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.
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.
9 comments:
EL Jefe is obviously very wise. He has hit the nail on the head and the two are even closer linked when one considers that the British common Law from which both US and Canadian law codes developed was often built according to the Christian ideals of the day. Ideals which also depended entirely on interpretaion of Scripture and tradition.
I teach a college-level class on biblical interpretation two or three times a year and usually ask the students for comparisons between OT law and US law. As with most topics in this field, a lot of them "never thought about that." With regard to interpreting the Bible, it is interesting to me that those who insist on a "literal" interpretation are also those who insist that there is only one correct way to interpret. Those who admit that theirs is only one perspective on the matter tend to lean towards a figurative interpretation. Or that's how it appears to me.
And in response to an earlier post, I am sorry you did not meet up with Rachel and Mindy. They are truly a hoot.
Great post! There is much truth to your husband's observations from the legal side!
It is my own obervation that there are really only two views on how to interpret an authoritative text(hermenuetics):
1. It is to be understood by the plain meaning of the text in its own context.
OR
2.It is to be understood in terms of how we desire it to function here and now.
One side is fixed on the text as binding, the other side is fixed on our needs of the text. Or, in other words, as J.I. Packer says, one side of objective and the other subjective. The evangelical view is 1 and the revisionist/liberal view is 2.
Do you agree?
BY the way...one more thing:
Side 1--the objective reading of Protestants at their best---is NOT easy, simplistic or uniformly possible!
We are corrupted in our views and desires by our fallen condition, and this will not be taken fully away until we join Christ in his Kingdom! Therefore our Confessions stand subject to our re-reading of all biblical texts to see whether or not they stand up to the "Sola Scriptura" test--hence we are "reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God".
That's my two cents. Again.
CP--
I tend to agree with your characterizations, particularly with the addition in your second comment. It's very difficult to set aside your own view of what you want scripture to be telling you out of the equation when you seek to interpret scripture. I think both conservatives and liberals struggle with that.
"It's very difficult to set aside your own view of what you want scripture to be telling you out of the equation when you seek to interpret scripture."
I'll second that. Perhaps, as hard as this might be to accept, there may be important things that we feel we need now that are simply not addressed in Scripture -- no matter how accurately a person might be able to interpret a text in its own context. (Or, by the same token, there may be important things that we feel wee need now that are simply not addressed in the Constitution . . .) Perhaps in those cases where the text is silent we should be less inclined to assert that we have "God on our side" of a particular issue.
I personally do not find the "living document" hypothesis a framework within which I can work.
Grace, being married to a lawyer works for me, too. Mr. C. has great insights into my work. I advise him on his without as much acceptance.
So how about a new post? Pressed for time? Jot a brief observation.
You may need to refresh your browser, david! Hope you've caught up by now...
Thanks for reading!
Post a Comment