Early in our history as a nation, two prevailing views surfaced in respect to the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. One view, championed by Alexander Hamilton, favored a strong federal government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. The other, championed by Thomas Jefferson, advocated States’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Both men were part of President Washington’s cabinet. Hamilton headed the Treasury Department and Jefferson was Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Secretary of State). These two parties came to be referred to as the Federalists (loose constructionists) and the Antifederalists (strict constructionists). Although the parties have long since faded from the American scene, what they represented remains a part of the basic fabric of American politics.
One of the first battles in the new administration was fought over the establishment of a national bank. Hamilton supported the proposal while Jefferson opposed it. Jefferson argued that the Constitution said nothing about a national bank. There was no provision for it. Hamilton countered that the Constitution did not prohibit it. The Constitution did not say, “Thou shalt not have the government engage in the banking business.” Hamilton won that fight. The next President was John Adams, a Federalist. But, Jefferson continued to preach the doctrine of respect for the Constitution, and when the third election for President came around, Jefferson prevailed. The pendulum has been swung back and forth ever since.
But, enough of history and politics. We now turn to the subject of religion and the Bible. Again, we confront two competing philosophies in respect to the Word of God. Loose constructionists argue that the Bible is a living book constantly changing and evolving. Strict constructionists argue that the Bible is the inspired, authoritative, inerrant Word of God, and unchanging. Loose constructionists argue that we are free to accept anything not specifically prohibited in Scripture, and strict constructionists counter that we must reject all that is not clearly commanded. It seems that loose constructionists have carried the day. They have done so by totally ignoring some passages and by reinterpreting others to compensate for perceived social, cultural or gender bias on the part of the original authors. This has occurred in spite of the clear statement: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Whether one should be a strict or loose constructionist in the political arena may be subject to debate, but when it comes to the Bible, only a strict interpretation of the text should prevail!
