1

Acton University 2019

Natural Law and Human Flourishing

Introduction

In 1946, much of the surviving leadership of National Socialist Germany was put on trial in Nuremberg, Germany.

The primary defense of the accused was that all they had done was legal under German law. This represented a type

of legal positivism: the idea that reason can know only scientific and social facts and must leave philosophy and

religion to the realm of the subjective.

The response of the prosecution was to invoke, indirectly and with circumlocution, natural law.

Some people have a quite deep knowledge of what natural law is, something know about natural law, others unfamiliar

with natural law.

Today some do not accept that there is a natural law, most of the academy is hostile to natural law, some mistake

natural law for other things, while most people know little about it.

Yet the idea of natural law lies at the very heart of the beginnings of what might be broadly called the Western

tradition: that unique integration between Jewish Biblical Wisdom, Greek rationality, and Roman law.

We could spend the next three days of Acton University discussing natural law.

Four basic objectives: (1) what natural law is; (2) what human flourishing is; (3) some common objections to natural

law and answers; (4) why natural law matters for societies that aspire to be free and virtuous and its relation to

Revelation.

Caveats: (1) I will assume little knowledge of the topic; (2) I’m not going to enter into some of the disputes between

natural law thinkers; and (3) this is essentially a lecture about philosophy. It’s not about theology.

Part One – What is Natural Law?

The single most confusing thing for most people are the very words “natural” and “law.”

– Natural is a way of saying “human,” and what’s distinctive about “humans” is that we have reason.

– The “law” part of natural law is simply what is right: right in the sense of what is good for humans, and right in the

sense of what is just, what is just for humans and human society. The “law part” of natural law is the judgement about

what I need to do in order to be reasonable not only in my dealings with others, but also in the conduct of my own

life.

– Natural law is therefore what reason requires of us in our choices and actions. The study of natural law is identifying

and applying the principles of rational thought about how we know and choose the good, the right, and the just.

– Good and evil, in natural law thinking, have concrete content, which does not change.

– Natural law begins with the premise that knowing the good is the object of our reason and doing the good is the

object of our will. From this we conclude the supreme principle of natural law: that good is to be done, and evil

avoided.

– The first set of subordinate principles are those conclusions which flow very directly from the primary principle.

Examples of this are positive principles such as “Adore God” or “Honor your parents,” as well as negative principles

such as “Do not steal”, or “Do not Murder.”

– The second set of subordinate principles are those other conclusions which we can reach through a more complicated

course of reasoning. How, for example, do you honor your parents?

– It’s entirely possible for people working on the basis of natural law to come to conclusions that, while they may

differ with each other, are compatible with natural law. Traffic regulation exemplifies this.

– It’s very easy for us to make mistakes at these points of reasoning.

Part Two – What is Human Flourishing?

The term came into use in 1975 as a way of giving contemporary expression to the Aristotelian notion of

“Eudaimonia”, or more simply “happiness.”

Natural law provides us with a very concrete sense of the content of human flourishing and how it occurs for both

individuals and as communities.

Natural law holds that human freedom and human flourishing are intimately connected with doing good and avoiding

evil.

Natural law vision of the good life, of human flourishing, isn’t therefore about doing whatever we “happen” to will or

just feel like. It involves, first, consistently choosing not to do evil, and then just as consistently choosing the good.

2

How does a human being flourish? The argument of figures ranging from Augustine to Aquinas is that we do so in

the process of free choice. When we freely choose goods such as life and health, friendship, knowledge, integrity,

beauty, and work, we literally integrate them into our identity through our deliberation, choices, and actions.

This flourishing is knowable by all, and thus choose-able by all.

All of us are individual but also social. We need others to flourish.

The conditions that help people to flourish under their own volition are known as “the common good:” the sum of

those conditions of the social life whereby individuals, families and associations may attain their own perfection.”

Part Three – Some Objections to Natural Law—And Responses

First: the fact of disagreement. People disagree, even radically, not just about things like size and role of the state, but

any number of questions. If natural law was real, we would have very little disagreement.

Answer: (1) it downplays just how much agreement there has been across time about right and wrong across time and

throughout cultures; (2) the fact of disagreement doesn’t actually prove that natural law is false.

Second: many people who regard natural law as oppressive. Doesn’t natural law, because it is concerned with the

flourishing of individuals and societies, lend itself towards the repression of those who disagree with it?

Answer: (1) a sound theory of natural law is one that seeks to develop a theory of proper relationship between the

private and the public, or the personal and the legal and the political; (2) natural law has developed principled ways

of thinking through these questions that take into account (a) the need for individuals and communities to make free

choices, and (b) the responsibility for the state to act in ways that promote but do not impede human flourishing. That’s

the whole point of the principle of subsidiarity.

Third: natural law encourages the type of rationalism that denies a place for, or the expression of feelings and emotions

and passions in moral decision-making and other ways of knowing truth.

Answer: it’s possible for natural law reasoning to collapse into a type of hyper-rationalism. But (1) natural law doesn’t

by definition deny the truths revealed by other sources of knowledge, like revelation; (2) natural law doesn’t deny that

there is knowledge in, for instance, experience. It simply says that experience in itself is not a sufficient basis for

making moral and political choices; (3) there is one form of rationalism that natural law positively discourages us

from embracing: that’s called empiricism.

Part Four – The Free and Virtuous Society and Revelation

Why should we care about natural law?

First: natural law is very important for assessing, critically assessing, the moral, political, legal, and economic

structures and institutions within which we live.

Second: natural law provides a basis for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, to discuss on controversial

issues on an equal basis – a framework and set of principles that all can accept if you accept that all people have

reason. And that is much better than having no agreed upon framework whatsoever.

Third: natural law generates develops a sophisticated theory of what properly belongs to the public sphere and what

properly belongs to the private sphere. So: it provides us with a basis for critiquing the state when it act unjustly.

Natural law doesn’t guarantee that we won’t make errors. But it does provide a framework for rational reflection.

What about Revelation?

You can take up the whole idea of natural law and follow it through without making any assumption for or against the

existence of God.

But what natural law does do, if you follow it through consistently, is inevitably cause us to ask about the order we

notice in the world, from where it comes, and where it leads. It also direct us towards some conclusions about ultimate

things, including one Ultimate Thing. Natural law presupposes a type of natural causality, because it holds that we

can make free choices, and that we are affected by free choices, and that all our free choices can be traced back to

something.

The strongest, most radical and earliest affirmations of reason’s ability (natural) to know the fullness of truth and our

ability to make choices for the good (law) are not in Greek and Roman thought. Instead, it’s found in the Bible.

In Revelation, we find the Israelites arriving at a settled and superior understanding of the universe’s origins and

natural intelligibility centuries earlier than the Greeks reached their arguably inferior understanding. They underscore

that we are personally responsible for our choices and the character shaped by these choices.

3

This clarity about freedom and responsibility is new in history, and characterizes the prophets of Israel, especially

when it comes to their teachings about justice, which is the very stuff of natural law. Exodus 21-23, Leviticus 19 and

25. Deuteronomy 4’s reflection that the precepts of the law are themselves just, and a matter of intelligence and

wisdom. This is further clarified and developed by Christians.

Is natural law enough for salvation? No. Does it provide us with full knowledge of the living God? No. For those

things, we need Divine Revelation—and the grace of a Loving God. And the same God – the Logos – has given all

people the light of reason.

1

HOW TO WRITE AN ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

When you’re writing an argumentative essay, you need to convey more than just your opinion to be convincing. Even the strongest position won’t persuade your reader if it is not structured properly, is not reinforced with solid reasoning, and doesn’t adequately explain why your argument should be believed.

Good argumentative essays have a straightforward structure that makes the argument easy for readers to follow: introduction, main argument paragraphs, and conclusion.

Introduction

 Start the essay with a topic sentence (which acts like a title) and flow smoothly throughout this first paragraph, ending with the overall point you’re trying to make in your paper (ie. your thesis). Your intro paragraph should contain your thesis statement, preferably as the last sentence.

 Ensure your essay’s topic sentence (and the intro paragraph itself) sets the trajectory for your essay. ‘Beginning of time’ statements do not set a good trajectory for essays.

 Make your thesis statement clear and concise. Clarity is a virtue in argumentative essays.

 Between your topic sentence and thesis, you may want to raise a problem that your thesis offers a solution to or helps solve. Alternatively, you may introduce background information that helps introduce your argument.

Three Ways to Write a Thesis Statement

 Turn your topic into a question and then answer it. Oftentimes, an essay prompt from the assignment instructions provides a central question. If it doesn’t, you can create a question yourself. Either write this question separate from your essay (and only include it in your outline) or insert it directly into your introduction. For example, you could pose the question, “What is the best way to judge a book?” Your answer would be your thesis: “In this essay, I shall argue that a book should be judged by its cover.” This method works well not only because it creates interest in the mind of your reader, but also because it forces your hand as a writer by prompting you to state a thesis.

 State the opposing view and prepare to refute it. Another thesis technique is to incorporate an opposing view into your thesis statement: “Despite the old adage insisting you should never judge a book by its cover, I will instead show why a cover is actually a very good way for bookstores to judge a book.” This method is useful because it immediately draws a contrast, which helps make the thesis seem clearer.

 Briefly outline your main points. In this final technique, you may choose to state your overall claim and explain briefly how you intend to back it up. For example, “In this essay, I will argue that cover text design, book color, and image layout are features important to customers and are therefore one of the first ways bookstores should judge

2

a book.” This method gives your readers a preview of your entire argument and at the same time helps to keep you on track.

Main Argument/Body Paragraphs

 A typical argumentative essay has three or more main body paragraphs that explain the reasons why your reader should believe your thesis.

 The main rule of paragraph development is that each paragraph should have one controlling idea (ie. a main point). Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence. In the topic sentence, signal to your reader this main point or controlling idea.

 It’s often good to make each paragraph a separate premise, or claim. Consider brainstorming all the reasons your reader should accept your thesis, and then choose only the strongest reasons as premises. A weak premise (paragraph) will make the entire argument seem weak. Weak premises are those that do not provide solid, convincing support for your thesis.

Making Use of Objections

 Arguments that consider an opposing point of view and defeat it demonstrate intellectual sophistication. It can also be a useful technique to help make your argument more convincing.

 One method is to begin with the words “Some might argue.” If you state an objection, remember that you must present a reply. The reply then becomes another reason that supports your thesis. When replying, you may need to use a contrasting word (however, yet, while, etc. ) to signal your change in voice.

 It is unlikely that your reader is interested in hearing weak objections that are easily demolished. Weak objections only reflect poorly on your argument. The stronger the objection (provided you succeed in your reply), the stronger your argument will be.

Conclusion Paragraph

 Your final paragraph should restate your thesis and summarize your argument. Ensure that you have a conclusion paragraph and that it is at least three sentences long (the minimum for a paragraph).

 Don’t introduce new information in your conclusion.  Restate your thesis without repeating yourself verbatim. You may also choose to pick an

insight or two you’ve made along the way that bears repeating in order to summarize your argument.

T I M OT H Y J . DA I L E Y

E X P O S I N G T H E ‘ G AY ’ T H E O L O G Y

FA M I LY R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L

Bible,ChurchHomosexuality

The

the

&

B L0 4 F0 1

lthough the leading Christian churches in the United States continue to view homosexual behavior as outside the realm of appropriate Christian conduct,

revisionist scholars within their respective communions cont- inue a campaign to re-interpret or ignore biblical teaching regarding homosexuality. Exposing the faulty reasoning behind the gay hermeneutic, The Bible, The Church, and Homosexuality demonstrates how homosexuality is unambiguously found wanting by Scripture and tradition.

TIMOTHY J . DAILEY is Senior Fellow in the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council. His study is based upon his doctoral dissertation, completed at Marquette University.

family research council tony perkins, president

801 g street nw washington, dc 20001

www.frc.org

Bible,ChurchHomosexuality

The

the

&

E X P O S I N G T H E ‘ G AY ’ T H E O L O G Y

The Bible, the Church, and Homosexuality: Exposing the ‘Gay’ Theology by Timothy J. Dailey © 2004 by the Family Research Council All rights reserved.

Scripture passages identified as NRSV are taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture passages identified as NIV are taken from the Holy Bible: New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by the International Bible Society.

Family Research Council 801 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Printed in the United States of America. Design by Amanda Swinghamer Cover photo by Mark Haskew

Contents

Introduction

I N T E R P R E T I N G T H E O L D T E S TA M E N T

Genesis 19: The Sodom Story Judges 19: The Outrage of Gibeah Leviticus 18 and 20: The Mosaic Law Deuteronomy 23: Cultic Prostitution 1 Samuel 18 and 2 Samuel 1: David and Jonathan

I N T E R P R E T I N G T H E N E W T E S TA M E N T

Romans 1: Unnatural Sexual Relations 1 Corinthians 6: Male Prostitutes and Sodomites

W H Y T H E H I S TO R I C A L LY C O N D I T I O N E D A R G U M E N T FA I L S

Confusing the Moral and Ceremonial Law Did St. Paul Understand ‘Sexual Orientation’?

T H E A P P E A L TO T H E O L O G I C A L T H E M E S

The Importance of Objective Standards Genesis 1: The Created Order Jesus and Homosexuality The Theological Symbolism of Marriage

T H E W I T N E S S O F H I S TO RY

Boswell’s Argument Exposed The Witness of the Early Church Other Historical Testimony The Wisdom of the Judeo-Christian Ethic

Appendix: Where the Churches Stand on Homosexuality Notes

v

1

1 3 4 5 6

9

9 10

15

15 17

21

22 22 24 24

27

27 30 30 31

33 39

The assault on marriage and the family in the United States has been carried on in a number of fronts: the courts, the world of academia, and the Hollywood entertainment industry. Yet the weakening of the institution of marriage by the push to normalize adultery, divorce, and homosexuality has also proceeded in a cultural sphere where many Americans would least expect it—in the nation’s religious institutions. While the Jewish and Catholic traditions have witnessed their share of the struggle, recent debates over homosexuality in the major Protestant communions may represent the most contentious arena in which the struggle over marriage has been waged. While the Family Research Council exists to engage the world of public policy and uphold marriage in the civil realm of culture, it is aware of the struggles for marriage and the family in religious institutions that claim the allegiance of millions of Americans. Although the Family Research Council does not seek to thrust itself into ecclesiastical or theological controversies, it recognizes that the controversies over homosexuality in the churches reflect deeper struggles in American society. The effort to persuade theologians, clergy, and ecclesiastical governing bodies of the moral legitimacy of homosexual conduct has not been carried out in a vacuum. The forces against marriage know that, if they succeed in this realm, they will have achieved a cultural triumph that is more strategic than any political or legal battle they might win in the civil courts or in Washington, D.C. At least for now, these efforts to “revise” the historic teaching of the churches have not succeeded. None of the eight largest Christian churches in the United States has given her blessing to homosexuality. Only the United Church of Christ, which defers the issue to regional associations and local congregations, and the Episcopal Church, whose position is ambiguous, appear to be faltering. As outlined in the appendix, most of the major denominations have remained resilient under tremendous pressure; they have explicitly judged homosexual behavior as outside the realm of appropriate Christian conduct. Nevertheless, the battles continue, as those who favor homosexuality seem unwilling to concede any ground, at times defying biblical, theological, and constitutional standards of their respective denominations.

Introduction

v

This booklet therefore aims to encourage Americans who want to respond intelligently to the push to sanction homosexuality within their churches. To do that, conservatives need to understand both the strategy and argument of those who seek to revise or redefine historic Christian teaching regarding homosexuality. Called “revisionists,” these scholar-activists advance the notion that homosexuality is an issue over which people of good will can differ. Or they claim that there is no “clear answer” to the issue. Then they recommend, under the rubric of “fairness,” that churches appoint task forces to study the issue. Once the “studies” begin, the revisionists claim that biblical passages that proscribe homosexual acts do not actually refer to homosexuality; they at most only condemn an “abusive” form of homosexuality. Or they may concede that Scripture condemns homosexuality, but then argue that the biblical writers are only reflecting “culturally conditioned” moral beliefs of a pre-scientific culture. As these arguments fail to persuade, a final ploy is an appeal to an overarching theological ethic—such as the presence of “love,” “commitment,” “mutuality,”—that allegedly trumps explicit moral imperatives and justifies homosexual relationships. As this booklet documents, this line of reasoning is faulty to the core. Rather than being a divine “gift” that needs to be celebrated, homosexuality is unambiguously found wanting by Scripture and tradition. While a minority of voices may say otherwise, they do not represent the broad consensus shared by Christians in Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant communities throughout history. This booklet reinforces that wise and universal judgment. To the degree the following pages help traditionalists maintain their ground, it will be deemed successful. The present study is arranged with chapters that assess the biblical, historical, and theological arguments used to justify homosexual behavior. Each chapter presents a summary of homosexual arguments, which is followed by counter- arguments presenting the traditional view. Readers who want a more comprehensive treatment should refer to Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). Dr. Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, answers many questions not addressed by the present study.

T H E B I B L E , T H E C H U R C H , A N D H O M O S E X UA L I T Y

vi

Interpreting the Old Testament

G E N E S I S 1 9 : T H E S O D O M S TO RY

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with [yada’] them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept [yada’] with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” “Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.—Genesis 19:4–9 (NIV)

Revisionist scholars advance novel interpretations of Genesis 19 to suggest that the sin of Sodom was something other than homosexuality. As early as 1955, the Anglican priest Derrick Sherwin Bailey suggested the theory, used by many homosexual activists today, that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. Bailey based his argument on the King James Version, which states in verse 5 that the men of Sodom demanded that Lot bring out his visitors “that we may know them.” In Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Bailey suggested that the opposition to homosexuality in the Christian tradition was based upon a mistranslation of the Hebrew word yada’, translated “to know.”1 According to Bailey, yada’ does not refer to the desire of the Sodomites to have sexual relations with Lot’s angelic visitors, who the inhabitants of the city apparently mistake for men. Rather, the Sodomites merely intended to “get acquainted with” and to “examine the credentials” of Lot’s visitors. To support this interpretation, Bailey incorrectly points out that of the 943 occurrences of yada’ in the Old Testament, in only 10 (there are actually at least 15) is the word used to refer to sexual intercourse. Sodom’s sin, concludes Bailey, consisted of the men of the city reacting with violence to Lot’s refusal, thus causing a “breach [of] the rules of hospitality.”2 Other revisionists argue that the offense committed by the men of Sodom was their intention to commit homosexual rape. Peter J. Gomes of Harvard Divinity School states:

1

T H E B I B L E , T H E C H U R C H , A N D H O M O S E X UA L I T Y I N T E R P R E T I N G T H E O L D T E S TA M E N T

The attempted homosexual rape of the angels at Lot’s door, while vivid and distasteful, is hardly the subject of the story or the cause of the punishment. . . . Homosexual rape is never to be condoned; it is indeed, like heterosexual rape, an abomination before God. This instance of attempted homosexual rape, however, does not invalidate all homosexuals or all homosexual activity.3

CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING. While the arguments of Bailey and Gomes may sound impressive, they are seriously flawed. Bailey’s statistics are of little use in translating words in a particular context, as context determines meaning. The Sodom story leaves little doubt that the Sodomites were intent upon having sexual relations with Lot’s visitors. The word yada’ is used twice in the passage; in the se

Related Tags