In challenging his fellow evangelicals to more faithful social action, the theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913–2003) lamented the lack of a “social program calling for a practical attack on acknowledged world evils.” Henry himself would work tirelessly to generate enthusiasm and support for such evangelical social action. But his opposition to natural law as irredeemably Roman Catholic undoubtedly handicapped such efforts. His son, Paul B. Henry, had a rather more positive view of the prospects for an evangelical approach to natural law. Paul Henry noted in his 1970 political science dissertation at Duke University (“Protestant Theology and the Natural Law Tradition”), for example, that “the natural law approach is still one of several fundamental Protestant approaches to questions of social ethics.”
Now more than a half century later, the need for Protestant and specifically evangelical engagement and elaboration of the natural law remains as pressing as ever. Carl Trueman has recently noted the lack of “good Protestant ethicists,” and has acknowledged the fundamental contribution of the natural-law tradition to addressing that stark need: “The broader biblical account of human nature, not isolated proof texts, must now factor into Christian discussions of the most pressing ethical issues that we face.”
I have written previously about a hopeful trend involving what might be called the rediscovery, revival, or retrieval of natural law for Protestant social thought. In Hopeful Realism: Evangelical Natural Law and Democratic Politics, we have a salutary work by a trio of political theorists to define, delineate, and apply an evangelical view of natural law to contemporary politics. In this work, Jesse Covington, Bryan T. McGraw, and Micah Watson can be understood to reconcile various elements constitutive of such a natural-law project, drawing on and extending the work of rediscovery, revival, and retrieval.
The authors are at pains primarily to reconcile evangelicals with natural law, building on their own work as well as that of a number of other scholars in recent decades. Part of that effort necessarily involves reconciling or properly relating Scripture and natural law as well as the relationship between natural law and tradition. And finally, the authors might well be understood to be articulating a framework for reconciling natural law and liberal democracy, a most welcome aim given the rather alarming dearth of defenders that the latter seems to enjoy nowadays, especially among evangelicals.
As Covington, McGraw, and Watson write, “We believe the way forward requires looking back.” They call us to look back at what Scripture teaches about politics and the natural law as well as what Augustine and the larger Christian tradition teach as well. And in so doing they articulate a constructive framework for evangelical political thought and social action should look like today.
Hopeful Realism in Theory and Principle
The book is divided into two major parts. In the first, the authors outline the theoretical basis and characteristics of their project. They call this framework Hopeful Realism, by which they mean an Augustinian political theology adapted by distinctive evangelical convictions about the primacy of the Bible, emphasis on Christ’s atoning work, and the necessity of faithful Christian obedience. In this way Hopeful Realism is “an evangelical theory of the natural law,” or even more specifically an “approach to the natural law tradition [that] can provide much-needed guidance for evangelical political engagement and can contribute to the flourishing of a liberal democratic order.”
The chapters in this first part introduce and contextualize Hopeful Realism while also providing the theoretical grounds for the practical application of the project in the latter portion of the volume. This evangelical approach to natural law is characterized by an acknowledgment of three kinds of basic goods (rational, volitional, and relational) and four foundational principles: 1) the common good and civic friendship; 2) confessional pluralism and religious liberty; 3) restraint and liberty; 4) democracy and decentralization. The authors helpfully but efficiently elaborate on each of these elements. Their presentation is effective but not exhaustive (or exhausting). The goal is to provide the outlines and some substance of this theoretical framework before applying it practically to specific contemporary challenges.
The practical turn is accomplished by providing a basic process for applying the Hopeful Realism paradigm to a particular issue or topic. The first step in applying Hopeful Realism is to identify the relevant goods or principles at issue as they relate to human flourishing. Next, the task is to discern among the various options that are practically available. And finally, the framework is enacted by applying prudential considerations. The authors are to be commended for not being satisfied with simply outlining some true things about the moral order and the Christian tradition, but also for doing the difficult work of attempting to apply these truths in an accessible and systematic way to concrete, contemporary concerns.
The practical application of these three goods, four principles, and three steps are not intended to be simply formulaic or mechanical. “While Scripture stands as our highest authority,” they write, “there is much pertaining to human life that it does not speak about directly.” Natural law is a tool for taking the truths that Scripture teaches, particularly about the world and that we also discover in the world itself, and applying these timeless realities to ever-shifting circumstances.
Prudence in Practice
The authors are in no way deluded into thinking that where Scripture does not speak clearly or directly that there is some kind of simple unanimity of opinion to be achieved. The purpose of the second part of the book is rather to provide examples of the kind of moral and political deliberation that is appropriate for a responsible and mature natural-law approach.
Covington, McGraw, and Watson thus take the Hopeful Realism framework outlined in the first part and apply it to four different and distinct areas: economics, the family, religious liberty, and war. Interestingly enough these four are representative of the four main areas of Christian social thought, three of which (the family, church, and state) are mainstays and the last (economics, work, or culture) is a more recent and occasional addition.
As the authors put it, the approach in the second half of the book is to present the truth about these practical considerations as they see it, but not to constrain disagreement, forestall discussion, or coerce assent. A natural-law approach does not typically lend itself to singular practical, concrete conclusions. Rather, they write, “the goal is to model how we think evangelical Christians can reason about political matters in light of both general revelation and Scripture’s insights about the created order.” About prudential matters, we should expect and even welcome a degree of divergence. Even where the authors’ practical conclusions are disputable or provisional, there is much wisdom that is displayed in the disposition as well as the execution of their project. Attentive readers will learn much about the salience of natural law as well as the work it takes to do justice to the natural law in practice from this excellent book.
In the book of Proverbs we read the command: “Get wisdom” (4:5). This simple injunction can justly be taken as a mandate to study the natural law in theory and work to live faithfully in accord with it. Likewise in the Psalms (1:2) we find that the righteous person’s “delight is in the law of the Lord,” and on this law such a person “meditates day and night.” Covington, McGraw, and Watson help us to understand that the natural law is an expression of God’s law, and one that we would be wise indeed to delight in and to meditate on. The authors model such wisdom in Hopeful Realism, and what they have reconciled in this book, including theory and practice as well as Scripture and natural law, let no one separate.
Jordan J. Ballor (Dr. theol., University of Zurich; Ph.D., Calvin Theological Seminary) is director of research at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.
