“Antinomianism” refers to the belief that some laws should be disobeyed in the name of  higher religious or moral values.  In its original formulation, it was used to describe a specific, Christian heresy that taught that Christians were exempt not only from Mosaic ritual laws but from moral laws as well.  This view was rarely espoused in its entirety; ‘antinomian’ is usually deployed as an accusation or insult, suggesting that a position would lead to a slippery slope of amorality.

More broadly, though, antinomianisms are more common than one might expect. The New Testament is itself antinomian in a sense, since the Pauline epistles preach the irrelevance (or even error) of obedience to ritual laws. During the Protestant Reformation, sects had varying degrees of antinomian views, some actually rejecting any obedience to the law as a mistaken reliance on works as opposed to faith, and others insisting they were not making such claims. And antinomian heresies (or accusations) recur throughout Christian, Jewish, and Muslim histories.

Even more broadly, antinomianism exists in putatively secular contexts as well: in civil disobedience, in conservative critiques of the “letter of the law,” in contemporary claims regarding religious freedom, and in Christian Nationalism.  We might understand antinomianism as a fundamental tendency or trajectory within the life of the law.

This class will explore a wide range of source materials, from Biblical and Talmudic texts to contemporary Supreme Court jurisprudence, texts on civil disobedience and religious exemptions, and Christian Nationalist speeches.  As we do so, we will begin to see antinomianism everywhere.

Several readings are found in this volume:  Crossing Boundaries: Essays on the Ethical Status of Mysticism, G. William Barnard and Jeffrey J. Kripal, eds. (New York: Seven Bridges Press/Chatham House, 2002).