Retrieving the Natural Law: A Return to Moral First Things
Book Reviews
”Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed.” Francis Bacon (d. 1626)
Book Reviewed
by Monty M. Self, Little Rock, AR
Retrieving the Natural Law: A Return to Moral First Things.
J. Daryl Charles, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008, $34.
As the momentum of the twenty-first century picks up speed, it seems that morality and ethics are left behind. Each day brings a new technological advancement. Every week the world becomes smaller. Today, we sit at a table debating moral issues, but no resolutions emerge. We are caught like the early residents of Babylon, each speaking a different language. In our attempt to provide a place at the table for each religious and ethnic group, we have lost our common language for moral discourse. As the biomedical revolution reaches the speed of a supersonic jet, Christian ethicists are in desperate need of common ground for moral decision making.
J. Daryl Charles (Associate Professor of Christian Studies, Union University) attempts to lay the tracks for an open and public debate about biomedical issues on a foundation of Natural Law Theory. He writes, ”The burden of this volume, rather, is to argue afresh for the acknowledgement of moral ’first things,’ particularly as they affect ’life issues,’ whether these be beginning-of-life, life-enhancement, or end-of-life in nature. Because the debates that rage today concern the very meaning and essence of life, they point us back to the natural law” (295).
In short, Charles’s new book Retrieving the Natural Law attempts to do several things. First, Charles argues that natural law theory is the common median which can be use for an open debate in a pluralistic society. In our thrust for mutual respect and the elimination of discrimination, we have moved away from the ideal of tolerance and towards philosophical apathy where no one seeks objective truth. In order to have a truly open debate about moral first things, society must build its dialog upon what we all share in common.
Whether one is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Buddhist, it is difficult to reject the idea that we share a common nature and that nature is grounded in the natural law. Charles writes, ”Natural-law thinking presupposes both the existence of universal moral norms and a basic awareness of these norms in all humans, Christian and non-Christian. The natural law is an imprint made on nature itself, inscribed by the moral Governor of the universe. Because it remains universal, eradicable, and immutable, the natural law provides guidance for life in a real world of contingencies” (155).
This common impression which is universally shared has the potential of providing a foundation for moral discourse in this pluralistic society. Charles argues, ”Natural-law thinking thus provides a common grammar for moral discourse and a common basis for moral judgment in a pluralistic environment” (44).
Next, Charles provides an extensive survey of the history of the natural law and its interaction with Protestantism. Chapter three provides a detailed history of natural law theory. Charles goes beyond Aquinas and Augustine and traces the idea back to Heraclitus, Socrates, and Aristotle and then outlines its development through the post-World War II era. While chapter three is a valuable academic resource on its own, chapter four focuses upon the protestant rejection of natural law thinking. Unlike other authors, Charles does not shy away from common criticisms of natural law. He openly. discusses problems associated with original sin, he responds to the accusation that Natural Law is not Christ centered and details the influence of the Barth-Brunner debate. Charles goes as far as to openly engage Hauerwas’s criticism of natural law theory in The Peaceable Kingdom.
Last, Retrieving the Natural Law attempts to apply natural law thinking to biomedical issues. Charles is absolutely correct in his assertion that ”It has become increasingly evident in recent years that most, if not all–of our culture’s critical ethical and bioethical issues hinge in some way on the question of personhood” (195). One cannot really understand what personhood his without asking what it means to be human.
The book is commendable for three primary reasons. First, Charles provides a detailed but readable account of the natural law tradition. Next, Retrieving the Natural Law is a refreshing presentation of Natural Law from a Protestant perspective. In a since, Charles is the catalyst for encouraging many Protestants to return to the moral theory of the reformers.
While the book has a lot to offer the academic and popular reader, it is not without growing points. Charles needs to do more with his reconstruction of history. He needs to do more to explain the shift and explore the anti-catholic tendencies in 18th and 19th century Protestantism. Next, the work appears a little disjointed. There is a clumsy transition from theory and history in the first half of the book to biomedical application in the second half. In addition, Charles’ heavy use of emotive arguments like his heavy use of Nazi illustrations in chapter eight distracts from the power of a natural law argument against euthanasia and other biomedical issues.
In conclusion, Retrieving the Natural Law is an excellent text on natural law theory. It is encouraging to note that in a world where man-made laws are drafted and broken and drafted again with each new generation that there are some laws which have the power to stand the test of time.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
