Thursday, November 8, 2007

Time for a Redraft?

I love good book reviews. A well written book review can save a lot of time and money for anyone who reads. Once one establishes the credentials of the reviewer they become a dependable source to lure you to the work or possibly, to dismiss it. Much like the icing on the cake, I often save the reviews until last on regularly read periodicals. A talented reviewer will synopsize the principal point and express it succinctly, possibly furnish some quotes and create a feeling for the worth of the issues with out bias.

One of the latest reviews concerned Larry Sabato’s new book, “A More Perfect Constitution.” The general theme of the work is seeking a constitutional convention to rewrite, update and generally polish that monumental document. Never mind that it has served us admirably for over two-and-a-quarter centuries. The author proposes that the venerable document ignores many contemporary issues which are actually addressed in the original but in terms which require a familiarity with eighteenth century speech and those who framed it. I read the review and concluded that I am far too much of a traditionalist to entertain the thought of altering that sacred paper with today’s standards.

Within easy reach, as I write this, are several books which I deem necessary for the writing and corresponding I do. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is 14” from the keyboard. At 3’ are the Dictionary, The Three in One, Strong’s, and the Good News Concordances, and Matthew Henry’s Commentary. Slightly further are the first four volumes of Church History and dozens of other books related to the church and to government. They stand as a reminder that I don’t know it all. Some are becoming dogeared as further testimony. I am also inclined to augment my inquiry into all of these volumes with prayer for that cherished and promised verification. None stands alone.

As I pondered Mr. Sabato’s proposal, I marveled at my copy of the work he wishes to review and possibly amend. My copy (furnished by the Cato Institute) is 58 pages, 3 ½ by 5 inches (a shirt pocket thank you) with the wisdom of the universe. It celebrates and protects rights granted to our peoples from God Almighty and states it in no uncertain terms. Its emphasis on liberty for all our people regardless of circumstance has served this nation continuously longer than any other on the planet. As the man says, “If it ain't broke, don’t fix it.”

I then turned to the parallel within the Restoration and the broader church as well. It baffles me that so many have a fixation on modernization and the desire to bring the body of believers in to a “new age.” Obviously a physical updating of temporal issues is often necessary and beneficial. Your range of communication, by reading this on your computer, and being able to respond instantly, has expanded exponentially. In conversation with a brother recently he emphasized a point with his handheld device which among other documents had the complete lineage of the Smith family—in the palm of his hand. Even in the face of such modern advancement, I can only describe him as one of the most orthodox Saints I have ever met. He is using the most up-to-date tools to endorse the “ole-time” religion.

God has given men gifts to devise a constant flow of innovative tools to share the gospel and the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Why then do some feel the necessity to alter the message to fit the times? The cycle is unchanged over millennia. Man is; he sins; he repents; he is forgiven. He sins again; he repents again; and on, and on, and on. Sometimes, man looks around his comfortable surroundings and gets the idea that he created all of it. He may have paid for it but he is not in the creation business. We are beneficiaries of a benign God who allows us to enjoy the wonders of His world for our allotted time. It appears that the only thing which separates us from the Old Testament Jews is our cell phone. You know the drill: hurry home from church so we can continue our work building the golden calf. The real assignment is the same for all— member, elder, and prophet—grasp the Rod of Iron and share the Good News.

To those with the idea they have a better plan with an up-to-date outlook, just be sure that it is God’s plan which you espouse. The words for today are diversity, political correctness, and tolerance. Strangely, none of them appear in Strong’s Concordance. Could some possibly be running a bit ahead of God? I can only conclude that like Mr. Sabato, they think their wisdom exceeds that of their fore bearers.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hi cec,

I enjoyed your time for a redraft blog.
I rarely if ever read book reviews because I cannot bring myself to trust anyone elses opinion of a book.
I am a voracious reader and I read a very broad spectrum of materials, not just things that have my head oscillating from North to South.
While I agree completely with you that our Constitution is in no need of a facelift, I think "entertaining the thought" toward such a thing, or entertaining someone else's entertainment of it could be a worthwhile thing to do.

But I am a firm believer in the addage that more information is better than less. Of course that presumes the ability and discipline of sorting through the information to make sense of it all.

I don't quite follow your logic when you advance to your parallel analysis, however.

I don't see the parallelism I guess. And I don't see scriptural interpretation and application being nearly as clear cut as constitutional law, nor nearly as precise.

I will admit that my understanding of the nature of scripture is quite different. To me, for the parallelism to be valid, our constitution would have to be a ensemble of dozens, if not hundreds of varied constitutional documents from around the world pieced together.

If that were the case, then Mr. Sabato's premise would have much more merit.

Does this mean that I am advocating a re-writing of scripture? No.
But it does mean that scriptural application and meaningfulness is very much a matter of time and place-not vicariously independent-but rather ultimately dependent on God, recognizing that God moves upon us in real time consistent with God's nature.
I find more assurance and faith-building support in this view(in Restoration vernacular-there's more iron in this rod) than in a view that is based on a "once and for all" understanding of scripture as the literal words of God.

It comes down to a fundamental difference in what faith means.

I understand and respect your view-used to be there, grew up there, have much heritage there- just can't make it square with my study, my experience, the impress of the Holy Spirit and the confirmation of fruits that accompany my spiritual walk now.

I do enjoy your blog and the thinking it promotes.
Blessings,
Matt