The Wrong Side of Hermeneutics

A common rhetorical weapon used today is to claim that a position is "on the wrong side of history." For example, if a Conservative Evangelical asserts that a particular act or belief is counter to the Bible, opponents will claim that he is on the wrong side of history. The model for this claim is that Conservative Evangelicals formerly supported slavery and segregation. Those positions are rejected today by almost everyone and Conservatives are frequently apologizing for the errant positions of their ancestors. But this model is actual deficient and takes a myopic approach to history.
First, only historians can assess when a position is on the wrong side of history. History is a study of past events, people, and concepts. By definition, it is impossible to assess current events as though they were history. Historians are not neutral arbiters of the past, but they do have access to the wider range of events that include the conclusion, impact, and legacy of events. During the 18th and 19th Centuries, colonialism seemed a prudent and beneficial concept to the major world powers. Historians have argued that proponents of colonialism were on the wrong side of history because they see the record of destruction and disaster created by colonialism.
Second, many modern pundits seem to regard the church's position on slavery and segregation to be uniform. The church was far from uniform on such matters. The church drove the abolitionist movement in Great Britain and the United States. Early in church history many believers began to realize that Christianity and slavery were in opposition. How can one both enslave and love one's neighbor? Christian leaders from Patrick to John Newton to John Woolman raised their voices against slavery.
There were Christians who argued that the Bible justified slavery. There were also humanists that argued science justified slavery. Their main concern was to justify slavery because their culture accepted it. In other words, it was neither the Bible nor science that drove their position, but it was their culture that dominated their view.
Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. Good practitioners of Biblical Hermeneutics seek to interpret the Bible without being influenced by their cultural biases. The goal is to determine the original intent and point of the Biblical authors and communicate those truths to their contemporaries. Supporters of slavery in the antebellum South failed to understand the differences between the chattel slavery of their day and the slavery of the Greco-Roman world. Further, they failed to see how the New Testament undermined that slavery. They were not on the wrong side of history; they were on the wrong side of hermeneutics. They saw the Bible through the filter of their culture.
The danger remains for us today. When we read the Bible through the filter of our culture, we will also be on the wrong side of hermeneutics. Any interpretation of the Bible that does not challenge culture is suspect. Our task as believers is not to force the Bible to match the current culture, but to allow the truth to challenge and confront the sins of our culture. My concern has nothing to do with how history will judge my beliefs, but if my hermeneutic is consistent and faithful to the God that gave us the Bible.

Bad Judgment

On this day in 1857, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered their decision in the Dred Scott versus Sandford case. The court ruled against Scott and essentially ruled that slaves were not citizens of the United States. Slaves could not bring suit in Federal courts and limited the Federal government's role in regulating slavery in states established after the adoption of the Constitution. It was considered a major setback for abolitionists. While Chief Justice Roger Taney hoped that the ruling would settle the slave question, it helped prepare the way for the Civil War.

It is important to keep in mind that slavery was a legal institution under the Constitution of the United States. The court was upholding a Constitutionally protected institution that existed prior to the founding of the nation. Many legal scholars debate whether the court rendered the correct judgment. However, they approach the question with modern morality that abhors slavery (most of the time). But prior to the American Civil War the morality of slavery varied across the country. A significant number of Americans supported slavery as beneficial and necessary. Slavery was affirmed as legal, moral, and justifiable by the Constitution, public opinion, and the Supreme Court. Not everyone agreed with that. The Dred Scott case mobilized abolitionists, especially within the Republican party. The mobilization would eventually lift Abraham Lincoln to the White House and spark the Civil War.

Today we recognize that pro-slavery opinions were wrong. The Supreme Court only rules on what is legal under the Constitution, but they don't always rule on what is moral. Often the Supreme Court is considered the final arbiter. If Republicans had considered the Supreme Court the final arbiter in the 1850s, then slavery would have continued for several more decades. Many Americans recognized that the ruling of the Supreme Court was supporting something evil. They continued to work hard to end slavery in the United States. We should recognize that the Supreme Court and public opinion can be swayed to immoral positions that are acceptable to society. That does not make it right. Our standards for morality must come from a higher position and authority.