Christian Perspectives on Law and Legal Scholarship

Journal of Legal Education

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 1-12

  Cochran Jr , Robert F ^a  

^a PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2342484553     PISSN: 00222208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Though many Christians would not identify in every respect with any one of the traditions that I discuss, most Christians are likely to share the view of law taken by one of them.
2. For a description of the influence that the view of law as science has had on legal education and legal scholarship, see Anthony T. Kronman, The Lost Lawyer 165-264 (Cambridge, Mass., 1993).
3. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 92-110 (Chicago, 1970).
4. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, 1988).
5. I use the term "postmodern world" to refer to a world in which there is no longer a common belief in the assumptions of enlightenment liberalism.
6. Compare Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), with Thomas L. Shaffer & Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Lawyers, Clients, and Moral Responsibility (St. Paul, 1994).
7. Compare Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), with Thomas L. Shaffer & Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Lawyers, Clients, and Moral Responsibility (St. Paul, 1994).
8. I Corinthians 12:3. In addition, Christians believe that we all sin, that sin has separated us from God, that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, and that by repenting of our sins, placing our faith in him, and proclaiming that "Jesus is Lord," we can be reconciled to God. For a more developed summary of the beliefs that Christians hold in common, see C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, 1952).
9. See Exodus 19-31.
10. See, e.g., 1 Kings 21:15-29 (Elijah confronting King Ahab).
11. See, e.g., Jeremiah 46-51; Ezekiel 25-32.
12. See, e.g., Genesis 41:37-57 (Joseph serving in Egypt).
13. See, e.g., Exodus 1:8-2:25 (Hebrews in Egypt); Acts 12 (Christians under Roman rule). Obviously, there is a tremendous overlap between the Christian scriptures and the Hebrew scriptures that present stories of believers in different relationships with the state. There are, no doubt, analogs within the Jewish faith to the various Christian views of culture.
14. James Davidson Hunter has noticed that Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are each divided on the degree to which they accept traditional religious authority: the "orthodox" (evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, Orthodox Jews) accept traditional authority and generally support conservative political positions, and the "progressives" (liberal Protestants and Catholics, Reform Jews) resist traditional authority and generally have liberal political positions. The Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New York, 1991).
15. Christ and Culture 2 (New York, 1951).
16. Id. at 130.
17. John Courtney Murray was a modern synthesist. He synthesized democracy and the Catholic faith. See We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition (New York, 1960).
18. See, e.g., Charles E. Rice, Fifty Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It (San Francisco, 1993).
19. Niebuhr, supra note 14, at 128-29.
20. See Murray, supra note 16.
21. Cf. Niebuhr, supra note 14, at 138-39.
22. A Thomist method of transforming culture, however, would be different from that of the Dutch Calvinists, represented here by David Caudill. Caudill recognizes great differences in the presuppositions of Christians and non-Christians, but he seeks common solutions to problems. It appears that Bradley and other modern Thomists, e.g., John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (New York, 1980), seek to transform modern society by convincing others of our common starting point in natural law: they try to make others Aristotelians before they try to make them Thomists.
23. Niebuhr, supra note 14, at 156.
24. Cf. id. at 194.
25. Id. at 217.
26. "[T]he political task of Christians is to be the church rather than to transform the world." Stanley Hauerwas & William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony 38 (Nashville, 1989).
27. See id.; Thomas L. Shaffer, American Lawyers and Their Communities: Ethics in the Legal Profession (Notre Dame, 1991); Thomas L. Shaffer, Erastian and Sectarian Arguments in Religiously Affiliated Law Schools, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 1859 (1993).
28. See id.; Thomas L. Shaffer, American Lawyers and Their Communities: Ethics in the Legal Profession (Notre Dame, 1991); Thomas L. Shaffer, Erastian and Sectarian Arguments in Religiously Affiliated Law Schools, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 1859 (1993).
29. See id.; Thomas L. Shaffer, American Lawyers and Their Communities: Ethics in the Legal Profession (Notre Dame, 1991); Thomas L. Shaffer, Erastian and Sectarian Arguments in Religiously Affiliated Law Schools, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 1859 (1993).
30. Hauerwas & Willimon, supra note 25, at 41.
31. Yoder refers to this model of church as the "confessing church." He contrasts it with what he calls the "activist church," which joins and compromises with secular political movements, and the "conversionist church," which focuses on personal salvation with no concern for social justice (not to be confused with Niebuhr's conversionist church). A People in the World: Theological Interpretation, in The Concept of the Believer's Church, ed. James Leo Garrett, Jr., 252 (Scottdale, Pa., 1969). Using Niebuhr's terminology, Yoder might say that the activist church is a church transformed by culture. Yoder's conversionist church would be an example of Niebuhr's dualist church. Yoder's topology does not have room for Niebuhr's conversionist Christian, a Christian who is true to Christ and is willing to support the state's use of coercion.
32. See Andrew W. McThenia & Thomas L. Shaffer, For Reconciliation, 94 Yale L.J. 1660 (1985).
33. Niebuhr makes it clear that his dualist category is not to be confused with Manichaean dualism. Niebuhr, supra note 14, at 149.
34. "[T]he lust for power and the will of the strong . . . rationalizes itself in [law and social institutions]." Id. at 156.
35. Id. at 175.
36. Id. at 157.
37. Cf. id. at 165.
38. Niebuhr is highly critical of some dualist views: Dualism may be the refuge of worldly-minded persons who wish to make a slight obeisance in the direction of Christ, or of pious spiritualists who feel that they owe some reverence to culture. Politicians who wish to keep the influence of the gospel out of the realm of "Real-Politik," and economic men who desire profit above all things without being reminded that the poor shall inherit the kingdom, may profess dualism as a convenient rationalization. Id. at 184. Niebuhr notes that such views are abuses of Luther's doctrine, but they are dangers that accompany a compartmentalization of the Christian life.
39. Id. at 83.
40. Id. at 91-92.
41. Id. at 2.
42. See Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief (New York, 1993); The Secularization of the Academy, eds. George M. Marsden & Bradley J. Longfield (New York, 1992). A few years ago, Alan Dershowitz said on National Public Radio that no evangelical Christian could be appointed to the Harvard law faculty. He lamented that pluralism is often a code word for "ideologically correct."
43. See Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief (New York, 1993); The Secularization of the Academy, eds. George M. Marsden & Bradley J. Longfield (New York, 1992). A few years ago, Alan Dershowitz said on National Public Radio that no evangelical Christian could be appointed to the Harvard law faculty. He lamented that pluralism is often a code word for "ideologically correct."
44. See Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, 1994).