In Katie Scofield’s article, Amy Coney Barrett: The cruel irony of a female originalist Katie makes a case for her to not be taken seriously ever again. Her point is that it’s not rational for a woman to be a Constitutional Originalist.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people earn PhDs…I mean, forgive me folks, but this is utterly ridiculous. She’s saying that there is an irony in a woman being an originalist because the original framers of the constitution didn’t believe in women voting. Yeah? So? Who cares? The founders also believed that maybe they were wrong about stuff or that people would want to change the structure of our government and how it orders society so they gave the right to pass amendments. And the 19th one gave women the right to vote because women weren’t given the right to vote in the constitution as originally written. So the legislature did what the founders established the legislature to do – they legislated. Gasp. Horror. I know, I know, it’s so frightening to rely on the legislative branch to legislate because then you might not get what you want. It’s so much easier for the Executive branch to both execute the law and to legislate the laws they will execute through administrative fiat. And, gooly jeepers, does anything beat the Judicial branch legislating from the bench – inventing constitutional rights that aren’t in the constitution and ignoring, eroding, and eliminating ones that actually are. It’s a really safe idea to have the people who judge our laws also being the ones who write them – that could NEVER go badly.
The whole constitutional separation of powers thing…I mean, I don’t see why it’s necessary. It’s really just an obstacle to pure majoritarianism…or oligarchical despotism. Cause, as we all know, despotism is great – as long as you’re one of the despots.
But that’s not what I want to talk about today. Nope. What I want to talk about is this frightening, terrifying, misogynistic, homophobic, aberrant judicial philosophy called Originalism. Or, its even more frightening subspecies: Textualism. And if you didn’t hear some ominous thunder or the classic Dun-dun-DUNNNNNNNN in your head when I said Textualism it’s because you aren’t educated enough to know how frightening it is to have judges who interpret the law as it was written instead of just imposing their own personal wishes and whims on the body politic.
And while this may seem like an obscure and wonky debate – it is actually at the heart of an enormous amount of division in our churches! And the reason is because Originalism, and its sweet twin babes Textualism and Intentionalism are the interpretative philosophies that underpins theological conservatism. Pragmatism, on the other hand, is the interpretative philosophy that makes theological liberalism possible.
And many people believe that this is the real dividing line between conservative and liberal Christianity. But that’s actually a mistake – it’s a mistake because the question of Originalist versus Pragmatism, or in biblical terms, Conservatism and Liberalism is actually a secondary issue. Whether you’re conservative in your biblical interpretation or liberal is derivative of where you stand on another issue altogether. That issue is Perspicuity.
Perspicuity is a word that simply means “clarity”. But in the context of the bible it means that the Bible is written in such a way that it can be understood by normal people using normal methods. Charles Hodge, the great Princetonian says this about Perspicuity:
The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.
It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.
It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i.e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves.
What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.
Now, granted that’s a lot to take in, but in essence what it means is that the Word of God is plain and understandable – albeit it requires the aid of the Holy Spirit. Now, this may seem like a moot point, or something small and unimportant – I promise you it isn’t. It isn’t because subsumed within the concept of Perspicuity are several presuppositions. People who believe in Perspicuity presume that God CAN communicate verbally with humanity. Now, again, to people who aren’t academics, this may seem like a small thing – I promise you it isn’t. There are people who say that because God is infinite and we are finite that it is impossible for communication to happen. These people make some sense, as long as you don’t think too long about it, because what they mean is that there is no way for the finite to grasp the infinite or the contingent to comprehend the transcendent. But, simply because complete and total understanding is impossible doesn’t mean that sufficient understanding is! Moreover, there is a rather ironic twist to this. Let me lay it out carefully so you can see the logical fallacy:
1) God is Omnipotent.
2) Omnipotence means that God can do all things that are according to His will and are not self-contradictory.
3) Mortals are Not Omnipotent.
4) Not Omnipotent means that we cannot do all things that we desire.
5) Because Mortals are Not Omnipotent God cannot communicate with Mortals.
That’s the logic – and at first glance is seems powerful. But what it’s really saying is that God cannot communicate with mortals. Or, in other words, God is not Omnipotent. It is neither self-contradictory nor against God’s will for Him to communicate with man. So, if God is Omnipotent, He can communicate with man. If God cannot communicate with man, He’s not Omnipotent. But if He’s not omnipotent, then He isn’t’ fully other and Transcendent and then communication should be possible – even if difficult. When you deny Perspicuity you deny the Omnipotence of God.
Moreover, baked into the Perspicuity Cake is the Authority of God. If God can, has, and does speak through His Word, and gives Authoritative statements, then the Bible speaks Authoritatively. Denying Perspicuity is a shortcut to denying Authority. And, of course, the same thing goes with Inerrancy and Infallibility and many of the other Doctrines of the Bible that Conservatives hold – if you reject Perspicuity, then you reject them as well.
But, like I said, the most important issue at stake with Perspicuity is that if you accept it, you are limited in your viable interpretations of the Scriptures. Right off the bat, you go from an unlimited number of possible interpretations to a limited number. That, of course, doesn’t mean perfect agreement in all things at all times. It does, however, mean that there is going to be a limited spectrum of possible legitimate interpretations. This doesn’t NOT mean that all the interpretations are correct, but that they are possible because they proceed from the presupposition that the Bible was written and transmitted with Perspicuity. Let me give and example. Let’s say my wife left me a note. And the note simply says, “Going out with my BFF, see you back at home before bed.”
Now, after I dust the salt off myself in the realization that I’m not my wife’s BFF, I have a few ways to interpret that. I could say, well she’s going out with her sister, because they’re best friends. But maybe she’s going out with someone else – there are a couple women that might fit that bill. But maybe, just maybe, she means that she’s going out with me and we’ll come home before bedtime.
Now, even though this isn’t perfectly clear – it’s understandable. And if I knew perfectly who her best friend was I’d know how to interpret that. And maybe she’s TOLD me another time, but I forgot. Or maybe I’m just not ready for that info yet. But I’m limited in my interpretations. I cannot read the note that says, she’s going out with her BFF and interpret that to mean that I should go buy a convertible. I cannot interpret it however I want, I’m limited in my possible interpretations. I may not always get it right, but I will more often than not.
It’s important that Christians recognize that God HAS spoken and He HAS spoken clearly and that clear speech comes to us in His Word and it has divine Authority over how we thinks, speak, and act. It has authority over our affections – what we love and what we desire. It has authority over our will. God’s Word has authority over our loves and our lives. And you can only hold to Authority if you hold to Perspicuity.