Humpty Dumpty Theology

In an opinion piece in the Hartford Courant, Davida Foy Crabtree described the United Church of Christ as a community of people and churches who “take the Bible too seriously to take it literally” (http://www.ctucc.org/news/dfconucc0604.html) When I read that, I felt like Alice in Lewis Carroll’s, Through the Looking Glass.

“There’s glory for you!”

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”

But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it too mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

“Would you tell me please,” said Alice, “what that means?”

“Now you talk like a reasonable child,” said Humpty Dumpty, “ … I meant by ‘impenetrability’ that we’ve had enough of that subject, and that it would be just as well if you’d mention what you suppose to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.”

“That’s a great deal to make one word mean,” Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

“When I make a word do a lot of work like that,” said Humpty Dumpty, “I always pay it extra.”

Apparently, for Ms. Crabtree serious biblical interpretation implies paying words extra. Those of us who consider ourselves “evangelicals” or “conservatives,” whom she might call “literalists,” are unreasonable Alices. We want words to mean something. We expect texts to be important. And, we want to pay attention to what a text actually says.

We, too, as she admirably expresses the aspirations of the people of the UCC, do not want to “shy away from applying the faith to every aspect of our lives.” The difference is that we think “the faith” has content and meaning that is defined for us and which we look to discover, rather than to invent.

We hope and pray that our social, cultural, and political institutions do not share her Humpty Dumpty approach to interpretation of texts. We hope, for example, that the Supreme Court doesn’t take the Constitution too seriously to pay attention to what it actually says.

No thanks, Mr. Kerry !

This past Thursday at the Democratic National Convention, John Kerry issued an invitation to people of faith, "And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith." Speaking as a person of faith I can only say, "No thanks, Mr. Kerry! I decline your invitation." Let me explain why.

It is not at all clear what the cause is to which you're inviting people of faith. Is it in taking the high road in the election, "My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place?" I'm not sure where your "high road" is located; it must be just a couple inches above sea level. In spite of all your claims to the contrary, your speech was full of Michael Moore-like insinuation, insult and innuendo. Your statement, "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family" could have been lifted directly from Farenheit 911. You accused President Bush of lying to the American people, deliberately misleading us into war, and distorting facts offered by the intelligence community for political purposes. You accused the Vice President of conducting secret meetings with polluters. And, you reserved your greatest slander for the Attorney General of the US, insinuating that he has corrupted the Constitution of the United States he has sworn to uphold. Many of us suspect that you and others find Mr. Ashcroft particularly distatsteful precisely because he is a man of faith.

No, Mr. Kerry, the high road is a high road of truth. It does not embrace and spread propaganda while pretending not to. Your campaign has been filled with personal attacks on your opponents at the same time you claim a "positive message."

Is the cause you're inviting us to that of making "this election a contest of big ideas" in the place of "small-minded attacks" "misus[ing[ for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States?" I question whether there is anything more important than a wide-spread citizens' discussion about the rule of law versus the rule of judges. The Supreme Court has been tinkering with the Constitution for years, finding new rights where none previously existed, sometimes overturning previous decisions because of a gathering consensus in the lawyers' guild, sometimes asserting that the credibility of the court is at stake in continuing to affirm previous decisions in spite of controversy. People of faith have been shocked out of their complacency by recent opinions issued by the Supreme Court in which an "emerging awareness" somehow discernable to judges apart from any explicit democratic expression now trumps "practices ... firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards," where rights not enumerated in the Constitution can now be found by a cloistered judge's observation of the past 50 years of degenerate human history. (see Lawrence v. Texas)

No, Mr. Kerry, the Constitution, and the rule of law, are big ideas. Not letting people of faith discuss the intellectual and ethical foundations of our society are small minded to the extreme.

The conditions of your invitation are too onerous for me. People of faith are welcome to join your campaign only on the condition that they not "wear their faith on their sleeve." That is, we are welcome only if our faith doesn't require anything of us, if it doesn't inform our moral judgments, if it doesn't require any action, if the values we derive from our faith comfort but don't compel. We are only welcome if we embrace inconsistency. We are welcome only if we are comfortable believing one thing and doing another.

No, Mr. Kerry, I have seen your inconsistency. I decline your invitation.