though they never ought to be, almost commonplace. But the phrase "God himself is Law" is jarring to the modern ear. It seems jarring from both a religious and a secular perspective. That it is jarring is a sign of two things. First, it is probably reflective of a modern religious disdain for "Law" based upon misunderstanding of both both "Law" and "Grace" in the divine economy of salvation; it betrays, unfortunately, a fundamental misunderstanding, largely inherited from Protestant theology, between the aera sub lege and the aera sub gratia, the dispensation before Christ and after Christ. (In fact, Law and Grace, like Nature and Grace, or Reason and Faith, do not contradict each other. The natural law was in force before Christ and after Christ.) Second, and more pertinent to this blog which is dedicated to the Natural Law, the jarring is a sign of how far our political and legal institutions have strayed from their traditional moorings in the Natural Law.As secularism has marched incessantly forward, like a Juggernaut destroying all the inherited cultural capital, both Christian and Graeco-Roman, in its path the world has become, in Max Weber's phrase, progressively "disenchanted." As a result, our civil, political, and legal institutions have become increasingly emancipated from God to such a degree that we act as practical atheists.
For example, as we understand it today, the notion of the Rule of Law is purposefully crafted to exclude mention of God, and so is a notion merely procedural, purely secular. While, as a legal principle, it may have significant value, it nevertheless suffers from obvious limitations. When push comes to shove, it offers but a superficial bulwark against tyranny. (As an example of its limited value, the Rule of Law cannot be used to criticise Roe v. Wade;indeed, the Rule of Law arguably demands its continued enforcement.) Many commentators have noted the same problem with the modern notion of "Human Rights."
Disassociating God from Law, like disassociating God from Ethics, has caused our scholars to run into intellectual cul-de-sacs. Scholars have a hard time answering why there ought to be a "Rule of Law," and why there is such a thing as "Human Rights," and why these ought to have a universal value.
God and the Eternal Law are ostracized from our public and even private schools, even those with an originally religious foundation. Mention that "God himself is Law" to any among the professorate at Harvard (of Puritan foundation) or Yale (Congregationalist) law schools, and you will likely draw a blank, quizzical, or perhaps disdainful look. That would not have been true at their founding. This frequently leads to an impossible quandary, the effects of which are a cacophony of ethical discussion without hope of resolution or common ground, absurdities advanced as serious thought, or just plain nihilism and despair. (See, e.g., Law's Quandary by Stephen D. Smith, and After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre.)
To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, when men don't believe in an Eternal Law, the result is not that they believe in no law, but that they will believe in every kind of law (including no law).
With that introduction, our next posts will address the issue of what the Eternal Law is, and how it may be known.
Part of the fiction brainwashed upon us regarding "Rule of Law", stems from the notions of Locke's, Hobbes', Rousseau's "social contract", the presumption being that a group of average uninformed people, will somehow vote for regulations that are higher than themselves.
ReplyDeleteWell, in math, "Law of Averages" (picture the Average bell curve) shows that's impossible.
Absent God (an intentional omission in social contract theory), "people lower" can never conceive of laws "higher than" or "more profound" than themselves. Statistically, and historically, never happened. We always need a boost from Above.
That is why the very notion of "Rule of Law" cuts itself off from Divine / Natural Law...its very lawlessness stems from social contract substituting "consent by the governed" (mob rule) over and above authority from God.
This should awaken us as to why our Jurisprudence system was built on a house of cards right from the start. The good and bad we inherited from English Common Law (see Coke, Blackstone) presumes the same things, from a purported atheist, Hobbes.
So yes, we haven't "become" practical atheists, but, system-wise, "were" practical atheists from the start.
So my recommendation to law school students, is to fraternally correct the errant law professors and Judges in public, to stop teaching social contract and Rule of Law as if it were a presumed given.
Study Rene Girard, about mob rule and mimesis, and learn where the fiction of social contract comes from essentially atheist notions. Try to put recalcitrant law professors and Judges out of business, by listing them, so that more attuned professionals will have larger clienteles.
We need to start rewarding those who are more gifted, "above average", and empower them to teach others. That way, everyone benefits, so the average curve shifts upwards.
(To be fair to Hobbes, his insights were in desperate reaction against abuses of Kings, during a most bloody English civil war. So-called Divine Right of Kings is another topic, which was never fully sanctioned by God.)
ReplyDelete