Natural law may be defined as the ethical or moral structure that God has revealed to humans in creation (including in themselves and in the providential unfolding of history) and discerned through reason and experience. Natural law is a biblical concept (Rom. 2:14-16; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 5:1), and it seems to have two major functions. First, as with the Mosaic Law it condemns people for their sins, leaving them without excuse. Second, natural law provides an explanation for why people and nations do get moral issues right. No nation has even been wicked at every point. Natural law is an an explanation for why this is so.

Recently a natural law approach to reasoned argument in the pubic square has become popular. Among evangelicals, this is often paired with a two kingdoms theology that has its recent origins in Meredith Kline. When the natural law and two kingdoms views are combined the system that emerges typically maintains that Scripture rules over the spiritual kingdom but that natural law (and not Scripture) rules over the civil kingdom. The Christian may understand the natural law better from Scripture, but he is not to impose Scripture on the civil society.

But the natural law-two kingdoms approach suffers from some serious errors. First, the exegetical basis for the two kingdoms view is shaky. Proponents often argue that the civil kingdom is based on the Noahic Covenant and the spiritual kingdom is based on the Abrahamic Covenant. But the Noahic covenant is a redemptive covenant. It is instituted with an atoning sacrifice and it exists to ensure a stable world in which God may work out his redemptive plan (cf. Jer. 33:20-21). Second, just as theonomy makes the best sense in postmillennial context (though technically one does not need to be postmillennial to be a theonomist), so the two kingdoms approach fits best in a amillennial context (though one does not need to be an amillennialist to hold the position). This is evident in the idealistic interpretation of Revelation that undergirds some arguments for the two kingdoms view. It may also reveal itself in a seeming dismissal of the physical from God’s redemptive work and a focus on the spiritual.

Second, it is not clear that God ever intended natural revelation to function apart from special revelation. Because the world is a fallen, it is very difficult to argue from what is to what ought to be. What is is not a reliable guide. Scripture needs to serve as corrective lenses to help fallen people understand natural revelation rightly. This does not mean that natural revelation is unable to achieve the two purposes noted above, but it does indicate it will be difficult to build a civil society upon it.

Third, the natural law approach may lend aid and comfort to the secularists by conceding that religious reasoning should be kept out of the public square. This is a cost not worth paying because the non-Christians may not lend an ear to natural law arguments. Rather they will most often simply say that Christians are hypocritically attempting to hide the real religious reasoning for their position.

Fourth, attempts to reason from natural law apart from Scripture are often unconvincing. This is due in part to the fact that the unregenerate conscience is weak (1 Cor. 8:7, 12), defiled (1 Cor. 8:7; Tit. 1:15), seared (1 Tim. 4:2), and in need of purification (Heb. 9:14; 10:22). It is even further complicated by a religious pluralism in which there are real competing values at work in society. The natural law is not eradicated by the Fall, but it is distorted in such a way that competing systems are now in place.

None of this is to say that natural law argumentation has no place. It can and should be used to strike at the conscience. It can expose to some the danger that they are suppressing truth that they know.

Natural law, like the Mosaic law, is complicated topic. The following are helpful resources:

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.3-6; 2.8.1; 2.2.22; 4.20.14-16

Calvin is well known for his teaching about the sensus divinitatis and a seen of religion in each man. In book 1 he introduces these concepts and he teaches the necessity of Scripture for rightly perceiving natural revelation. In book 2 he provides more detailed discussion about the content of natural law. In chapter 4 he relates natural law to government.

Preus, Robert D. The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1970. See especially 1:173-78.

Preus provides a helpful treatment of Lutheran thought about natural law.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. See 1:270-308.

Muller provides a helpful survey of Reformed thinking about natural law.

Van Til, Cornelius. Introduction to Systematic Theology. 2nd ed. Edited by William Edgar. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007. See pp. 119-89.

Van Til combines a strong affirmation of general revelation and natural law with a strong view of the distorting effects of sin on man’s perception and use of that law.

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: HarperCollins, 1974.

Lewis’s argument for natural law is insightful, but it should be read alongside the more theological treatments noted above.

Budziszewski, J. Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law. Downers Grover: InterVarsity, 2005.

This is perhaps the best recent case for natural law. It should be read along with John Frame’s critique in the The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 239-50, 726, 783.

See also the recent post on natural law by my colleague Mark Ward.

Among Christians seeking for biblical guidance about how to live as Christians in the political arena, Theonomy has been an attractive option. The reason is clear: Theonomists rightly hold God’s Word to be the ultimate standard for all of life.

Nevertheless, Theonomy is in serious error at its central point: the relation of the Christian to the Mosaic Law. The New Testament teaches that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant (Rom. 7:4-6; 1 Cor. 9:21; 2 Cor. 3:3).

This does not mean that the Mosaic Law is irrelevant to the Christian. Many of God’s commands in the Law translate directly to the Christian. For instance, murder always destroys and image bearer of God and is always wrong (Gen. 9:6). Adultery always violates God’s original intent for one man to be married to one woman for life (Matt. 18:4-5). Even laws that are not directly applicable to the Christian still remain relevant. The tabernacle,  sacrificial system, and dietary laws still reveal vital truths about God, sin, and salvation. Various laws about human relationships still teach much about loving God and neighbor.

The shift from Mosaic Covenant to New Covenant, however, does mean that the Mosaic Code as a code of law is not the code that binds a Christian or even Christian nations today. Theonomists are therefore wrong when the insist that the penalties given in Israel’s law are binding on all nations today. The Mosaic law is really a concrete application of God’s creational law to a specific, special people in a specific place at a specific time. The Church finds itself in varied circumstances in time and place, and God has given it the greater responsibility of applying the law of Christ to our varied situations.

The matter of law and its relation to the Christian is complex. The following resources are helpful guides:

Casillas, Ken. The Law and the Christian: God’s Light Within God’s Limits. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2007.

This volume briefly surveys various approaches to the Mosaic law and then unpacks ways in which Christians are and are not under the Mosaic law. This may be the best book for orienting a newcomer to this discussion to the basic issues involved.

Moo, Douglas. “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View.” In Five Views on Law and Gospel. Counterpoints. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Moo surveys briefly what the law cannot do, what the law was intended to do, and the relation of the law to those under the New Covenant. The treatment is brief but exegetically rich.

Theilman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Theilman works systematically through every treatment of the law in Paul’s letters to ascertain Paul’s teaching regarding the law. This is an excellent, comprehensive treatment.

Poythress, Vern S. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1995.

Appendix B may contain the best critique of Theonomy written. It is fair and sympathetic where appropriate. It is nuanced (far more so than the sketch I gave above). And it is critical of Theonomy’s exegetical and theological shortcomings. The book is available for free at frame-poythress.org

In a recent Sunday School lesson about worldliness one of my former professors commented, “All of us without exception are disposed toward some form of worldliness. When we talk about worldliness is not talking about other people’s problems.” Conservative Christians are right to decry worldliness when it appears in violent and sensual music and movies, for instance. But worldliness may also express itself in the way Christians conduct their political discourse—even when they are right on the issues.

Consider the following Scripture:

Titus 3:1–3—¹ Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, ² to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. ³ For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

The way Christians engage in politics should be distinct from the way the world engages in politics. Paul exhorts Titus to remind those he leads to be submissive to their rulers. In this context he says that are to be courteous, gentle, and to avoid quarrelling. Paul has a theological basis for this admonition: Christians were once like the the sinners who rule over them and live around them. The sinners are characterized in part by hating and being hated. The Christian, however, has been show grace. Thus Christians should be gracious, and not abusive, toward others.

Romans 13:1–7—¹ Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴ for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. ⁷ Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Paul wrote this command to submit to government, to fear doing wrong, to pay taxes, and to render honor to government leaders while Nero was emperor of the Roman empire. This obedience obviously does not extend to areas in which God has given commands to the contrary (Acts 5:29, 32). But if Christians in Paul’s day owed Nero honor, then American Christians in the present have no excuse for failing to render President Obama and other magistrates the honor they are due.

1 Peter 2:13–17—¹³ Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, ¹⁴ or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. ¹⁵ For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. ¹⁶ Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. ¹⁷ Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Peter, also living under Nero’s rule also enjoins Christians to honor the emperor. Christians have always been faced with those who would slander them. By doing good in this way (and others) Christians may silence these slanders.

Acts 23:2–5—² And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. ³ Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” ⁴ Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” ⁵ And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’ ”

Paul confessed to having done wrong by reviling the high priest (though he did so in ignorance). He knows from the Old Testament the wrongness of his speech, for Exodus 22:28 forbade the Israelites from speaking evil of their rulers.

These passages do not forbid forthrightness in defense of truth or taking action to defend one’s legal rights. Paul was willing to appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-39; 22:25-29; 23:27; 25:8-12). It is worth noting, however, that Paul doesn’t act on his rights simply because they are his rights (1 Cor 9:12, 15, 18), but he uses or refrains from using his rights based on which action would best further the gospel.

If Christians stood firmly for truth in the political realm in a gentle manner, showing perfect courtesy toward all people, and avoiding quarrelling, they would show themselves a people distinct from this world.

 

2 Tim 2:1-4—Pray that office-holders will turn to Christ for salvation. Pray that believers may live peaceful, godly lives without persecution or abuse.

Acts 24:25—Pray that officials will act justly and righteously. Pray that they will be morally self-controlled. Pray that they will think about standing before God as their judge in the future.

Psalm 72—Pray that our civil leadership ensure justice in their sphere of responsibility. Pray that they would defend the unjustly treated from those who wrong them.

Rom 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17—Pray that office-holders recognize that they are servants of God with the task of promoting righteousness and punishing wickedness. Pray that they would seek to be faithful to these responsibilities.

Matt. 6:10—Pray for God’s will to be done on earth in public policy matters as it is done in heaven. Pray that Jesus will quickly come to establish his righteous rule on earth.

The debate over the definition of marriage has risen to prominence once again due to North Carolina voter approval of a constitutional amendment that affirmed the traditional view of marriage and due to the president’s now public advocacy of a revisionist definition of marriage.

Christian reflection on this issue, as on all moral issues, must be grounded in Scripture. The Bible is unambiguous in its rejection of homosexual practice. Furthermore, given that Scripture consistently condemns illicit affections as well as actions, Christians must recognize both homosexual practice and passions as sin. That said, sexual temptation (whether homosexual or heterosexual) and sexual sin (in thought or deed) are distinct. While it is true that numerous attempts have been mounted to reinterpret Scripture’s teaching regarding homosexual practice, these attempts are neither exegetically nor hermeneutically convincing. The best treatment of the relevant passages and the best response to common arguments is Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001).[1]

Natural revelation certainly testifies against homosexual practice as Paul notes in Romans 1, and it may be possible to mount a natural law case against revisionist definitions of marriage as well. The best effort currently is Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 245-87. The difficulty in appealing to natural revelation on a controversial issue is twofold. Natural revelation is always seen most clearly through the spectacles of Scripture; Scripture has a clarity that natural revelation does not have. Second, fallen people are just as prone to suppress general revelation as they are to reject special revelation. This does not vitiate natural law argumentation, however. Even if the positive argumentation for a conjugal definition of marriage is not as clear as explicit biblical statements, the argumentation may still be helpful. Furthermore, Girgis, George, and Anderson raise telling critiques against a revisionist definition. For instance, if marriage is defined in terms of two people who love each other, what logical reason is there for limiting marriage to two? They note this is not a slippery-slope argument. It is a question about coherence. Or, if civil recognition is about homosexual couples receiving legal benefits since they live in a shared domestic situation, on what ground does the government deny these benefits to two widowed brothers who now share a home and domestic responsibilities? Can a coherent alternative definition of marriage be developed. Girgis, George, and Anderson demonstrate that none has been developed thus far.

Christians should be clear both in word and deed that their concerns about redefining marriage are not limited to concerns about homosexual behavior alone. Nor do their concerns extend only to so-called slippery slope situations: polyandry, polygamy, or incestuous marriages. Christians are concerned about rises in divorces (and about no-fault divorce law), in cohabitation, and in out of wedlock pregnancies. They should also be concerned about distortions in the biblical roles and responsibilities given to husbands and wives. Distortions of the biblical marital ideal are personally and societally disastrous because they run against the creational norms that God has placed in his world.

Christians must reject the claim that revising the definition of marriage is a civil rights issue for those who engage in homosexual behavior. This claim assumes that homosexual inclinations are biologically determined in the same way that skin color is biologically determined. The scientific evidence for this assumption is lacking. For a recent review of the data, see Stanton L. Jones, “Same-Sex Science,” First Things (February 2012): 27-33. Even if genetic predispositions to homosexual desires are discovered, Christians should recognize that this would only confirm the Scriptural teaching that the Fall has radically affected God’s good creation and that humans are sinners from conception and beset with sinful inclinations from the time they have inclinations. See chapter 8 of Ed Welch, Blame It on the Brain (P&R, 1998) and part of David Powlinson’s essay in Psychology & Christianity: Five Views (InterVarsity, 2000) [relevant portion available here].

When the redefinition of marriage is cast as a civil rights issue it inevitably raises religious liberty issues. Will churches be permitted to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies? May homosexual practice be grounds for denying employment in Christian organizations or for denying membership in Christian churches? If the redefined marriage becomes a civil right, it will be increasingly difficult for Christians to maintain their religious liberties with regard to biblical understandings of marriage. This being the case, why should same-sex couples who already have the freedom to cohabit, who may receive a religious recognition of their relationship from certain religious groups, and who may receive joint benefits if they work for any number of companies demand the civil government redefine marriage in such a way that large numbers of religious citizens are deprived of their freedom?

Given the scope of the discussion, citizens should be discussing the qualifications for a given activity or status to be considered a civil right. They should discuss the nature and extent of religious liberties. They should seek to understand the implications declaring something a good simply on the basis that it extends equality or liberty (for some). They should discuss not only the biblical position on marriage but the reasons why the Christian Scripture has framed marriage the way it has. But for this kind of discussion to take place religious reasoning cannot be excluded from public discussion. For this to take place opponents of the revised view of marriage cannot be denounced (intolerantly) as intolerant. There must be space for public discussion of the merits and demerits of the various proposals. It is certainly inappropriate for those advocating a revised view of marriage to shout down those who wish to have this discussion.

Most importantly, Christians should pray for all that are in authority so that they may live quiet and peaceable lives—lives that model God’s vision for marriage and family so that despite speaking evil of Christians, unbelievers will by observing the good works of Christians be saved and so glorify God when he returns to judge the world and set all things right (1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:12).

---

[1] Gagnon does not fall into the fundamentalist or conservative evangelical category, as is seen by his reference to some New Testament material as Deutero-Pauline.

Tolerance in its conception took on the cast of a virtue because of its concern for the common good and its respect for people as persons. We endure particular customs, behaviors or habits—sometimes even (relatively) bad habits—of people in the interest of preserving a greater unity. In the Lockean context, tolerance was advocated for religious non-conformists. Never was it construed, however, to imply—much less sanction—morally questionable behavior. Consider, however, the devolution of a concept. What was a public virtue in its prior state becomes a vice if and when it ceases to care for truth, ignores the common good, and disdains the values that uphold a community. The culture of ‘tolerance’ in which we presently find ourselves is a culture in which people believe nothing, possess no clear concept of right and wrong, and are remarkably indifferent to this precarious state of affairs. As a result this transmutation of ‘tolerance’ becomes indistinguishable from an intractably intolerant relativism.

J. Daryl Charles, ‘Truth, Tolerance, and Christian Conviction: Reflections on a Perennial Question—a Review Essay," Christian Scholar’s Review 36 (2007): 212 in D. A. Carson, The Intolerance of Tolerance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 75.

Does a just society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Or should law be neutral toward competing conceptions of virtue, so that citizens can be free to choose for themselves the best way to live?

 

According to the textbook account, this question divides ancient and modern political thought. In one important respect, the textbook is right. Aristotle teaches that justice means giving people what they deserve. And in order to determine who deserves what, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honor and reward. Aristotle maintains that we can’t figure out what a justice constitution is without first reflecting on the most desirable way of life. For him, law can’t be neutral on questions of the good life.

 

By contrast, modern philosophers—from Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century to John Rawls in the twentieth century—argue that the principles of justice that define our rights should not rest on any particular conception of virtue or, or of the best way to live. Instead, a just society respects each person’s freedom to choose his or her own conception of the good life. So you might say that ancient theories of justice start with virtue, while modern theories start with freedom. . . . But it’s worth noticing at the outset that this contrast can mislead.

 

For if we turn our gaze to the arguments about justice that animate contemporary politics—not among philosophers but among ordinary men and women—we find a more complicated picture. It’s true that most of our arguments are about promoting prosperity and respecting individual freedom, at least on the surface. But underlying these arguments, and sometimes contending with them, we can often glimpse another set of convictions—about what virtues are worthy of honor and reward, and what way of life a good society should promote. Devoted though we are to prosperity and freedom, we can’t quite shake off the judgmental strand of justice. The conviction that justice involves virtue as well as choice runs deep. Thinking about justice seems inescapably to engage us in thinking about the best way to live." 9-10

Michael Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), 9-10.

“Forty years ago fundamentalist ethics was largely a catalogue of personal negations (e.g., ‘Don’t smoke,’ ‘Don’t drink,’ ‘Don’t gamble,’ ‘Don’t patronize Hollywood film-fare’), though by hindsight one must now concede that what then often seemed to impinge on individual liberty today has prudence on its side.” In contrast, “some evangelicals now define sin almost entirely in terms of social injustice. Premarital sex is common. Church discipline is lax or nonexistent. Divorce and remarriage snares even the clergy. The idea that spiritual and moral foundations are basic and essential for successful home life seems passé.”

Carl F. H. Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization (Crossway, 1988), 166, 172; from a chapter entitled “The Uneasy Conscience Revisited.”