What We Mean by Authority Pt.1

"It's about the authority of Scripture!" silently yells one writer on a Facebook forum. "If only the people who don't believe Scripture is authoritative would leave the denomination then we could get back about the business of the Church!" There's only one problem (no, the problem is not that the speaker is a Fundamentalist. We have some in the UMC, I've talked with a few, but I think their numbers are very small). The problem is I haven't met the Christian who says the Bible is not authoritative. There are certainly many who would call Scripture an authority instead of the authority (ultimately I think we all do this, but that's a topic for another day), but we all believe in the authority of Scripture. What the speaker really should say, and perhaps the question that all of us in the United Methodist Church if not all of Christianity should be asking ourselves, "It's about how Scripture is authoritative!" That's something we could have a good Church fight about!

First, let me illustrate why it's about "how", not "if" Scripture is authoritative by analogy with the U.S. Constitution. Every Supreme Court Justice considers the Constitution to be authoritative. They have to - they are sworn to uphold it. But we have lots of 5-4 decisions. Why? Because Justices (and all of us, really) think of the Constitution in different ways. There are several different frameworks for interpreting the Constitution and lots of literature you can find online about each of them. To simplify, let's look at two:

Strict Constructionism
In a nutshell, "The Constitution says it, I believe it, that settles it." The text says what it says and unless an amendment is passed that changes the content of the Constitution the courts must enforce the letter of the law. This view tends to be upheld by more "conservative" justices although if we're honest probably most people will hold to it when it best suits their preferences. Example: The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. No law may be passed that abridges this right, period.

Living Constitution
The opposite of strict constructionism is the Living Constitution. This model says that while the principles of the Constitution remain sound, following the letter of the law can actually sometimes work against the overall purpose. What matters most aren't the words, but the concepts behind the words. As society changes, then, so to must the particular ways that we live out our Constitution. This view tends to be upheld by more "liberal" judges and is why we often hear of "liberal, activist judges legislating from the bench." Example: The authors of the Constitution never could have conceived of weapons that could fire dozens of rounds every minute. The 2nd Amendment is an important protection, but one that has to be understood in the context of muskets instead of machine guns. In the new context the rules must change.

Notice in both cases proponents appeal to the Constitution as their primary authority. They "believe in" the Constitution. But the way in which they appeal to it for authority is different. Tomorrow we'll flip the page and see what happens when we apply these principles of interpretation to Scripture.