Natural Law: Seeker Sensitive Jurisprudence

Theonomy or Autonomy. I’ve heard it many times. The implication is simple. Either you acknowledge and strive to follow and understand God's Law (as revealed in the Bible), or you reject God's Laws in favor of man's opinions, methods of justice, morality, and lawgiving. For many, the line is clearly drawn in the sand. Theonomists are quickly and easily identified because of the name that is applied to their position (theos=God, nomos=Law). There is room for differences and debate within this position, but ultimately all theonomists seek one thing: to properly and accurately apply God's revealed Law to all spheres of life, including Civil. 

Autonomy on the other hand, can take many forms and names: Socialism, Democracy, Feudalism, Dictatorship, Sharia, with many more options available. (I will state here that all law is a form of moral system, even if it isn’t religious. So while all these Autonomous options are seen as political, they also have moral systems inherent to them)

As a theonomist, I affirm that this is the ultimate choice before mankind. Either recognize the power and application (as well as freedom) that comes from God's law, or reject it as brutal, oppressive, insensitive, and unfair.
However, a great many Christians try and reject this duopoly and attempt to find a third option. These Christians, I believe, are mostly well-meaning and sincere. They attempt to find a solution that doesn't brazenly sever the connection of Christian morality with God, yet is more palatable and easily embraced by non-believers. These Christians appeal to natural law. 

First, it would be advantageous to define “Natural Law.” This can be difficult, and I’ve personally seen at least 4 or 5 different definitions, based on what you are reading. This alone is problematic, and exposes the difficulty of understanding natural law. (if proponents cannot agree with each other, how accurate is it really?) However, I will give the definition that seems most common when the term “Natural Law” is used.

A body of moral principles and ethical boundaries that apply to all humanity,

Unchangeable, revealed in the nature of things, and the basis for all human contact and interactions. 

I will also mention that the term “Natural Law” can refer to scientific laws found in nature. For example, the law of gravity, law of thermodynamics, law of angular momentum and so on. This is not what we are discussing here.  

However, it’s important to note that a few proponents of natural law as we first defined it, often point to nature as evidence for universal morality. “Of course we know murder or rape is wrong, even nature teaches us this!” I will address this claim briefly, because generally Christian proponents of natural law do not make this claim. 

If this form of natural law (in which nature and the animal kingdom exhibit general moral principles) is what is in view, how can we say Homosexuality is wrong? How about rape? Incest? Transgenderism? Murder and cannibalism? If you follow those links you will quickly learn that these things are not condemned by the natural animal kingdom. I will not try to make the case as to why these examples exist, but suffice it to say we live in a fallen world. However, most Christian advocates for using natural law do not have the animal kingdom in mind when they think of what Natural Law entails. It is also worth mentioning that the pagan understanding of natural law actually lends itself to using the animal kingdom. “Animals partake of homosexuality, so therefore it’s natural.” This concept of natural law doesn’t condemn sin, it can actually be used as evidence for sin. Again, this is not the view I am trying to break down here. 

The Christians who appeal to natural law are generally referring to the conscience within the spirit of mankind. We know murder, rape and adultery is wrong because we are all given a conscience as an image bearer of God. They will appeal to Romans chapter 1 which says:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. - Rom 1:18-21

Another principle text is:

For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, - Rom 2:15

“All people,” these Natural Law proponents will say, “have a knowledge and understanding of right and wrong, not only from creation, but because God has made it plain to them.” They often reason, “because mankind bears the image of God, we all have innate understanding of the morality and ethics God expects of us. You don’t even need to be Christian in order to know that murder is wrong.” Thus, Natural Law is viewed in a neutral light, 

Often, the 10 commandments are rolled into the concept of “natural law.” The guiding morality of the decalogue is used in order to claim that these represent the contents of natural law. In this view, the 10 Commandments are moral because they are supported by natural law. Because various aspects of the 10 commandments can be pointed to as being extant before the initiation of the Mosaic Covenant, this is seen as evidence for the transcendent quality of natural law. 

I hope I have accurately represented the position of natural law. I don’t want to waste my time with strawman arguments. 

The point I’d like to make in all this, is that an effort to justify morality upon the basis of natural law alone, is, in essence, seeker sensitive jurisprudence. 

What do I mean by that? Jurisprudence is the theory or philosophy of law. This whole discussion is about law. God's law? Autonomous law? Natural law?

The seeker sensitive part of this comes from the well intentioned (though misguided) attempt to utilize natural law as a neutral “stepping stone” between theonomy and autonomy. Because of the violent negative reaction of non-believers to the theonomist ethic, I believe those who actively support a wholly natural law approach are doing so out of a belief that a neutral tactic will be the most effective in our evangelism. This may not be a conscious thought on their part, but I’ve seen enough adverse emotional reactions to the idea that we should follow God's Law to know this is not only an issue of Biblical argumentation.

I will give 3 reasons why I think that this natural law ethic is insufficient for determining how mankind should live a moral life. 

First, natural law is not rejected by the vast majority of theonomists. We will readily admit that mankind does have an ingrained knowledge of God and sin. The scripture quoted above does give evidence that mankind and the conscience given him is capable of bringing awareness of sin and evil. However, does this give an automatic pass to natural law as a method for determining morality and ethics? I would say no. Why? Because mankind's conscience can be desensitized and deadened. 

To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. - Tit 1:15

A mind and conscience can be defiled to the point where no pure thing is recognized. If natural law is to be the guide of the conscience, what happens to someone whose conscience is defiled? 

In the very passage of Romans 1 that natural law advocates points to addresses this:

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; - Rom 1:28

Here Paul warns us that, though it's true that God has made evident many things through His creation, He also gives men over to a debased and corrupted mind. How does natural law help a man who has been given over by God himself to a point where morality no longer holds sway? The natural law upon man's heart has been corrupted. Corrupt law is not helpful.

having their [unsaved gentiles] understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. - Eph 4:18-19

Paul is calling the church at Ephesus to become new, and be renewed in Christ. He tells us that the old man is opposed to the truth of Christ, and has gone to the point where no moral law holds sway over them. They are past feeling. In what way has natural law helped these people? In fact, Paul is clear, the only way to escape this state is to be “taught by Christ, as the Truth is in Jesus.” (Eph 4:21) The natural man has to be taught something in order to avoid this state of perpetual depravity. What are they taught? Not to steal. Not to speak corruption. Don’t grieve the Holy Spirit. Avoid bitterness, anger, and wrath. Be kind, forgiving and loving.
You know. Those things that written law proclaims. (Eph 4:28-32)

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. - 1Co 2:14

If natural law ultimately comes from God (as is explained by natural law adherents), then how is it possible for a natural man to fully understand it without being regenerated? Anything that God created as a standard of morality will inherently be infused with His spirit. How can it not be? If God says murder is wrong, then God’s spirit is grieved and angered by murder. Yet, man in his “natural” state cannot fully perceive the things of God. This, (to me at least) is the death blow to using natural law exclusively for moral and ethical guidelines. 

Please understand, I am not claiming that all non-Christians have a seared or dead conscience. However, the fact that scripture tells us that this is a possibility, should prove that natural law is not sufficient.  

Second, natural law can’t tell what ought to be. Let's assume that an unregenerate man could articulate God's desires through natural law alone (even though I do not believe this is possible), what could he gain? Certainly he could probably say that murder, rape, and adultery is wrong, but is this enough? What happens when the serial rapist is finally caught and put on trial? Maybe the judge could declare “by the universal knowledge of natural law, we know rape is wrong, and thereby sentence you to….” To what? What guides the judge in ensuring his ruling isn’t unjust? If natural law also says killing is wrong, can we execute the rapist? What if we put him in prison for 10 years and as soon as he is released he is back to his raping ways? What if he rapes his inmate? 

This is because natural law may be able to declare (in a limited sense) what is wrong, but it is wholly inadequate to tell us what ought to be done when a crime is committed. A judge needs a standard that can be referenced in order that proper justice is served. A vague appeal to an unwritten morality is not enough. 

This leads us to the third reason. Natural law can only condemn. As Romans 1 explains, mankind is given natural law so that when he is judged by a Holy God, he is without excuse. No man who lifts his eyes up in torment can argue with God about His unfairness. No man who is sentenced to the lake of fire on judgment day can accuse God of being unjust. Man lives his life being aware of his sinfulness, even though he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.” However, mankind cannot live a moral life by simply adhering to natural law. It requires the conviction of the Holy Spirit and a knowledge of sin in a tangible way. How can we define sin? 

Whosoever commits sin also transgresses the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1Jo 3:4

 

John tells us how to define sin. Look at the law. Natural man cannot fully understand his depravity and come to a point of repentance if natural law is the only standard. We must utilize the whole of God's word, including the law, to help our fellow man come to repentance and faith.

That's why I think an appeal to natural law (alone) is a “seeker sensitive jurisprudence”. If you abandon the written law in your evangelistic and apologetic work, you are leaving behind the very thing that defines morality and sin. Instead of standing upon the solid, unchanging, and knowable words of truth; you instead seek to appeal to sinful man's rebellion by attempting to provide a “neutral” option. “Of course you don’t need to adhere to all those ‘abusive’ Old Testament laws! We have natural law! Come to Jesus, but don't worry about Leviticus!” 

By distorting the standards of God in order to make faith in Jesus an easier pill to swallow, you are in great danger of being least in the Kingdom of Heaven. 

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven... - Mat 5:19

In conclusion, I want to put forward one final issue with the natural law approach; the impossibility to exegete it. 

This may be seen as an advantage to some. But to my way of thinking, the fact that we cannot pull a volume of “natural law” off of the shelf, flip to the section on “sabbath breaking” and read what God's instructions are on the issue, means it’s highly subjective. (because man's conscience can be corrupted) 

Consider the fact that even the written law is a divisive subject on which much disagreement and debate can be found. If written words on a page can be so difficult to bear out, how much more a vague notion of natural law that cannot be supported by any text?
Because of this aspect of natural law, those who affirm it as the sole method of moral guidance are even more diverse and divided than are theonomists. Put five natural law proponents into a room, and you will almost certainly have five different views of how natural law is to be applied, and to what extent it can be known. 

This inability to reference and exegete natural law in a consistent manner puts it into the territory of being subjective law. If natural law cannot guide us in a tangible and repeatable way, then it will always fall victim to be being interpreted on an individual basis. This means that man himself becomes the decider on which “natural law” applies and to what extent it should be enforced. Natural law quickly degrades into being little more than a personal opinion about morality and ethics. It quickly descends into Autonomy. 

And so, as I believe, only two options remain.

Theonomy or Autonomy.