Oak Brook College of Law

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by nosborne48, Aug 25, 2003.

Loading...
  1. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Their web site includes a statement of belief. I don't see anything in it that would necessarily conflict with the practice of law but I do wonder if this set of affirmations reflects an orthodox Christian viewpoint?

    I see that their program requires attendence at conventions or seminars of various sorts, some of them religious in nature. Am I right in thinking that they can discriminate on basis of religion because they do not accept any public funding?

    Their program is certainly cheap enough and their results to date are quite impressive.
     
  2. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Not entirely, Nosborne. There is absolutely no mention of the sacraments. The use of Scriptural methods to call those who reject Scriptural principles to account is extremely problematic; there is a confusion between church discipline as an internal matter (excommunication, etc.) and the ostensible application of "Scriptural" something or other in the public sphere. I have no idea what "Scriptural principles" means--they do not define this.
    The victorious living/effective service emphasis is detached from the means of grace, and the emphasis is on Christian achievement throughout. This impairs divine monergism. Justification and sanctification are not distinguished as clearly as one might like. There is no apparent distinction between the integrity of the secular sphere (which is given it by God) and the mission of the church.

    In general, the statement reflects orthodox views of God, Christ, and inspiration of Scripture, but its extension into praxis reflects the particular presuppositions of the "religious right."
    (My church body views the "religious right" with profound reserve on a whole host of issues not directly germane to this post.)

    I could not sign this statement of faith in good conscience. If a statement omitted things I believe to be important, that's one thing--unless it said "these beliefs and nothing beyond them". But when it requires positive confusion in what it affirms, then no.

    I hasten to add that these misgivings will not be shared by many or most evangelicals or fundamentalists, and theological liberals would find (I imagine) a rather different set of objectionables. Since I am neither an evangelical nor a fundamentalist nor a liberal, I don't presume to speak for them.
     
  3. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Okay, I think I get the idea...in simple, non theologian language, you don't agree with subordinating professional decision making to a set of theological conclusions?

    If this IS what they mean, then I DO see potential professional problems. The law and the duties of lawyers are often not congruent with a religious approach to decision making.
     
  4. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Pardon my own layman's language here, Nosborne, but I basically agree with your statement. It seems to me that a judge's first and last obligation is to uphold the constitution and the laws. If he cannot do that in good conscience because of his religious views or affiliation, he should not be a judge. I also think that a person can hold very deep religious beliefs and commitments without subverting his obligations to impartiality and legal fidelity, just as I think a person can rightly discharge those obligations in the absence of any particular religious belief.

    These people appear to confuse not only church and state, but also the exercise of a magistracy and the proclamation of the Gospel. The longterm result, I fear, would be a magistracy subverted and a Gospel betrayed into political worksrighteousness.

    See, ask a Gnesio-Lutheran questions, get Gnesio-Lutheran answers. :rolleyes:
     
  5. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I understand your concern. The Chief Justice of Alabama seems to be an example of what can go wrong.

    However, law as a discipline tends to force the practitioner to engage in critical analysis. I rather suspect that most law students who start with an unexamined faith end up examining it before they're done.

    I would also suggest that Jews didn't really develop a theology beyond "Shema Ysrael" because of our deep attachment to law and need for social order. Pure speculation, however profound, isn't terribly helpful when you are trying to sort out the dispute between a landowner and his tenant.

    A few years ago, the Southern Baptists announced that they were going to start a domestic mission to America's Jews. We smiled and suggested that the result might be more Jews and fewer Baptists!
     

Share This Page