Sola Scriptura and Constitutionalism

By -
I am just beginning to understand the connection between Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and the modern faith in written constitutions: both regard it as conceivable that one could once and for all set out in writing everything of any importance about how to proceed in some domain, and then somehow, despite all changes in circumstances and changes in knowledge and understanding, go on interpreting that founding document in an "original" fashion.

To be explored further: Lutheranism as "rationalism in religion," akin to the "rationalism in politics" critiqued by Oakeshott.

Comments

  1. Daniel7:24 AM

    The only problem with that explanation is that the Scriptures don't really have an Article V, which seems like quite a difference.

    I don't know. Scripture is meant to be revelatory. The Constitution is just a tool for limiting the state. Nobody gets angry because Constitutions are slightly different. When we balk at constitutional conventions it's because of the unpredictability of the result, not because some significance (aside simply from its track record) is attached to the old constitution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:59 AM

      "The only problem with that explanation..."

      This was an analogy. I do not think I purported to be explaining anything.

      "The Constitution is just a tool for limiting the state."

      To you, perhaps.

      "not because some significance (aside simply from its track record) is attached to the old constitution."

      For you, perhaps. Historically this is demonstrably false. See Sanford Levinson, _Constitutional Faith_, for extensive documentation of the treatment of the US Constitution as sacred scripture.

      Delete
  2. Josiah Neeley9:21 PM

    As a historical matter you may be right. As a theoretical matter I think the differences are too great to make the analogy an useful one. If you want to explore the idea further, though, I would recommend Jaroslav Pelikan's Interpreting the Bible and the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more