Interpretation Anxiety
"Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lords's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; And all nations shall flow to it. Many people shall come and say, "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths...
...They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."
The prophet Isaiah spoke this prophecy over 2700 years ago. It is a well known passage, many Christians will recognize it. It's a beautiful passage that gives the people of God hope in dire times - something to which they can look forward. Question is, what does it mean?
Some will say, "Ah, that is a description of the Millennial Kingdom when Christ is ruling the earth from Jerusalem, and Israel is restored to her rightful place, and the peoples of the world will find salvation and comfort through the Jewish nation."
Others will say, "What a beautiful description of the Church!"
Which one is it?
I don't want to talk about this passage in particular in this post, but I do want to address the issue of competing interpretations of the same text. Today we have countless thousands of groups who claim to follow Christ in everything they do. And while some will admit that they might not understand everything perfectly, most will assume their way of interpretation is correct.
The problem is, everyone, including myself, believes that they are mostly right.
With today's technology, communication around the world is instantaneous, and with communication comes new ways of thinking, and new ways of interpreting. In the Protestant, evangelical world, we are taught to embrace these new interpretations, as they are kin to new, divine revelation. When we start to really look into things, however, we find a plethora of competing interpretations all vying for our adherence. Again, the problem is...Which one is correct? They can't all be.
This leads to what I call Interpretation Anxiety.
Point in case, the International Bible Encyclopedia, a well-known standard in Christian academia, the article on Baptism contains three separate articles, titled "The Baptist Interpretation", "Non-Immersionist View", and "Lutheran Doctrine". Each one of these gives its own interpretation of Baptism, the reasons for it, and who can receive it, amounting to the fact that one of the fundamental Christian truths cannot be spelled out with any sort of confidence, even in an Encyclopedia. And that is only the Protestant world.
People don't suffer Interpretation Anxiety regarding only the scriptures, either: history is interpreted in different ways by different people who have their own agendas and beliefs. My favourite example of this is highlighted in a book written by David Bercot, entitled "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up". Bercot makes the claim that modern day protestants do not believe the doctrines that the early church before the council of Nicea (325 AD) believed, and has gone through great pains to document it.
I used to really enjoy reading Bercot's books as they were controversial and pointed out all the modern-day "misinterpretations" of Christianity by people today. He elevates the opinions of the early Church fathers, and thus declares Christianity today is in a terrible state. It is controversial and thought-provoking, which is probably why I enjoyed reading it so much. The trouble is, he interprets historical facts in a certain way that is not necessarily correct.
Bercot's interpretation of Church history at the time of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, beginning with his interpretation of the first ecumenical council and its victory:
"From a human standpoint, it appeared that Constantine had accomplished something absolutely wondrous. The church would never again be torn apart by controversies and divisive practices!...But the rejoicing was short lived...When the bishops returned to their congregations, and as the congregations began to reflect more soberly over the decrees of Nicea, a conservative backlash soon developed...Perhaps this reactionary movement would have succeeded in turning back the flood waters of change that were threatening to engulf the church, if it hadn't been for the persistence and skill of one man: Athanasius...However, with the passage of time, upholding the creed became more important to Athanasius than upholding early Christian orthodoxy...He maintained that the creed was inspired by God, putting it on the same level as Scripture...in the end, he contradicted many of the early church's teachings on various matters, and he ultimately took most of the church with him...There were more councils and more creeds. The arguments shifted from Jesus to the Holy Spirit and back to Jesus again...As the years passed, more and more people claimed they had new revelation from God...The simple, rather flexible theology of the early church soon gave way to rigid, dogmatic creeds. These creeds ultimately replaced the Scriptures as the primary authority for the church's teachings. With each ecumenical council, more non-Scriptural language was added to church dogma...In the end, however, the creeds contributed to the adulteration of apostolic Christian doctrine." (Bercot, David W. (1989) Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up. Amberson, PA: Scroll Publishing, pp 133-136)
I included this lengthy quotation to show the type of interpretation Bercot is using. He has already pre-determined that the ecumenical councils were largely unimportant, and the creeds and decisions they came up with unnecessary, even dangerous, for the Church. With those assumptions, he can then disregard their teachings, and any "teaching" that is directly related to the subjects of these councils are hereby regarding as heresies that resulted in the adulteration of the Church. This is strong language, but presented in a nice format that is easy to read and understand, and many who read Bercot's books find they quickly agree with him. Armed with these pre-suppositions, Bercot can basically say, The Church was pure until the Councils happened, then the real truths of Christianity were clouded, and it is up to us to discover them again.
The trouble I have with all this, is there isn't a "dividing line" that you can draw between those Church fathers before the council of Nicea and those after. It is one, unbroken line of Christians, and we need to decide before studying history whether we choose to believe the Councils were wicked events or not. Trouble lies on both sides, for Protestants, anyway.
Either the councils were directed by the Holy Spirit, or they were not. If they were not, then we have to admit that the Church apostatized immediately after the apostle John died and was re-discovered by Luther in the reformation. The trouble with this interpretation of history is that who are we to say that Luther discovered the real truth? Is Luther really more trustworthy than Athanasius? Was he really more "directed" by the Holy Spirit? How are we to know? And if we admit that maybe he wasn't, but hold on to the idea that the Church really did apostatize immediately and we have now rediscovered it, we have nothing to say against groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, for that is precisely what they believe.
If we say the councils were directed by the Holy Spirit, then we have another host of issues to deal with. For protestants we have to admit that Mary is called the Theotokos (The mother of God), and the following decisions of the seventh ecumenical council would cause any Protestant's blood to start boiling:
History is subjective, but Christian truth is not. So what is the truth? Are the sacred images, sacred? Or did the Church just lose her way for fifteen centuries, and the images are actually to be reviled?
What about the deceased Saints? Can they be prayed to, or is it idolatry to do so?
What about the Eucharist? Is it symbolic, or is the real presence of the Lord Jesus Christ within the elements?
What about Baptism? Is it symbolic, or does it really regenerate the believer?
What about Mary? Is she just another human being that we ought not to honour above anyone else, or is she the most honourable, beautiful, obedient person that ever lived, save the Lord Jesus Christ himself? Is she the mother of Christ only? Or is she, in fact, the mother of God?
What about the Scriptures? Does the Scripture determine the truth, backed by the Church? Or does the Church determine the truth, backed by the Scriptures?
The trouble with all these decisions that need to be made is that there is no way of knowing what way we should choose. It seems to be up to the individual to decide. Each one forming his own opinion in his heart.
Is that the way Christ intended his Church to operate? Did the apostles do such a poor job that the truth was lost for centuries? Or is it in fact the case that we Protestants are the ones who are confused. Perhaps we need to take a look at our Catholic and Orthodox brethren - They might have something that we don't. I encourage you to look into it.
I did. I will never be the same.
May the Lord bless you all, wherever you are at. Keep pursuing Him with all your heart!
Joey
...They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."
The prophet Isaiah spoke this prophecy over 2700 years ago. It is a well known passage, many Christians will recognize it. It's a beautiful passage that gives the people of God hope in dire times - something to which they can look forward. Question is, what does it mean?
Some will say, "Ah, that is a description of the Millennial Kingdom when Christ is ruling the earth from Jerusalem, and Israel is restored to her rightful place, and the peoples of the world will find salvation and comfort through the Jewish nation."
Others will say, "What a beautiful description of the Church!"
Which one is it?
I don't want to talk about this passage in particular in this post, but I do want to address the issue of competing interpretations of the same text. Today we have countless thousands of groups who claim to follow Christ in everything they do. And while some will admit that they might not understand everything perfectly, most will assume their way of interpretation is correct.
The problem is, everyone, including myself, believes that they are mostly right.
With today's technology, communication around the world is instantaneous, and with communication comes new ways of thinking, and new ways of interpreting. In the Protestant, evangelical world, we are taught to embrace these new interpretations, as they are kin to new, divine revelation. When we start to really look into things, however, we find a plethora of competing interpretations all vying for our adherence. Again, the problem is...Which one is correct? They can't all be.
This leads to what I call Interpretation Anxiety.
Point in case, the International Bible Encyclopedia, a well-known standard in Christian academia, the article on Baptism contains three separate articles, titled "The Baptist Interpretation", "Non-Immersionist View", and "Lutheran Doctrine". Each one of these gives its own interpretation of Baptism, the reasons for it, and who can receive it, amounting to the fact that one of the fundamental Christian truths cannot be spelled out with any sort of confidence, even in an Encyclopedia. And that is only the Protestant world.
People don't suffer Interpretation Anxiety regarding only the scriptures, either: history is interpreted in different ways by different people who have their own agendas and beliefs. My favourite example of this is highlighted in a book written by David Bercot, entitled "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up". Bercot makes the claim that modern day protestants do not believe the doctrines that the early church before the council of Nicea (325 AD) believed, and has gone through great pains to document it.
I used to really enjoy reading Bercot's books as they were controversial and pointed out all the modern-day "misinterpretations" of Christianity by people today. He elevates the opinions of the early Church fathers, and thus declares Christianity today is in a terrible state. It is controversial and thought-provoking, which is probably why I enjoyed reading it so much. The trouble is, he interprets historical facts in a certain way that is not necessarily correct.
Bercot's interpretation of Church history at the time of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, beginning with his interpretation of the first ecumenical council and its victory:
"From a human standpoint, it appeared that Constantine had accomplished something absolutely wondrous. The church would never again be torn apart by controversies and divisive practices!...But the rejoicing was short lived...When the bishops returned to their congregations, and as the congregations began to reflect more soberly over the decrees of Nicea, a conservative backlash soon developed...Perhaps this reactionary movement would have succeeded in turning back the flood waters of change that were threatening to engulf the church, if it hadn't been for the persistence and skill of one man: Athanasius...However, with the passage of time, upholding the creed became more important to Athanasius than upholding early Christian orthodoxy...He maintained that the creed was inspired by God, putting it on the same level as Scripture...in the end, he contradicted many of the early church's teachings on various matters, and he ultimately took most of the church with him...There were more councils and more creeds. The arguments shifted from Jesus to the Holy Spirit and back to Jesus again...As the years passed, more and more people claimed they had new revelation from God...The simple, rather flexible theology of the early church soon gave way to rigid, dogmatic creeds. These creeds ultimately replaced the Scriptures as the primary authority for the church's teachings. With each ecumenical council, more non-Scriptural language was added to church dogma...In the end, however, the creeds contributed to the adulteration of apostolic Christian doctrine." (Bercot, David W. (1989) Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up. Amberson, PA: Scroll Publishing, pp 133-136)
I included this lengthy quotation to show the type of interpretation Bercot is using. He has already pre-determined that the ecumenical councils were largely unimportant, and the creeds and decisions they came up with unnecessary, even dangerous, for the Church. With those assumptions, he can then disregard their teachings, and any "teaching" that is directly related to the subjects of these councils are hereby regarding as heresies that resulted in the adulteration of the Church. This is strong language, but presented in a nice format that is easy to read and understand, and many who read Bercot's books find they quickly agree with him. Armed with these pre-suppositions, Bercot can basically say, The Church was pure until the Councils happened, then the real truths of Christianity were clouded, and it is up to us to discover them again.
The trouble I have with all this, is there isn't a "dividing line" that you can draw between those Church fathers before the council of Nicea and those after. It is one, unbroken line of Christians, and we need to decide before studying history whether we choose to believe the Councils were wicked events or not. Trouble lies on both sides, for Protestants, anyway.
Either the councils were directed by the Holy Spirit, or they were not. If they were not, then we have to admit that the Church apostatized immediately after the apostle John died and was re-discovered by Luther in the reformation. The trouble with this interpretation of history is that who are we to say that Luther discovered the real truth? Is Luther really more trustworthy than Athanasius? Was he really more "directed" by the Holy Spirit? How are we to know? And if we admit that maybe he wasn't, but hold on to the idea that the Church really did apostatize immediately and we have now rediscovered it, we have nothing to say against groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, for that is precisely what they believe.
If we say the councils were directed by the Holy Spirit, then we have another host of issues to deal with. For protestants we have to admit that Mary is called the Theotokos (The mother of God), and the following decisions of the seventh ecumenical council would cause any Protestant's blood to start boiling:
- Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were spoken against idols, to the venerable images
- Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols
- Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images
History is subjective, but Christian truth is not. So what is the truth? Are the sacred images, sacred? Or did the Church just lose her way for fifteen centuries, and the images are actually to be reviled?
What about the deceased Saints? Can they be prayed to, or is it idolatry to do so?
What about the Eucharist? Is it symbolic, or is the real presence of the Lord Jesus Christ within the elements?
What about Baptism? Is it symbolic, or does it really regenerate the believer?
What about Mary? Is she just another human being that we ought not to honour above anyone else, or is she the most honourable, beautiful, obedient person that ever lived, save the Lord Jesus Christ himself? Is she the mother of Christ only? Or is she, in fact, the mother of God?
What about the Scriptures? Does the Scripture determine the truth, backed by the Church? Or does the Church determine the truth, backed by the Scriptures?
The trouble with all these decisions that need to be made is that there is no way of knowing what way we should choose. It seems to be up to the individual to decide. Each one forming his own opinion in his heart.
Is that the way Christ intended his Church to operate? Did the apostles do such a poor job that the truth was lost for centuries? Or is it in fact the case that we Protestants are the ones who are confused. Perhaps we need to take a look at our Catholic and Orthodox brethren - They might have something that we don't. I encourage you to look into it.
I did. I will never be the same.
May the Lord bless you all, wherever you are at. Keep pursuing Him with all your heart!
Joey