"Throughout the Bible, we see numerous passages about being our brother's keeper, welcoming the stranger, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick. The idea that we are autonomous individuals competing for limited resources without concern for the welfare of others is a philosophy that is totally alien to the Bible, and in my view, antithetical to genuine Christianity."These statements are not original, per se. Every Christian who has the slightest scrap of political sensibility and has read the Luke-Acts has uttered similar sentiments. Walsh is certainly also aware of the numerous passages in the Old Testament laws governing business transactions such as marriage, crops, and land ownership. However, the fact that the opposing camp has neither beat a hasty retreat nor eagerly defected indicates it has mustered its own choice passages. The crux of the issue is not public policy, economics, or even long lists of chapters and verses; it is how he understands Scriptural infallibility.
At first, one's doctrine of Scriptural infallibility seems like a red herring, but it is precisely how one sets Scripture's jurisdictional boundaries that determines whether one strictly interprets the Old Testament legal code as normative in a wholesale fashion or as culturally-conditioned precepts which must be transplanted from their native context to our own. The interpreter who understands Israel's Sitz im Leben as part of God's revelation will likely assert that the ancient Hebrew governmental structure is normative for the present day, in spite of the vast gulf of years and miles that separate ancient Israel from 21st century America. Walsh seems to favor the this view, as he implies that any society finds its moral legitimacy within the Bible's pages.
The latter approach renders a much different interpretation. While he understands that the text's Sitz im Leben is integral to understanding how ancient Israel understood these precepts, he perceives it as crucial for a more important purpose: with this knowledge, he can sees more clearly God's character and unchanging goodness. This understanding helps him to better conform his own character to God's. Rather than including a tribal government in God's picture, he gleans general principles which should govern his interactions with others. Certainly, Walsh does not unilaterally interpret scripture with either method, but relies upon both. He interprets the control texts more strictly, while he derives principles from other supplementary texts to support his controls. Of such interpretative systems are religious traditions made; one will not settle this argument with Scripture alone, but through a synthesis of the traditions that govern their respective interpretations.
Disclaimer Note: Admittedly, Walsh's quote is merely the written equivalent of a news "sound-bite," and any response that I make to it is based upon how the pollster, Nicole Neroulias, used it within her article.
