Strange Thinking

Yesterday, the following letter to the editor appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

Hey, Glenn Sacks and Judge Alito: Let me know the next time you guys ovulate. For it is only then that you will be qualified to make any type of decision regarding abortion. For yourselves only, of course.

DONNA TRIMINGHAM
Redondo Beach

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/
November 5, 2005

While I respect Donna's right to her opinion, I disagree with her conclusion. More, I disagree with the basis of her conclusion.

I find the writer's reasoning bizarre to say the least. Her rationale seems to be that of judges do not ovulate, they cannot rule on any abortion case, nor the constitutionality of abortion. In other words, it is not enough to determine what the law means through reason, one must interpret the law through their own experience.

In this universe, a judge may not rule on a case involving corporations unless they had been a CEO? Or one may not rule on any church-state issue unless they were a religious person? (I guess this would be the exception, as a religious judge should probably NOT rule on a church-state issue?) A judge may not rule on anything concerning children unless they were a parent? A judge may not rule on anything concerning marriage unless they were married?

Judges, it seems to me, are to be guided by reason and the law. They are to interpret the law, not from their own biases, but on the basis of precedent and reason, with a good dose of common sense.

I encouunter similar reasoning patterns with my biblical studies students at Azusa Pacific University. For many of them, a disciplined approach to studying the Bible contrasts strongly with their devotional reading of the Bible. I believe the dichotomoy to be a false one. The closer one gets to what the Bible is actually saying, rather than what we wish it said, the more our devotion to Jesus Christ is fueled. But I digress.

Many of my students through the years simply cannot read the Bible except through the lens of their own personal experience. Everything in the Bible, for them, relates to their own experience. Their reading is like this: Me---->My Experience---->The Bible.

This allows only for a rather narrow view of the Bible, as any person's experience is limited. Still, this way of reading the Bible makes sense, to a certain degree. When my son, Mark, was born, my reading of the Bible changed in a fundamental way. Why? Because I was reading it, for the first time, as a parent. And so passages about the fatherly character of God took on a whole new meaning. Up until then, I had read those passages of God's fatherliness out of my experience as a son. Now, as a parent, I was able to read those passages as a son, but also as a father. And it opened up whole new vistas of meaning. Still, reading the Bible solely through our own experience is limiting, and perhaps dangerous.

I think there is another way to read the Bible. Me---->The Bible---->My Experience. THat is, the Bible provides for a critique of my experience. For my experience, though real, can be interpreted in various ways.

For example: one day I am confronted by my boss about something I failed to do. So in order to save face, I lie. I blame my failure on some external circumstances. My boss buys it, cuts me some slack, and encourages me to keep at it. I feel rather good about this. What could have been unpleasant, has turned out rather well. But then I go to the Bible and discover there are warnings about lying. "Aw, it's not as bad as all that", I think. "My experience proves that this is not the case." Instead of the Bible evaluating my actions, my actions wind up actually judging the truth and validity of the Bible.

Or take this case: I have done something to hurt someone. I recognized it (after the fact), I owned it, I apologized, I asked for forgiveness from the person and from God. And while the person I hurt was gracious and said they forgave me, I still feel guilty. Of course, I continue to be ashamed for my stupid, sinful, reckless actions that hurt my friend. But why the continued guilt? The Bible clearly says that "if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9) My continued sense of guilt, then, proves the Bible wrong on this point? It does if I read the Bible solely through my own experience.

However, if I read my experiences through the lens of Scripture, I discover that whatever feelings of guilt I have are only an indication of how I have processed this event, not an indication of whether or not God has forgiven me.

This tendency to expand from my personal experience to universal truth is both simplistic and immature. I just hope Ms. Trimingham does not have a son, who asks her a "being male" question someday. She will, by her own logic, be unable to answer, as she never was a male. By elevating our experience to the final arbiter of life's questions, we unfortunately wind up trivializing our experiences.