Constitution and the Bible

Author Unknown
(SMH?)

Want to know why, increasingly, the church is welcoming easy divorce, women in leadership roles, cohabiting couples, practicing homosexuals, and transgenderism? Perhaps surprisingly, just ask former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer—not that he is a theologian or commentator on church matters, but he might as well be. What he says about the Constitution is precisely what many in the church today are saying (or not saying openly) about the Bible.

In his recently released book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism,” Breyer castigates the current conservative majority on the Court for their “textualism” or “originalism” (applying the text as originally written). “It’s giving this country a Constitution no one wants.” This is to say that it’s out of step with today’s social norms — the very same social norms the church is now welcoming with open theological arms.

For “progressive” believers, honoring Scripture as written is like giving the church a “Bible that no one wants.” No longer wishing to live by the standards set forth in Scripture, they’re asking, does the Bible really mean what it says? (Shades of the serpent asking, “Did God really say…?”) Times have changed, and for the better, it is said, now that we’re no longer shackled by the hierarchal, patriarchal culture of the first century. What we need is a 21st-century Bible!

This “cultural lens” mimics Breyer’s own argument: “When the founders were thinking about and writing the words of the Constitution and protecting certain basic rights in the Constitution, women [and slaves] were not really part of the political process.” Point taken, yet this was later rectified by authorized Constitutional process through the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments.

When Breyer says, “the world has changed,” he’s certainly right, as reflected in changing attitudes about abortion and homosexuality, prompting the very pragmatism of Roe v. Wade (legalizing abortion) and the Court’s approval of same-sex marriage. No reasonable reading of the Constitution gives protection for either one. In a mutually intertwined downward cycle, rejecting the authority of Scripture has led to our “changed world,” in turn leading liberal jurists to engage in raw judicial legislation…blatantly violating the Constitution’s separation of powers!

Ultimately, at stake is not simply how texts that purport to be authoritative are to be interpreted—always a challenging task in itself—but whether they are amendable, and, if so, how? The Constitution, of course, sets out a clear process for making amendments, resulting in 27 approved amendments. Yet, considering there have been almost 12,000 proposals, it’s far easier for “pragmatic” Justices to make amendments through their decisions. It is little wonder they reject “originalism” despite paying lip service to Constitutional authority.

Likewise, despite paying lip service to the authority of Scripture, “progressive” believers undermine the Bible’s authority by amending it through their own self-serving reinterpretations. Whereas the Constitution is inherently amendable, to blithely amend God’s Word is to stand on dangerous ground! Is it to be believed that God wouldn’t be aware of how the world might change? Indeed, the more the world changes, the more it stays the same. Sin hasn’t changed.

Next time somebody at church says biblical norms are outdated, tell ’em to take it up with God!