Posted on by

“Christians and the Color Line: Race and Religion after ‘Divided by Faith'” (Hawkins & Sinitiere, eds.)

Next month, Oxford will publish Christians and the Color Line: Race and 9780199329502_140Religion after Divided by Faith, edited by J. Russell Hawkins (Indiana Wesleyan University) and Phillip Luke Sinitiere (College of Biblical Studies, Texas). The publisher’s description follows.

Christians and the Color Line analyzes the complex entanglement of race and religion in the United States. Drawing on historical and contemporary examples of racialized religion, the essays in this volume consider the problem of race both in Christian congregations and in American society as a whole.

Belying the notion that a post-racial America has arrived, congregations in the US are showing an unprecedented degree of interest in overcoming the deep racial divisions that exist within American Protestantism. In one recent poll, for instance, nearly 70 percent of church leaders expressed a strong desire for their congregations to become racially and culturally diverse. To date, reality has eluded this professed desire as fewer than 10 percent of American Protestant churches have actually achieved multiracial status.

Employing innovative research from sociology, history, philosophy, and religious studies, the contributors to this volume use Michael Emerson and Christian Smith’s groundbreaking study Divided by Faith (Oxford, 2000) as their starting point to acknowledge important historical, sociological, and theological causations for racial divisions in Christian communities. Collectively, however, these scholars also offer constructive steps that Christians of all races might take to overcome the color line and usher in a new era of cross-racial engagement.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Corey on Oakeshott and the Rationalism of the Early American State

Elizabeth Corey has a very interesting review of a book by Gene Callahan about the extent to which the ideas of the British political theorist, Michael Oakeshott, are consistent with some of the founding ideas and principles of the American nation–particularly those championed in the Declaration of Independence but also in the US Constitution. Corey describes the book–Oakeshott on Rome and America–as working its way through this question by positing that it is true that, for example, the Constitution displays the sort of rationalism in politics that Oakeshott criticized–averring principles and political arrangements that were to bind future generations. Nevertheless, there are both internal and external limits on the rationalism of the Constitution. The internal limits are structural, providing for a government of limited powers and securing ample space for the sorts of civil association that Oakeshott defended. Here’s the conclusion of Corey’s review, which explains the external limits:

Does our American Founding, despite its aim of limiting and checking the power of those who govern, exhibit an essentially Rationalistic tendency? In other words, are the self-evident principles and universal rights it proclaims really nothing more than a distillation of the inherited English political experience, parading as eternal truths? And even if they were considered eternal truths in 1776 or 1787, are they really so today? Callahan observes that if the political culture does not support such rights and limits, or if presidents, politicians and judges are intent on, to put it gently, reinterpreting them, then there is nothing at all to stop them from doing so.

Callahan observes that a written constitution will inevitably “be read in a way that conforms to the prevailing understanding of how government ought to operate and what powers it ought to possess.” This is not simply because living constitutionalists and progressives of all stripes have managed to gain majorities in important cases. It is because, argues Callahan following Oakeshott, no written constitution can do what it purports to do in terms of providing pointed and substantive barriers to political action, especially when majorities support such action. For such reasons even Originalism is unsupportable. The notion of grounding or stabilizing the meaning of the Constitution by recourse to “original intent” is, he observes, “not just a pipe dream today, but always was such.” In short, the political culture supports the Constitution; not the other way around. We need only look at the contemporary debate about marriage to see that this is true, whether we like it or not.

One final thought. Perhaps, it might be argued, Oakeshott is right in his arguments about political culture. Politics goes on as it will in a democracy so long as a majority is happy with the outcomes. Yet given the current debates over religious liberty, one wonders where we would find ourselves without the “protection,” or at least the threat, of the first Amendment against government overreach. It is one thing to find the provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights not totally adequate for the job; it is another thing to be without them altogether. All parties in the debates over enumerated rights at least acknowledge that the Bill of Rights must be taken into account.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami · 1 Comment

Realism and Idealism: On Law’s Limits

Last week, I attended a very interesting conference about which I’ve written here before concerning the “politics” of religious freedom, and the question of what, if anything, might come “after” religious freedom. The conference was particularly instructive for me because most of the participants were not  law professors. They were primarily religious studies scholars, anthropologists, historians of religion, and doctoral students in these disciplines. The presence of doctoral students at various stages in their studies was especially welcome from my point of view, as it gave me an admittedly narrow sense of what some new voices in these fields are investigating and what is of interest to them. Any legal academic who thinks about religious freedom–and, more broadly, the relationship of government and law (domestic and international) to religious communities and traditions around the world–would profit from greater exposure to the concerns and debates of those disciplines that study particular religious phenomena. I am grateful to Winni Sullivan, Beth Shakman Hurd, Saba Mahmood, and Peter Danchin for inviting me.

The interdisciplinary quality of the conference provided a nice view of the convergences and divergences in these scholarly worlds. I did come away from the conference believing that there were more divergences than I had at first perceived. Here are some scattered impressions of the differences in aim, method, and perspective between legal scholars and the scholars at the conference. I also have a little reflection at the end of the post on some recent comments by Benjamin Berger, a fellow member of the law professor tribe whom I was delighted to meet at the conference and who offered some thoughtful and penetrating remarks.

  1. First, a point of sheepishly self-referential comparison: generally when I attend legal academic conferences about law and religion, I find myself arguing for restraint on the part of the liberal state, for the limits of law, and for the importance of highly contextual analysis that does not flatten out conflict in ways that fundamentally misunderstand it. That is because, in the main (and, of course, with many important exceptions), law professors (in my area) subscribe to a fairly muscular liberal political theory of the state. I am therefore cast in the role of cautionary skeptic. By contrast, the scholarly community at the conference was highly critical of the liberal state–critical of it from a distinctive political perspective, to be sure, but critical of it nonetheless. It is probably a contrarian character weakness that had me very much feeling like the liberal state needed a friend. I couldn’t quite muster up the energy to be that friend but I do know more than a few law professors who would have eagerly taken up the mantle.
  2. I was also struck by how prevalent critical methodology seemed to be.  Read more
Posted on by

Anderson, “An Introduction to Pentacostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity”

Next month, Cambridge University Press will publish a new edition of  An Introduction to Pentacostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity by Allan Heaton Anderson (University of Birmingham). The publisher’s description follows.

Pentecostalism has become the fastest growing Christian movement, particularly outside Europe, and Allan Heaton Anderson is one of the foremost scholars of this phenomenon. His innovative interpretation of Pentecostalism focuses on the serious contribution made by both western and Majority World participants in its development. In this second edition of his leading introductory course book, Anderson presents an updated global history of the movement, which addresses significant events and changes in recent years, and surveys important theoretical issues such as gender and society, as well as politics and economics. The book also offers a comprehensive explanation of the significance of Charismatic Christianity throughout the world, plus its effect upon the globalisation of religion and its transformation in the present century. This new edition will be an important resource for those studying Pentecostalism, Charismatic Christianity, theology and sociology of religion.

Posted on by

Angell & Dandelion (eds.), “The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies”

Next month, Oxford University Press will publish The Oxford Handbook of Quaker StudiesQuaker Studies edited by Stephen Angell (Earlham School of Religion) and Pink Dandelion (University of Birmingham). The publisher’s description follows.

Quakerism began in England in the 1650s. George Fox, credited as leading the movement, had an experience of 1647 in which he felt he could hear Christ directly and inwardly without the mediation of text or minister. Convinced of the authenticity of this experience and its universal application, Fox preached a spirituality in which potentially all were ministers, all part of a priesthood of believers, a church leveled before the leadership of God. Quakers are a fascinating religious group both in their original “peculiarity” and in the variety of reinterpretations of the faith since. The way they have interacted with wider society is a basic but often unknown part of British and American history. This handbook charts their history and the history of their expression as a religious community.

This volume provides an indispensable reference work for the study of Quakerism. It is global in its perspectives and interdisciplinary in its approach whilst offering the reader a clear narrative through the academic debates. In addition to an in-depth survey of historical readings of Quakerism, the handbook provides a treatment of the group’s key theological premises and its links with wider Christian thinking. Quakerism’s distinctive ecclesiastical forms and practices are analyzed, and its social, economic, political, and ethical outcomes examined. Each of the 37 chapters considers broader religious, social, and cultural contexts and provides suggestions for further reading and the volume concludes with an extensive bibliography to aid further research.

Posted on by

Groody & Gutierrez (eds.), “The Preferential Option for the Poor beyond Theology”

Next month, University of Notre Dame Press will publish The Preferential Option for the Poor beyond Theology edited by Daniel Groody (University of Notre Dame) and Gustavo Gutierrez (University of Notre Dame). The publisher’s description follows. The Preferential Option for the Poor beyond Theology

Since the 1973 publication of Gustavo Gutiérrez’s groundbreaking work A Theology of Liberation, liberation theology’s central premise of the preferential option for the poor has become one of the most important yet controversial theological themes of the twentieth century. As the situation for many of the world’s poor worsens, it becomes ever more important to ensure that the option for the poor remains not only a vibrant theological concept but also a practical framework for living out the gift and challenge of Christian faith. The Preferential Option for the Poor beyond Theology draws on a diverse group of contributors to explore how disciplines as varied as law, economics, politics, the environment, science, liberal arts, film, and education can help us understand putting a commitment to the option for the poor into practice.

The central focus of the book revolves around the question: How can one live a Christian life in a world of destitution? The contributors address the theological concept of the option for the poor as well as the ways it can shape our social, economic, political, educational, and environmental approaches to poverty. Their creative examples serve as an inspiration to all those who are seeking to put their talents at the service of human need and the building of a more just and humane world.

Posted on by Marc O. DeGirolami

Hobby Lobby Supports Cert. Grant

Via the very good Josh Blackman, I learn that Hobby Lobby, the corporation that successfully challenged the contraception mandate before the Tenth Circuit, is supporting the government’s petition for certiorari. As Professor Blackman says, “You don’t see this too often.” The formidable Paul Clement to argue for Hobby Lobby.

Posted on by

The Top Five New Law & Religion Papers on SSRN

From SSRN’s list of most frequently downloaded law and religion papers posted in the last 60 days, here are the current top five. Since last week, Zoe Robinson remains at #1; Ian C. Bartrum remains at #2; Caroline Mala Corbin remains at number #3;  and Jeremy M. Christiansen moves up to #4, switching spots with Carl F. Minzner who dropped to #5.

1.What is a ‘Religious Institution’? by Zoe Robinson (Depaul University College of Law) [277 downloads]

2. Book Review: ‘The Tragedy of Religious Freedom’  by Ian C. Bartrum (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) [112 downloads]

3.Corporate Religious Liberty by Caroline Mala Corbin (University of Miami School of Law) [97 downloads]

4.‘The Word[ ] ‘Person’…Includes Corporations’: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Protects Both For- and Nonprofit Corporations by Jeremy M. Christiansen  (University of Utah- S.J. Quinney College of Law) [85 downloads]

5.Book Review of ‘A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China’s Ancient Past Can Shape its Political Future’ by Jiang Qing, edited by Daniel Bell and Ruiping Fan (Princeton University Press) by Carl F. Minzner (Fordham University- School of Law) [84 downloads]

Posted on by

Schneier & Ali, “Sons of Abraham: A Candid Conversation About the Issues That Divide and Unite Jews and Muslims”

In September, Random House published Sons of Abraham: A Candid Sons of AbrahamConversation About the Issues That Divide and Unite Jews and Muslims by Rabbi Marc Schneier and Imam Shamsi Ali.  The publisher’s description follows.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, the eighteenth generation of a distinguished rabbinical dynasty, grew up deeply suspicious of Muslims, believing them all to be anti-Semitic. Imam Shamsi Ali, who grew up in a small Indonesian village and studied in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, believed that all Jews wanted to destroy Muslims. Coming from positions of mutual mistrust, it seems unthinkable that these orthodox religious leaders would ever see eye to eye. Yet in the aftermath of 9/11, amid increasing acrimony between Jews and Muslims, the two men overcame their prejudices and bonded over a shared belief in the importance of opening up a dialogue and finding mutual respect. In doing so, they became not only friends but also defenders of each other’s religion, denouncing the twin threats of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and promoting interfaith cooperation.

In Sons of Abraham, Rabbi Schneier and Imam Ali tell the story of how they became friends and offer a candid look at the contentious theological and political issues that frequently divide Jews and Muslims, clarifying erroneous ideas that extremists in each religion use to justify harmful behavior. Rabbi Schneier dispels misconceptions about chosenness in Judaism, while Imam Ali explains the truth behind concepts like jihad and Shari’a. And on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two speak forthrightly on the importance of having a civil discussion and the urgency of reaching a peaceful solution.

As Rabbi Schneier and Imam Ali show, by reaching a fuller understanding of one another’s faith traditions, Jews and Muslims can realize that they are actually more united than divided in their core beliefs. Both traditions promote kindness, service, and responsibility for the less fortunate—and both religions call on their members to extend compassion to those outside the faith. In this sorely needed book, Rabbi Schneier and Imam Ali challenge Jews and Muslims to step out of their comfort zones, find common ground in their shared Abrahamic traditions, and stand together and fight for a better world for all.

Posted on by

Joskowicz, “The Modernity of Others: Jewish Anti-Catholicism in Germany and France”

Next month, Stanford University Press will publish The Modernity of Others:The Modernity of Others Jewish Anti-Catholicism in Germany and France by Ari Joskowicz (Vanderbilt University).  The publisher’s description follows.

 The most prominent story of nineteenth-century German and French Jewry has focused on Jewish adoption of liberal middle-class values. The Modernity of Others points to an equally powerful but largely unexplored aspect of modern Jewish history: the extent to which German and French Jews sought to become modern by criticizing the anti-modern positions of the Catholic Church. Drawing attention to the pervasiveness of anti-Catholic anticlericalism among Jewish thinkers and activists from the late eighteenth to the early twentieth century, the book turns the master narrative of Western and Central European Jewish history on its head. From the moment in which Jews began to enter the fray of modern European politics, they found that Catholicism served as a convenient foil that helped them define what it meant to be a good citizen, to practice a respectable religion, and to have a healthy family life. Throughout the long nineteenth century, myriad Jewish intellectuals, politicians, and activists employed anti-Catholic tropes wherever questions of political and national belonging were at stake: in theoretical treatises, parliamentary speeches, newspaper debates, the founding moments of the Reform movement, and campaigns against antisemitism.