Adiaphoron (/ædɪˈæfərɒn,ædiˈæfərɒn/;[1][2] plural:adiaphora; from theGreekἀδιάφορον (pl.ἀδιάφορα), meaning 'not different or differentiable')[3] is the negation ofδιαφοράdiaphora, 'difference'.
| Part ofa series on |
| Pyrrhonism |
|---|
 |
Similar philosophies |
Modern influence |
 Philosophy portal |
InCynicism, adiaphora represents indifference to thevicissitudes of life throughascetic practices which help one become free from influences – such as wealth, fame, and power – that have no value in nature.[citation needed] Examples includeDiogenes' practice of living in a tub and walking barefoot in winter.[citation needed]
Similarly, theStoics distinguish all the objects of human pursuit into three classes: good, bad, and adiaphora (indifferent).Virtue,wisdom,justice,temperance, and the like, are denominatedgood; their opposites were bad. Besides these there are many other objects of pursuit such aswealth,fame, etc., of themselves neither good nor bad. These are thought therefore inethics to occupy neutral territory, and are denominated "adiaphora". This distinction amounts practically to an exclusion of the adiaphora from the field ofmorals.[4] In the context of Stoicism adiaphora is usually translated as "indifference".[citation needed]
Unlike in Stoicism and Cynicism, InPyrrhonismadiaphora has no specific connection to morality, but indicates things that cannot be logically differentiated,[5] while Aristotle uses "adiaphora" to mean "undifferentiated by a logicalδιαφορά/differentia."
InChristianity, adiaphora are matters not regarded as essential tofaith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed by the church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specifictheology in view.
The issue of what constitutedadiaphora became a major dispute during theProtestant Reformation. In 1548, two years after the death ofMartin Luther, theHoly Roman Emperor Charles V tried to unite Catholics and Protestants in his realm with a law called theAugsburg Interim. This was rejected byPhilipp Melanchthon, because it did not ensurejustification by faith as a fundamental doctrine. Later he was persuaded to accept a compromise known as theLeipzig Interim, deciding that doctrinal differences not related to justification by faith wereadiaphora or matters not essential for salvation. Melanchthon's compromise was vehemently opposed byMatthias Flacius and his followers inMagdeburg, who went to the opposite extreme by claiming thatadiaphora cease to be such in a case of scandal and confession. By 1576, both extremes were rejected by the majority ofLutherans led byMartin Chemnitz and the formulators of theFormula of Concord.
In 1577, the Formula of Concord was crafted to settle the question of the nature of genuineadiaphora, which it defined as church rites that are "neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God."[6] However, the Formula added believers should not yield even in matters ofadiaphora[example needed] when these are being forced upon them by the "enemies of God's Word."[7]
The LutheranAugsburg Confession states that true unity of the Church is enough to allow for agreement, concerning the doctrine of theGospel and administration of theSacraments. It also posits that merely human traditions, namely extrabiblical rites or ceremonies, need not be the same across all congregations.
 | This articlepossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(September 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
TheWestminster Confession of Faith distinguishes between elements or acts ofworship (worship proper) and the circumstances of worship. The elements of worship must be limited to what has positive warrant in Scripture, a doctrine known as theregulative principle of worship. In this framework, the elements of worship have included praise (the words and manner of music), prayer, preaching and teaching from the Bible, the taking of vows, and the two sacraments ofbaptism and theLord’s Supper, while the circumstances of worship have included the building and its necessary furniture and the time of day for worship.
The circumstances of worship are considered adiaphora, although they must be done for edification and to promote peace and order (compare1 Corinthians 14:26–33;Romans 14:19). According to the Westminster Confession 20.2,[8] the conscience is left free in general belief and behavior within the realm of whatever is not "contrary to the Word. However, specifically concerning worship and religious faith, the conscience is free from whatever is "besides" Scripture; that is, one is free to worship and believe only according to whatever has positive warrant in Scripture.
Presbyterians who have subscribed to the Westminster Confession, for instance, sometimes considered the questions ofmusical instruments and of the singing ofhymns (as opposed toexclusive psalmody) not drawn directly from the Bible as related to the elements of worship, as not optional circumstances. Thus, they rejected musical instruments and hymns because they believed these were neither commanded by Scripture, nor deduced by good and necessary consequence from it.[9][10][11] However, adherence to such a position is rare among modern Presbyterians.
The Puritan position on worship is thus in line with the common saying regarding adiaphora: "In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity."
Latitudinarianism was initially a pejorative term applied to a group of 17th-century English theologians who believed in conforming to officialChurch of England practices, but who felt that matters ofdoctrine,liturgical practice, andecclesiastical organization were of relatively little importance. Good examples of the latitudinarian philosophy were found among theCambridge Platonists. The latitudinarian Anglicans of that period built onRichard Hooker's position inOf the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, which states God cares about the moral state of the individual soul and that matters such as church leadership are "things indifferent". However, they took the position far beyond Hooker's own and extended it to doctrinal matters.
