Originalism

In regards to The US Constitution an “Originalist” tries to apply the law as it was intended when it was written. This as opposed to catering to contemporary concerns and applications. This latter, more typically liberal view is sometimes referred to as the “Living Constitution” approach.

There are entire philosophical schools of thought between these two extremes. How we read texts is a vast and fascinating study of Hermeneutics. As always there are shades in between the two sides to be drawn! Click here for a Wikipedia article of far more depth than I can afford in Vista.

Jesus was no originalist. With his repeated: “You have heard it said that ____, but I tell you _____, Jesus was enjoying personal autonomy and creative authority. He knew scripture (the Old Testament) well and was unafraid to apply it in new fashion. This teaching approach amazed folks in the gospels and drew large crowds. It also got him crucified eventually. There’s our example.

A few stories we are skipping early on in Luke center around Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath. The religious leaders believe he is violating the letter and intent of the law. He is jeopardizing our religious tradition and risking losing sight of what made us faithful to God. Jesus seems to believe his is in fact fulfilling the intent by re-interpreting the letter to include the needs of those immediately in front of him. Drama ensues.

We are hearing about conservative Supreme Court Justices now who tend toward Originalist rather than Living Constitution approaches. Their task is easier than ours. Our Bible text is far older, the framers and cultures of the Bible far more alien to us while we try to discern their original intent. We are often forced into interpreting rather than relying on simple traditional authority. But there are parallels.

Liberal interpretation risks trusting too much in modern ingenuity and the process of dialogue. It can be easy to lose grasp of what makes us Christian, or American.

Conservatism continually risks a profound dishonesty; pretending there is clear guidance in ancient texts that are in fact too cryptic to clearly function alone as law. Conservative modern agenda gets wrapped up and disguised in language never intended to clearly prohibit or prescribe what they insist it does.  Privacy concerns, abortion, death penalty, women’s and minority rights; these all lie beyond clear guidance by the constitution…which is why they continue to be volatile issues.

I don’t trust Biblical Originalists/Literalists because they don’t seem to approach the issues with open integrity. They deny the work of the Spirit over 2000 years. Much of American Constitutional Conservatism seems equally dishonest; anxiously looking for iron clad argument for their modern agenda in the golden gilded guise of something older and unassailable.

We sing the prayer of interpretation on Sunday’s for a reason. God and Truth don’t come easy and thinking takes work.