Law is inherently eschatological. Today I explain why that is so, the eschatology that now informs society and law and why, and the practical implications of that seemingly heady and "theological" topic in law.

Today’s short episode is a “supplement” to this coming Friday’s episode on the eschatological implications of briefs filed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Ethics and Public Policy Center with SCOTUS on transgenderism. Would you encourage or discourage the legislator argument I offer in today’s episode about women in the military? Remember: Legislators don’t have to make legal arguments to explain their vote on legislation.

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs along with what he appreciated and what he would have done differently.  Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis.

Christians should give thanks for a “Christian” outcome in a judicial dispute over a particular parental right, but I believe that is not enough. I believe the end or telos of a Christian view of law would strive to restore in law parental rights as an authority delegated by God with a prescribed jurisdiction give for certain ends—”godly offspring” (Malachi 2:15). Today I explain the legislative proposal I offered Tennessee’s legislature that would moved law in that direction.

Today, David explains why “parental rights” is now just a power game, and gives examples of Christian legal and policy advocates effectively conceding that the determinative power over what those rights are rests with a U.S. Supreme Court that has embraced a lawless, disintegrated cosmos. He also briefly summarizes what Christians must do to restore real and objectively determinable parental rights. It’s a must-listen episode for those with children and grandchildren.

Today, David explains how Christianity succumbed to the cosmological revolution of Kant and Nietzsche, the specific adoption of that cosmology by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the secret to a launching a successful Christ-centered counter-revolution. But, he says, it won't begin so long as Christians lawyers and policy makers put their faith in being able to manipulate to their immediate advantage U.S.Supreme Court precedents over the last 100 years grounded in the new cosmology.

Today’s episode provides a brief historical snapshot to show how the US. Supreme Court now thinks of "marriage" in relation to the law, how it used to think of that relation, and how Christ specifically informed that law less than 200 years ago. Seeing the transition from a Christian view of law will be shocking, as it once was to me. But the past provides a baseline for measuring a return to a Christian view of law.

Today David looks at how today’s “climate of opinion” can cause Christians to be deceived into thinking Christian lawyers and legislators are employing a Christian view of law. It will also help us see that Christians unjustifiably thought progress toward a Christian worldview was being made when, on June 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Tennessee’s law prohibiting medical interventions to treat a minor’s gender dysphoria.

If a Christian view of law is spiritual and covenantal, what does that look like when arguing before the United States Supreme Court? Today, David looks at the approaches taken by two different Christian camps in United States v. Skrmetti that addressed the constitutionality of Tennessee’s law prohibiting medical treatments for a minor’s gender dysphoria. The two approaches represent two different cosmologies, not just different legal arguments!

C.S. Lewis once wrote that it may seem he is “trying to answer questions you never asked." Some may think that about my recent discourses on God's covenant secret and in relation to law. But Lewis also said those answers often "do not make sense until a man has reached those places.” Today, I hope those discourses will make sense. That "secret" explains what kind of thinking about or engagement in law and politics is salutary and what is in vain.