|
My blog posts revolve around my interests and vocation as a historian: the intersection of history and contemporary church life, the intersection of history and contemporary politics, serendipitous discoveries in archives or on research trips, publications and research projects, upcoming conferences, and speaking engagements.
The views expressed in these blogs represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of any organizations with which they are associated. |
 The ongoing passage of Bill C-9[1] in Canada has me thinking about past attempts by governments to control the interpretation of various Bible passages. Martin Luther’s German Bible was problematic for both church and state because it allowed for people who could not read the Latin Vulgate to read the Bible in their own tongue. And that could lead to unexpected and unwanted outcomes for those who sought to maintain the status quo. King James I did not like the Geneva Bible due to its marginal comments that seemed to imply it was okay for Christians to overthrow a government. Thus, one of the motives for the creation of the King James Bible! The Nazi government created a Nazi Bible that downplayed the Jewish origins of Jesus and made subtle changes to make the Bible more German and Nazi friendly. There is online chatter about the Chinese government carrying out a project to Sinicize the Bible. If true, it too will no doubt have a government-friendly spin on some texts. I limit my blogs to no more than 800 words, so there is no way I can get into the vast body of theological, historical, and legal literature on the subject of church-state relations.[2] Suffice it to say here that the problem with any government past or present being involved in Bible translation and interpretation is threefold.
In sum, it is the God-ordained role of the church to determine the meaning of the biblical text, not the state. Of course, the church can speak (carefully) in the public square to give its opinion on moral issues, but it has no expertise on legislation and should let the state do what the state is supposed to do. (But don’t forget, it is the God ordained role of the state to pass legislation, not the church.)
The state simply has no expertise on such matters as the interpretation of the Bible. To watch politicians tell Canadians what a biblical text should (or should not) mean is deeply troubling. And to watch theologians and clergy become partisan “experts” legitimatizing the state on such matters is very problematic.
There are too many historical examples of state control over how the Bible should be read to make me comfortable with Bill C-9. I am not a prophet, and I have no idea what Bill C-9 will mean for what the Canadian government (and then the courts) sees as a “correct” interpretation of various passages, but I am concerned. In conclusion, I am speaking as a Christian, but the same principle of the state staying out of telling religions what their sacred texts mean applies to other faiths as well. The state needs to get out of the theology business and rather stick to laws that protect and promote justice. [1] https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-9; https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c9_2.html
[2] Here is a link to an accessible introduction to some of the issues in church-state relations: https://www.amazon.ca/Five-Views-Church-Politics-Zondervan/dp/0310517923/ref=asc_df_0310517923?mcid=9983778cc5da3e31bb285816d9959d02&tag=googleshopc0c-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=706745563105&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=356831785818799339&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9000878&hvtargid=pla-570485749371&psc=1&hvocijid=356831785818799339-0310517923-&hvexpln=0&gad_source=1
1 Comment
 The ongoing trip around the moon and back of Artimis 2 got me wondering if the Canadian churches provided any commentary on the Apollo 11 moon landing on 20 July 1969. I did a quick search in a denominational paper and found an editorial and letter to the editor that provide a brief glimpse of opinion.[1] I did not have time to do more extensive searches, but I have little doubt there is more to be found by an intrepid researcher. What is interesting is that the commentary reflects current awe and concerns. The awe is no surprise. The Cold War was raging and the race to space and to the moon was a constant concern for both sides. The Russians won the race to put a satellite (Sputnik 1) in orbit in 1957, and America wanted to save face by getting the first person on the moon. The awe was in the accomplishment, deemed to be a “magnificent achievement” and a “giant leap for mankind.” It was even seen to be a success that united humanity, if even for a few minutes. The concern in the editorial was that people would not look to the creator of the moon and all creation but merely focus on the great accomplishment of humanity. Another concern expressed in a letter to the editor was that the money could have been better spent on issues on earth, such as poverty. The images I took of the denominational papers are clear enough to post, and I will let people read the papers themselves, knowing that such commentary in church newspapers was, for some, the major source of their weekly news. Enjoy! (click on image to enlarge)
[1] “Man’s Magnificent Achievement – God’s Greater Challenge,” Canadian Baptist, September 1969; John Mortimer, “Moon Travel,” Canadian Baptist, October 1969.
 St. John Chrysostom (347-407) was an Archbishop of Constantinople who became one of the most famous preachers in the early centuries of the church. In fact, his name Chrysostom means “golden mouth” – a clear indication of his rhetoric prowess.
One of the scariest things for leaders is answering tough questions, for good leaders recognize the importance of “getting it right.” If fact, Chrysostom knew that intense pressure surrounding questions came with being a leader in the church and noted that he was hesitant to become a leader for that very reason. |
Archives
April 2026
|
RSS Feed
