“John Rawls and Christian Social Engagement” (Bradley & Forster, eds.)

This December, Lexington Books will release “John Rawls and Christian Social Engagement: Justice as Unfairness” edited by Anthony B. Bradley (King’s College) and Greg Forster (Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice).  The publisher’s description follows:

This book critiques the Rawlsian concepts of “justice as fairness” and “public reason” from the perspective of Christian political theory and practice. The Rawlsian paradigm has become pervasive in multiple disciplines outside political philosophy and is unconsciously embedded in a great deal of Christian public discourse; this calls for a new level of analysis from Christian perspectives. This is the first volume to examine Rawls based on Christian principles drawn from theological ethics, social thought, political theory and practical observation. In addition to theoretical perspectives, the book connects its critique of Rawls to specific hot-topic practical questions in three areas: social issues (abortion, marriage, etc.), economic issues (wealth creation, poverty programs, etc.), and the increasing difficulty of political compromise and peaceful coexistence in the context of the culture war. The book includes some of the leading Christian political theorists in America.

Prophets in the Public Square – Part III

Final thoughts from an unpublished talk I presented at the 19th Annual Journal of Law and Religion Symposium at Hamline Law School in 2009.

* * *

As I emphasized in Part I and Part II, religious voices in the public square need to speak authentically.  They also need to find a way to speak universally without losing sight of their own necessary particularity.  These are important religious challenges.

But how should political theory look at all this? Many political and legal philosophers, following John Rawls, have argued that religious voices in the public square need to frame their arguments in terms that are intelligible to the larger overlapping consensus of diverse communities and radically different religious convictions that participate in that conversation. Critics have suggested that this requirement of self-censorship is unnecessary, and unfair and untrue to religious faith. I want to go a step further, and argue that it can also be affirmatively bad for public discourse, and in some ways more dangerous to the secular polity.

To make my point, I want to look briefly, not at the classic works in this ongoing debate, but at a more obscure source, Rawls’s own rediscovered religious writings. Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: