Month: August 2017

Theses on Natural Law and its Recovery

By James

On August 23, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics, Uncategorized

In this post, I want to give some initial thoughts on natural law itself and the recent recovery of natural law.

Reading many contemporary proponents of natural law, I am impressed by their ability to interact with 16th and 17th century sources. They are particularly impressive in their understanding of the protestant scholastics and their forebears. They give a robust defense of natural law as something biblical. Further, they prove that natural has the stamp of the best of Christian tradition. Unfortunately, I don’t see a willingness to critically interact with classical natural law theory of the 16th and 17th century. It may be that the proponents of the 16th and 17th century got natural law right. Even if they did, there should be room to talk about natural law with greater specificity than those in the past. Natural law can be a highly ambiguous term.
(a) One of the most egregious examples of an inability to interact with natural law critically is the lack of interaction with the Van Tillian critique of natural law. I realize that the Van Tillian critique is guilty of a dependence on bad historiagraphy. Van Til relied on a poor reading of Thomas Aquinas, as well, as a poor historical understanding of the development of natural law. Even so they were dealing with a contemporary form of natural law that had twisted what the Protestant scholastics taught. Contemporaries of Van Til would use their theories of natural law to undermine the faith. (b) This lack of interaction is combined with a lack of understanding: Van Til was dealing with men who were using natural law to defend things like old earth creationism and liberalism in the churches in general. I say this, not to exonerate Van Til and Rushdoony, but to give context to what he was fighting.
This thesis is more of a pet peeve of mine. If natural law is a reality then unbelievers also have access to God’s truth in their interactions with God’s world. This means Christians can learn from unbelievers, who had many things wrong about God. My thesis is this: contemporary unbelievers should be just as helpful in finding truth, perhaps even more so, as past unbelievers.
Now we come to the critique of classical natural law theory. I want to argue that natural law is an aspect of God’s relationship to his creation, not a particular something in itself. In my reading so far I have not seen a clear recognition of this in the scholastics. If this is not clearly laid out natural law can slowly be separated from God and gain an authority of its own. It can begin to compete with the Scriptures as a source of authority. If we immediately define as an aspect of God’s relationship, this becomes impossible.
Against the Protestant Scholastics, I want to argue that natural law is mutable. If the cosmos changes, natural law changes. This is a change in creation relative to God that changes the configuration of natural law. One example would be the necessity of sacrifice after Adam fell into sin. This was because the human race changed in relation to God.
Behind all this is a certain theory of the universe. We can think of the universe in terms of a puzzle or legos. A world made on the analogy of legos contains a number of possibilities for design. A box of legos has the potential for several different shapes. The natural law legos can be kept in the same configuration even if the rest of the legos are re-configurated. If creation is more like a puzzle, then each piece is contingent on the other pieces. If a part of the puzzle is re-configurated then the whole puzzle is reconfigurated. Natural law is the aspect of “rightly fitting together” according to the maker’s design. Like the legos, the puzzle pieces have reality in themselves. Unlike the legos they are contingent on one another for the completeness of the puzzle. I argue that the universe is a puzzle. (I wonder if this is behind Van Til’s argument that unbelievers cannot have capital-T truth. Van Til thinks of truth radically contingent on knowing Christ as the centre and expllanation of the universe. The problem with this is that you can still know part of the puzzle as something that is truly part of the puzzle. You just don’t have the key to the puzzle; Jesus Christ. It is a hermeneutical problem, not an epistomological problem.)
My boldest thesis: I would suggest that the term “created order” replace the term “natural law.” I believe that the understanding of the term “natural law” can quickly turn to a semi-autonomous force. In reality, “natural law” is radically contingent on the creator. The term “created order” emphasizes that contingency.

Man as Actor; Man as Recipient

By James

On August 19, 2017

In Libertarianism

In order to create a full-orbed political theory, libertarians must broaden their understanding of man’s role. Politics is the practice of human cooperation. This definition strays from other definitions. These tend to emphasize politics’ role in granting certain groups rights to coercion in society. Libertarianism, if understood as the non-aggression principle based upon a theory property rights, is particularly seeking to understand the principles that define coercion in human society. Libertarianism seeks to improve man’s freedom from unnecessary coercion. This is certainly part of the study of politics, but not exclusively so. The study of the role of coercion in society is part of a larger body of political theory. Libertarians must recognize that truth.

The Free Actor

Libertarianism tends to view man as a free actor. This is legitimate, but he also has other roles. When libertarians recognize this, it gives their theory a greater breadth than it otherwise would have. Though still a theory of coercion, libertarianism is set within larger cultural, religious and political realities. Without suddenly limiting man to only two roles, I want to argue a full-orbed political theory will treat man as both actor and as recipient.

Without suddenly limiting man to only two roles, I want to argue that a full-orbed political theory will treat man as both actor and as recipient.

However, we must continue to emphasize the role of man as a free actor. Christians may believe that man is spiritually bound, but politically we should all want free human action in our society. When God creates the world, he gives man freedom to develop the garden and the wilderness however he wants. He has freedom to eat of any tree of the garden, except for the one that God puts off limits. Even after the fall, man is free to choose where to live, to farm, and to have children. This means that, as much as possible, mankind should be free from coercion by other men. All libertarians, whether thick or thin, paleo or left, Christian or atheist, agree on this, at least on the surface. After all, libertarianism is a theory of coercion, not a full-orbed political theory.

All libertarians, whether thick or thin, paleo or left, Christian or atheist, agree on this, at least on the surface. After all, libertarianism is a theory of coercion, not a full-orbed political theory.

The Recipient

But a full-orbed political theory will account for man’s being as well. Man’s being is something received. In a large part, this underlines the whole point of this blog. In my posts, I want to underline the importance of our response to our gifts. Man receives a being, a culture, and a history. His response to these gifts will determine his political life. Man has gratitude in the fabric of his nature (because that nature is a gift).

When we understand man as a recipient, as well as, as an actor, there is a role for thanksgiving. When we fail to show our gratitude, we do violence to the past. We have a society that lives in ingratitude.

This gratitude includes gratitude toward God our parents, and our leaders. God has given us our bodies, which contain his own image. Gratitude for that gift will result in using our bodies in a way which pleases God. Our parents, as secondary causes, have also given us our bodies, besides raising us (imperfect though that raising may be). Gratitude for that gift will result in honor. Our civil leaders (imperfectly) have given us a degree of peace and justice. Gratitude for that gift will result in a certain degree of honor as well. Of course, two of these (parents and civil leaders) three always give imperfect gifts. Sometimes it may be said that they gave no gift at all. Instead, they oppressed and consumed their charges. Yet some degree of gratitude is generally necessary. Toward God, gratitude is always necessary.

Without an understanding of gratitude, libertarianism will be unsuccessful. A libertarian’s implicit or explicit understanding of gratitude will not damage his status as a libertarian. However, his understanding of gratitude will destroy his chances of living peacefully when he is able to live in a libertarian society. He will commit violence: not the type that is immediately punishable by law, but the type that is ultimately destructive to whatever relationships he has.

Rules for Progress

By James

On August 6, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, education, History, Progress

Note: I defend progress in this piece. However, I thoroughly reject the beliefs of most of those who understand themselves as progressives. I do not believe that their beliefs are progressive. In general, they are regressive, not progressive. I would argue that I present here a true progressivism, based on God’s word, not on man’s understanding of progress.

Progress is necessary. God wants the church to grow in the understanding of his righteousness and his holiness. However, this truth is easily twisted. Churches use it in order to excuse themselves for contradicting what is clear in the word of God. We see this in those who argue for women in office and those who argue that homosexual relationships are a legitimate expression of human love. We need guidelines in order to differentiate between what is progressive and what is retrogressive. I offer a few below.

Inscripturation: There is no real progress without a deep understanding of the scriptures. The first rule of progress is: study and contemplate the scriptures. God does not contradict himself, for he speaks with authority and truth. We cannot progress without the scriptures. God and his word are the source of all truth as well as a deeper understanding of that truth.
Tradition: If we cannot ignore the scriptures, we cannot ignore the tradition of scriptural interpretation. Argument after argument has been given concerning various passages. Our bit of “progress” may repeat the mistakes of the past. It may repeat the heresies of the past. In order to move forward, we must have a deep understanding and appreciation of the past. For those who want to progress this can be hard to do. Anti-progressive forces tend to love tradition to a fault. The tendency, then, is to ignore tradition. This does not excuse anyone from this guideline, however. To ignore it is not only dangerous yourself but to those around you.
Humility: Humility is all important. The one who wants to teach must learn. Sit at the feet of those around you who have been given knowledge. You need humility in order learn from the Scriptures and from tradition. Ultimately you need humility before God. When you have humility before God you will have humility before the teachers he has raised up in your life. Jesus asks that you become as a little child. Only little children have the continual ability to learn.
Patience: You have your argument ready. You have studied and contemplated the scriptures and you have immersed yourself in tradition. Now you must be patient. People aren’t ready to change at a moment’s notice. Further, you might be wrong. Better men than you of me have been wrong before. Remember the words of the Psalmist. “Wait on the Lord; be strong and take heart and wait for the Lord.”