David Opderbeck is Professor of Law and Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology at Seton Hall University Law School.  He is also a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophical Theology at the University of Nottingham. David’s post today is academic and complex, but he’s right in saying it is this distinction that was at work in the Rob Bell and hell debate with with Francis Chan. Chan’s appeal to submission to God at times sounded like nominalism. Read on, read slowly.

Nominalism, Voluntarism, and God’s Being and Will

“God can do ANYTHING he wants.”  So say Preston Sprinkle and Francis Chan in their book Erasing Hell.  It’s fair to say that this proposition is the cornerstone of Sprinkle and Chan’s theodicy of Hell.  “Won’t God get what he wants?”  So asks Rob Bell in his book Love Wins.  It’s also fair to say that this question, along with the belief that God wants everyone to be saved, is the cornerstone of Bell’s theodicy of Hell.

Both Sprinkle / Chan and Bell focus on God’s will.  But is there something missing from their theodicies? Theologically, the question concerns the relation of God’s will to His nature.  Philosophically, the question relates to whether “universal” substances exist apart from their particular instantiations (“universals”), or whether substances are merely names for particular instances of things (“nominalism”).

Consider an apple.  What is an apple?  Is this particular apple on my kitchen table one instantiation of the substance “apple” – a substance with some sort of universal metaphysical  (“beyond-“ or “above-“ physical) properties that are shared by all apples?  Or is “apple” simply a name I apply to this object before me as a result of some observable similarities with other objects (other things we also call “apple”) that have no metaphysical connection to the “apple” on my table?

What do you think?  Do nominalism and voluntarism improperly  taint our conversations about ethics, justice and theodicy?  Or, does “realism” about universals compromise God’s sovereignty?  How can we avoid speaking about God in ways that seem either to compromise His sovereign freedom or to reduce His actions to the arbitrary exercise of power? [Read more...]

— Law and Mission?

This past Monday, the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was argued before the United States Supreme Court.  The case arises out of the refusal of the University of California, Hastings Law School to recognize a local Christian Legal Society chapter as an official registered student organization.  As described in the CLS’ Brief, at U.C. Hastings,

RSOs are entitled to meet in university rooms, to apply for funding to support various group activities, and to access multiple channels for communicating with students and faculty–including posting on designated bulletin boards, sending mass emails to the student body, distributing material through the Student Information Center, appearing on published lists of student organizations, and participating in the annual Student Organizations Fair.

The CLS requires members to affirm a basic Christian statement of faith and to seek to live a Christian lifestyle, including avoiding sexual practices believed to be inconsistent with Christian faith.  U.C. Hastings found that these membership standards violated the school’s non-discrimination policy, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation, because the CLS’ standards would prohibit gay students from joining the organization as members or leaders.  CLS argued that this action violated the U.S. Constitution’s free speech and free exercise of religion clauses.  A broad range of Christian organizations filed amicus briefs in support of the CLS, and the case was argued on CLS’ behalf by Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a highly distinguished scholar and jurist.

What have you heard about the CLS v. Martinez case?  How do you think the Court should rule?

What do you think about the missional implications of the Martinez case?  Should Christian groups litigate to obtain government recognition and benefits?  What place should such litigation occupy in the context of the missio Dei?

[Read more...]

David Opderbeck, a professor of law, weighs in on a crucial theological topic that affects our understanding of law. Are you Roman Catholic or Reformed — or where are you on this issue?

[Read more...]

Seven Theses on a Missional Approach to Law

In response to some of my “Law” posts here at Jesus Creed, a few commenters have expressed consternation over my criticism of some “conservative” Christian perspectives on the law.  As I’ve tried to express in response to some of those comments, my primary concerns have to do with how “law” is understood in relation to the mission of God.  As I’ve said before, in my very humble opinion, the North American Church’s participation in the “culture wars” over the past thirty years or so has been, by and large, missionally unproductive at best.

At times, I might agree with the “conservative” perspective on what the law ideally should say – as I do, for example, concerning the law of abortion.  However, even in those cases I’m often troubled by the place legal advocacy seems to occupy in “conservative” political theology, by the methods and rhetoric used to advance that theological agenda, and by the effects these dynamics have on spiritual formation in the Church.  And, it’s true that, in some cases, I think the “conservatives” are advancing political priorities that fail to reflect what I understand from scripture, tradition, reason and experience to represent a faithful reflection of God’s priorities. 

In short, I think the political theology that prevails in the North American Church is insufficiently “missional.”

In this post, I’d like to advance some very preliminary theses about what a “missional theology of law” should look like.  What do you think about these Seven Theses?  How does “law” relate to the “mission of God?”  What should a “missional theology of law” encompass? 

[Read more...]

Today I received a broadcast email from the Family Research Council, a prominent conservative Christian group, urging me to “Stop Obama’s Crossdresser Protection Bill.”  The email referred to the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA), which would prohibit employment discrimination against homosexual and “transgendered” people.  According to the email, “[a]ll American employers including Christian owned business and potentially Christian ministries would be affected.” 

According to the email, President Obama recently appointed a transgendered person, Mitchell (Amanda) Simpson, to a post in the Commerce Department.  “The day after Simpson began work,” the email states, “[t]he New York Times reported that the main website advertising jobs with the federal government now says there will be no ‘discrimination’ based on ‘gender identity’- even though Congress has never passed a law saying that.”  (Emphasis in original)  The email notes that this new policy only applies to federal employees, but then raises the specter of ENDA extending the policy to the private sector.

Should the law prohibit employment discrimination against homosexual and “transgendered” people?  Does the FRC email fairly lay out the issues?

[Read more...]

David Opderbeck, one of our vigorous and steady commenters, is doing a series for us on law. This one is on hate crimes and thought crimes in the context of religious freedom. A most timely topic… And by the way, if you are in the New Orleans area, David will be presenting at this Christian law conference.

Law:  Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, and Religious Freedom

On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  This legislation was vigorously opposed by the religious right and other political conservatives.  Here is how an article on the Concerned Women for America website portrayed the issue:

All totalitarian countries employ “thought crime” laws that criminalize the conscience. Now, under “hate crime” laws that include “sexual orientation,” even Western nations with long traditions of freedom, such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Sweden, are experiencing more and more challenges to basic freedoms. “Hate crime” laws are a key part of a long-term strategy by homosexual activists to use “sexual orientation”-based policies and laws to suppress dissent, radically redefine marriage and, ultimately, to criminalize Biblical morality.

The Family Research Council’s website played on a similar theme:

We oppose all Thought Crime laws in principle, because penalizing people specifically for their thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes–even ones abhorrent to us and to the vast majority of Americans, such as racism–would undermine the freedom of speech and thought at the heart of our democracy.

Are “hate crimes” laws a prelude to government “thought control?”  Should Christians oppose “hate crimes” laws that apply to crimes based on animus against homosexuals?

[Read more...]

Law, Church, Mission, Eschatology and the Powers

We recently had a lively discussion here on Jesus Creed about the Manhattan Declaration.  In the Summary Statement accompanying the Declaration, the drafters assert that the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage, and the freedoms of conscience and religion “are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture,” and that Christians are obligated to respond with civil disobedience.  In addition, in the Declaration itself, the drafters argue that Christians are obligated to support legislative and other political efforts to curtail abortion and gay marriage.

What eschatological vision do these documents reflect?  What theology of the Church’s mission in the world flows from that vision?  When faced with laws we believe are immoral or unjust, how should Christians respond?  How do law, church, mission, and eschatology relate?

The MD Summary Statement’s reference to “powerful forces in our culture” strikes me as an obviously eschatological statement.  On its face, this refers to the various political lobbying groups that are promoting the socially “liberal” agenda of abortion rights and gay marriage.  The drafters of this document, however, are highly theologically astute, and also are echoing the New Testament’s vision of conflict prior to the return of Christ:    “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”  (Eph. 6:12)

[Read more...]

I announced two weeks back that we are beginning a new series with David Opderbeck, a professor of law. He will educate us on law — should be fun.

[Read more...]

I announced last week that we are beginning a new series this week with David Opderbeck, a professor of law. He will educate us on law — should be fun.

[Read more...]