If you are familiar with the justices of the Supreme Court, you’ll know that two members of that august body sit about as far apart on the ideological spectrum as is possible: Antonin Scalia and Ruther Bader Ginsburg. Both are brilliant jurists with razor sharp wits (and, from time to time, razor sharp tongues). Scalia is a darling of the political right, issuing opinions based on a doctrine of “original intent” – the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as the Founders originally intended it. Ginsburg, on the other hand, is adored by those on the political left, holding to the doctrine that the Constitution is a “living document” – the idea that its interpretation should change as the times change. As one might imagine, these two find themselves on opposite sides of legal opinions far more often than not, and often the sparks can fly in their respective written opinions.
One might automatically assume that Scalia and Ginsburg aren’t particularly friendly with one another, and that belief would be justifiable given our current political environment. However, that assumption would be incorrect; the truth is, Scalia and Ginsburg are incredibly close friends, and that friendship extends to their spouses as well (prior to Ginsburg’s husband’s passing in 2010). As any good friends would, Scalia and Ginsburg rarely miss a chance to rib one another. In an interview this past February, Scalia told a reporter in reference to his pal, “What’s not to like – except her views on the law.” One can’t help but to imagine that he said that with a mischievous twinkle in his eye!
Scalia and Ginsburg provide us with an example of how we should relate and interact with those with whom we strongly disagree – and there is no doubt that these two strongly disagree about matters of Constitutional interpretation (the recent exchanges on the case last week regarding same-sex marriage illustrates this clearly). Away from the bench, these two set aside their differences and appreciate the good qualities of one another. Sadly, we often see the opposite of this occur among believers, particularly when it comes to differences of interpretation on second and third level theological issues. Instead of love for one another (and some good natured ribbing), we hear contention. Jesus told us in John 13:35, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” While we must stand firm on the foundations of the Gospel, we must also be willing to be charitable to our brothers and sisters on those other matters. This notion can be summed up in the maxim from the early 1600s from one of the early Reformers: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity [love].” Does your interaction with believers from different faith traditions reflect this? One day, we’ll all be before the throne, having our personal theologies corrected where necessary and worshiping together the Father of Truth. Why not practice that now? Just something to think about…
0 Comments