Francis Schaeffer rightly quipped that the problem with evangelicals is that they see (and think) in parts and not totals.\u00a0 This is increasingly true when considering public justice and the law profession culture: hyper-specialization, legal positivism, legal realism, critical legal studies et al all contribute to this as they detach law from transcendent truths, authority, and the permanent things, and thus over time tend to undermine human flourishing.<\/p>\n
One path for remediating this trend requires linking \u2013 not jettisoning \u2013 transcendent truths to the enterprise of ethics, including law. Law and theology correlate; in fact, they need one another to be robustly effective.1<\/sup> This means intentionally invoking Christ\u2019s Lordship, applying it to all human experience and endeavors, including law and public justice. Only in this way can humans begin to see, think, and live in \u201ctotals.\u201d<\/p>\n The Center promotes scholarship, training, and engagement (dialogue, debate, symposia) which integrates theology and jurisprudence thereby grounding, orienting, and illuminating legal initiatives, advocacy, and policy in foundational theological predicates justifying \u201cthe why\u201d of certain legal doctrines, or why certain extant doctrines fall short and should be revisited, modified, or abandoned.2<\/sup><\/p>\n A Test Case for Public Legal Theology:\u00a0 Free Speech<\/strong><\/p>\n Consider \u201cfree speech,\u201d a crucial component to Classical Liberalism,3<\/sup> which informed the Founders\u2019 thinking.\u00a0 In the US context, many invoke the 1st amendment as a protector4<\/sup> of free expression.\u00a0 Question:\u00a0 did this freedom exist prior to 1791, that is, prior to the amendment\u2019s ratification?\u00a0 Did it exist prior to the Enlightenment?\u00a0 Yes, but why?\u00a0 Is there a theological<\/i> justification for free speech?\u00a0 Does the Christian worldview inform, or better, require<\/i> protecting free speech for humanity\u2019s purposes and flourishing?<\/p>\n Free Speech Before the Fall<\/strong><\/p>\n Before the Fall, God directed Adam and Eve with a particular task derived from their being the Imago<\/i> Dei<\/i>: exercise dominion over the entire created order.5<\/sup> Now, this task at the outset no doubt seemed daunting; it would require development, expansion, and other persons, as well as an inchoate division of labor. It would also require acquiring and processing raw materials that existed outside the Garden.6<\/sup> This task therefore presupposed coordination, collaboration, and therefore communication.<\/p>\n Unfettered speech ordered to virtuous human flourishing undergirded and would facilitate the mission God conferred upon Adam and Eve.\u00a0 And, this same cultural mandate remains mankind\u2019s mission after the Fall7<\/sup> and accordingly, protecting free speech remains a crucial component of ordered liberty \u2013 all because of a theological<\/i> rationale.<\/p>\n Free Speech After the Fall<\/strong><\/p>\n Moreover, after the Fall, Jesus commanded that His followers execute another mandate, known as the Great Commission: discipling the nations.8<\/sup> Plainly, this mandate likewise required and continues to require robust protection for publicly<\/i> proclaiming the Gospel \u2013 free speech. Both the cultural mandate and the Great Commission require rejecting a privatized religion as well as spiritual dualism. Both mandates must be pursued temporally and publicly \u2013 prior to eternity. And, those tasks require free speech, which Classical Liberalism, the political philosophy largely embraced by the Founders and the Framers, is zealous to protect.<\/p>\n Key principles guiding the Center\u2019s work:<\/p>\n\n