Book Review: Natural and Divine Law by Jean Porter

Natural and Divine Law: Reclaiming the Tradition for Christian Ethics by Jean Porter

Contemporary natural law theories are a bit like contemporary existentialism. Both accommodate many different opinions, even diametrically opposed positions. Existentialists, taken as a whole, run the gamut from atheism to agnosticism to theism. Natural law theorists include those who want a completely medieval understanding (Aquinas being the paradigmatic thinker), those who want a Biblical though contemporary focus, and those who want the theory built entirely on rationality and human nature without dependence on Revelation (the Finis/Grisez crowd). Porter's theory strives to be in the second group. She looks to the traditional Christian foundation from the eleventh and twelfth centuries but also wants to engage contemporary thinkers while still retaining a strong (though more contemporary) Scriptural basis. 

She begins her argument by looking at the historical context of Christian natural law thinking, which indeed hit a high water mark in the 1200s with thinkers like Thomas Aquinas. The period was hardly a stagnant and fundamentalist time for academics. The society had changed substantially during the period from AD 1000 to 1300. Governments were become more centralized (i.e., the highest legal authority was not necessarily the lord of the manor or the town magistrate). People's lives were more mobile both physically and economically. Travel was much safer and more possible than in previous centuries. With the rise of the middle class (the guilds and the merchants), people had an easier time changing from peasant farmers or nobility to other ranks in society. The rise of the mendicant orders (primarily the Franciscans and the Dominicans) and of the universities brought new ideas and new challenges. The time was very fruitful for intellectual development. Natural law theory, taken from the Stoics and the Church Fathers, developed as a way to look at moral and social issues. The main groups of legal theorists were (1) the civilians (who came at issues from a secular government perspective), (2) the canonists (who focused on church law), and (3) the theologians (who looked to church tradition and Scripture). The time had a lot more diversity which Porter sees as a strength unacknowledged in our day.

As she looks at the medieval history of natural law, she compares their thoughts with those of contemporary thinkers like John Finis, Germain Grisez, Karl Barth, and Stanley Hauerwas. The instances of similarities and differences are fascinating and show how the tradition of natural law is worth studying and had insights that are useful for modern thinkers. What laws and obligations are natural to humans and what are social constructs? How can an understanding of human sinfulness (i.e. defects in human nature) be accounted for in Natural Law theory? How does that change what is considered "natural"? Modern Christian ethicists debate about what is the distinctive Christian basis for ethics--is it the radical equality of "love your neighbor as yourself" or the "do no harm" focus on non-violence (a more contemporary understanding). Both are true but which is primary? The issues Porter grapples with are contemporary and engaging.

The one challenge with the book is that it presents a high-level overview of natural law theory and how it has been applied in many different ways. She considers how it could be applied in other situations, occasionally without committing to one solution or another. She endorses the overall system, but like in the big tents, she allows for possible solutions that don't all fit together. In the conclusion, she writes that her argument has been to show the relevance of natural law theory to Christian ethical thinking and hopes that others will use this as a launching point for a deeper and finer understanding of who we are and what we need to do, especially with modern issues. So the lack of decisiveness is deliberate, but I also found it a little off-putting.

Recommended, this is a good scholarly look at the ideas without being brutally academic and difficult to read (or requiring a substantial foundation in the theory before being read).