"Natural Law" Political Models?

[Fly Caster]

I listened to the Dever/Van Drunen interview a couple of times yesterday, and both times was struck by Van Drunen being stumped when asked something like "What Political figure in history has gotten Natural Law right?"

I did hear him express several times how Christians have failed, and states have failed, in trying to implement or enforce the Ten Commandments. But from several thousand years of political history, these attempts-- at least of the Protestant variety-- have been a mere handful. Even as "failures," they've brought benefits to us all. By contrast, the number of cities, states, nations, empires, theories and movements that have been established apart from a reliance on the Ten Commandments have been numerous. "Natural Law" has to some degree been operative in all of these-- But none of these have ever gotten it right?

Maybe it was just a question that he was not prepared for. But it would be helpful to see or hear an answer to it.

 

[Esther W.]

I am not sure what you you mean by "What Political figure in history has gotten Natural Law right?"

In the US Thomas Jefferson was a political proponent, and therefore political figure, of Natural Law- philosophically he understood it and expressed it best.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The only way the question seems to "make sense" is that the Political figure (or state?) conceived is non-Christian, or intentionally rationalist.

And in that case, it seems to me the reasonable Christian answer (unless one is cautious to avoid any extreme statement) is "None." Why would an informed believer think that any unbelieving person or society could give a perfectly accurate rendition of the universal, natural law? The best attempt would be an approximation, due to the limitations of inherent rebellion. Sinful men do not read natural revelation with ease or clarity. Their committees are often worse, not better, on complicated matters (because of reinforcing error).

On the other hand, we can look at a concrete example of a single subject of "murder," and note that across time, space, and culture, most societies impose sanctions (formal and informal) against people with killing intent toward fellow men. Such a high degree of consistency is prima facie evidence that there is a natural law, even without the Scriptural evidence we might adduce for it as Christians.

Property rights are another near-universal acknowledgement. These may vary, in particulars; but the principle holds that people make competing personal claims to property, and within communities adjudication of those claims leads to law-formulae, which lead back inexorably to what we would term (being Reformed Christians) an "8th Commandment" principle.

In any developed culture, law is an incredibly complex domain. Unfortunately, our society has come increasingly under the tyranny of a purely positivistic law philosophy, which is anti-nature or huper-nature, and rejects natural constraints. Positivistic law philosophy is ultimately antinomian, being law-by-whim. Man makes a hideous god.

But history has shown us that despite his bent toward might-makes-right philosophy, man even apart from the written revelation can be brought to acknowledge he is subject to laws beyond his puny powers. The allure of the benefits of ordered/structured power, only available within a community of shared, hierarchical authority leads to compromises that ultimately put nature back into ascendancy. It may be self-serving judgment, but it is an admission nonetheless.

Sin, however, vitiates man's effectiveness and his long-term willingness to remain in submission to law, even nature's. Sin even vitiates the Christian's power to use the law properly. Likewise, a culturally dominant Christianity has the same Sisyphean task of laboring to build and maintain, and then rebuild and reform, the societies in which they reside. The fact that we can point to the 10C gives us an aid in identifying the structural flaws in the present system that contribute to its instability.

But no law (or Law), being exoskeletal, will ever provide permanent fixtures for human society. That is something that can only come from repair of the building material itself--renovation of the "living stones."

 

[au5t1n]

I watched the Van Drunen/Dever interview as well. Rev. Glaser asked what my thoughts were (on a Facebook note) and this is what I said:

Rev. Glaser, I'm not sure how helpful my thoughts would be, but here it goes. I listened to the interview with DVD. The main thing I took out of it was that he was being so vague and abstract that it's difficult to understand how his view works on a practical level. I accept a classical two-kingdom distinction (a la Calvin), but not the nonsense that comes out of WSCal which makes Scripture inapplicable to civil order. The main problem I have with that is that it simply can't be shown from Scripture; in fact, the opposite is true. Scripture addresses civil order a lot -- even for Gentile rulers.

I believe that natural law *exists*, but the unregenerate cannot figure it out and even Christians cannot be sure we have it right without comparing with Scripture. Natural law *should* lead to monotheism (says Romans 1), but how many peoples of the world have decided that there is one God on their own, without Scripture? As far as I know, all of the monotheistic religions trace their origins to Scriptural revelation.

Ultimately I think the R2K view is dualism if taken to its full logical implications.

I'm also not sure what R2K folks do with the Scriptural examples of Gentile rulers, who were *not* under the Mosaic civil laws, making religious laws that are approved by God. We see this in Darius' anti-blasphemy law in the book of Daniel and in the king of Ninevah's religious reform in the book of Jonah, just to name two examples.

(Note: After re-reading the account in Daniel, I realize that Darius' edict was a positive command to revere the God of Daniel, not an anti-blasphemy law per se. But it is a religious edict on the part of a Gentile ruler.)

 

[Fly Caster]

I am not sure what you you mean by "What Political figure in history has gotten Natural Law right?"

In the US Thomas Jefferson was a political proponent, and therefore political figure, of Natural Law- philosophically he understood it and expressed it best.

My question makes more sense (I hope) in context of the interview HERE. It's a few minutes in.