The sinner's prayer

An Originalist

    Writing in the recent issue (September 14, 2015) of The Weekly Standard, law professors Randy Barnett (Georgetown) and Josh Blackman (South Texas) insist the next president should find justices for the Supreme Court who are “originalists.” They define “originalism” as: “Adhering to the original meaning of the text of the Constitution - each and every word” (pg. 24). 

    It is a lazy (and dishonest) judge who rules based on his or her own heart’s dictates and desires. It takes time and effort to study the original context of the Constitution - its words, phrases, and overall context. He/she would need to study the writings of those who wrote the Constitution, defended the Constitution in the early years, and commented on its interpretation in those early years.

    I am certainly no legal scholar but this approach only makes sense. If you want to know what the Constitution means and how it applies today, you have to know what it meant then and how it applied at that time. It is the Supreme Law of the land. If the government is to have a warrant before it can search your house, it only makes sense in the digital age that the government needs to have a warrant before it searches your telephone records, e-mail, etc. Principles endure.

    This approach also rules out federal law allowing abortions, homosexual marriages, providing healthcare or the regulation of the economy. None of these are found in the Constitution and, as any middle school student should know, the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government (nor prohibited to the states) are reserved to the states or the people. That is not hard to understand, as any middle school student would know.

    Are you a Constitutional originalist?

    When it comes to the Word of God, the Supreme Law in spiritual matters, the same approach is required. We are separated by the New Testament authors by: language, culture, political environment, continents, and many, many years. The same is true with the Old Testament writers.

    It is lazy (and dishonest) to twist the Scriptures and make them say whatever one wants them to say, to tickle one’s own ears. It takes time and energy to study the original context of the Word of God. This approach is called the “historical-grammatical” method of study. This approach, like Constitutional originalism, seeks to learn the meaning of a given passage as the author intended and learn his intended application to his original audience. There is one meaning to the passage - the one intended by the author.

    When you have studied the original context, the biblical (not English) definition of words, the context in that particular book/letter, and the overall context of the Bible dealing with that theme, then you know what you need to know. When you have reached that point, you also know what the application of the text is for today. Principles endure.

    This approach to God’s law rules out the sinner’s prayer as means to obtain salvation, mechanical instruments of music in worship, a “pope,” denominational hierarchies, and so forth. They are not found in the Scriptures and the Scriptures say if something is not found in them, do not do them: Revelation 22:18-19; Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; Galatians 1:6-9.

    Are you a “biblical originalist”? Bind what God has bound. Leave liberty where God has left it.

--Paul Holland