The Church was the first to create universities, and law was the first area of study. As the political and secular realms needed to catch up to these advances in law, they all studied at law schools run by the Church. There are countless other ways Christianity and its doctrines are foundational to the Western legal system, and these presuppositions are precisely what many from the critical legal theory school of thought are working to remove. The only problem is they are unclear on what they want to replace it with. 

Understanding the Western legal system and its formation is impossible without understanding Christianity’s role. One key point involves the doctrine of the atonement. Before you think this is the fabricated rambling of some guy sitting at a keyboard, which is all too common today, you must understand that this theological link is traced clearly in a classic work by Harvard Law professor Harold Berman called Law and Revolution. Written in the 1980s, Berman is a key source for understanding the formation of the Western legal system. Whether you agree or disagree, you must interact with him. So, what impact did the Cross of Christ play in our understanding of law?

The Western legal system, as we know it, began formation around 1050 A.D. Before that time in the West, there was no centralized institution of law. Feudalism and tribalism were the primary political structures of the land. Folklaw held sway with all its rituals, superstitions, and blood feuds. Around 1050, the Papal revolution took place and began to centralize the authority of the Catholic Church. The Abbot of Cluny begins to have authority over other monasteries, and as their authority spreads, they seek a better understanding of the law. They found a copy of the Justinian Code compiled by Roman Emperor Justinian half a century earlier and began to utilize it as their framework. Still, they also reinterpreted and reworked it more systematically, following the Scholastic method.

Around the same time, Anselm is writing and showing that the Christian faith is reasonable, and he uses logical arguments to make his point. He makes a rational argument to prove the biblical revelation that God must punish sin. In other words, a just God cannot simply let sin go. The penalty must be paid, which was the purpose of the cross. The argument flows as follows.

• To remit sin without satisfaction or adjustment is not to punish it.
• And if sin needs no adjustment or punishment, then the one who sins is no different before God than the one who does not sin.
• And if no adjustment needs to be made before God, then what must be forgiven?
• Following this logic, there is no reason for forgiveness because being unrighteous or righteous makes no difference before God.
• Therefore, it is unbecoming of God not to punish sin because it would make evil and good equal in His sight.
• Since this cannot be the case, then God must punish sin.

This idea of a just penalty for sin is foundational for understanding justice as we know it today.

Read More