Whether we like it or not, our understanding of Scripture (or lack of understanding) is a central part of our public policy debates. There will be more on this in an upcoming discussion of N.T. Wright’s unfortunate backing away from some of the central public ramifications of the faith, which he did in the aftermath of Rowan Williams’ murkiness about Islam. But we have enough troubles of our own on this side of the water.
Obama recently explained his support for legalized civil unions for homosexuals, basing that support on the Sermon on the Mount. This interesting move included, in part, a setting aside of Paul’s rejection of sodomy, a rejection that Obama said occurred in an “obscure” part of the Bible. But it is only obscure for those who don’t go there very much.
This illustrates one of the social dynamics of scriptural interpretation. Sociologists speak of “plausibility structures.” Everybody believes at least some ludicrous things, but we do so in a context where believing those things does not get us hooted off the stage.
For an example of this, Reformed seminaries are currently building plausibility structures that will allow feminists and quasi-feminists to come out in the open and say crazy things without getting laughed at. Whenever you want to say a new crazy thing, you have to build the new plausibility structure first.
Our public discussion of Scripture has become so degraded that someone like Obama can say that Romans is “obscure,” and the overall reaction is not a horse laugh, but rather a shrug accompanied with a non-committal “that’s a point of view, certainly.” The central problem with this is that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, given to us in order to serve as a light in a dark place. Plausibility structures are frequently made up of rebels and sinners, and when they set aside the plain words of God, they always are.