Right, Wrong, and the Human Condition
Since starting my latest round of studies I’ve had a few things introduced to me, and a few things clarified. Mostly in regards to Roman Catholic Theology since this is a Catholic school.
The first is natural law. The natural law tradition is a strong strain within the RC tradition and I did not have a good understanding of it until now (and I’m my understanding is still incomplete).
Natural Law is the order of things built into the Universe. It’s deducible by reason, so it’s possible for us to get to the heart of it. It also informs us intuitively in our conscience. All of this is part of an interplay with the Divine, although knowledge of God is not in and of itself necessary to make moral judgements based upon the natural law.
This sent my Protestant alarm bells off because, of course, our depravity is so grave that we can’t be trusted to make moral deductions. The natural order too has itself been disordered so that it cannot be trusted as a source of truth. So, what’s really at the heart of the issue is conflicting theologies about the fall.
Just how far have we fallen? What did that fall entail? theologians have varied quite a bit on this point. Protestants have tended to favour Augustine’s tradition, (ie, pretty far) whereas Catholics have held a somewhat more optimistic view…that while sin has twisted and distorted God’s creation, but it’s still God’s creation and it’s still got a lot of good left to it. This contrasts strongly with the teaching of the main reformed theologies, which heavily emphasize the ‘total depravity’ of man.
So, where am I settled? Well, I haven’t yet. I’m inclined to think there’s something to natural law, and since I never bought Calvinism, it doesn’t jar too badly with where I’m at.
More to follow…
Good to have you back on here. I’ve been thinking about the concept of natural law, a concept that the whole Barthian-Hauerwasian school (which is quite in vogue these days) is not very fond of, believing that it is a slippery slope to losing one’s identity as a Christian and essentially undermines revelation. I’m not at all sure where I stand on this, but am having some second thoughts about Hauerwas’s project, especially as it seems to promote a - dare I say it? - “sectarian” mentality (and I’m convinced that, to a large extent, Hauerwas invites these kinds of misunderstandings).
I too appreciate that your back. I enjoyed coming to your blog and looking at comments etc. I guess there are alot of concepts within theology that really kind of escapre me at times, I suppose I understand them at least on a theoretical level, but dont really get the finer points. Natural law being one. As I study different takes on the scriptures I am struck by the value of an intrinsic order and maintaining that intrinsic order. I am not totally sure if natural law is the answer, but I was raised Lutheren and we used more of the Beatles concept of “all you need is love.” Natural law, as you have articulated it, would at least for me be one aspect of Catholicism that I kind of appreciated. Just seems a little more relaxed.
Sorry. I forgot how to add my name. That was me on that last bit
Hey G. Yeah, I think you’re right that parts of the Bible seem to advocate a kind of “natural law” - it’s especially strong in wisdom literature, where there is a sense that there is a moral order weaved into the very fabric of things, and also (Calvinists take note!) that human beings are capable of living rightly and following God’s laws. No “total depravity” there!
I think that where you stand on these issues is largely determined by what parts of the Bible you chose you accentuate. I’m convinced the Bible is filled often with conflicting and contradictory answers to the questions we pose to it. The task, I guess, is to “hear God’s voice” speaking to our present situation. No simple task.
Hay Joe. Yah I can kind of see what you mean. Frankly the notion of totally depravity is a little foreign to me as I blummed in a religious melieu that lacked that kind of intrinsic sense of evangelical self-loathing, but fortunately I found it else where (whew, was close there). I am not entirely sure i would agree with you that where you stand is necessarily determined by tradition or what part of the Bible you read necesarily. I think Paul’s strategy of these things was basically to talk about it (Phillipians if memory serves me). People have convictions for a variety of reason (I think eisogesis certainly plays a role). Understanding a concept wholisticly is rough no matter what. I agree with you, hear God speak is good and that is no simple task.
I think it was Barth that said “nature is mute” regarding revelation, which I don’t think is compatible with scripture. I don’t think that the virtue project is incompatible with natural law, although Hauerwas might say so. I see where he’s coming from; maintaining that we cannot afford to compromise our Christian perspective by watering down our teachings to make them compatible with the wisdom of the world. When you do that you risk robbing them of their meaning and power.
In practical terms I think that natural law in how it’s applied isn’t so far from the how protestants would talk about conscience.
The performance of a more profound point of view is best seen in the article.