The Drawing Board

The Senate, Sotomayor, and absolute truth August 12, 2009

Over the past couple of weeks we have been able to witness the Senate confirmation hearings of the now-confirmed supreme court nominee Sonya Sotomayor. I have to say that I have been largely disengaged with the process as I believe the idea that the American people actually have a say in these matters is an illusion. From what I have read, seen, and heard, however, something struck me as intriguing. Most of the comments regarding S.S. that were negative were based on the idea that she would not be able to be objective in her rule and interpretation of law. Opposers to S.S. were not convinced that she would be able to interpret the law without allowing her personal bias and life experience affect her decisions.

This is all very interesting to me. It seems that the political-judicial world has settled on the fact that it is incumbent upon some (if not all) to interpret various situations based upon an objective truth (law) that already exists. This was, and still is, the problem that some have with S.S. This is a foundational concern for the judicial system, and one that remains unquestioned. How then, can a people so bent on the objectivity of interpretation and truth be so antithetical to objectivity of spiritual truth?

If a judge subjectively, based upon their own life experience, interprets a law that is counter to the already established truth, they run the serious risk of having their rulings overturned and their seat (eventually) lost. These situations are never looked upon positively, but are always classified as “legislating from the bench”.

If the judicial system gets it right, how come the church can’t? The Christian church (some denom’s more than others) is bleeding out its doctrinal and scriptural integrity due to pastor’s, teachers, professors, theologians, etc., elevating the role of their personal experience and feelings over Scriptural authority that has long been established as true. Scriptural authority has become an inconvenient truth, one that needs altering to better reflect the actual personal experience of you and I. Are we serious with this? Do we not see the vast repercussions of elevating personal experience above Scriptural truth?

Experience is indeed part of the process of the theological method (especially in Wesleyan circles), but even Wesley himself said, “Experience is more modestly viewed as the appropriation of Scriptural authority than the source of authority.” Experience is the recognition of an inner truth that has been already appropriated in scripture. However, experience cannot be more true than truth that comes from God. When we step on that slippery slope we tread on the dangerous ground of creating a theology that starts with us and ends with God rather than starts with God and comes to us.