This is the first post of what aims to be a weekly series.
Three years ago around this same time I was in Eugene finishing up my final year at the University of Oregon. Since my final two required courses I needed for my communication studies minor weren’t offered until the spring, I was spending the winter term taking a couple electives from Dr. Daniel Falk. One was Early Christian Religion and the other was Dead Sea Sectarian, an area of expertise for Falk.
In both classes we were required to write 10-12 page research papers and the topics were relatively open-ended. For an English major who was used to one or two prompts to choose from for a 4-5 page argumentative essay, finding a topic was a bit of a challenge. However, after reading the Community Rule from the Dead Sea Scrolls, something caught my eye:
“And when these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of unjust men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of Him; as it is written, ‘Prepare in the wilderness the way of … make straight in the desert a path for our God,’ [Isa. 40:3]. This (path) is the study of the Law which He commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, and as the Prophets have revealed by His Holy Spirit.” – Column VIII, lines 14-17 (about)[1]
Recognize anything – particularly from Isaiah? This same exact verse is found in the Gospels: Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:2-3; Luke 3:4; and John 1:23 (John’s own version, of course). However, the Gospels obviously interpret this verse differently. Instead of beginning a new community out in the wilderness, it is John who is already in the wilderness “crying out.” And instead of launching God’s movement through a stronger devotion to the Sinaitic Law (“by the hand of Moses”), it was announcing the arrival of Jesus, the Christ.
Such a slight variation in interpretation is a prime example of what’s called “nuance.” Regular readers of Near Emmaus probably know this word quite well, but for the newcomers (kind of like myself), its literal definition is “a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.”[2] This particular nuance in utilizing Isaiah 40:3, the focal point for both my research papers that winter term, was what really piqued my interest in the academic side of seminary – and in the world of biblical literature beyond the Bible. Barely over one semester into George Fox, I find myself fully immersed into that academic world.
Yet, and I imagine many have similar stories from their respective seminaries, I have also found nuances in the spiritual side of life here. Hearing all the stories I have from my classmates, I often find myself amazed at the diversity of life experiences that brought everyone here. Many of them similar; not quite satisfied with the “real world,” so trying their hand at something more fulfilling to them. And yet there is such rich flavor in their various ways of perceiving their world.
I mentioned something along these lines in my reflection over fall term at George Fox; that my perspective isn’t yours and that our real challenge in the midst of such diversity is to find the beauty in each other’s point of view, each other’s nuance. Whether it be the text of Scripture or our own personal stories, the power of nuance – of a slight, subtle difference in expression – speaks volumes to the expanse (and complexity) of our God. And what’s driving my studies through my second semester (coincidentally enough with two 10-12 page research papers, also) is every little nuance I find. They’re kind of like breadcrumbs.
Tomorrow I’ll share a few notes from my class’ discussion of Paul and the nuances in the way he uses “law.” I’ve already begun that series over on my own blog, but I’ll share that post here as well.
What are some nuances you’ve discovered in your own studies? Your community? How have they guided your life?
[1] Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin Classics, 2004), 109
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuance?s=t (emphasis mine)
the archives near Emmaus 
@Jeremy: Welcome! Nuance is important to recognize, indeed. All too often people disagree over shades rather than actual variations. This is especially important to recognize in a seminary setting.
That said, sometimes the differences become very real. While I know answering this question may depend solely on the subject being discussed I wonder how you might differentiate nuance from disagreement. (For example, it could be argued that in many ways Calvinist and Arminian Protestants agrees that it is God who must act first, that we don’t save ourselves, that we respond in grace, that those who are saved are elect, that God foreknows these people, but then at some point the differences appear and the nuances fade to the point where there is a real disagreement.)
Interesting post, Jeremy. In addition to the main point, I like all mentions of Eugene, the U of O, and even George Fox. I loved living in Eugene for 9 years, often was on U of O campus for one thing or another (or just walking through, living right next door one year, teaching and managing the first year of residence aspect of McKenzie Study Center, now Gutenburg College), took one class at the U. Also visited George Fox once.
As to “nuance”, I think of it in connection with stages of growth, partly. Pursuing what at one time may seem nuance can lead to a major adjustment of worldview or theological paradigm eventually. Such is the case particularly with the nature of God. Starting and continuing many adult years as a traditional theist and Evangelical, I gradually followed nuanced adjustments, particularly about God and revelation/authority (with that, Scripture) until realizing that a relatively minor conception of God, loaded with nuance, made a lot more sense to me than classic theism (or its cousin, deism), and also more than typical pantheism (or its cousin, atheism). So I landed with panentheism and Process theology more broadly. It has greatly helped my understanding of the development of Scripture and its contents, with making better sense of life as a whole, and with the role of science in relation to theology and the humanities.
Maybe “going large” like these comments is not what you had in mind by “nuance” but I do personally see the connection.
Hey Brian,
You make a great point about how those nuances can practically disappear in comparison to the disagreements. Distinguishing between disagreement and nuance is kind of tricky; they’re both variations, but I think nuance tends to pertain to differences that are simply there whereas disagreements pertain to what those nuances mean.
Another element I think is always at play when approaching nuances is what one believes prior to arriving to the nuance. If one believes the text of Scripture never disagrees with itself, then a slight variation might lead to an outright disagreement because of what that variation means; of how that nuance is interpreted (or ignored).
Oversimplifying a little, I think. But how one interprets seems to determine disagreements from nuances. How would you differentiate the two?
I like your definition between differences as is (nuance) and the meaning of those differences disagreements. I presume that we’d need to speak of “degrees” of nuance. So, for example, a Trinitarian and a Modalist might share respect for the oneness of God, distinction between Father, Son, Spirit, and so forth, but they disagree over the nature of distinction. Meanwhile, some forms of Hindu deism see the pantheon of gods as expressions of the same reality. We’d have a shared idea of multiplicity and singularity, but the degree of difference begins to expand a bit. I guess the seriousness of our differences often depends upon the degree of separation.