What Does the US Constitution Have To Do With Biblical Inerrancy?

Just the other day I was listening to my town’s local conservative talk AM radio station. During one of the afternoon shows, a fellow called in to complain about the so-called “constitutional crisis” we are currently facing in America. The caller, like many before him, bemoaned the never ending increases in the size of government, how the current administration is running roughshod over constitutional rights and provisions, and massive and unsustainable spending. This critique is nothing new. As a matter of fact, sometimes I think talk radio really only has one or two callers. They all sound the same and they all talk about the same thing. In many ways, as a fiscal and social conservative, I agree deeply and profoundly with this man’s critique of the powers that be. What he said next, however, really got me thinking.

It seems that a lot of time nowadays in the “vast right wing conspiracy” is committed not only to complaining about the problem, but finding solutions to it as well. As a way of a poor and comedic example, one man on Limbaugh today said that small businesses should fire 50% of their payrolls in order to flood the unemployment offices so as to overwhelm and bankrupt the federal government. The man I was listening to, however, cited the history of the Southern Baptist Convention as an example of how to give conservatives back the power. In the 70s and 80s, the SBC, in the face of creeping theological liberalism, elected theological conservatives to positions of prominence who ensured a conservative powerbase within the convention that exists to this day. The caller claimed that the USA could do the same thing by electing all conservatives to positions of power. Needless to say, it was an interesting example.

This got me to thinking about the resurgence of strict constructionism in American conservatism. More and more, you will hear conservatives, Ron Paul, and right wing third party people talk about the necessity of returning to the basic principles of the government as outlined in the Constitution. Basically, these people want the government to go back to the letter of the law and follow and do only what the US Constitution says, and nothing else. Using a theological term, these conservatives believe in the total “sufficiency” of the US Constitution.

To me, I’m seeing many parallels in the political conservative thrust to reclaim the authority of the Constitution and the theological conservative thrust to reclaim the authority of the Bible. To me, I think this says something profound about conservatism in general: it tends to find its authority outside of itself, whether it be in tradition, history, a written document, or the Divine. Liberalism, on the other hand, has tended to find its epistemic verification from within. This is to say that its main source of authority is itself (this, of course, is extreme generalizing). To me, it seems that finding authority in sources outside oneself is a more humble way of doing things than trusting in the reason of humanity or oneself. And this is why we as Christians should be at least partially hesitant to fully embrace the “back to the Constitution movement.”

For Christians, there is only one divinely inspired text: it is the Bible. Because it is inspired, it is also inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient for all things. The US Constitution, on the other hand, is clearly a man made document. As such, it was made by erring and sinful men, and is therefore first of all, not inerrant, and secondly, leans heavily on fallen human reason. For this reason, while the Constitution is legally authoritative, it is not practically sufficient. This is to say that since God didn’t inspire the Constitution, it can therefore never be prudent to believe that a return to following the letter of the Constitution will fix America’s problems. And this is the belief I find so often in some of the people who advocate this position. Methodological and institutional fidelity to the Constitution does not necessarily guarantee that America will prosper. Now I don't mean to bash the Constitution. It is a wonderful document and is by far the best of its kind in the world. The American political process secures maximum freedom for the maximum amount of people. I'm just hesitant to give it the almost inerrant and Biblical status it seemingly has among many conservatives today. This is not to say, however, that the people who advocate this position don’t have a political foot to stand on. It does seem evident that the government is bound by law, for better or worse, to strictly follow what the Constitution says, and nothing else. The current administration, and almost every administration before it, has abandoned this principle. This is why I say that the Constitution is legally authoritative, but not practically sufficient.

To sum up my somewhat jumbled argument, we Americans, as flawed people, have legally bound ourselves to a flawed document (a document, mind you, that is not near as flawed as it could have been, for every government is nowhere near perfect). Even though this document is not perfect, it is the rule of law and must be followed. Today and in the past, this has not been done, precisely because the document is flawed and clearly not sufficient. Therefore, as Christians and political conservatives, we have no foot to stand on when we claim that a return to Constitutional fidelity will “fix” America; however, we can claim that the rule of law, when properly interpreted, requires us to return to a strict constructionist and, dare I say, “literalist” understanding of the Constitution. So what then should we do? Work today to bring peace and healing to the land in any way that we can, and hope in the future coming of our King, who will make all things new and perfect, including the political process. We would do well to remember that.