The Sense of Scripture: Studies in Interpretation . . .

THE BIBLE AND THE CONSTITUTION

      The provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth - Oliver Wendell Holmes, 30 years a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

      That we as a nation are this year celebrating the Bicentennial of the birth of the Constitution of the United States is reason enough for us to be more aware of that grand old document. In this installment of our study of Biblical interpretation, I am saying that there is another reason for  studying  the  Constitution,  especially  problems  related  to  its interpretation: it helps us in interpreting the Bible. This might, of course, be said of any book, or even of the daily newspaper, for the way to interpret the Bible is not all that different from the way we interpret any other rational communication.

But the Bible and the Constitution have likenesses that lend particular significance to any principles of interpretation they might have in common. They both have to do with law. They are both related to the direction of a new nation. They both create new institutions and ordinances and lay down principles for their preservation. They both recognize a dependence upon "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and look to ideals that reach beyond time and place. They both abound in ambiguities, which makes differences in interpretation a certainty. They both defy a final and absolute interpretation. And yet because of their living principles they both adapt themselves to changes in culture and circumstance and thus remain relevant for all time. What they both mean ultimately in any given circumstance can be determined only by an appeal to a final authority, the Supreme Court of the United States on the one hand and the conscience of the individual on the other. In the case of the Bible that means that each person must serve as his own "Supreme Court," since no one else can decide for him.

The impressive quotation above from Justice Holmes points up the parallels that can be drawn between the Bible and the Constitution. What Holmes says about the Constitution can be said of the Bible. Like the Constitution, the Bible is not simply words and its essence is not its form, however impressive these may be. To be sure, the Bible is history, poetry, geography, biography, and all the rest, but it is more than this. It lives. It is vital. Its principles and ideals are eternal.

Holmes insists that you are not to interpret the Constitution simply by taking its words and looking them up in a dictionary. You must look at their origin and what has happened since. They are to be interpreted in terms of the ongoing life of the nation. So with the Bible. Its meaning often goes "beyond the sacred word" of lines upon a page to the living situation in diverse cultures and varied circumstances. If the Constitution is to be interpreted so as to guide the United States in a nuclear age, the Bible cannot be confined to the culture of the first century but made relevant to our modern, complex world that has become a global village.

It might even be said that both the Constitution and the Bible were miracles in their origin. Both George Washington and James Madison spoke of "the miracle at Philadelphia," and when one considers the odds that the 55 delegates at the convention had against them of ever producing such a document he may agree that "miracle" is not too strong a term. They were divided between north and south, between east and west, and between planters and businessmen. Slavery was already a divisive issue and some demanded that the Constitution address the problem. The small states were suspicious of the larger ones, and they were all suspicious of powerful governments, having recently gone through the Revolutionary War. They were reluctant to create a strong central government - "Federalism" they called it - and so they were divided between Federalists and anti-Federalists. And yet they agreed that something had to be done, for the old Articles of Confederation, which was then the law for the thirteen colonies, were woefully inadequate. Each state believed it was sovereign, and it did not want to yield its power to a central government, which was of course necessary if they were to have a republic.

They met in secret, kept the windows closed even during the hot summer lest someone eavesdrop, and stationed a sentinel at the door. Their ground rules were calculated to preserve order. The delegates could not talk to each other or pass notes when a delegate had the floor, and no delegate could speak twice on the same issue until all had spoken who desired to. No delegate was to breath a word about what went on, not even after the Constitution was at last ratified. In fact it was 50 years later when James Madison, who took notes on the procedures with incredible exactness, at last revealed the details of what took place and who argued what. His account revealed that about a dozen men did most of the work, and he himself had such influence in the creation of the final product that he came to be known as "the Father of the Constitution." A few delegates did most of the talking and there were a few who never said a word in the entire four months of debate. Now that is a miracle! But then again, with James Madison sitting there, I don't think I would have said anything, either!

James Madison was something else. While Thomas Jefferson (and John Adams too) was conspicuous by his absence, serving as he was at the time as minister to Paris, he was present in the person of James Madison, whom he plied with scores of letters and hundreds of books from European libraries in preparation for the Convention. No prize fighter was ever as prepared for a contest in the ring as Madison was for the crucible in Philadelphia. He was well read on the rise and fall of ancient empires, the history and nature of government, and political philosophy. He was so small of stature that he might have been mistaken for a clerk, but he stood tall at the Convention, not only for his superior knowledge but also for his tenacity in argument. Still he was known for his sweet disposition. And he was in later years to become an admirer of Alexander Campbell, whom he often heard preach, describing him as the ablest expositor of the Scriptures he had ever heard. And he was destined to be our fourth President.

Even with the help of Madison the Convention during its first weeks got nowhere. Factions threatened to destroy it. It was at this point that Benjamin Franklin,  who at 81  was the oldest delegate among comparatively  young  men  (average  age,  43),  reminded  George Washington, who sat as president, that when they were at war with the British "we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection." God heard and answered those prayers," he told the delegates, and "Have we forgotten our powerful friend?," he asked them. He went on to make one of the greatest statements in American history and one that throws light on what the Constitution means to us, if, as Justice Holmes says, it is to be understood in the light of its origin. Addressing the chair, Franklin went on to say:

      I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this.

      That is the spirit of the Constitution, a reliance upon and a belief in "the Law of Nature and Nature's God," as our forebears put it in the Declaration of Independence. That is why this nation eventually gave women their right to vote and the black people their civil rights, even though our nation 200 years ago was male-dominated and white- dominated. When the Supreme Court in 1896 ruled in favor of the "separate but equal doctrine, which forced some of our citizens to use separate facilities only because of the color of their skin, there was a lone dissenter on the Court. Justice Harlan wrote in his dissent: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." He went on to say that to deny a black person his God-given rights is hostile both to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

We know that the Supreme Court in 1955 proved Justice Harlan right, that the Constitution is color-blind, and since then black and white children can go to the same school and drink from the same water fountain. There are millions of Christians in this country who believe that eventually the Supreme Court will correct another grave injustice, the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 that stands as a threat to the life of every unborn child in this nation. Abortion on demand is wrong because it is against the spirit of the Constitution and the Law of Nature and Nature's God.

I am saying that we are to interpret the Bible like old Ben Franklin and Justice Harlan interpreted the Constitution, by the spirit of it. The spirit of the Constitution is justice and equality; the spirit of the Bible is the meekness and gentleness of Jesus Christ.

Justice Felix Frankfurter, who sat on the Supreme Court for 23 years, provides another parallel between interpreting the Bible and the Constitution: "We interpret the Constitution not only by reading the Constitution but by reading life." Reading life! We learn what the Bible is all about not only by reading its pages but by reading life as we find it in our time. We visit the shut-ins and see what it means to be lonely. In the nursing homes we see despair, in the streets we see drug addiction, in our schools we see teenage pregnancy. In the world at large we see terrorism, political intrigue, and a nuclear arms build-up capable of destroying mankind.

Only when we read our world do we really understand the significance of Jesus' great invitation: "Come unto me, all of you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am gentle and lowly of heart and you shall find rest for your souls" (Mt. 11:28-29).

There is one important difference between the Constitution and the Bible in terms of interpretation. The Constitution is an "Article I, Section 1" type of document, and so there is no question as to how old one must be to serve as President, who has the power to "lay and collect taxes," or who is to serve as President of the Senate. The Bible is not that kind of book, usually, especially in reference to the nature and work of the church. There is not even uniformity among the various congregations set up by the apostles. We therefore have a questionable hermeneutics if we try to make the New Testament into a "blueprint" type of document. When this is done one only imposes his own opinions as laws. The question of a precise "order of worship," the election and tenure of elders,  or whether singing  must be acappella (or whether any congregational singing at all) would be examples.

And yet both the Bible and the Constitution are basically principle documents that endure the ages because of their openness. The purpose of the Constitution is to "establish justice" and to "promote the general welfare," but these terms are kept ambiguous, for there is no attempt to spell out in detail everything that these principles include. And so any citizen may insist that if a law or practice is unjust and contrary to the general welfare it is unconstitutional, and he has the right of redress in a court of law.

Is it not true also of the Bible? Jesus came to bring the abundant life, and to insure this he laid down commandments and principles, and I Jn. 5:3 says, "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome." The first principle of the Bible is the principle of love, and so all commandments emanate from the love of God. And so no commandment of God can be grievous or burdensome, which would make life more difficult and make the abundant life impossible. And so when anyone would impose his opinion on us, such as some of the man-made rules on divorce and remarriage ("Since you did not have a 'scriptural' reason for your divorce, you can never marry again"), we can reject such legalism as against the spirit of the Bible.

In the Bible we have the principle of equality of all who are in Christ, such as Gal. 3:28: "In Christ there is neither male nor female." And so any interpretation about the place and ministry of women in the church must yield to that principle. What are we saying about the principle of equality when little boys can pass out visitor's cards in church but not little girls, and when the church's decision-making process is all male? Indeed, when the Churches of Christ are even more male-dominated than the Roman Catholic church are we not neglecting the weightier matters while we tithe mint, anise, and cumin?

And the "rule of elders" has become so authoritarian among us that we are in the throes of a leadership crisis, one sign of which is numerous lawsuits across the country. Much of this is due to the arrogance of power assumed by elderships and the willingness of the people for it to be so. Again, in interpreting the role of our leaders we must be a principled people - think in terms of principle. And the principle here could not be clearer. When Jesus spoke of such authoritarian rule among Gentile kings, he said to his disciples: It shall not be so among you (Lk. 22:26). Jesus goes on to identify the leader as a servant. Any interpretation of "the eldership" that sees elders more like corporate executives than humble shepherds is contrary to the spirit of the New Testament and is therefore suspect.

The Constitution binds us to certain norms and yet it refrains from being so precise as to restrict those norms to any particular time or circumstance. We are protected against "unreasonable searches" and "cruel and unusual punishment," but what is unreasonable, cruel, and unusual? Because of its deliberate ambiguity and latitude the Constitution remains applicable to changing conditions. And yet this lends itself to varying interpretations. Even the justices differ on what the Constitution means. But is this not necessary with a document designed to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"? The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce," but its authors had no way of anticipating the complexities of international commerce now faced by their posterity. So they kept the principle open and avoided being specific.

Is it not the same with the Bible? The Sermon on the Mount cannot be interpreted exactly the same way in every generation, and yet we believe that ''Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness'' is applicable to all ages, but not in exactly the same way.

Finally, we might point to the 26 amendments to the Constitution and conclude that the Bible needs no amendments, and in a sense this is true. But amendments to the Constitution are hardly more than a continuing interpretation, so as to apply the spirit of the Constitution to the needs of a changing society.

While we do not make amendments to the Bible, are we not continually researching all sorts of data so as to determine not only its original meaning but how it applies to our nuclear-computer age? Who reads an old version of the Bible anymore or an antiquated commentary? What happens to the preacher or teacher who can't progress beyond the 1940's?

You will pardon me if I have overworked the parallels I see between interpreting the Bible and the Constitution, but one point in all this is basic and crucial: any two documents that have survived for centuries in guiding a nation or a people will be interpreted similarly. This is because they cannot simply be rule books, for as such they would not have survived. Nor can they be confined to any one age. It is living principles that give them life century after century.

Jesus sought to impress this upon the Pharisees when he pointed to the way they handled the Bible: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me"  (Jn. 5:39). They were abreast of all the details and all the rules, most of which were their own assumptions, but they missed the point of the Scriptures, which was Jesus Christ.

So, as citizens of our great nation we look to the Constitution, the point (spirit) of which is equality and justice for all. As a people in covenant relation with God, we look to the Bible, the point (spirit) of which is Jesus Christ.

Or to put it another way, as Christians we are to be principled people, a people who think, interpret, and act in terms of principles. And the principle for us is Jesus Christ. It is in the light of that living principle that we are to interpret the Scriptures.  — the Editor