Yesterday the subject of the Sunday School class I was going to teach was different styles of Biblical interpretation and their relationship to the issues addressed by the Report of the Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (PUP, for short). For you non-presbies out there, this is a long-awaited (4 years!) report produced by a group charged with reviewing ordination standards in the PCUSA (read--whether or not to change the current prohibition on ordaining practicing homosexuals).
The recommendations of the Task Force will be voted on at the General Assembly meeting this June and they do not include a change in the current ordination standards but arguably open the door for a type of "local option" under certain circumstances. It's all very legalistic, in keeping with the Presbyterian heritage as the heirs of John Calvin, the ex-lawyer and theologian.
Those of you with sharp eyes will remember that I was down for the count with bronchitis yesterday, so I turned the class over to my husband, El Jefe. After briefing him on the subject he remarked that he saw a connection between the difficulty in interpreting the Bible and the difficulty in interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
With Judge Alito's hearings just concluded, this subject was on his mind. Both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution are very important documents. For Christians, the Bible is sacred--believed to be the guide to faith and life inspired by God. The Constitution is not a sacred religious document, but for Americans it is very much a sacred secular document--it is the ultimate source of governmental and legal authority for our country.
You would think that interpreting the Constitution would be much easier and less controversial than interpreting the Bible. It was written in an English that is still readable today. We have a much better understanding of the context in which it was written and the intent of the framers. But over the years distinct schools of legal interpretation evolved, some emphasizing "strict construction" and others emphasizing the need to adapt the Constitution to the times so it would be a "living document."
Yet as Judge Alito's hearings showed, the interpretation of the Constitution is just as divisive and controversial as the interpretation of the Bible. The right of privacy, first established by the Supreme Court in the 1960's in the Griswold v. Connecticut case (which was about contraception), is not specifically enumerated as a right in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. The court later used the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade to establish a federal right to abortion. Those who oppose legalized abortion still are debating the validity of this interpretation.
Likewise there are numerous different approaches to interpreting the Bible. Some emphasize the literal truth of its words, some use symbolic and metaphorical approaches, some seek meaning from the intent of all scripture while others focus on isolated texts. There are those who try to apply the context in which the scripture was written to help interpret it and those who dispute the authority of scripture over some modern-day issues. These differences in interpretation fuel the controversies over the ordination of women, gays, blessing of gay marriage that are causing distress in many denominations.
Interpretation--aye, there's the rub! Both in the church AND in the state.