ARE WE TO INTERPRET “STRICTLY” OR “LOOSELY”?

In a year or so, on May 14, 1987, we as a nation will have cause to celebrate a bicentennial of significance. Two centuries ago 55 delegates from the original 13 states assembled in Independence Hall, Philadelphia to create the Constitution of the United States. It was an assembly of intellectual and political giants, led by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Mason, and youthful Alexander Hamilton. And the most astute of them all, Thomas Jefferson and John Jay were not present, being away on foreign assignments. In those days we had brains to spare!

Historians now recognize that it was unheard of in human history for a small, struggling nation of but four million people to have such an abundance of brainpower. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention were not only experienced in the ordeal of giving birth to a new nation, their own United States, which had begun on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, but they were well read in the history of nations, in the rise and fall of empires, and they understood the struggle for freedom as reflected in such documents as the Magna Charta. Rejecting the doctrine of government by “the divine right of kings,” which had ravished Europe from which they came, they drew upon ancient wisdom by insisting that the power to rule is derived from the people themselves.

The first line of the Constitution reveals the elegance of their thinking: “We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union …” They may have been the most august assembly of statesmen in human history, but they saw themselves as acting for the people.

The document that they finally created after much debate and compromise (19 of the 55 delegates would not and never did sign it!) was a century later hailed by the great prime minister of England, William Gladstone, as “the most remarkable work in modern times to have been produced by the human intellect at a single stroke.” Others have noted that the Constitution has survived the test of time, such as the trauma of the Civil War and of Watergate, only because it was rooted in the wisdom of the past. But Thomas Jefferson saw more than this, for he adjudged the delegates as inspired of God and the document they created an instrument of heaven. To say the least, what happened in Philadelphia in 1787 was unique in the history of nations. Never before had men sat down and by the stroke of a pen created a new nation with its “Supreme Law” put down in precise words at one time. Always before it was an evolutionary process over a long period of time.

At one point in the Convention when things appeared bogged down, Benjamin Franklin moved that henceforth all sessions be opened with prayer, noting that if a sparrow could not fall to earth without the knowledge of God that a new nation is not likely to rise without his blessings. The motion was lost, not because the delegates did not believe in prayer, but because they did not have the money to hire a chaplain! Since twelve of the delegates had been schoolteachers they must have believed in prayer!

If they had strong political instincts, they also had an uncanny insight into human nature. Every measure was weighed with the conviction that man cannot be trusted with power. Even with George Washington presiding, and it was assumed that he would be the nation’s first President, they decreed that a sitting President could not even appoint a federal judge without the approval of Congress. Yes, they gave the President veto power (so as to limit the power of Congress!), but Congress could with enough votes override the veto. When James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” was so persistently adamant on the limitation of power, one delegate bellowed at him, “Mr. Madison, you act as if you don’t trust anybody besides us.” The dignified Virginian replied, “Sir, you have misunderstood me. I don’t trust even us!”

They rejected anything that smacked of pomp, ceremony, and raw power. They even discussed how the President was to be addressed. While some thought the dignity of the office called for “Your Highness” or even “Your Majesty,” the majority concluded that he should be no more than “Mr. President.” Washington had refused to wear a crown and be king during the Revolutionary War, and he was not to be a King while President. When the first Supreme Court sat the judges wore gowns of black and scarlet, but at Jefferson’s insistence they did not wear wigs like their British counterparts. One rule guided our Founding Fathers, As a nation founded under God, America was different. Even Alexander Hamilton, who could argue persuasively that a monarchy is the best form of government, conceded that America, being different, should be a republic and not have a king.

After four months of hard work the delegates could present to the people their new government with its Constitution—“A republic if you can keep it,” Franklin would say. That evening, Sept. 17, 1787, after a majority signed the document they dined together at a nearby inn. What an occasion that must have been, a repast among statesmen who had just given birth to the greatest nation in human history! But as they bid each other adieu they realized that their work was not complete, for they had to go back home and persuade their states to accept their handiwork, for nine of the thirteen states had to ratify the Constitution before it became the supreme law of the land. It was at last ratified only when some states were assured that the power of the federal government could not usurp individual rights, which called for the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the first of which ruled that Congress could make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

That the Constitution has been amended only sixteen times in the 200 years that followed says something for the vision of its creators, especially since our nation has gone through such dramatic change.

Since no law is either self-enforcing or self-interpreting, the authors of the Constitution gave the President the power to enforce the law and the Supreme Court the power to determine its meaning. If a law or practice is “unconstitutional” it must be adjudged so by the Supreme Court. While we are sometimes made uncomfortable by the dictum “the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says,” there is much truth to it. Yet we know that the Supreme Court has sometimes been wrong, such as in the Dred Scott case in 1857 when it ruled that a Negro slave was not a citizen and had no right to sue. Many believe it was also wrong in a more recent ruling that legalized abortion.

The problem of interpreting the Constitution is similar to the problem of interpreting the Bible, especially since the Bible is often viewed as a kind of constitution. Thomas Campbell, one of the founders of our own religious heritage, was strong on seeing the New Testament as the constitution of the Church of Christ. While this is a questionable hermeneutics (Is our New Testament really like a constitution with its precise sections and articles?), there are some interesting parallels.

The New Testament, for instance, must also be enforced (or put into practice) in order to be effective, and certain popes and councils through the centuries have presumed to enforce it. Even the Puritans in colonial America fined and imprisoned people for “profaning the Sabbath.” But those of us who believe in free religion believe that the laws of God can only be self-imposed.

The Scriptures must also be interpreted. We can always say that the Bible means what it says, but it often has to be determined what it really does say. So the Bible, too, has to have a “Supreme Court” to determine what it is made to mean. Again, popes and councils (and some preachers!) are often willing to serve as the final arbiter as to the meaning of Scripture. Again, those of us who believe in free religion insist that each person is his own final court of appeal as to what the Bible means to him. While I may draw upon many resources in determining what the Bible means by what it says, the final judgment is made in my own conscience.

The first constitutional crisis was not long in coming. President Washington’s secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, wanted Congress to establish a national bank, which it did, but only after much controversy. Jefferson himself asked, “Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to establish a bank?,” which is similar to questions asked about the Bible when something new is proposed. When the bill reached Washington’s desk for his signature he did not know how to treat it, for the “strict” interpreters were telling him it was not authorized by the Constitution, while the “loose” constructionists argued from the principle of “implied power.” The President at last agreed with his treasury secretary and signed it into law.

This illustration should help us to see that the interpretation of an authoritative document, whether the Constitution or the Bible, is no simple matter. Good and intelligent men differ, as in the case of Washington and Jefferson. It was really a matter of the silence of the Constitution, with one statesman interpreting silence as permission, while the other saw silence as prohibitive.

So it is in interpreting the Bible. When some of our churches supposed they needed instrumental music and the missionary society, there were those that asked for their authority in the Scriptures. Some saw silence as permission, others as prohibition.

Who is right, the “loose” constructionists or the “strict” constructionists?

We should be able to resolve one misconception. Just as Jefferson could not charge Washington with not believing in the authority of the Constitution because he favored a national bank when the Constitution did not specifically authorize one, neither can we charge one who uses instrumental music with not believing in the authority of the New Testament because the New Testament does not specifically authorize it.

If we learn nothing more, it is that good, intelligent, sincere people differ in their application of an authoritative document in areas where that document is either silent or ambiguous. It helps for us to recognize this and resolve to be agreeable when we differ. It is also important to recognize that men seldom differ, if ever, when the source of authority is clear and precise in its statements. For instance, our statesmen have never disagreed as to whether the Constitution makes the President the commander-in-chief of the armed forces or whether each state is allowed two senators in the upper house of Congress.

So it is with the Bible. People seldom if ever differ over what the Bible actually says, clearly and distinctly. Do people differ as to whether Moses led Israel out of Egypt or whether John the Baptist baptized Jesus. We always agree on the facts of Scripture, though we may differ over what those facts mean or how they are to be applied.

We have our answer as to whether we are to be “loose” or “strict” interpreters of things authoritative. We are to be both, depending on circumstances. When President Truman fired General MacArthur it caused a furor, but no one questioned the President’s right, as commander-in-chief, to do what he did. Here we have “strict” interpretation. The controversy was over whether the President should have done what he had the authority to do. In this area we must allow for differences of opinion.

When it comes to what is sinful, we are to be “strict” interpreters when it comes to pride, selfishness, envy, strife, murder, blasphemy, jealousy, and all other things that the Bible clearly names as sinful. But how about drinking alcoholic beverages, attending dances, or betting on a horse race? Here we can hang “loose,” however convinced we may be of the sinfulness of such things, and allow for differences. The same has to be true with all things in which the Bible is not specific, whether societies, Sunday Schools, literature, instrumental music. Here we should adopt a “loose” construction of Scripture and recognize that these are areas in which good people disagree.

To put it another way, let us be strict with what the Bible actually says, but loose on what we think it means by what it says. Drunkenness? Strict! Social drinking? Loose!, though one should be strict with himself in relation to his own conscience, which is his Supreme Court.

This is the only way to unity. We can unite upon the “strict” areas, such as the lordship of Christ. We can accept each other even when we differ in “loose” areas. Where the Bible is unquestionably clear, unity; where it is silent or ambiguous, liberty of opinion. And always love. —the Editor