Reclaiming Adiaphora in the Postmodern Times

Delivered to Calvin Theological Seminary on May 6, 2004

Jung S. Rhee

Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Korean Ecclesiology

Fuller Theological Seminary

I feel greatly honored by being introduced by my teacher and mentor Dr. Plantinga, now President Plantinga. I am very pleased to be in my alma mater, my homecoming. And I am very glad to see you

This morning I like to lecture on the topic, as President Planting introduced, “Reclaiming adiaphora in the postmodern times”, maybe a little unusual topic for you.

On the next day of April fool’s day, I received a foolish but shocking email that President Plantinga converted to Roman Catholicism. It was shocking! Immediately I said, “No, it cannot be true.” But because I know the genius of Dr. Plantinga, anything could happen. So I called my friend and confirmed it was an April fool’s message. But something revolutionary can happen in Calvin Seminary as happened in the past.

In my seminary years, I had a great impact from several professors including then President the late John H. Kromminga. He came to one class, that class was Christian Reformed Church history class. And he could not lift his face to us and he said almost crying, “Forgive me. In my life I was a racist. I said only Christian reformed is the best denomination in the whole world. But I had to be a servant of Jesus Christ, not of the single denomination, or single tradition.” And that really moved me. It made a strongest impact on my life. It was really a theological conversion to me. After that, I decided to follow his advice to serve not a single denomination but to serve the universal church of Jesus Christ. Of course, I have denomination. I love CRC, but it is only a denomination. My absolute loyalty goes to Jesus Christ and the universal church, una ecclesia, one church. And John Kromminga wrote this book, All one body we. Whatever race we belong, whatever nation we belong, whatever denomination we belong, all one body we. He said: “To rush to recognize a disunity that Christ does not recognize is to fail to discern Christ Himself. For the conservative as for any other Christian, this is the ultimate failure of all.”[1]

Then, why una ecclesia is not realized in this world, continuing to be divided and keeping to be separated, actually no hope to be united into one church as the apostolic times? Why? G. C. Berkouwer diagnosed like this: “One particular form of this danger is the habit of placing the division in the light of eschaton: Only then will unity be realized. All such ‘eschatological’ consideration can give rise to a form of defeatism, characterized by forbearance, resignation and immobility, that is not willing to seek for unity with all its power.”[2] We give up unity in the present world. Therefore he pointed out that “the call to unity is not an eschatological plus; it rather points to unity in the present.”[3] Of course in the future, in the eschaton, the unity will be realized, but that is not the purpose to be commanded for the unity to us. The purpose was unity to be achieved in the present, not in the eschaton. Such unity is the grace of God, not our effort or our obedience.

Then, how can we achieve the unity and restore the pre-division church of the apostolic times? This time my thesis is that by reclaiming and restoring the lost system of adiaphora we can achieve the unity even in the present world.

And then, does the Bible teach adiaphora? Jesus Christ is the model of Christian freedom for us. He was free from his contemporary religious custom and legalistic observance of the law, taboos, and Pharisaic legalism. As we see in his Sabbath observance, he was free from all these legalistic practices. He declared that the fulfillment of law is love, not legalistic practice to be continued. “Man is not for Sabbath, but the Sabbath is for man.” It was his strong proposition. He was so free to be persecuted by the legalistic Pharisees and even to be executed by the legalistic system of Judaism. But by his death, he freed everybody from the bondage of the law and legalistic practices.

Paul really introduced adiaphora principle and made it the basic system of the Christian life and Christian freedom. James Jacquette wrote a treatise entitled Discerning What Counts: The Function of Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters. And there he said that Paul was influenced by the Stoic idea of adiaphora.[4] But, Paul’s idea of adiaphora was not Stoic. He never used the term adiaphora. Paul’s idea came from Jesus Christ that he saved and liberated sinners from the bondage of sin, law, death and Satan for the restoration of freedom in Christ by the Holy Spirit. So his understanding of salvation as spiritual liberation was the base of his adiaphora concept. As God is not limited or regulated by anything except genuine love, His children may not be subjected by anything or under any regulation except love, which is the fulfillment of the law.

So in Romans 14, Paul declared that all things are lawful. Only love may be required. In the I Cor 6.12, he said that everything is possible, even though not everything is beneficial or virtuous. So, love is the supreme law, and everything else is possible, if it is kept by the principle of love. Especially, Judaistic legalism and legalistic practices such as food, drinking, eating, or days, festivals, rituals, circumcision were all emphatically adiaphorized. Also, any human division like race, gender, and any sinful division were neutralized and equalized. So, that’s the revolutionary system of adiaphora, as we see in the Pauline theology.

But it made some problem in the early church. Because the other apostles could not agree with his so free adiaphora thinking, that conflict caused to call Jerusalem council. And Jerusalem council was the official acceptance of adiaphora and the official introduction of adiaphora system into the Christianity. Jewish Christians could not agree that being Christian without circumcision or following Jewish practices and cultures. But following Paul’s objection and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church unanimously decided that Christianity is not culturally monolithic. So cultural diversity was officially accepted. And this adiaphora system really kept the apostolic church in unity from division. In the early churches, like Corinthian, Colossian and many other churches, there were great differences, many conflicts within the churches. But still they kept the unity. How? By embracing the diversity, adiaphora except the essential Christian faith. So, without adiaphora system the early church could not keep the unity much longer. So, cultural adiaphora, liturgical adiaphora, theological adiaphora, all were accepted if it was not essential belief. So there was a good bunch of Christian freedom in the early church.

And then, how was it lost? In the early church, the adiaphora system polluted some practices. And lot of diversity and even pluralistic phenomena appeared. Problems came especially from some heretics like Marcionism or Montanism, and their spiritual rigorism. They regulated everything in the name of new revelation. So, adiaphora area, that realm became gradually made disappeared, so that decreased. So, everything became regulation. The freedom that Christ Jesus gave was again lost. So church dominated, sect dominated, sectarianism and heretics they dominated. They regulated every area of life. So freedom was only a name. That spiritual rigorism made problem in this adiaphora system. And Tertullian in 3^rd century followed this spiritual rigorism. And he said something we call ‘negative Scriptural principle’. That means what is not clearly permitted in the Scripture are all prohibited. So, if it is not clearly permitted in the Scripture, you cannot do that. So, very negative Scriptural principle.

But the real problem in adiaphora came from Roman Catholicism. The Church of Rome became rich and powerful as the Emperor Constantine made Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. So in the Roman Church, Emperor came as well as generals, rich people, powerful people, all came to the Church of Rome. The bishop of Rome became to feel so superior so very strong. So he became proud, and insisted the superiority of the Roman bishop over all other bishops in the global churches. So thereby the equality of the church was destroyed. Of course, not all churches subjected themselves under the Roman bishop. But the Roman church enforced that wrong idea and made the local church, the Church of Rome the universal church, i.e., the catholic church. So, that contradictory behavior caused the first division of the church. Thereafter, many churches were divided because adiaphora was not tolerated and adiaphora system was not kept. Only the Roman system must be followed by any church in the world. In the Roman Catholicism, Latin system dominated. So, any church in the world must use Latin language, Roman language. And every priest must wear the Roman garb, and every church must sing Roman song. So many Christians, in the middle age, had to hear unknown language, strange culture in the church. Of course, the Church of Rome and the churches of Italy enjoyed their superiority, but the other churches, the other nations suffered the Roman Catholic mono-culturalism. It was the destruction of the decision of the Jerusalem council, thereby destroyed the unity of the church. They excluded cultural adiaphora and regulated everything as they like by centering in their own culture. That was the permanent problem to the church even today. After Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church tries to overcome mono-culturalism, but still structurally that dominates.

In the Reformation, the Reformers tried to restore the adiaphora system in the Christianity. But some radical Reformers like Carlstadt rejected adiaphora and Christian freedom. He tried to regulate everything. So, that made to arise very severe adiaphora controversy in the 16^th century. Also Anabaptists tried to regulate the baptism and many other practices by the church authority.

But later, the bigger movements like Pietism and Puritanism legalized the Protestant practices. They robbed the Christian freedom. They regulated everything as they like following their own culture and imposed their principle and their cultural decision to everybody else. So, the practice regulated by the English people came to America, and even it came to Korea and imposed all those regulations. But we don’t know why. You must not drink. You must not drink wine.

When I came here 25 years ago and in my first dies natalis party, after service we came to cafeteria. And I found lot of cups. I thought it was juice and I drank. But it was strange thing, it was wine. That is a great sin in the Korean church, but I drank already. And some professors invited me to their home and gave me wine. Because that was what my teacher gave me, I must drink. That’s the Confucian system. I cannot reject it, but it was sin. The Scripture did not say that. Jesus Christ even did not say that. Paul did not say that. But the Puritanism, some movements, some regulations came throughout the world. That Pietism and Puritanism, of course, they were quite pure and pious but spiritual pride and superiority complex condemned the fellow Christians. That was a really great problem. Jesus gave us freedom, but they robbed freedom. They regulated everything. Of course, we can regulate our own life according to our own conscience. Church may not regulate. The others may not regulate. As Romans 14 says, we can regulate our own practice in the adiaphora area according to our own conscience before God.

And some amusement controversy made a lot of problem even in the Christian Reformed tradition. Sunday and the Lord’s Day keeping was regulated by many many regulations. When I came here at that time I heard that somebody mowed his lawn on Sunday and he was disciplined.

And Pietists and especially Puritans hated ‘enjoyment’ when they eat some food. They ate it simply for nutrition to be strong. But Calvin said like this. I will quote from his Institutes: “Has the Lord clothed the flowers with the great beauty that greets our eyes, the sweetness of smell that is wafted upon our nostrils, and yet will it be unlawful for our eyes to be affected by that beauty, or our sense of smell by the sweetness of that odor? What? Did he not so distinguish colors as to make some more lovely than others? What” Did he not endow gold and silver, ivory and marble, with a loveliness that renders them more precious than other metals or stones? Did he not, in short, tender many things attractive to us, apart from their necessary use? Away, then, with that inhuman philosophy which, while conceding only a necessary use of creatures, not only malignantly deprives us of the lawful fruit of God’s beneficence but cannot be practiced unless it robs a man of all his senses and degrades him to a block.”[5] So, Calvin is saying that if we eat some food without enjoying taste is not gratitude. But Puritans tried to ignore some taste. There is some kind of asceticism is in the Puritan practice.

And another occasion was the birth of sectarianism, denominationalism and confessionalism. For ecumenical creeds are short and essential, but after the Reformation when the lot of sectarian and denomination happened they made confession longer and longer and longer. Some confession is a one book. It touches every subject and every topic. They regulated everything. So there was no possibility of any personal freedom and no personal freedom of conscience is left. So, confessionalists regulated everything for the sake of their own sectarian unity in the sacrifice of the universal church unity. So, long confession, confessions were continuously expanded and appended, accumulated and piled up. So in the confessionalism there is no place for adiaphora.

Abraham Kuyper expressed the wish that a confession would pronounce only “what was settled and sealed with the blood of martyrs.”[6] Lets make a small confession. But, Berkouwer raised question on it and defended for longer confession. For confession must not be only quantitatively but qualitatively good. It must not be atomistic but it must be organic.[7] But such word is in some sense totalitarian defense of every confession. And if every confession insist organic wholeness, totality and regulates everything. But, there is not only one confession but many many confessions which contradict each other. And then, the unity of the church is hopeless and the sectarian system will be solidified and the division will be permanent. For the adiaphora, the best thing the confession can do for the members of denomination or that part of the church is a recommendation and guidance, but even that could be harmful for the spiritual growth or maturity for the church. What must overcome is its own limitation, and they must try fellowship with the other branches of the churches. Professor John Bolt in his Christian and Reformed Today said that “Christian Reformed people are Christian first and Reformed second”,[8] but sometimes reformed first and Christian second but it must not happen.

And theology, if it becomes an ideology to make denomination stronger and defend its own denomination against the other denominations, it becomes a great danger to the universal church. Liberalism and fundamentalism, both of them ideologized theology and even religious pluralism, though it looks quite tolerable, in essence it is an ideology. Also, political secularization and collective egoism made a problem in the adiaphora system. Because it is all self-centered and therefore ideological

And my next question is then, how we could restore adiaphora system and then the unity of the church. First, I like to think about John Calvin on adiaphora. He said adiaphora is very very important. In his Institutes III.xix.7, he said: “This matters [adiaphora] are more important than it is commonly believed.”[9] For Christian freedom is very important to understand Christianity: “Unless this Christian freedom be comprehended, neither Christ nor gospel truth, nor inner peace of soul, can be rightly known.”[10] So, he declares. If everything is regulated and actually no freedom exists, that’s not the right comprehension of Christianity: “And the knowledge of this freedom [adiaphora] is very necessary for us, for if it is lacking, our conscience will have no repose and there will be no end to superstitions.”[11] And Calvin understood that Paul actually subjected all outward things under adiaphora: “With these words Paul subjects all outward things to our freedom, provided our minds are assured that the basis for such freedom stands before God.”[12] Not only something but all things under adiaphora and under our freedom of conscience. If we love God and we love our neighbor, everything is possible. Each individual Christian can decide and choose his own practice following his own conscience, clean conscience before God. Of course, as a community, we can discuss and make regulation but it is only provisional and temporary. And that’s only a guidance. We cannot condemn if somebody violate our regulation. We church has no such authority, I believe. Paul says in Titus 1.15: “To the clean all things are clean but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is clean.”

Thomas Watson Street wrote dissertation on the subject John Calvin on adiaphora, saying that “he[Calvin] is revealed by his doctrine of adiaphora as an apostle of liberty to an extent seldom recognized.”[13] So, it made him the apostle of liberty. Calvin really tried to restore the apostolic adiaphora system in the Christianity as the Reformed church. Martin Luther also had this thinking but he limited to something. Only something belongs to adiaphora, not everything. But Calvin, except essential beliefs, everything is adiaphora.

Jane Dempsey Douglas in her Princeton Warfield Lecture said that “Calvin takes a broader view than others of what should be considered among the adiaphora and does thereby a fresh contribution to the question.”[14] Calvin even in the choice of day for congregational worship exercised freedom. He said in the Institutes that Sunday may not be. We can worship in the other day than Sunday if the situation demands so. Therefore, he did not insist Sunday in any situation. That’s a revolutionary comment. And it reveals how Calvin thought about adiaphora.

And also in woman issue, Calvin was quite free. Woman issue was even adiaphora, he thought. I quote from the Institutes: “Is religion placed in a woman’s shawl, so that it is sinful for her to go out with a bare head? Is that decree of Paul’s concerning silence [i.e. in church] so holy that it cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? … Not at all. For if a woman needs such haste to help a neighbor that she cannot stop to cover her head, she commits no fault if she runs to her with head uncovered. And there is a place where it is no less proper for her to speak than elsewhere to remain silent.”[15] So, he was quite free. Not only Sunday observance or woman issue, he applied adiaphora principle also to many other issues. So, he claimed ecclesia semper reformanda: the church must be renewed and reformed always and continuously.

Karl Barth said that all church laws are human law (ius humanum), not divine law (ius divinum).[16] For “No church order is perfect, for none has fallen directly from heaven.”[17] All church laws are provisional and transitional. Therefore, it must be always opened for the new ordering of the Lord. So, it cannot be in the status of the Scripture. It is only provisional for the sake of the church only in that context in that time. So, it can and must be revised continuously fitting for her own context. No church law is “universally valid for the Christian community at all times and in all places.”[18] Therefore, it “must always be improved and reformed,” i.e. ecclesia semper reformanda.[19]

Next for the restoration of adiaphora, we must be faithful to the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura honestly. In the last 500 years after the Reformation, Protestant churches piled up regulations, so now everything is regulated. So nothing for personal freedom is left. So, again the reformation situation of the Roman Catholic Church, only differently regulated, but everything is regulated. No actual freedom is left. The essence of sola Scriptura faith is tota Scriptura, as the late professor Fred H. Klooster so emphasized. Not only one part but every part, even something we don’t like we must accept as divine. The Scripture includes multiple traditions and diversity. In my fundamentalist time I wondered why God gave four Gospels. It’s a headache! If he gave only one Gospel, it could be simple and strict. But when I came to Calvin Seminary, Professor Van Elderen gave lot of times to find out the differences between synoptic gospels. Why different? What is the meaning of difference? Yes, that is really meaning effort. Because they are different, the existence of several gospels has great meaning. If they are not different, it’s a waster of paper.

In the early church, there were several gospel traditions in the church. Some church favored this gospel and the other church favored the other gospel. There were many gospels. A lot of people tried to write the biography of Jesus Christ, his teaching and life. But the church could accept only a few, only four gospels. Outside of the realm the church could not accept. The church lined up some acceptable boundary. Within the boundary there were several traditions and they were all accepted. So, the sola Scriptura faith, our belief in the Scripture is the confession of acceptance of the other traditions as much as tolerable and acceptable by the faith in Jesus Christ. Romans and James seem contradictory and in fact literally contradictory, but the church accepted both Romans and James. While Martin Luther accepted only one and disposed the other, we accept both. That’s very meaningful. Professor Bandstra had a great explanation why Romans and James are not contradictory, in terms of Sitz in Leben. Yes, that’s the strength of Christianity. We accept not only one tradition but multiple traditions as much as we can accept. Of course there is a limit, but within the limit everybody can enjoy their freedom and their heritage. So that’s the Christianity. But sectarianism and denominationalism limit only one tradition. Only one practice is Christian, the other non-Christian and it is condemned. That’s not real Christianity.

Finally, we have to overcome denominationalism and sectarianism. That’s important. Don’t be proud of your own denomination or your national church or your heritage. That’s a superiority complex. Some Korean churches say that Korean church is the center of the world Christianity. The center was first Jerusalem, and then Rome and England and America and now it moved to Korea. Many Korean people welcome that logic, because it is a self-glorification. We are proud of it But don’t be proud of it, over-proud. Likewise, denominational colonialism is a bad thing. Why Korean churches should suffer from the western separation and hostility? That’s a sad thing. First American missionaries came to Korea and tried to organized a church. They altogether met, American missionaries from Northern Presbyterian church, Southern Presbyterian church, Methodist church and Baptist church, they all gathered together and prayed and decided: Lets build only one church in Korea, not colonializing. Let’s not make our own branch, lets make only one Korean Protestant church and make them to start fresh, not continuing our fight. It was a great decision, wonderful decision, but it was not realized because American denominational headquarters did not agree. So we happened to carry the useless burden. I always thank CRC because Christian Reformed Church did not make branch in Korea. Because we have a lot of Korean alumni, if CRC wanted, we could make Korean colony. But you did not. Wonderful Christian Reformed Church!

John Stott said: “Lets drown our doctrinal differences in the ocean of brotherly love!”[20] He quoted 17^th century theologian Rupertus Meldenius’ famous saying: “In Essential, Unity; In Non-Essentials, Liberty; and in All Things, Charity.”

I will conclude my lecture. We have to purify the church from any ideology, theology or tradition. I don’t like to put some middle name in the church:

some Baptist church, some Presbyterian church. Why Baptist or Presbyterian? That trademark must not be in the name of the church of Jesus Christ. Who authorized that? The Lord of church authorized to put that middle name in the middle of the church name? I don’t think so. And, by whose authority? By whose ownership? So, I hope all the churches in the world delete middle name.

Also, we have to expand adiaphora and shorten our regulations. We have to expand our adiaphora. Too long confessions are not appreciated. As G. W. Luetkehoelter said, “Whenever anything foreign tries to enter the ‘esse’ area, the church must sneeze, and expel the offensive intruder.”[21]

Finally, this is the postmodern times. We are talking about post-denominational era. Maybe the church will go in that way. I don’t know. Not to be ashamed by this trend church must be alerted and awakened. And church should obey Jesus’ command to be one, to be reunited. And Paul’s earnest admonition to be reunited for the glory of God. And more than anything else, Jesus is coming, Parousia is approaching, and then all churches will be one. Then, all denominations and all divisions will be ashamed. Before that, if we voluntarily try to unite, we will be awarded and Jesus Christ the Lord of the church will be pleased.

Thank you.

[1] John H. Kromminga, all one body we: The Doctrine of the Church in Ecumenical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 211.

[2] G. C. Berkouwer, The Church, trans. James E. Davidson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 35.

[4] James L. Jaquette, Discerning What Counts: The Function of the Adiaphora Topos in Pauls’s Letters, SBL Dissertation Series 146 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 207. “This study… also sheds light upon Paul’s adoption and adaptation of a Greco-Roman moral topos to shape his pastoral protrepsis.” He identifies the purpose but differentiates the reason of this use: “Paul’s identification of indifferent matters often serves the same purposes as those of the [Stoic] philosophers but not for the same reasons.”(199)

[6] Abraham Kuyper, Voorrede van de Verklaring van de N.B.G. van Ds. A. Rotterdam, I, 1890. xiv. Quoted in Berkouwer, 280.

[8] John Bolt, Christian and Reformed Today (Jordan Station, Ontario: Paideia Press, 1984), 11.

[13] Thomas Watson Street, John Calvin on Adiaphora: An Exposition and Appraisal of His Theory and Practice, Th.D. dissertation (New York: Union Theological Seminary, 1954), 320.

[14] Jane Dempsey Douglass, “Christian Freedom in Calvin’s Theology: The Foundation and Significance of Christian Freedom”, Warfield Lecture, Spring 1983, The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 4(1983): 74.

[20] “Rev. Dr. John Scott at St John’s, Vancouver Commissioning of New Vancouver Region Essentials Committee 16 October 1998 ‘On Essentials’.”

[21] G. W. Luetkehoelter, “Adiaphora”, Consensus 12(1986): 131.