Many expect have seen the news that former US president, Donald Trump, is selling a Bible called the “God Bless America ” Bible. Apparently, it costs US$59.99. This seems for a KJV (public domain) Bible. However, I suppose that is not a key thing.

<I have to be cautious on this. I am “anti-partisan” in my American politics, meaning that I seek to undermine power blocs of any sort. That makes me opposed to the former President, but not a friend of any opponent of his either.>

I do have issues with a Bible that appears to embrace what is sometimes called “Christian Nationalism” or its sibling faith— “American Civil Religion.”

Of course, this not the first time this happened. Years ago a good friend of mine gave me a Bible. It is called the “1599 Geneva Bible— Patriot’s Edition.” It has an American patriotic scene on the front and then has a number of documents added to the end of the Bible that are seen as being part of the heritage of American culture.

–Magna Carta

–Mayflower Compact

–Declaration of Independence

–Articles of Confederation

–The United States Constitution

–Washington’s Rules of Civility

–Washington’s Circular for the States (1783)

–Washington’s Prayer for the United States

My friend, a retired pastor from where I was raised, gave it to me but noted is concern about the mixing of the Bible with political/cultural documents. He felt it was a bad idea. So why did he give it to me? He said he was given it a few years before, and thought that since I teach in a seminary, having a Geneva edition of the English Holy Bible would be of value to me. I could not argue with that. It was a kind gift.

It does bring up the question of what happens when you mix Holy Scripture with other writings. Does it lower the status of the Holy Bible in the readers’ eyes? Does it raise the status of the other works in those same eyes?

I don’t really know. Another friend of mine was talking about some books (it MIGHT have been “Purpose Driven Life” as the impetus of the talk) and expressed concern that at the beginning of the chapter there would be a Bible verse listed, and then a quote from some person. This person expressed concern that this format might be seen as raising those other quotes to the status of passages from the Bible. I nodded my head at the time, but I wasn’t so sure. When I preach, I quote the Bible, I add my own commentary, tell stories, and may quote theologians, historical leaders, or even pop celebrities. I don’t feel that I am demeaning Scripture or exalting anything else.

But that brings us to the question of FRAMING. Framing relates to the schema in which we try to interpret what is around us. This is very broad… but consider an example, the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” That song, originally composed by Frank Loesser in 1944, was created as a song sung between two people. The women is expressing the intention to go home, while the man is trying to convince her to stay seeing that it is “cold outside.” How the song is interpreted depends on how people frame it. One can interpret the song in a framework of romantic flirtation between two essentially consenting adults. However, one can also interpret the song in a framework of power differential and manipulation. In this, the song can suddenly be seen as deeply problematic— even rape-y. Which interpretation is correct? As much as we might want to say that authorial intent is king, the truth is that we live NOW.

Consider the hymnal that was in my church when I was young. Near the back were several patriotic songs. How do people frame hymnals. In one perspective, a hymnal is a collection of songs that are used in church. In such a view, one could argue that if a song might be used in the church setting, it is appropriate for the hymnal. However, that is probably not the more common framing. It is more common, I think, to see a hymnal as a a worship document. To have songs that were written to praise one’s country, while mixed in with songs that praise God creates in the minds of many as creating a very unhealthy equivalency.

Or consider flags. In the US, and in the Philippines, many churches place a national flag in the front of the sanctuary, along with the “Christian Flag.” As a child, I remember in Vacation Bible School reciting the Pledge of (National) Allegiance, Pledge to the Christian flag, and Pledge to the Bible. For some people each pledge is fine— expressing allegiances in different settings. However, others may see these as giving equivalency to things that are inherently unequal. Yet others, may be opposed to all of these, interpreting all three as oaths.

Now these examples, I feel are more about a personal perspective. But when we get to the Bible, the stakes are a bit higher.

Consider a typical study Bible. It has the Biblical text, study aids in the back and study notes below. It is pretty much understood that the aids in the back and notes below are in no sense to be considered to be God’s word, or having some sense of infallibility. The same might be added when it comes to personal annotations added to a Bible. Most agree on the delineation of the holy and the mundane. But what happens in translations where the commentary may be incorporated into the text. How can one separate between holy scripture and mundane commentary when they are incorporated together. Of course, all translation involves some creative interpretation. I have been surprised, for example, at how often the ESV really makes translation choices that push a specific agenda. Even when there is no translation involved, we draw meaning from whatever framework that we have in our own minds.

But what about the case presented with the Bible sharing space in a book with secular documents. Is this a problem? Would it push people to seeing equivalency? Would people see the Bible and the US Constitution as equally coming from God?

While I have been sounding wishy-washy up to this point, I do think there is a right and wrong perspective, taking into account culture. In the US, particularly, there is a tendency to see the US in exceptionalist terms— seeing the nation as being a “Christian nation” (a questionable term in general) in a unique way, and seeing it as having a divinely ordained role in God’s plan. I don’t believe that is a healthy view. Even the ancient nation of Israel, although established by God, found its special place in God’s plan a temptation that needed to be tempered.

I hold the Bible to be good, while the other documents are good except to the extent they are bad, or until they become bad. Having them share the same book does not raise one or lower another. But Americans are too tempted to conflate politics and God— that does affect how both will be interpreted.