Sola Scriptura

You may have heard that a couple of judicial heavyweights teamed up to write an article for the Atlantic claiming Donald J. Trump cannot run for the American Presidency again because he was plainly guilty of fostering an insurrection against the American government and constitution. These two heavyweights maintain the constitution's 14th Amendment rules anyone who pulls off or attempts to pull off that kind of rebellion is ineligible to lead the nation. Thus, Trump, by law, may not run for the American Presidency.

Those judicial heavyweights rarely, if ever, shake hands on anything. Laurence Tribe is a Harvard Law School star known to camp left-of-center. J. Michael Luttig is just as firmly entrenched, although on the opposite side of the river. The real news is that, on this issue, they wholeheartedly agree.

That issue has yet to play itself out, but because denying Trump's candidacy threatens riots in the streets, it remains a hot issue. David Frumm, also from the Atlantic, is by nature an old-fashioned conservative, who believes in human initiative and small government. But Trump's Republicans are quick to call people like Frumm "rhinos," because they're not at all enthralled by the Orange Man. 

Frumm argues here that Luttig and Tribe are wrong, but his argument is fascinating because it reflects on a significant problem in all sorts of cultures--how do we most honor our established truths, the documents we consider fundamental to our existence--the American constitution, for example, or the Word of God? 

The 14th Amendment argument plays out in unique ways. Trump's appointment of three anti-abortion candidates was assured by his choosing justices who some consider to be "constructionists," scholars who believe that you don't or can't "interpret" the constitution. Instead, you simply adhere to what it says. Some consider the Trump appointees "fundamentalists," akin to religious fundamentalists who argue that we wander from the truth when we consider that the scriptures were written long ago for a culture long gone. The Constitution, like the Bible, has to be interpreted.

The irony here is that Trump conservatives, if they want to keep their man eligible, have to "interpret" the 14th Amendment, a behavior they believe plainly wrong in almost any other situation. But then, liberals who want Trump sidelined at any cost find themselves arguing for constitutional inerrancy--"of course, he can't run, people--just read the text."

David Frumm argues that the 14th Amendment has to be read in the context of its origins, a post-civil war statute that needed to be instituted because of the very real menace of Southerners who remained steadfastly opposed to any form of Northern aggression. Frumm says those who argue for disbarring Trump are misreading the constitution, which must be read in the context of its time.

Christendom's latest boiling point is the Queer world. Controversy threatens to tear dozens of fellowships apart. "Just read what the Bible says," say the conservatives. "You can't just adopt what the Bible says without interpretation," say the libs. Same spot on the dial.

Long, long ago, the denomination of which I was and am a part, asked me to write devotional books for middle-schoolers. Our own kids were that age at the time, so I lived in the presence of the audience I'd be serving. The denomination lined me up with a theologian, who picked out the passages and the themes, but it was my job to make ideas playful, to find ways to engage young readers or families with young readers. They kept asking for more, so I kept writing.

I enjoyed it. I don't think I would ever have applied for the job, but having been chosen made me believe that the powers-that-be thought I could do a good job.

Writing those books taught me a lot of things, including that I wasn't a fundamentalist. What was clear from the get-go was that any devotional book based on scripture passages had to "interpret" those passages. Had to. Absolutely had to. I don't know that anyone can read or write or preach the Bible without bringing a new context into what's there on the page. "Thou shalt not kill"--I know Mennonites who believe that, but not all that many born and reared in my fellowship. 

I'm on Frumm's side when it comes to the 14th Amendment. What he finally argues is that the key to wash Trump's vile imprint finally and assuredly from the American psyche is to vote the man conclusively out of office. Seven million popular votes aren't enough. It will take more. What Frumm argues is that it's going to take immense energy and shared resolution, but Trump must lose and lose big, before he can exit the culture. 

Interesting however, isn't it? What we esteem as our own very special words of wisdom don't--and sometimes can't--end debate. The answer to the 14th Amendment question has a clear corollary in the Acts of Synod: do our precious documents live and breathe or are they fundamental standards that bridge all of time.

Talk among yourselves.