Prolific writer, scholar, and fan of all things ACC, Anthony Bradley posted here not so long ago that his one-kingdom foundation was found, well, "in the beginning." That is, in Genesis 1, the initial account of creation. A few days later writer, scholar, and fan of HBO's The Wire, D.G. Hart responded here that the beginning, at least of all things redemptive (i.e., Christian), is Genesis 3. In other words, there was and is a kingdom of creation as well as a subsequent and independent kingdom of redemption and ne'er the twain shall meet. Finally, go here to read what I believe is a very good summary of the nub of the problem. (Don't draw any unwarranted implications from the 1K bona fides of that post's author.)
It is entirely possible that 2K folks believe that my works such as The Law of Contracts: A Place to Start (download here), Mission Possible: A Paradigm for Analysis of Contractual Impossibility at Regent University (download here), Principled Pluralism and Contract Remedies (download here), and, most of all, Consideration in the Common Law of Contracts: A Biblical-Theological Critique (download here) are entirely misguided. After all, in each I address the implementation of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1 (Kingdom 1) in light of the reality of sin described in Genesis 3 (Kingdom 2) with a view to the goal of the eschatological Sabbath rest of, all things, Genesis 1 again. Am I incoherent? The unknowing sufferer of a multiple personality disorder? Simply running in circles?
I'd like to think the answer to all three questions is no. Beginning at the beginning and running any social practice like, say, the law of contracts, through the lenses of creation, Fall, and ultimate consummation strikes me as a sensible approach for one who is both a Christian and one who professes belief in the inspiration of the entirety of biblical teaching as well as a scholar of contract law who seeks to do that work obediently. Categorizing someone as a 1K or 2K Christian strikes me as a waste of time. Critiquing my work on its own terms (or any other terms for that matter) is what counts. More of that and less pigeon-holing is what we need. Doing rather than categorizing. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: Those who can, do; those who can't, count.
It is entirely possible that 2K folks believe that my works such as The Law of Contracts: A Place to Start (download here), Mission Possible: A Paradigm for Analysis of Contractual Impossibility at Regent University (download here), Principled Pluralism and Contract Remedies (download here), and, most of all, Consideration in the Common Law of Contracts: A Biblical-Theological Critique (download here) are entirely misguided. After all, in each I address the implementation of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1 (Kingdom 1) in light of the reality of sin described in Genesis 3 (Kingdom 2) with a view to the goal of the eschatological Sabbath rest of, all things, Genesis 1 again. Am I incoherent? The unknowing sufferer of a multiple personality disorder? Simply running in circles?
I'd like to think the answer to all three questions is no. Beginning at the beginning and running any social practice like, say, the law of contracts, through the lenses of creation, Fall, and ultimate consummation strikes me as a sensible approach for one who is both a Christian and one who professes belief in the inspiration of the entirety of biblical teaching as well as a scholar of contract law who seeks to do that work obediently. Categorizing someone as a 1K or 2K Christian strikes me as a waste of time. Critiquing my work on its own terms (or any other terms for that matter) is what counts. More of that and less pigeon-holing is what we need. Doing rather than categorizing. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: Those who can, do; those who can't, count.
No comments:
Post a Comment