Should the Constitution and the Bible Be Subject to Evolving Interpretations Over Time?

By: John Moore

The Constitution and the Bible are the bedrock of our nation and the foundation of Christianity.  Each document contains fundamental truths and values that serve as the foundation for their respective area, i.e. governance and faith.  The importance and impact of these documents have made them a target for those who want to shape American law, culture, and beliefs to match their agenda.  They intend to change the interpretation or add things to the documents based on changes in our culture.  Interpreting these documents based on an ever-changing culture may sound like a good idea, but it opens the door to interpretations that counter the foundational truths that make the documents effective at preserving rights and guiding our beliefs.  Given that the Constitution and the Bible serve distinct purposes—the Constitution outlining a government for a just and orderly society and the Bible revealing God’s plan of salvation and guidance for living in fellowship with Him—they will be discussed separately.

The U.S. government is based on a hierarchy of laws and is held together by the rule of law.  The Constitution is the foundation that contains the core values that are the basis for federal, state, and local laws.  As such, it was not intended to address every specific situation in society.  That is the purpose of the laws which are based on its principles.  Thus, the principles in the Constitution are intended to be timeless and applicable to all citizens.  This requires a document that is stable and modified only for significant reasons.

The originators of the Constitution knew that they could not craft a flawless blueprint for governance, so they defined a process for changing the Constitution.  However, they understood human nature and the importance of a steadfast foundation for American society.  So, they wanted to ensure that the process allowed enough time for everyone to consider the consequences of a change.  This would inhibit knee-jerk reactions to policy changes or cultural fads.  They also wanted to secure a broad consensus before revising the foundational framework of the U.S. government. This requires obtaining agreement from more than a simple majority.  To accomplish this, an amendment to the Constitution must be proposed by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. 

Some states have followed similar wisdom for their constitutions but some have made it relatively easy to amend their constitutions.  This has resulted in amendments being passed without sufficient deliberation or widespread agreement.  An example of this is when a conservative state like Ohio passed a constitutional amendment, within one year with only a simple majority, to implement a very liberal abortion policy.  Not only did this abortion amendment not have broad support, but because it was rushed through, it also prohibited a comprehensive examination of its consequences for both the mother and the unborn child.  These abortion amendments are examples of how you get ideological preferences embedded in constitutions instead of foundational principles on human rights.  If pro-abortion advocates were to draft an appropriate constitutional amendment for their purposes, it would focus on fundamental human rights rather than specifying a medical procedure like abortion, which is better suited for legislation.   For example, to accomplish the pro-abortion intent, a constitutional amendment would say that the pre-born child has no right to any protection. However, they knew the voters would not approve that wording, even though the proposed amendments have the same effect as this one.

Since amending the U.S. Constitution is a long and difficult process, advocates for certain policies have taken a different route to getting their views into the Constitution.  This involves interpreting the words of the Constitution in a different way than the original authors intended, or creating new rights that diverge from the initial context.  Roe vs. Wade is an example of the latter technique for manipulating the Constitution.  That is why the concurring justices in Roe could not cite a specific right to abortion but had to find it in the “penumbra” of the phrasing.  They extracted a new right to privacy and self-autonomy from basic human rights that were never intended to address this.  The Dobbs Supreme Court ruling does a masterful job of explaining why the analysis in Roe was incorrect. 

The strategy of reinterpreting the words of the Constitution has been evident in discussions surrounding the Second Amendment for some time.  Instead of addressing the root cause of violence in American society, opponents of the “right to bear arms” amendment have sought to undermine the Constitutional right of Americans to protect themselves and their families.  Their argument consists of saying it does not apply to most citizens, or that it should only apply to a narrow definition of “arms.”  However, such interpretations are inconsistent with the original context and intent of the amendment.

To uphold a stable and orderly government, the interpretation of the Constitution must be restricted to its explicit text, avoiding distortions for specific outcomes.  If there is a medical procedure or a piece of hardware that the majority wants to allow or prohibit, then it should be implemented in the law or a constitutional amendment passed by the legislatures, instead of being dictated by activist judges.

Similar to the Constitution, the Bible has also been subjected to revisionist interpretations.  Serving as the foundation of Christianity for over two millennia, it provides vital guidance for believers.   Yet, some groups influenced by secularism strive to selectively follow parts of the Bible while disregarding others. While theological disputes have always existed, a troubling trend has arisen where clear biblical commands are ignored.  This has led to divisions within denominations, such as among Methodists. 

Proponents of revising biblical teachings argue that modern culture necessitates prioritizing certain aspects to render Christianity more appealing.  They do this by redefining commands like “love thy neighbor” into a command to embrace what others do regardless of whether it violates other Biblical commands.  The Bible’s authority stems from its status as divine revelation.  If Christians accept that part of that revelation is wrong, then we are forced to abandon it as being from God.  This erosion of the foundation of Christianity weakens the faith in all Biblical teachings and opens the door to the creation of a self-defined religion instead of a God-defined faith.

Both government and faith require stable reference points to guide their respective paths.  Those who oppose the established values in these foundational texts often resort to attacking the Constitution and the Bible to legitimize their views.  Embracing such revisionist interpretations subjects our government and faith to the whims of an ever-changing popular culture that too often falls prey to selfish desires.  Acquiescence to these selfish desires ultimately results in the collapse of society, which is why these standards of good governance and faith need to be protected.