I’m guest blogging this week at Concurring Opinions, a law faculty blog. Here’s my first post, on patent damage awards.
Category: Law and Policy
Or at least that’s what James Dobson seems to think. In fairness, it’s possible that some of the things Dobson fears could happen, at least to some degree, if the Supreme Court’s makeup dramatically changes. But this document is so over-the-top that on the whole it can only be viewed as unhinged. This sort of thing is calculated to induce fear. How many times does scripture encourage us not to be afraid (e.g. Rom. 8:15)? On that basis alone, this screed is profoundly wrong. But even beyond this, the dramatic scope of what Dobson predicts here is surpassingly unlikely to obtain even if Obama is elected. What a shame that so many good people will swallow this hook, line and sinker, and will live in fear as a result.
Friends, whatever our political views, whatever may come, let’s try to remember what St. Paul said to a rag-tag group of Christians living in the heart of imperial Rome:
What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 8:31-39.
Pandemic Flu Conference
Today and tomorrow I’m participating in the Preparing for a Pharmeceutical Response to Pandemic Influenza symposium at Seton Hall Law School, which I helped organize. We have an amazing set of speakers. I’m looking forward to it.
Elections and Hope
Excellent post on Jesus Creed. A must-read for all of us during election season.
Sarah Debates
So I’m watching the Palin-Biden debate right now. She’s doing pretty well, I’d have to say.
Palin's Greatest Hits
Ok, I know this video is a little unfair, since it strings together a bunch of clips out of context. And I know the other candidates mess up in interviews too. And I think Governor Palin seems like a relatively decent person. I’d love to have her and Todd and the kids over for a barbecue and talk politics. But really — the Vice President of the United States should be someone who is ready today to step into the Presidency. She is not ready.
Mirror of Justice points to a new book on the above topic edited by Douglas Laycock, one of the premier law-and-religion scholars in the world, and offers an interesting quick take on the book. This is one we’ll have to read.
The religious right in the U.S. emphasizes that its view of human freedom and democracy derives from Christian principles. A significant pillar of the religious right’s economic theory is freedom of contract. Under this view, government should avoid regulating private transactions because the individual parties to contractual agreements are in the best position to judge the value of their bargain and possess the moral freedom to make their own bargains. A theological basis for this view is the inherent worth of the individual in the Christian tradition and the tendency of people with governmental power to abuse that power.
These are valid notions, but they are not the whole story. In his chapter “The Christian Sources of General Contract Law” in the splendid Christianity and Law: an Introduction, Harold Berman traces Western contract law to its medieval canon law roots. Berman summarizes these roots as follows:
In subsequent centuries, many of the basic principles of the canon law of contract were adopted by secular law and eventually came to be justified on the basis of will-theory and party autonomy. It is important to know, however, that originally they were based on a theory of sin and a theory of equity. Our modern Western contract law did not start form the proposition that every individual has a moral right to dispose of his property by means of making promises, and that in the interest of justice a promise should be legally enforced unless it offends reason or public policy. Our contract law started, on the contrary, from the theory that a prmise created an obligation to God, and that for the salvation of souls God instituted the ecclesiastical and secular courts with the task, in part, of enforcing contractual obligations to the extent that such obligations are just.
(Christianity and Law, at 132). This broadly social notion of contracts was modified, Berman notes, during the Puritan era. The Puritans’ strong notion of total depravity made them less willing to place the authority to determine which obligations are “just” in the hands of a magistrate. Moreover, the Puritans’ emphasis on order inclined them to seek the meaning of contractual documents in the literal words of the document rather than in an overarching contractual hermeneutic of justice. However, even for the Puritans, “private” contracts were social obligations within the all-inclusive fabric of God’s covenantal relationships with people. Private contractual relations were not really “private” — they were covenantal relations between people who were also bound in covenantal relation to God. As Berman notes,
the Puritan stress on bargain and on calculability (“order”) should not obscure the fact that the bargain presupposed a strong relationship between teh contracting parties within the community. These were not yet the autonomous, self-sufficient individuals of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. England under Puritan rule and in the century that followed was intensely communitarian.
(Id. at 140).
In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Enlightenment, these theories of contract based on justice and covenant were secularized. Justice and covenant were replaced with “the inherent freedom of each individual to exercise his own autonomous reason and will, subject only to considerations of social utility.” (Id.) These Enlightenment ideas “broke many of the links not only between contract law and moral theology but also between contract law and the comunitarian postulates which had informed both Catholic and Protestant legal traditions.” (Id. at 140-41).
It is a shame, I think, that contemporary evangelical discourse about law seems to focus so heavily on notions of individual freedom to contract that are more post-Christian than Christian. We seem to be left with two options: the current prevailing secular legal theory of contracts, which is strictly realist and pragmatic and elides any notion of higher values, and the religious right’s libertarian view of contract, which elevates the individual far above the community. I agree with Berman: “[w]e may learn from history . . . that there is a third possibility: to build a new and different theory on the foundation of the older ones.” (Id. at 141).
Put Away Falsehoods
This is a good campaign-related site.
David Gushee, one of my favorite evangelical thinkers, writes a provocative piece in USA Today on the challenge he thinks Sarah Palin’s nomination to Vice President poses for conservative evangelicals (HT: Euangelion).
I’m not sure Gushee completely hits the mark concerning church leadership. As others note, gender roles and authority in the sphere of church polity is not necessarily the same question as gender roles and authority in the sphere of civil government. However, Gushee is right, I think, that the arguments many “complementarians” make are rooted in what they understand as the order of creation, which extends to the church, the family, and presumably, to the other significant sphere of influence in society, the civil government.
In fact, one of the key reasons complementarians hold that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is normative for the entire Church age, rather than a limited cultural prohibition (such as, say, the repeated New Testament injunction that women should cover their heads during worship, which almost all evangelicals ignore) is that verses 13-15 refer directly to the order of creation of man and woman and to the woman’s role in the Fall. This suggests, according to complementarians, that there is something inherent in the nature of “male” and “female” that establishes different (but complementary, not “superior” and “inferior”) social roles.
I won’t try to untangle all the impossibly difficult exegetical and hermeneutical issues the “complementarian vs. egalitarian” debate raises, but Gushee’s questions seem fair, particularly these:
- If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women’s leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?
- Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?
The second question I quote above seems particularly dicey for complimentarians. You might sidestep the first question by noting the distinctive spheres of governance represented by Church and State, but there’s no getting around the sphere of governance represented by the family.