- Daryl Charles, Retrieving the Natural Law: A Return to Moral First Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), x + 346 Pps., $34.00.
- Daryl Charles was educated at West Chester State University, Southern California College, the University of Siegen (Germany), and Westminster Theological Seminary, where he received a Ph.D. in hermeneutics. He currently teaches Christian Studies at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. This series of books, Critical Issues in Bioethics, brings thoughtful, biblically informed perspectives to contemporary issues in bioethics, which is the interdisciplinary study of the issues regarding life and health. In this title, Charles restates what all people intuit by what theologians call ‘natural revelation’ and what this means in moral, specifically bioethical, discourse. He argues that a traditional metaphysics of natural law lies at the heart of social renewal, and that a revival in natural law thinking is of the highest priority for Christian doctrine in the contemporary public scene. Perhaps this is nowhere more evident than in the realm of bioethics, where the most basic moral questions – for instance, human personhood, human responsibilities, the reality of moral evil, and the basis of civil society – are being debated and even denigrated. Charles argues in part that the Protestant view of ethics and morality lacks relevance in today’s society due to its willful ignorance of this tradition. In what follows, salient points shall be highlighted in an attempt to grasp the fullness of this book’s relevance and import to readers of this journal.
Charles notes that in contemporary discussions of ethics, people typically seek to balance ethical considerations with social and medical benefits (7). He argues that this consideration is largely misplaced, as contemporary society has displaced the supervienence of God and the divinity’s wisdom upon subjects of ethical inquiry, foundational to our forefathers, opting instead for a positivist conception of law. This positivist position holds that the state, as a collection of equally autonomous wills, constructs law qua law, rather than discovering it or preserving it (16–17). Charles contends that this positivist conception has its roots in the Protestant dislike of natural law, as well as the prevalence of existential and historicist thinking in the last two hundred years. But by removing ethical intuition from universal knowledge and reason, Protestants have eliminated the theological basis for a common moral grammar with which to enter discourse with non-Christians in a pluralistic context (21).
After an introduction to the volume, Charles offers a critique of (post)modern Christian social ethics and the ‘postconsensus culture’, which could be said to be post-everything (cf. 27). In chapter three, “Natural Law and the Christian Tradition,” he briefly analyzes the pre-Christian precursors to natural law thinking, including the contributions from Plato and Aristotle. Building upon the ethical foundation laid out by the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, he argues that the early church, almost in one voice contends that even though humanity is marred by sin, they nonetheless posses in themselves a guide toward things moral (86–89). He acknowledges that natural law thinking reaches its pinnacle in the theology of Aquinas, and that Catholic and Protestant alike look unto him even today as a source of moral authority (91). Based on the thought of Aquinas, Charles asserts that natural law is grounded in both nature and Scripture, the two complementing each other, due to the providence of the divine (106, cf. 109).
In chapter four, “Natural Law and the Protestant Prejudice,” Charles argues that theologians who reject natural law chiefly for Christocentric reasons, erect a false dichotomy between nature and grace, which in effect undercuts the very basis for ethical discourse with non-likeminded patrons (151–52). In the fifth chapter, “Moral Law, Christian Belief, and Social Ethics, “ he asserts that since humans bear the divine image, and if there is such a thing as natural law, it is at least reasonable for Christians to work toward consensus regarding moral issues in our culture (190). Chapters six and seven, both, identify critical categories in contending for moral first things in ethical and bioethical debates. Therein he argues that most all of our critical contemporary ethical and bioethical issues are related directly to the notion of personhood, whether it be murder, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or the production of zygotes for medical research. In part, he asserts that natural law reveals that we as creatures have no legitimate jurisdiction over the gift of life (266). In the course of discussion in these two chapters, he also notes that a fusion of freedom and responsibility permits a genuinely free society to remain truly free.
Chapter nine constitutes a case study on the perceived morality of euthanasia, yesterday and today. He contends that the so-called ‘right’ to end one’s life perverts and vastly exceeds the scope of common-law ‘rights’ as traditionally understood. However, in an interesting concession, he notes that letting die is not necessarily wrong, as death is inevitable biologically speaking (288). The last chapter discusses natural law and public morality. Therein he affirms the ‘rightness’ of retributive justice, as it is a foundation stone of sorts for a civil society (311).
With his application of natural law thinking to the field of bioethics, Charles breathes new life back into this key debate. One of his accomplishments in this title is his reframing of natural law as an indispensable bridge for creating moral consensus on public policy in a pluralistic society. He contends that ultimately, the extent of our affirmation of natural law thinking will determine our ability to relate to and address the surrounding culture. This asseveration of natural law, he notes moreover, is both necessary and timely, especially considering the near wholesale destruction of metaphysical foundations in contemporary society. This title will be extremely useful to students, scholars, and general readers alike. In the closing pages of this title, Charles argues that contributing to moral consensus within society is Christianity’s fundamental task. May we delay this task no longer.
Bradford McCall, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.