Processes of discernment
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
On the mysticism thread I wondered aloud about starting a new thread on how we evaluate extra-biblical or non-biblical material.
This idea is related to the point @KarlLB eloquently raised that some biblical interpretations are 'bollocks.' Indeed they are. Dispensationalism for instance, which has been discussed recently.
I s'pose I'm wanting to broaden it out so as not to get bogged down in another sola scriptura versus scripture as part of Holy Tradition debate. As you'll know, I'm not a sola scriptura person but I do recognise that this isn't the same as solo scriptura and I have no wish to caricature anyone's position on this - be they Reformed, Lutheran or some other form of Protestant Christian.
@ChastMastr also opined on the mysticism thread that 'mystical' or 'occult' practices such as those referenced by @pablito1954 - seances and the like - aren't necessarily 'demonic'.
This leads me to consider how we evaluate such practices, not only when they are explicitly proscribed by scripture, but when there aren't specific 'proof-texts' as it were as ready-reckoners.
I've obviously got my own views on these things, through the lens of my adopted Orthodox Tradition and there will be considerable overlaps of course, between this and the views of Christians from other traditions - as well as divergence of opinion on some aspects.
Whether we evaluate things at the bar of scripture and Big T Tradition (as understood in various ways by Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism) or by our understanding of scripture according to our particular Protestant denominational framework (and we all wear glasses
) - how do we go about discerning what is kosher, neutral or to be avoided?
This idea is related to the point @KarlLB eloquently raised that some biblical interpretations are 'bollocks.' Indeed they are. Dispensationalism for instance, which has been discussed recently.
I s'pose I'm wanting to broaden it out so as not to get bogged down in another sola scriptura versus scripture as part of Holy Tradition debate. As you'll know, I'm not a sola scriptura person but I do recognise that this isn't the same as solo scriptura and I have no wish to caricature anyone's position on this - be they Reformed, Lutheran or some other form of Protestant Christian.
@ChastMastr also opined on the mysticism thread that 'mystical' or 'occult' practices such as those referenced by @pablito1954 - seances and the like - aren't necessarily 'demonic'.
This leads me to consider how we evaluate such practices, not only when they are explicitly proscribed by scripture, but when there aren't specific 'proof-texts' as it were as ready-reckoners.
I've obviously got my own views on these things, through the lens of my adopted Orthodox Tradition and there will be considerable overlaps of course, between this and the views of Christians from other traditions - as well as divergence of opinion on some aspects.
Whether we evaluate things at the bar of scripture and Big T Tradition (as understood in various ways by Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism) or by our understanding of scripture according to our particular Protestant denominational framework (and we all wear glasses
) - how do we go about discerning what is kosher, neutral or to be avoided?
Comments
Yes, I know it's not about scriptural interpretation as such but there are good principles embodied in the practice I'm sure.
I particularly like the corporate aspect and the use of open-ended and non-directive questions.
Much to admire and perhaps emulate there.
Christian tradition is human tradition too, of course. It didn't drop out of the sky ready formed.
People thrashed it out through discussion and debate.
I know you aren't saying otherwise.
I've not read The Abolition of Man. Perhaps I ought to read more Lewis.
Yeah. Specifically in the matters of sex.
I think it's a good idea to step back from the (mis)understanding that the Bible (and there are multiple canons to choose from) is the Word of God, as so many call it.
It is an interesting record of the changing ways in changing cultures that people responded to challenges to their lives and the very existence of their culture over centuries. It is a witness to people believing that at various times the (living) Word of God came to various people. (It is interesting that various religions believe they have the final revelation, and anything later is false)
Despite a reverence for the ancient stories, later writers saw the need to revise and reinterpret them, and also challenge and contradict them.
Such things can be found in the story of Ruth (whose acceptance into Israel is prohibited by Deuteronomy), the declaration of Isaiah about eunuchs and it's further development in Acts.
The literature styles of the Bible needs to be understood. Whereas the ancients seem to be conversant with symbolism and midrash, nowadays people have gone down the monkey trap of seeing it as literal/historical/biographical writings.
We need to decide which bits are no longer relevant; what lens to view the texts through; how what was once written reflects a significantly different culture and challenges from our own.
The stories of the transfiguration convey the understanding that what Jesus taught is more important than Torah, and the Prophets.
A radical reorientation is conveyed by the gospels saying that up to John the Baptist life was lived under Torah and The Prophets, but since then (John's death) it is the good news of The Kingdom of heaven that is being preached.
Matthew also illustrates this by presenting Jesus as the expected prophet greater than Moses, with Jesus giving the beatitudes himself on the mountain, and so being greater than Moses who only received the ten commandments from God.
And Jesus is then given to say that the whole of the Torah is contained in the commandment to love God and neighbour. That is the basic principle for me, and it's simple enough to be the guiding principle for anyone.
One of my professors said that as the bible does not speak with a single voice on any important matter, he used the life and teachings of Jesus as a canon within a canon.
That was a great help to me in the 70s.
I think I'll try not to be paranoid about it, but basically, just as I don't look at certain metaphysical things as an "everything goes" or "run screaming from anything that smacks of it" category, I'm a bit unusual in the gay community for holding a view of what same-sex intercourse is permitted to Christians that generally would be considered Side B, but not completely, largely depending on definitions of where the sexual "lines" are. It might be something like a Side C, or mostly B with a dash of A. (Some people might see it the other way around. I'm not sure.) I posted about it on the old Ship back in 2002, and it is still mostly accurate.
That's really all I was going to say about it here, and I didn't want to shanghai the thread into that specific area, much less automatically shunt it into Epiphanies (because of gay stuff). (Please carry on about the "discernment" topic in general. If there is a desire to talk about the gay stuff specifically, it would of course go in Epiphanies, but again I don't know if the basic notions would be permitted there.)
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_A,_Side_B,_Side_X,_Side_Y
My old thread: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001087;p=1
I s'pose I was thinking in more general terms as to what criteria we use and what steers or governs whatever processes we might use.
So, whilst agreeing with @LatchKeyKid that there are developments and shifts in emphasis throughout the scriptures (whichever canon we use and let's note that almost everyone is agreed on the NT canon), it does beg the question as to how we decide 'which bits are no longer relevant' - as he puts it.
My short answer would be that all of scripture is 'relevant' - insofar as it is useful for teaching, for doctrine and 'training in righteousness' to paraphrase 2 Timothy 3:16.
That doesn't mean that all of it 'applies' in a literal sense in terms of practice rather than principles as it were.
But how do we determine that? Individually? Collectively? In a collegial or conciliar way?
FWIW I have no issue in regarding the Hebrew and NT scriptures as the 'word of God' - providing we acknowledge Christ as the eternal logos and Living Word.
I don't see it necessary though to 'divide' Christ from the scriptures any more than we should divide Christ from the Church.
The scriptures aren't Christ though. Neither is the Church - although it is His Body of course, the fulness of Him who fills everything in every way.
We aren't to be bibliolators but neither are we to be 'church-iolators'.
But we need scripture and Tradition (as well as small t tradition of course), and Christ on and through the Church - as well as beyond it too.
We await the ultimate fulfilment of all things in Christ and 'see as in a glass darkly' - but we still see.
Yes, and this is why I love a good sermon and appreciate those who preach as they see much clearer than I do.
I agree with @LatchKeyKid completely. The people who wrote the Bible weren't intending to write a historical narrative. I also agree that the most important thing in Scripture is love of God and neighbour, and living by the golden rule. I have never met a Christian who doesn't interpret Scripture in some way, either from the tradition they belong to, or from their own wit. There isn't always a plain and obvious meaning. Many sentences in Koine Greek can be translated in several ways into a language like English, taking into account also that Greek wasn't even the language of Jesus and his disciples.
The whole question of original meaning, translation, and interpretation is such a minefield in many controversial passages that I don't think any of us can be bound by what a modern English Bible says.
I wouldn't bank on that... 😉
There are those who say it does and who would interpret particular verses to back up that assertion.
We could have an interesting Kerygmania discussion as to what references to 'the word of God' in the NT actually refer to.
What Christians almost always call the Ten Commandments are in Scripture and Hebrew tradition called “the ten words,” which is where we get the word Decalogue.
The way the (American Presbyterian) Confession of 1967 puts it resonates with me:
Which leads to . . .
Speaking only for myself, and not as some kind of representative for my tradition, I start with remembering that I made promises when I was ordained as a deacon and then as an elder that I receive the confessional standards of my denomination* “as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do,” and that I would be “instructed and led” and “continually guided” by those confessional standards. (Strict subscription is not expected to every jot and tittle, but rather to the “essential tenets” set forth in the confessions.)
So for me, thinking through an issue begins with both my own reading of Scripture and the confessions, and with reading and/or conversations with others who share a similar confessional approach. Which is not to say I’m not open to what I might learn from other Christian traditions; I definitely am. Semper reformanda (“always being reformed”), and all that. But that can mean adapting what I’ve learned to my own context.
And I share the assumption of my tradition that the Spirit’s voice and guidance is more likely to be heard by groups seeking that voice together than by any one individual (including, if not most especially, me). So I either participate in (if in a position to appropriately do so) or follow processes that seek discernment.
Those confessional standards are the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, the Scots Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the Theological Declaration of Barmen, the Confession of 1967, the Confession of Belhar, and the PC(USA)’s Brief Statement of Faith.
I only realised when it was pointed out on these boards that Phinehas who skewered the Israelite man and Midianite woman in flagrante is a Saint in the Orthodox Church.
My mind boggles as to how that might be depicted in an icon.
They probably just have a head and shoulders image of him looking suitably Old Testament but without showing that particular feat.
There will be various ways of 'dealing' with this sort of thing across the board from a fiercely fundamentalist approach to those that say, 'that was then, this is now' or else spiritualise or allegorise them, and all stations in between.
Where and how we position ourselves along that continuum is an interesting one. No easy answers.
His page on Wikipedia has an icon showing him in robes as a High Priesr
The thing about the Anglican 'trilateral' - scripture, reason and tradition - as you'll no doubt be aware, is that each 'leg' of the stool - it's often enlivened to a three-legged milking stool - can vary in length depending on who you are talking to.
They are all meant to be equally important but in practice it varies depending on which end of the Anglican spectrum we are talking about.
I think it's a helpful ready-reckoner though. As an Orthodox Christian I'd see all these elements contained within Holy Tradition - although that does need unpacking and discussion of course.
It's a fine balance but I wouldn't want to topple into a 'Patristic Fundamentalism' or 'Church Fundamentalism' when seeking to avoid biblical fundamentalism.
I think the old St Vincent Lerins thing 'that believed everywhere and by all' is a good principle but even that is subject to us agreeing what that might be.
The Orthodox do tend to be very conservative in these matters of course, but on a personal level I wouldn't rule out looking at feminist perspectives or liberation theology and so on but probably wouldn't take that as far as others on these boards nor liberal Protestantism more generally.
I might get some stick for that.
Whilst I am an Episcopalian I have a family history of Methodism so would add the Wesleyan fourth leg of Experience.
In my experience (ha ha, see what I did there?) it's the Big E leg that we have to exercise particular care with.
The experience side is, of course, both informed and balanced out by the others.
At the risk of flattening things out too much I'd also argue that our experience is also going to be governed to a certain extent by our tradition - as well as a whole range of other factors.
If we knock around in RC circles, say, then our experience will take on a Catholic tinge and tone.
If we rub shoulders with Pentecostals then some of their experience might rub off on us.
And so on and so forth.
That doesn't mean that God isn't involved or that he is bound and subject to tradition and so on - far from it - but I would posit that the Holy Spirit works in and through these things - whether it be a liturgical form or text, a hymn, song, sermon, biblical text, an icon or a piece of art, architecture or what people around us say or do.
That doesn't mean that God can't or doesn't reach us in some way by other means, of course.
God is God.
The wind bloweth where it listeth.
I think I said upthread that I appreciate that sola scriptura isn't the same as solo scriptura.
I'm not a sola scriptura person, obviously.
Whilst I don't subscribe to it myself it doesn't mean I disrespect those who hold to this position in some way.
If we approach the sola scriptura position on its own terms then of course it isn't incompatible with whatever schema of interpretation we may also apply - be it feminist approaches, liberation theology, Patristics, Reformed insights, Wesleyan insights or whatever else.
But ultimately someone has to decide on how or where these things are or aren't compatible or consonant with scripture.
You might do that in a different way to @Gramps49 or any other poster who comes at these things from a Protestant position - be it Big R Reformed, Lutheran, Wesleyan or whatever else.
Which us why we have debates and discussions.
However we cut it, though, we are approaching and interpreting scripture together and are looking for commonalities and overlaps rather than our own personal or illuminist interpretation if we have one.
I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise.
I'm simply pointing out that however we interpret scripture we approach it in the context of our own particular Christian traditions and environments. You've cited various confessional formularies that you refer to alongside scripture - the various Westminster and Helvitic confessions etc.
Fine. That's your context.
You would argue that these are thoroughly scriptural and worthy of acceptance. Others may agree or disagree. Who decides?
A voice isn't going to call out of the clouds and tell us - or at least, I'm not expecting that to happen. We have to thrash these things out in debate with reference to scripture and that's how traditions or Tradition are formed.
All I'm saying is that we all operate from within a particular context and set of interpretive principles. I'm not decrying anyone's particular approach or tradition, simply making that obvious point.
Heck, even within a sola scriptura position there are differences in understanding as to what it actually means in practice.
Your application of the concept may well differ very strongly from that of a biblical inerrantist or fundamentalist.
An Inerrantist might argue that it order to fit within a sola scriptura framework we have to be an Inerrantist also.
I doubt you would argue that.
Equally within what we might call Big T Tradition there are going to be differences of opinion as to what is commensurate with Tradition or not.
Heck, I took part in an online Orthodox Bible study the other day where a priest disagreed with one of the Church Fathers who didn't believe that a particular OT incident was a 'type' of Christ and agreed with one who did. There were different interpretations of the same passage, yet both are considered part of Tradition.
Ok. Nobody is going to Hell because they accept one or the other Patristic interpretation but it does illustrate that we all operate in an interpretive framework in relation to scripture.
That doesn't diminish its Primacy.
These are both/ands not either/ors.
I note that the Quaker guidance Doublethink linked to says: In relation to Nick Tamen's point, I'm reminded that God traditionally appears, on occasion, to have been quite comfortable speaking through individuals in preference to groups of formally recognised decision-makers.
Maybe this is a bit unfair, but putting it another way, the prospect of embarking on a "process" of discernment with a group of Christians who don't recognise a gift for discernment fills me with even less enthusiasm now than it did when I was involved in such things.
At the time, I wouldn't have described myself as a charismatic, but down in a noisy small valley...
Yes, we know. You really don’t need to write an essay on it every single time it comes up.
Oh, I don’t disagree at all. Perhaps it’s a difference of direction. The Spirit will certainly speak through whoever the Spirit will speak through. But when it comes to the church attempting to identify when and where the Spirit is speaking and leading, my tradition tends to think that more often than not we can have more confidence in what a group discerns than in what an individual discerns. But it’s not a guarantee. The group can get it all wrong.
But then, I come from a tradition that’s traditionally wary of any one person having too much say.
Apologies if it becomes wearing.
@Pease, the understanding in my neck of the woods is that the Holy Spirit works in and through these things- 'it seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit.'
So, no, I don't think anyone here is saying that the Holy Spirit isn't involved in these processes.
I imagine @Nick Tamen would say the same from within his particular context.
The Baptist idea of the 'church meeting' to collectively 'find the mind of Christ' on specific issues would be another example.
Whilst my own Tradition puts great emphasis on the collegial and conciliar, it doesn't dismiss the idea of groups 'getting it wrong' and having to be called back on track by rugged or prophetic individuals.
'Athanasius contra mundum.'
We see that many times in the Old Testament of course and there are New Testament examples - such as the Apostle Paul having to intervene when the Apostle Peter messed up (from a Pauline perspective).
We don't like to see too much power in the hands of any individual either, which is why (with due respect to our RC brothers and sisters), we don't have a Pope.
The danger with any 'charismatic' system of course is that we can end up giving too much credence to apparently gifted individuals.
Thar can happen in independent charismatic churches and in 'mainline' or historic Churches alike.
Within Orthodoxy there are often tensions between 'charismatic' individuals and the 'institutional element. There are parallels elsewhere too, of course.
I'm afraid this is where I resort to my 'both/and' mantra. We need scope for both the individual and the collective dimensions, the charismatic and the institutional.
These things don't always need to be in conflict or dichotomised one against the other.
He would indeed.
Which is not to deny @Gamma Gamaliel 's point about an unrestrained approach to Experience - and personally from a non-Wesleyan perspective I would really put Experience down as being part of Reason, though not the whole of it. From my perspective - especially from a mental health perspective - Experience needs tempering with things like empirical evidence. I believe @Heavenlyannie has spoken about mental health and discernment on these boards before. For me personally it tends to be issues around scrupulosity rather than impulsive behaviour, which can often seem like a more benign influence from outside particularly in a church context - so the additional oversight of the group is very necessary ime.
May inquire as to why collective processes and structures are needed? Doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose? Does this invite a kind of collective psychosis?
Just curious.
AFF
As you know, I definitely believe that the ultimate unit of both discernment and the life of the spirit is the individual. We can, however, usefully participate in collective structures, and inform our discernment through that participation.
Well I would say that anything that presents as mania or pride or personal exceptionalism would not pass for the movement of the Holy Spirit or submission to the yoke of Christ in that person's life. People who don't practice discernment, no matter how good their intentions are, can easily end up on the margins of sanity.
Usefully participating in collective structures as a way of informing our discernment sounds like a worthy undertaking but I'm not certain exactly how to go about that. Can you suggest a method?
AFF
All groups will have programmes for such things whether formally or informally - whether that be the Quaker model with a 'Meeting for Clearance' or the Ignatian 'examen' model or the 'spiritual companionship' or 'soul-friend' model found in various forms of contemplative prayer.
It all depends on where we are and how we swing, as it were.
I don't think anyone here is out to set out any particular 'prescriptive' method but however we cut it we all operate as individuals in community.
So it is axiomatic that we will adopt or adapt whatever 'means', methods or structures that operate within those communities - none of which are monolithic.
I don't think that crushes or obviates our individuality - although it can do in groups that are oppressive, domineering or toxic in some way.
Let's draw a parallel. In iconography, for instance, the artist operates within a very prescriptive and traditional framework but their own 'style' and personality still comes through in some way.
Yes, it's formulaic but the human and individual dimension remains.
The same, I hope, would be the case in whatever model, process or 'method' of discernment we operate within our respective faith communities.
Of course nobody is going to get it spot-on every time. A recipe doesn't always work out well even if we follow the instructions to the letter, but we can improve the results with practice and adaptation where necessary.
It's the 'where necessary' part where the discernment comes in.
From Robbie Burns:
Ouch. I guess?
AFF
For many people, myself included, we are naturally always on the margins of sanity regardless of how much discernment we practice. The tendency to mania or scrupulosity or whatever is simply naturally part of us regardless of how submissive we are to Christ's yoke in our lives - submission to Christ doesn't cure bipolar disorder or OCD, these are just things that we live with, often for our whole lives.
Thank you for this. I was waiting for someone with this range of experience to comment.
Physiology, endocrinology and neurology play such an enormous part in regulating what we experience as "real".
I was speaking on the experience of people who I have known who are like me, who to all intents and purposes do not struggle with such conditions as you describe, but who have engaged in spiritual practices which have brought them to the brink of mental and physical harm and past it.
The gnostic creation myth tells us of Sophia (wisdom) who was so enamoured of the Creator that when she glimpsed His image reflected in the face of the abyss, she sought to draw nearer to Him but was led further and further away into the encompassing darkness and was so lost that she gave birth to terror and confusion.
It's a cautionary tale.
AFF
I would also question the assumption that being on the margins of sanity is inherently bad. Liminal spaces of many kinds have traditionally been sacred places in many traditions and I think there is room in Christianity for learning something from them. I'm not suggesting that it's something to be deliberately induced, but that for some people there can be wisdom to be gained if they happen to end up there. I think taking a more neutral stance can make it a lot less scary and less daunting to seek help.
Delusions were mentioned earlier. I am probably one of the few people on this board who has experienced real delusions as an actual maniac, both mild forms such as the grandiosity of mania (which I experience regularly) and as a misunderstanding of reality (which thankfully is quite rare for me as it is scary). My experience of these is very different to when I have felt God speak to me (by speaking I don’t mean auditory, I don’t hear voices in my head in any of my mental states). Delusions occur when I am in a manic or anxious state when it is difficult to hear God through the rest of the noise. But hearing God is very different as it is comforting and reassuring. I often spend time talking and listening to God on my morning walk. God created me as I am and I believe my bipolar disorder is a gift from God that enables me to see his creation through different eyes so that I can bless others, particularly my students with mental illness. And I understand that that statement alone might make some people begin to question the margins of my sanity
As for discernment, those of us with mental illness sometimes have to trust in our own discernment, through prayer and the bible, because the world judges us by our mental illness. When I was diagnosed with manic depression in my late 20s, my GP kept referring me to the family planning clinic despite me telling him I was a celibate Christian, because all manics are supposedly promiscuous. When I developed post-covid tachycardia in 2020, I told a cardiologist that I was an ex-nurse lecturer and my symptoms were clearly an autonomic post-viral disorder. She diagnosed me with anxiety. If she had listened to me she would have had a very earlier journal paper describing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome as a post-covid complication. As it was I was left to diagnose and treat myself.
In some ways, having a mental illness which requires self-examination on a daily/hourly basis as part of self-management is helpful with discernment. As Pomona says, empirical evidence is needed to interpret the experience.
A couple of things occurred to me in response.
First a clarification. I don't subscribe to the kind of dualism that informs many types of gnosticism. If I remove ethical judgment from states of being like terror and confusion they can be seen for what they are - emotional states that confer upon me a range of experience. Perhaps unpleasant, but not inherently "good" or "evil".
Also. I am entirely in agreement with you about the Jungian model of consciousness. Though in my case it's not so much about my shadow, singular, as it is about my shadows. The nature and function of identity as it operates through me, and I through it, is a matter of ongoing resolution and reconciliation.
But most importantly, would it be possible to say that your ability to stand apart from the conditions that you operate within, as far as to be able to identify them and manage them through appropriate interventions, is a kind of discernment of its own?
AFF
I'm 'going out' or 'seeing' or 'dating' as the Americans would say, a woman with ME, which is rather like a post-viral disorder if I understand it correctly.
We are 'going steady' to use an old-fashioned term and are seeking to discern where the relationship may take us. We live in different parts of the country and are involved in different Christian traditions. Much to think about.
At the same time there are differences in terms of how we handle what I might call 'moods' and 'atmospheres'. She seems very sensitive to those and also can't always tell when I'm teasing or being ironic. She also has patches of 'brain-fog' as well as the chronic fatigue that is a feature of her condition.
Equally, I have behavioural patterns and approaches to things that she finds baffling.
We don't see any of these issues as potential deal-breakers but at the same time recognise that it is possible to misread situations as we approach things from different directions. That would be the case in any relationship of course, but I feel there's a more pressing need now for me to develop more empathy and to understand things from someone else's perspective.
I think the kind of 'tools' you describe are the sort of thing we all need to develop to some extent or other. I'm sure you use them to help others as well as managing your own mental health and well-being.