale of indulgences and the many abuses going on were right on. Where he went wrong was going off in his own direction when he should have taken refuge in the Churches of the east that Rome had separated itself from (actually the Lutheran did have a series of correspondences with Constantinople) . The Orthodox had already rejected Rome’s innovations because they weren’t part of the Holy Tradition set down from the Apostles.

For the RCC, there are two sources of authority, Scripture and Tradition. But for the Orthodox, Scripture has always been part of Holy Tradition…one source of authority….scripture and tradition. Scripture is Tradition. After all, the Church existed before the New Testament. First there was The Church, then the scriptures evolved out of the tradition of The Church.

And I don’t mean to imply that individual Orthodox Christians aren’t’ encouraged to read the Bible for themselves. We are strongly encouraged to read the Bible. But we read it knowing it is only properly understood within the Church.

May I suggest a link that can better explain the proper role of the Bible within the Church, an article called “Bible and Liturgy.”

http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-print.asp?ID=25

Kevin,

Identifying scripture as born out of tradition that is exclusively mediated through the church, I think takes away from what scripture is. It is God’s self-revelation (2 Tim 3:16, Heb 1:1-2) that was breathed out through the pens of 40ish authors under prophetic and apostolic authority. The NT church is born out of the continuation of God’s story as represented by Peter’s speech in Acts 2. The tradition is formulated around the continuation of that story, but the revelation of Christ came first on which the church is built.

So I don’t think its quite accurate to say that Scripture was written by the church and for the church. It was written so that God would disclose himself and his plan for history. That is not exclusive to the church, although certainly authoritative for the church. I think its also important to distinguish tradition as authoritative and tradition as interpretative of the writings that were deemed authoritative by the early church as carrying the apostolic teaching. The church did have the responsibility of interpreting that teaching as meant for the church but that does not make that interpretive function authoritative. And again, the apostolic teaching rests exclusively on God’s revelation in Christ and the practical outworking of that for the community of believers.

I also think that since the recognition of the completed canon was juxtaposed to and succeeded the formation of the early church, it was significant for the church to provide interpretation. But that does not preclude scripture as authoritative and sufficient on its own merit.

My guess is that you probably won’t agree with what I’ve written given your EO alliance, but it is something to ponder.

Kevin,
Don’t you think it’s kind of ironic that you posted here the idea that Prots continually argue theology because it’s left up to the individual, and yet you are here arguing theology. I know too many RC’s and EO’s to think that those churches have settled all theological arguments; and I’m sure your parish is different, but at the GOC I attended, the only reason why people didn’t argue over theology was because they didn’t think theology was as important as arguing over who brings the after service coffee. The Church is a guide, I agree, but we still have to argue our case for the Church. History helps us, but we still need to make our arguments for history. There is no end to our learning through argument because there is no end to our growth.

Hodge,
You’re right. I’ve already rebuked myself for allowing myself to get sucked in to theological arguments. It wasn’t my intention as I stated in the beginning to argue and continuing to argue will only serve to indulge my sinful pride. I do take issue with one you said though. There were no theological arguments at the GOC you attended precisely because there is none. I would challenge you to name one significant theological issue in the EOC. As for learning through argument, argument has at it’s root pride which is sin, is it not? So do you condone indulging in pride? I’ve already wasted too much time indulging mine so I’m signing off on this one.

Lisa, you’re are absolutely right…..I don’t agree with what you’ve written. But like you said in your original post, “diversiities of positions can grow into the necessity of proving the point regardless of the redemtive value of the discussion.” And like I said in my original post, I’m not looking to argue theology. I could post a 300 word response why I disagree but it won’t change your mind, neither will you change mine. I will only be indulging myself in the sin of pride by trying to prove myself right when I should have been spending that time on my personal repentance.
I’m signing off on this discussion and I pray God will richly bless your life.

Kevin, I respect that. But I will add that I do believe theological discourse has merits. I did not mean to communicate that we should never have discussions about theology. I think having healthy discussions about differing viewpoints not only provides a better perspective on the opposing position, but challenges what we know to be true. We just have to know when the discussion becomes more about proving the point than about defending the integrity of the work and person of the triune God.

Kevin,

Sorry I should have been more specific. My point wasn’t that people weren’t arguing at the GOC I attended because their arguments had been settled by the Patriarchs. My point is that there were no arguments because people didn’t care. It didn’t matter. No one was attempting to understand because understanding often contains questioning and debating to get to that understanding. They’ve been taught that the church handles theology, so as a result, they feel that they don’t need to do so themselves. To them connecting with God is a mystical experience anyway.
I think all that we do will contain our egos, no matter what. I think instead the ultimate goal ought to be growth through truth. So I don’t see argument as sin (isn’t Paul arguing with the Judaizers over doctrine, the Greeks over Christ’s resurrection? Isn’t John arguing with the Docetists and antinomian Gnostics?). Arguing over things that have no relation to the gospel and our relationship with God is inappropriate, but arguing is a way of thinking through an issue, and therefore, I do think without it an ecclesiastical body loses growth as well. Just my two cents.

Wow. I’m so delighted to have found you, this blog and the community within it.

Added you to my Google reader. Time to read some more.

Regarding this post – having both experience in the theological realm and the realm of recovery, i smiled broadly and nodded gently at this prayer.

Folks argue about what’s adiaphora and what’s not adiaphora all the time.

Eg., the RCC and the EOC will fight to the bone that the Eucharist is/has the Real Presence. This is a first-order, non-negotiable doctrine. To inform them that it’s a non-essential would offend them, some of them, deeply so. (As a sidebar: numerous Catholics, perhaps the majority of them, don’t believe in the Real Presence).

To them, a Zwinglian, memorialist understanding of the “ordinance” of the Lord’s Supper is unthinkable. And to suggest that the whole issue of the Eucharist is a non-essential, and not worth arguing about, well, it gets a lot of traditional Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folks rather perturbed… for even suggesting it’s a matter of indifference to you.

Other issues where someone claims it’s essential and another person claims it’s a non-essential: Baptism (Paedo vs. Credo), Canon (RCC vs. EO vs. Protestant), Inerrancy, et al.

My suggestion is that for the folks who think that something is non-essential, then why don’t you, as a general rule of thumb, defer to the Christian brother or sister who regards it as an essential. For example, if you believe inerrancy of Scripture is a non-essential, then defer to those who proclaim that Scripture is inerrant. After all, it’s not essential to you. Another example, if you believe that complementarianism is a non-essential, then defer to your complementarian brothers and sisters.

But don’t claim that something’s non-essential, and then argue like the dickens for the doctrinal position that you want. Because your behavior then shows that you think it IS essential.

Thanks for posting this, Lisa! I think you should start selling T-shirts and wall plaques to spread the message! Too often we argue theology with too little humility and discernment.

Hello Mr Mike. Read the above because I recommended you to a
young DTS student last night. He thinks you ought to use your
brain when studying the Bible as well as your faith. Hum….where
have I heard that….I know I’ve heard that from someone before. al

theological inconsistencies that do not make a difference

Serious question: Does such an animal exist?

I mean, if there is an error it is, in someway, a perversion of the truth – and thus a perversion of the character of God.

Take the case of regulative principle of worship vs. contemporary worship settings as an example. This is a fairly contested issue at times, however it is often considered tertiary.

BUT, if the Scriptures do teach a regulative principle as corporate worship that is acceptable to Him – then is it not a perversion of truth to teach otherwise and an injustice to God and to a fellow Christian to let it go as not making a difference?

Conversely, if the opposite is true, that Scriptures teach a different kind of corporate worship, based on the corporate desire to express through many means (plays, solos, etc..) then is it not a perversion of truth to teach otherwise and hold people’s worship back by some outdated, dusty, methodology? Is it not an injustice to God and to a fellow Christian to let it go as not making a difference?

What I need to understand is whether or not if one can believe that there are situations where one believes that disagreement will continue ad infinitum, that this is where illogic is acceptable? Can one actually agree to disagree (false surrender) or are these actually cases in which one truth works for one person and an opposing truth works for another?

Serious follow up questions: Is it showing love to allow a brother or sister to continue in error (even if minor) out of respect for (or fear of loss of) some sort of visible unity? And at what point are we deciding that either a) iron no longer needs to sharpen iron or b) the sharpening of iron is a very smooth process that leaves no scraps behind?

Ray, thanks for that very thorough critique. You ask if there is such a thing as theological inconsistencies. Well, of course there are. The issue is their significance in the grand scheme of things. I hear your point about allowing error, but I wonder how much of that is about our interpretation versus actual error. Clearly, many interpretive differences exist. Obviously, there are topics that range from the most significant to Christianity to merely speculative. That range should correspond to how loose or tight we hold to our need to correct others. The point of this prayer is to identify what is worth debating and when.

You chide visible unity like it is a bad thing. I’m sure Jesus thought the same thing in his priestly prayer in John 17. Now I don’t suggest that this can happen in all places or all the time, and some issues are worth dividing over for the sake of scriptural integrity. But the point is that some issues are not worth dividing over nor do all differences need to be addressed at all times. Sometimes the setting is not right and sometimes the debate is not worth it at an inappropriate time.

I wasn’t chiding visible unity (which is why I used “some sort of” as a qualifier). If our unity is in danger due to our differences in understanding and disagreements over matters of theological nuances. Thankfully, our true, visible unity is not in danger over such things. Which is why, though I disagree with their soteriology and “order” of worship, I call my Christian Church/Church of Christ brethren “brothers and sisters in Christ.” But, that won’t keep me from disagreeing on these issues when the subjects come up (or explaining why I avoid my old church when in Ohio – instead worshiping with the believers at my parents church – with whom I also disagree on soteriology).

Also, I wasn’t denying that theological inconsistencies are real. I know they are. What I was asking about is the existence of theological inconsistencies that do not make a difference. I just happen to think that all theological inconsistencies do make a difference.

Time and place, though, I get that and agree.

Whoops, the second sentence should read:

If our unity is in danger due to our differences in understanding and disagreements over matters of theological nuances, that is a poor unity indeed..

I got lost in thought, there.

Ray,
A thought on your question “Is it showing love to allow a brother or sister to continue in error (even if minor) out of respect for (or fear of loss of) some sort of visible unity? ”

1Corinthians chapter 8 seems to answer this question with a “yes”. The “weak” brothers were, according to Paul, in error thinking that it was wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols. And yet the “strong” are told to defer to their misunderstanding in order not to cause a stumbling block for them.

Having said that, I suppose a stumbling block isn’t the same as a unity issue, but the chapter in question does seem to emphasise unity as an ideal.

Thoughts?
Saskia

Well, I’ll start by saying I think you are misreading 1 Cor. 8 if you think it says that the stronger brother advocates eating food sacrificed to idols. The text doesn’t say that.

It does say, “For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple…” but Paul does not say that the food the stronger brother is eating is a food sacrifice to the idol.

Secondly, the weaker brother’s error is NOT that eating food sacrificed to idols is wrong. The weaker brother’s error is his understanding of the nature of idols. The stronger brother, here, is marked by his knowledge that the idols are empty and the parthenon of gods does not exist. The weaker brother, because of his experience, does not yet have that knowledge – so when it comes to eating the meat sacrificed to idols, he understands a real sacrifice to a real, evil “god.”

Finally, Paul never says anything about correcting or not correcting the brother’s error. He never says anything like “just let him believe that crap, its such a minor thing.” He only addresses that while the brother’s understanding is weak to be careful not to tempt him to act against his conscience (in this case, towards committing idolatry).

So, there is no deference to the error, there is an avoidance of furthering the error.

Matthew Henry on this passage:

But the apostle cautions against putting a stumbling-block in the way of the weak; lest they be made bold to eat what was offered to the idol, not as common food, but as a sacrifice, and thereby be guilty of idolatry. He who has the Spirit of Christ in him, will love those whom Christ loved so as to die for them. Injuries done to Christians, are done to Christ; but most of all, the entangling them in guilt: wounding their consciences, is wounding him.