Foundations and Faultlines

I don’t watch many movies, but amazingly, this week I have watched two. The first, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), was recommended for the week in my daughter’s government curriculum. The second, Bridge of Spies (2015), arrived courtesy of Netflix.

I enjoyed both movies and was struck by how both, in their different eras, explored the idea that the Constitution of the U.S. is always under assault. The Constitution functions much like the Old Testament Law, about which the apostle Paul writes,

I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. (Romans 7)

The Constitution is a very different document, of course, than the Law was to its ancient theocracy. Instead of defining “sin,” it defines the limits on government power. But it works in a similar way. And though the Constitution is revered in our public discourse, in practice its limits have been an ongoing affront to the political class. It might be tempting to think that this is a modern phenomenon, but the providential foresight of the men who wrote it is suggested in the two widely separated movies I saw this week.

This is a reminder both worrisome and comforting to me. I wish I felt sure that Americans were well versed in this relatively short document that spells out American values and defines the guardrails of government power. I am not as familiar with it as I should be myself. But an educated populace and an informed voting class begin with a clear notion of what our government is supposed to be and do.

I always hesitate to post a video, but here are clips from both movies. Both ask the same question: where are the lines between principle, compromise, and selling out altogether?