Parchment and Pen » The Theological Serenity Prayer

The Theological Serenity Prayer

The more I study and discuss theology, the more I realize that passionate discussions concerning diversities of positions can quickly grow into the necessity of proving the point regardless of the discussion’s redemptive value. When disagreements abound, I am increasingly asking the question of how significant it is and is it worth proving the point. This of course is gauged by what is essential vs. non-essential, as Michael’s post here describes. As I seek to gain discernment regarding picking my battles, I thought of adopting this modification of the Serenity Prayer as a guide in theological discussions

Lord, grant me the serenity to humbly accept the theological inconsistencies that do not make a difference

The courage to graciously challenge the ones that do

And the wisdom and knowledge to know the difference

Let’s learn to pick our battles folks. Like Kenny Rogers said, “you gotta know when to hold em, and know when to fold em”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

16 Responses to “The Theological Serenity Prayer”

Leslie on 16 Jan 2010 at 8:34 am #

In Jesus’ Name. Amen.
Kevin May on 16 Jan 2010 at 11:06 am #

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)
Kevin May on 16 Jan 2010 at 1:09 pm #

Forgive me Lisa….I saw this blog on Michael’s Facebook and assumed he had posted it.
Leslie on 16 Jan 2010 at 1:17 pm #

@Kevin: May I humbly suggest you read Michael’s post on Essentials vs Non-Essentials (that Lisa mentions)!
Lisa Robinson on 16 Jan 2010 at 1:29 pm #

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.
C Michael Patton on 16 Jan 2010 at 3:05 pm #

Great stuff Lisa!
Kevin May on 16 Jan 2010 at 5:31 pm #

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
Lisa Robinson on 16 Jan 2010 at 6:11 pm #

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.
Hodge on 16 Jan 2010 at 7:06 pm #

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.
Kevin May on 16 Jan 2010 at 7:44 pm #

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.
Kevin May on 16 Jan 2010 at 8:00 pm #

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.
Lisa Robinson on 16 Jan 2010 at 8:35 pm #

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.
Hodge on 16 Jan 2010 at 10:45 pm #

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.
Kim E. Williams on 17 Jan 2010 at 10:24 am #

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.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Jan 2010 at 6:15 pm #

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.
Doug Mangum on 19 Jan 2010 at 7:48 pm #

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.