The Orthodox Church

[OBW]

Take a couple of days off and you never know what will happen.

I read through (well, read and scanned) the bit on the Orthodox Church. This one comment was, to me, a little funny:

The equal authority of church tradition and Scripture (you need the interpreted Word!)

Why funny? Because we all read the interpreted word! No exceptions.

When you read it, it has meaning because you apply meaning to it. Certain things stand out more to you than to others.

• The instructive aspects of the context are considered stronger or weaker by different people.
• The fact that you heard it used in a sermon without any context colors how you read it now when you claim to just "come to the pure word of God."

At our best we read through a lens that is not pure, clear, unadulterated glass.

• Our glass amplifies certain things and minimizes others.
• It has areas of color that enhance or dim the view of certain things.
• It might be likened to a carnival funhouse.

Example. 1 Cor 15:45. "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." When we talk about this verse, many are aware, or at least become aware that it is in the middle of a discussion that has nothing to do with the Trinity. And nothing to do with The Spirit. Yet when we start talking generically about the Trinity and the One v Three side of things, some of those same people point back here are justification for arguing toward the One side. Did they forget? Probably. It is part of the lens we were given by Lee many years ago. Even after getting free of the garlic, our noses are still accustomed to it and even pine for the leeks and garlic of Egypt.

And even when we think we have gotten past those lenses, we discover that we have other lenses. Just because i talk about these lenses does not make me free of them. My only hope is to speak from my best effort at avoiding my own lenses and be open to hear from others as they do the same. We may all discover something that seems new to us, but not really new. Just blocked by our lens.

But with rare exception can we claim to be avoiding the interpreted word. The real question is how narrow and confined is the interpreter that we are accepting. Are we relying on a single interpreter? Nee and Lee made claims about those on whose shoulders they stood. But several of those were questionable sources themselves. And are the others truly saying what Nee and Lee claim they are? Or are their words being reinterpreted and altered?

If I am right, it might seem to paint a dire picture for us as Christians. But I believe that it is the rejection of simply accepting the lens of choice and instead being willing to collectively search through our altered views that provides the clarity we need.