Introduction to Context

Yesterday I sat reading one of C.S. Lewis' books, The Four Loves. Which book doesn't really matter for my point today, though. In any of his writings, you will find certain words and references that are very confusing to an American, unless that American has acquainted herself with customs, culture, and dialectical quirks of England, whence Lewis was writing. Even then, some things he said seemed unusual. He talks of gin as though it were common in every household. To draw a bath is a luxury.

C.S. Lewis talked about the love of dogs. My family keeps cats, and dogs with their noisy barking and exuberant running and tail-wagging have from time to time terrorized us. But I know that some of my friends own and love dogs. Having observed this context, I can understand the point C.S. Lewis makes about affection. Without it, I might mistake the meaning of affection to be something more like terror.

In any attempt to understand something written, one must consider the role of cultural context. Without grasping the position from which one is writing, how can you implement the things they write?

Take as another example the US Constitution. The men who debated about, wrote, and signed that document, and the people who finally ratified it, had certain beliefs and experiences which the wording of the document specially suited. Nearly every resident in the new country had witnessed the oppression under King George and the resulting revolution. Not only that: they had been immersed in philosophical and rational defenses of that revolution through the press and official statements such as the Declaration of Independence. There is a Creator, they affirmed, who originally endowed all men with rights. Rights are something the citizens of the new thirteen confederated states understood. Although rights were enumerated in the Bill of Rights after the ratification of the Constitution, they were recognized and fought for during the war. One rally-cry was the right to representation if one was taxed. The Declaration of Independence is a magnificent record of the beliefs at the heart of the revolution and at the establishment of a strong central government several years later.

These men believed rights to be inalienable, unbreachable by any law man could make or any violence man could inflict. The national anthem, in its fourth verse, asserts, “When our cause it is just…” The founders believed in justice. And it was not their belief that established its existence. Justice existed, and they recognized that. They built a life, a country, and a political system on that reality.

When we look at the system we inherit from the illustrious men who wrote the Constitution, we are often at a disadvantage. In our philosophical ignorance, the system does not fit. The constitution does not cover questions that have arisen in the modern culture. Why?

I submit that the Constitution could not plan for a people so given to individual indulgence and so scornful of the absolute laws that govern men and nature, specifically as revealed in the Bible. It was prepared as the governing document of that system. Many statesmen and historians recognized that if the philosophical status quo changed in our country, our government would fail.

Indeed, though the Constitution has been adapted over the years, or in some cases ignored or willfully misinterpreted, it has been unsuccessful in conforming to the new framework of thought in our country. I am skeptical whether any system can hold stability in a nation where absolutes and justice are denied. It is just such a spirit of complete democracy that causes the insurgencies and civil wars in democratic countries in Europe, Africa, and South America. Nevertheless, it is impossible to comprehend the original intent of the framers while denying their fundamental beliefs.

I could go into the ways the original Constitution is misinterpreted and misapplied, but that is outside the scope of this article.

To God be all glory.