U.S. Constitution and the Bible

I have a deep respect and appreciation for the U.S. Constitution. Few if any countries have used the same defining document for such a long time. Except for the turmoil of the Civil War, the U.S. Constitution has guided this country through the peaceful transitions of government for two and a quarter centuries. This has held up even in times of great division, turmoil and distrust. The U.S. Constitution is remarkable for its brevity, especially when compared with the defining documents of other nations. That is clearly part of its genius. With only a couple of exceptions, the U.S. Constitution has not been used to address transitory issues but sets in place a mechanism for doing so. It has established stable, enduring institutions and processes, while at the same time remaining flexible and adaptable to changing conditions.

 

Having said that, the framers knew it was the imperfect work of imperfect people. From its original form through the years of amendments, the U.S. Constitution has been forged from difficult and sometimes distressing compromises. Perhaps the greatest of these is how it handled slavery that became fertile soil for the Civil War and perpetuated suffering on thousands and thousands of people for generations. The framers knew full well that the U.S. Constitution was not a finished product when they built in a difficult but achievable means of amending it. Its very adoption was dependent on passing the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights.

 

I believe the U.S. Constitution can and will serve the United States well for many generations to come. But I am also uncomfortable with how the U.S. Constitution is invoked in some of the most volatile political debates of our time. To suggest that it is frozen in the eighteenth century is a denial of both the insight of the framers and the realities of the twenty first century. I am even more concerned that this endues the U.S. Constitution with the qualities of inspiration, reliability and authority that, as a Christian, I can only ascribe to the Bible.

 

I can acknowledge God sovereignly working in the processes by which the framers developed the U.S. Constitution. However, that is a very long way from treating it as divine scripture. While some devout, orthodox Christians participated in framing the U.S. Constitution, Deists who overtly disavowed Christianity also had a strong influence. I am not objecting to their influence on the U.S. Constitution, but only objecting to trying to claim this document that does not mention God as somehow Christian.

 

In fact, I am convinced that we Christians and our churches are far better off and have a more vigorous faith when neither government nor social consensus supports a generic religion cloaked with Christian vocabulary. To say “I believe in God” or even “I believe in Christ” is far different than living in faith as a disciple of Jesus. To be satisfied with superficial religion, even with Christian symbols, is to dilute the demands of discipleship. What spiritual benefit is it to expect public officials to mouth religious platitudes which are at best marginal to them?

 

At the time I am writing this, this country is reeling from yet another gun massacre. At a time when we are and should be grieving, the demand to take action to prevent such tragedies in the future is pushing our national mourning to the edges with political posturing over gun laws.

 

This posturing is what has prompted my reflections on the U.S. Constitution. In my high school history and government classes and my college history and political science classes, the “right to keep and bear arms” clause of the Second Amendment was consistently taught as relating to the States keeping standing militias as protection from an armed invasion, especially by a tyrannical central government. While fear of big government is again fueling current political debates, I am not aware of anyone seriously proposing individual States waging an armed insurrection against the federal government. Public opinion and recent court decisions have interpreted the “right to keep and bear arms” clause of the U.S. Constitution as an individual right, and the incentive is the personal right to use deadly force for perceived self-defense.

 

While the interpretation of the clause seems to have evolved in my own lifetime, the “right to keep and bear arms” seems to have become fixed and inviolable by virtue of being in the U.S. Constitution. Yet the circumstances in the twenty first century are far different than they were in 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The rationale has shifted from state militias to individual self-defense. Having recently come through the Revolutionary War with its single load rifles, the framers of the U.S. Constitution could never have imagined the powerful, repeating firearms we have today. . We have grown from a young nation along the Atlantic coast to become a major world power occupying the center of North America from coast to coast. We have gone from an agrarian society in which a gun was a survival tool for providing food as much as for protection (not necessarily from other people) to an urban society in which the density of population raises the risks and consequences of all violence dramatically. I’d like to think that if the founders could look over our shoulders and give us some advice, they’d tell us that there is sufficient flexibility in the Second Amendment to address the current issues that surround guns. They would probably also remind us that we have the power to amend the Constitution to cope with changing circumstances, though probably with a cautionary note about tampering with the Constitution to deal with a transitory issue.

 

Theologically, we Christians ought also to remind our society that neither the U.S. Constitution nor our other laws are Holy Scripture. God did not deliver them to Thomas Jefferson as the Ten Commandments were delivered to Moses as reported in Exodus. To be a nation of laws is good. We can be very thankful for the exemplary quality of our U.S. Constitution which protects our right to worship God and live as faithful disciples of Jesus. We Christians are also called to urge our society to use and modify its laws to maximize justice and peace in the circumstances of our own time.

Can we move from the fear driven debate over guns to love?

Laws are external reflections of broader, underlying social values. The debates over gun laws provoked by tragedies, such as happened this week in Connecticut are the symptom of a deep ambivalence in our society. We want assured security, which is impossible. So we are afraid, and when we respond out of fear, we almost always make the wrong decision.

 

Some folk try to assuage their insecurity by owning guns in the illusory belief that guns will protect them, ignoring the reality that those guns are more of a threat to them and those they love than to a potential criminal. We don’t take seriously Jesus’ words, “Those who live by the sword (gun) will die by the sword (gun).” (Matthew 26:52) Others seek an equally illusory security in laws that are not respected by those with violent intent. Laws may control the behavior of most people, but they cannot determine the character of those who do not share the underlying principle of the law.

 

Only as we acknowledge and address our fear will we be able to have a dialog that can produce a viable consensus. St. John wrote, “Perfect love casts our fear.” (1 John 4:18) The dialog needs to be about how to make love a practical replacement for fear.

 

One part of that has to do with how we handle mental illness. This is more than providing better services. It has to do with truly loving those who suffer from mental illness, so we are not afraid of “them,” and they are not afraid of “us.”

 

But even deeper, we have to surrender our insatiable, impossible insistence on total security. That is not to say we accept threats and dangers, but that we recognize nothing we do will be 100% airtight and not look to lay blame on scapegoats when the reality of human insecurity happens.

 

That gets at a core issue that is even more difficult to address: individualistic self-focus that makes self-defense a paramount value. Whether we think guns or laws will defend us from violent threats, the effect is to elevate ourselves over others, which is to stifle love with fear.

 

Fully recognizing that only a tiny portion of the population consider themselves first and foremost to be disciples of Jesus, as one who aspires to that and to follow his lead, I must surrender my demand for self-defense. That determination took Jesus to the cross and is the life path laid out by St. Paul. (Philippians 3:10-11) To become like Jesus in his death, and attain the resurrection from the dead.

 

Out of love I may do any number of difficult and risky things to protect my family, my friends, my neighbors, even those I don’t know who might think of me as their enemy. But I would like to think that if faced with only these options, I would choose to let an attacker send me into the arms of Jesus than for me to send them to eternal judgment beyond repentance. Can anything less express the love of Jesus?

Merry Christmas?

My earliest recollections of Christmas go back to ‘51 or ‘52 when I was 5 or 6 years old. I definitely remember Christmas cards, downtown stores with elaborate window displays, and front lawn home displays that said “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays” as well as “Merry Christmas.” A survey of old movies and antique Christmas cards show that this mix of greetings had already been going on for a long time, and no one was concerned that it was or was not politically correct.

Yes, businesses and our Jewish neighbors (which was a substantial part of the neighborhood where I grew up) tended toward “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays,” but no one accused them of making war on Christmas. Yes, there were calls to “keep Christ in Christmas,” but that tended to be encouragement for Christians' families to focus their celebrations on the birth of Jesus. If someone said to you, “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays” or “Happy Hanukkah” or “Merry Christmas,” you just accepted it as a gesture of good will, not as a call to arms in the culture wars.

I find it ironically amusing that so much of what we nostalgically associate with Christmas comes from the Victorian era by way of Charles Dickens’ 1843 novella A Christmas Carol. The turning point in the story comes as Ebenezer Scrooge awakens from his dreams on Christmas morning, flings open his window and shouts “Merry Christmas!” to the people in the street. Yes, he used “Merry Christmas,” but Jesus is not mentioned in the story. Charles Dickens’ interests were strictly secular and humanitarian. He was actually rather hostile to religion, church and Christianity. So Scrooge’s “Merry Christmas” was not at all about keeping Christ in Christmas.

Clement Clarke Moore’s 1822 poem ‘Twas the night before Christmas ends with St. Nicholas flying off with the greeting, “Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!” but the poem makes nary a reference to Jesus. I do not object to Dickens or Moore or even to Santa Claus as a fun imaginary figure (albeit with an historic, Christian foundation). I am only suggesting that Christmas observances without overtly mentioning Jesus have a long and cherished history. So when someone greets me today with “Season’s Greetings,” “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas,” I accept it as their genuine expression of good will and usually return my own “Merry Christmas,” not to make some kind of statement but simply as a greeting in my own most comfortable way.

As a pastor and one who intends to be a faithful disciple of Jesus, I do take seriously the connections between our language and life of faith. When the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7) say, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (RSV), “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God” (NIV), “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God” (NRSV), I’m rather more concerned that invoking the name of Christ for commercial purposes violates this commandment more than if a secular entity or non-Christian person says “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.”

Without intending to be judgmental, I suggest for our contemplation whether it might be a misuse of the name of Christ to promote the sales of inflatable or illuminated lawn ornaments such snowmen and toy soldiers, or the sale of violent video games, or luxurious jewelry and cars. I am not at all opposed to seasonal festivities, symbols and gifts. I am only questioning whether insisting that they be associated with the birth of Jesus detracts from rather than enhances our Christmas celebrations.

For several years I have observed the increasingly strident insistence on “Merry Christmas,” that strikes me as conveying a tone rather contrary to the approach Jesus took with people. This year I am noticing more push-back (of which this piece might be an example). My own assessment is that this push and pull contaminates the joy that we hope to feel as Christmas approaches. I suppose I have engaged in this analysis because that is what wells up in my mind when I am repeatedly prodded by something that troubles me. Actually, my hope would be that I could give and receive well intentioned greetings without having to think about whether some socio-political message is hiding there.