Redeeming Law: Discussion of Chapters 1 - 4

[Mike Schutt]

Okay, I'll try again:

Thanks for introducing yourselves! We've got between now and Thursday to discuss chapters 1 - 4 of Redeeming Law. To kick us off, I'd like to pose a couple of general questions:

1. First, how does the title strike you, and after you reading at least the Introduction, and perhaps Part I of the book, do you agree that our role can be redemptive in a real sense, or is the author (!) stretching it here?

2. In addition, which of the first four chapters was most helpful to you-- if any were helpful-- and why?

Finally, if neither of those questions gets you going, try this:

3. Did you beg to differ on significant points or premises in the opening chapters, and why do you think your disagreement might be important to the life of the lawyer or law student?

Fire away-- simply respond by hitting "reply to this" or by starting your own discussion thread with a title that will help us see what you're addressing! Be sure to check "Follow this Discussion" so you will receive an email when someone replies.

I look forward to kicking this stuff around this week.

Mike

[Robert K Naumann]

1. The title is itself a presupposition of sorts, I suppose. There are those who say the whole world is simply spiraling downward until either (a) the Millennial Reign or (b) the New Heavens and New Earth--and that, therefore, redemption of institutions is not possible. However, I think the connection to the Puritans, raised in Chapter 3, is apt. Certainly I would consider their work in colonial America "redemptive" of the liberties that were so quickly declining in Europe at that time. There are examples of redemption besides the redemption of souls, so I agree with the premise.

2. I won't belabor this here. See my discussion starter on Ch 3.

3. There were some minor points, but none of them worth mentioning--so far!

[Heather Geertsma]

1. The word "redeem" is a very spiritual word for me and it reminds me of how Jesus restored us from our sinful state. But redeem can also be to restore the honour or worth to something, and I think that definition suits the title of this book.

If we as law students and lawyers see our role as restoring the honour and worth to law, we will be very intentional at how we approach it. Law has been twisted to such in a way that it is often used for the advantage of government or corporations; it can be given worth again if laws are in place to demonstrate what is right and what is wrong. Further, and this is what I found the introduction speaks most on, honour has been removed from the legal profession. Yet, we can get back that honour by being Christian lawyers who set an example by spreading the truth. So in this sense, "Redeeming Law" is a fitting title and I do think Christian lawyers can achieve that objective.

[Britton Weimer]

I very much enjoyed the discussion of natural law in Chapter 2. It is very refreshing to read what Cicero, Aquinas, Coke, Blackstone and others had to say on the subject. For attorneys like me who went to a secular law school, it is a doctrine that I need to meditate upon and integrate into my worldview.

I have recently had some interesting and intense conversations and e-mails with skeptics on the subject of human rights. It quickly becomes clear that, without an objective natural law, there can be no true universal human rights. Instead, human rights just become the rights that the society/government agrees to protect. Honest secularists will admit this, and it is IMO an important point of contact for a monotheistic worldview.

[Dan Kim]

1. As Mike knows, my initial reaction to the title of this book was, "uh no." This gut reaction came from both my association of the word redeem as a very particular one in the Christian context - reserved for Christ's birth, life, suffering, death, resurrection and his second coming and my annoyance that the title may imply to some that law itself can be somehow redeeming. After discussing it with Mike and of course reading the introduction I got over myself and do think it a very appropriate and even provocative (provocative being used in the good sense here) title!

2. I like all four but I really found the presentation and explanation of acedia (Ch 2) and Thinking about lawyering (Ch 4) to stand out most. While the church, modernity, and law school all do make it difficult for us to think and act christianly about what it means to be a christian lawyer or law student at the end of the day even when we know how deeply these things influence us the basic problem of sin creeps up on us and takes a hold of us through acedia and our fear of man to prevent us from ever changing.

3. My only complaint was how little time Mike spent thanking people like David Nammo and myself for putting up with him for the past few years. Praise the Lord he is in Texas and I in VA. Just kidding... actually the only thing I would have liked Mike to address more of is the enjoyment of the mundane. Does this make sense Mike?
I will add more to the above in the other thread started by Rob!

[Robert K Naumann]

Ah, yes! That is one of my favorite topics of discussion with those those outside the faith, too. I actually used one of my craft talks at a secular networking group recently to discuss that phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "unalienable rights." Most every secular reader throws out the phrase "endowed by their Creator" as just the antiquated view of the Founders, but they still hold to the inalienability of our rights. Of course, if the rights are given by man-made institutions, they are not inalienable. You should have seen the look on the face of one particular atheist in the group as she tried to process that. When presented in the proper spirit, I think the approach can be very disarming.

Britton Weimer said:

I very much enjoyed the discussion of natural law in Chapter 2. It is very refreshing to read what Cicero, Aquinas, Coke, Blackstone and others had to say on the subject. For attorneys like me who went to a secular law school, it is a doctrine that I need to meditate upon and integrate into my worldview.

I have recently had some interesting and intense conversations and e-mails with skeptics on the subject of human rights. It quickly becomes clear that, without an objective natural law, there can be no true universal human rights. Instead, human rights just become the rights that the society/government agrees to protect. Honest secularists will admit this, and it is IMO an important point of contact for a monotheistic worldview.

[Mike Schutt]

Thanks to all of you for doing such a great job of kicking off the discussion!!

Before I post some ideas (later today or this evening) to kick off our discussion of Part II of the book, I wanted to make some observations on the excellent points that were raised already.

1. I liked the discussion on the natural law and unalienable rights. I think that Bob and Brit both make some great points about the "fundamental" nature of "God-given" law. If we think law is simply a human artifact, then who's to say what is right or who has "rights"? This question of the nature and source of law is central to the idea of the Rule of Law and to any sort of order in any given society.

For example, I think the primary reason that law is so very different in the Muslim world than it is in the West is that that nature of Allah and the nature of God are different-- Allah is a god of will. God is a law-keeper, bound even by his own decrees. Our view of the nature of law springs from somewhere-- and it matters.

2. I think the question that several folks addressed in talking about various views of "redemption" in the world and the "kingdom" are also central to how we see our role as lawyers. This ties in nicely, too, with Bob's points about means and ends. If we see the kingdom only as a "future" kingdom and the gospel only as "saving souls," then our law practice will always be instrumental-- a means to something else, having no value in itself. But if we understand that it is good news to do justice, that writing wills is transformational, that helping facilitate justice itself is kingdom work-- the current, already kingdom that is here-- then we are doing redemptive, gospel work. Period.

This is not uncontroversial, and there are nuances to discuss and pitfalls to avoid. But one's theology, conscious or not, drives one vocation.

3. I think this also relates to Dan's point about the "mundane." Is there real "calling" in the life of the big-firm associate who spends her days digging through boxes of financial documents in a warehouse for a year? Wouldn't it be better to do a short-term missions trip? Where can we find vocation in the drudgery of ordinary practice when there are people who need to be fed or given the means to clean water? I'll save my thoughts on this, but you get the idea: what's the mission? Does it always look "Christian"?