A summary and not just a review of this book by J. Daryl Charles is much deserving. Charles makes a careful analysis of the Protestant theology in the current century which is devoid of natural law. The purpose of undertaking a series such as this, of which this book is a part, as suggested in the foreword, `is to bring thoughtful and biblically informed Christian voices in bioethics into dialogue with other voices that are influential today." (pg. ix). The book is set on the backdrop of the belief that `it is the responsibility of Christianity to explain to all people why Christian perspective should be taken into account.' This makes the people who do not share similar theological commitments as the author and his associates, the target readers.
In chapter one, titled, Introduction, the book confirms the sense of urgency that Christianity sees in restoring the natural law. In chapter two, Charles points out where our culture is currently at. He begins by making an assessment of the cultural climate. Chapter three brings in the point of Christian tradition in natural law. Charles argues that all people are equally intuitive of the moral law which is writ on their hearts by the Creator. Regardless of people's cultural or social context, every individual is equally accountable. From chapter four, it is evident that not all Protestant Christian ethicists hold on to the same beliefs in the realm of bioethics. Here Charles quotes theologians like Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, and Zwingli on the side of natural law and puts theologians like Karl Barth, Jacques Ellul, John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas, and H. Richard Niebuhr on the opposing side who contributed to the theological discontinuity of natural law. Chapter five discusses the nature of law, how it makes up the foundation of ethics and demarcates human behavior. Charles discusses in detail morality and law and ties it to the Christian moral tradition. Chapters six and seven take a detailed look at human personhood and the various debates and discussions surrounding it, with philosophical undertones of chapter seven with regards to human commitment to his fellow humans and the civil society in general. Chapter eight deals with an interesting and informative discussion on euthanasia and its general perception besides addressing ethicists', and legal theorists' arguments for and against it. The book concludes with chapter nine which summarizes the basic moral responsibility that every human being has toward the civic society. Charles exhorts that natural law is public responsibility. Charles calls forth the intellectually and academically inclined "to play a strategic role in helping to build a new awareness of - and respect for -human life." (pg. 300).
Interestingly, in an effort to set the stage for what seems like a theological journey into the bioethics arena, Charles quotes bioethicists from the opposite end of the spectrum of the bioethics like Peter Singer, Tom Beauchamp and others. The discussion gets philosophical for the next few passages where Charles challenges the readers with a few cultural and foundational questions. Charles' informative and challenging introduction throws light on why it is important to bring to public awareness the issues surrounding Christian ethics. Thus, a stage is set for a comprehensive study of the prevailing cultural deficiency and the Christian determination to put things back on perspective leading public to where it all began - the creation.
Charles is harsh on his fellow ethicists from the Protestant circles when he remarks, "Because of Protestant pessimism toward human nature and the capacity of reason (over against its Catholic counterpart), there exists little or no room for natural-law thinking in Protestant social ethics." (pg. 22). Charles attempts to enter the public arena to educate the non-Christians, about the Christian ethics which are primarily, ethics for all humanity. He expresses tremendous concern when he notes, "and gone is any common ground on which Christians and non-Christians in a pluralistic society might engage in meaningful ethical conversation or debate." (pg. 22). In the absence of natural law, he says, Christian community is far removed from its counterparts due to the purpose for which it has been called - redemptive purposes. But with the affirmation of natural law, a common ground is established over which there is a large scope for an engaging moral dialogue with non-Christian community. This engagement in a moral conversation will enable the development and articulation of a public philosophy toward preserving civil society. Ethical reflection in isolation from generations past will not help in resolving ethical issues. Moral wisdom is universal and is a part of `general revelation.' These moral first principles are the responsibility of all humankind but reincorporating them into the current millennium's cultural ethos is the sole responsibility of Christianity, contends Charles.
Charles starts this chapter by addressing various pessimistic and grim assessments of the present culture. Starting with Vigen Guroian's question, `Is Christian ethics any longer possible?' Charles mentions other despairing views of the cultural climate in which morality is claimed to be out of question. Ridiculing Alasdair MacIntyre's comparison of the present cultural climate with the period of decline in the Dark Ages, Charles mentions others that share MacIntyre's views. They are: sociologist James Davison Hunter who remarked "the social and cultural conditions that make character possible are no longer present," (pg. 27) who is closely agreed upon by James Q. Wilson who believes that to engage in moral reasoning and make moral judgments today is to be `unsophisticated and fanatic.' They may be done in private and in whispers.
Whatever the view and however pessimistic it is, what remains uncontroversial, for Charles, is the intellectual culture which does not any more assist in making moral judgments. If this pessimism continues, says Charles, there might come a day when foundational moral principles may cease to be the same for all. This view, summarizes Charles, would also run the risk of putting humans below the line of dignity, worth and sanctity and any discussion challenging such a view would be termed as public nuisance.
In the section on Contending for What is Permanent, Charles extensively quotes American Christian apologists that defended Christian basics, in the centuries past. Some of them quoted are C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot, Evelyn Waugh, Dorothy Sayers and G.K. Chesterton. What seems to have appealed to Charles is the unsympathetic reproach of these apologists for the spirit of their day. Of all the above mentioned people Charles quotes Lewis and his belief that is summarized in the statement, `a normal person will recognize the natural law's existence.' (pg. 37). He continues to quote Lewis for the rest of the chapter in support of his view of natural law which he calls the law of nature, because `everyone knew it by nature and it did not need to be taught it.' (pg. 37). Charles makes an interesting note of the Permanent with reference to Apostle Paul's ministry to pagans in Athens. He draws attention to the New Testament where Paul talks of being on the side of the law and winning those outside the law. Charles alludes to the teachable spirit of Luke which is indicated by the three speeches recorded in the book of Acts. By the end of the chapter Charles establishes that the natural law not only constitutes a consensus but also serves as a bridge between Christian and non-Christian morality. Natural law, therefore forms the basis for moral formation.
Wisdom is no one's property. She has but one Source and but one Maker - the Creator. "Basic truths are universally knowable and observable regardless of one's location." (pg. 76). This is the undergirding theme of this chapter. The bigger picture of this chapter, however, is that there are two types of natural law. One, which is rooted in the view of the state, and the other, that is rooted in certain metaphysical convictions.
Charles notes that when injustice visits a person, the person reacts to it. The attempt is, cent percent of times, to shun it, whatever the capacity of the individual to do so. This is to say that injustice demands of a human being a reasonable account.
Moral law is not the making of any one culture and has its roots in the pre-Christian thinking. The rest of chapter three deals in great detail with how the pre-Christian thinking of morality seeped into the Christian philosophy and how early Christianity shaped this thinking and passed it on into Protestant philosophy; and the reasons' behind Christian thinkers taking it upon themselves to reacquaint mankind with basic morals. In treating this vast topic that runs into centuries of philosophical and metaphysical developments, Charles makes note of contributions by philosophers starting from Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle to Christian fathers like Chrysostom, Justin, Tertullian, Clement, Ambrose and others down to modern thinkers like Aquinas. Interesting of all these is the mention of John Paul II and his views on natural law.
Charles maintains, on the one hand that `natural law is by no means the sole account of Christian morality.' (pg. 106). On the other hand, he notes that, `it is the position of classical Christian theology and moral philosophy that natural law exists as an enduring and concrete expression of divine providence.' (pg. 109).
After an examination of society in general and where it stands in terms of natural law and a description of how it translates into religion and how it became the symbolization of the Christian pathos, it is now time to assess Protestant perspective of ethics.
Read more ›
