abstract: But what Arnn and Jaffa say is not true. I reiterate: Nature is fallen, imperfect, twisted by sin. Thus, nature, in and of itself, is the basis of nothing and tells us nothing about whether sodomy is right or wrong.

Skip Navigation

by John Lofton

Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College and past president of the Claremont Institute, wrote in a Washington Times (11/19/95) article, "Manifesto for Cultural Warriors," "Our problem today consists simply in this: Many of our leaders--intellectual, cultural, and political--have abandoned the moral and natural law. If we do not repudiate this error, we will suffer a collapse that is both complete and irrecoverable." Criticizing the "relativists," and the substitution of "values" for "virtues," Arnn calls for the development of a "vibrant and virtuous civil society." He is for the "traditions" of Western civilization, the "principles" of "the American founding," "responsibility," and "justice." Noting that the cultural battle is a battle for the soul of America, he calls on "all like-minded Americans to fight it, and to win it."

Terrific. But, what, exactly, do these words mean? Well, like so many modern Christian/conservatives of Arnn's ilk, he does not say. He assumes, I guess, that everyone agrees what these words mean. But, alas, they do not. Take, for example, the words "natural law." What, precisely, does that mean?

In two letters to me in early 1993, when I wrote him about a major problem with "natural law" being that nature is fallen and, thus, the norm for nothing, Arnn replied, in part: "Government is run by men. Scripture is the rightful authority over Christians, but it is not the rightful authority over citizens[?]. They may not be ruled by any man except with their consent. We do not therefore seek to implement the Scriptures by law." Arnn adds: "The New Law applies to all men. But government is not rightly built to enforce the New Law upon all men. That is a power reserved to God, to whom each man is ultimately responsible for the condition of his soul."

Now, this is confusion cubed, not to mention biblically illiterate. First, Christians, in addition to being Christians, are also citizens. Secondly, and most importantly, all government is under God, as God tells us clearly in Romans 13:1-6.

Thus, according to God's Word, government (one of "the powers that be") is under God and is governed by (what else?) God's Law, not some vague concept such as "natural law." And in both the ancient world and in modern times, there are fewer concepts more vague and mushy than "natural law."

Here is some of what is said about "natural law" in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977): Artistotle, not believing in sin and/or the Fall, saw "nature" as "an independently operating force which establishes a wise order in its own sphere, with no disorder in it." He also had the "Sophist trinity" believing that the presuppositions for ethical action was man's "understanding" which man got from "nature" so "as to know right from wrong." Then we have the Stoics who saw all that "nature" does "as artistic and purposeful." This led to the Stoic belief that "a man who removes the hairs from his body is complaining against nature that he was born a man." The result of the Stoic view: "There is no real move towards social ethics." So, "the existing order is often in fact the standard" --for example, a father leaves his sick daughter to her sickness believing her illness is "natural." And another "natural law" man, the philosopher Zeno, thought it okay "to live with a woman who is legally married to another and thereby disrupt his house." Philo also saw nature "as...the creator and sustainer of the world" believing that "nature has created all equal and free." It is further stated concerning the problems created by the ancient views of "natural law" that, "only the Jewish and Christian belief in nature as the creation of God was able to solve these problems. And only here did the concept of natural law become significant, since man could relate himself to the Creator and Lawgiver as the ultimate court" (emphasis mine). And it is pointed out as "well worth noting" that the word "nature" does "rarely occur" in the New Testament since "there is no place for 'natural theology' in the thinking of the NT."

And the confusion and erroneous beliefs concerning "natural law" in modern times is just as great. In a statement in February of 1991, Larry Arnn said, about that "law of nature," that, "It explains and makes clear the basis of life in a free political community. And it is perfectly compatible with the moral teachings of revelation." And arguing against homosexuality in 1990 in a booklet entitled, "Homosexuality and the Natural Law," published by the Claremont Institute's Center for the Study of Natural Law, Harry Jaffa, then a professor of Political Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College and Graduate School, is quoted as saying "sodomy is to be condemned because the rational ground of all morality is nature, and sodomy is against nature."

But what Arnn and Jaffa say is not true. I reiterate: Nature is fallen, imperfect, twisted by sin. Thus, "nature," in and of itself, is the basis of nothing and tells us nothing about whether sodomy is right or wrong. And professor Ernest van den Hagg, though no biblical law man, had it absolutely right when he said in reply to a letter-to-the-editor in National Review magazine (11/4/91) that: "God, by definition, has the authority to prescribe and proscribe. There is no scripture indicating nature's will. If there were, why should we grant it normative authority independent of God? In a secular society, normative natural law, even if it were determinate and knowable, would not be authoritative." Amen!

Finally, the confusion about "natural law" is also rampant in various scientific, political, and literary writings. To be sure, there have been those who equated natural law with God's law. In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes says the law of nature "is undoubtedly God's law," the "eternal law of God." But, he also says this natural law is "found out by reason," which it is not since God's truths are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). And at another point, Hobbes says the law of nature is "unwritten," which means it can't be God's law because God's law is written. John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, also equates "the law of nature" to "the will of God." But, he, too, errs when he says that this law is "unwritten" and "plain and intelligible to all rational creatures."

In his classic, Billy Budd, Herman Melville, contrasting the vices of sailors with those of non-sailors ("landsmen"), notes some of these vices of the latter saying they are but "frank manifestations in accordance with natural law." The ancient writer Euripides says in his Phoenician Women, that "equality is man's natural law." A character in Voltaire's Candide (Cacambo) says: "Indeed the law of nature teaches us to kill our neighbor." Charles Dickens, in Oliver Twist, alludes to "the beautiful axiom that self-preservation is the first law of nature." Charles Darwin, in Origin of Species, says there is "a very general, if not universal, law of nature." And, amazingly, an early feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) writes in her Vindication of the Rights of Women, that the fact that men are stronger than women, in general, "is the law of nature."

But, Fryodour Dostoevsky and Henry Fielding, in some of their writings got it right. In the former's Brothers Karamazov, the character "Ivan Fyodorovitch," is quoted as observing that "there was no law of nature that man should love mankind." And in his Crime and Punishment, the murderer "Raskolnikov" says, correctly, speaking of the law of nature: "That law of course, is unknown at present." But, he adds, typifying the confusion surrounding this slippery notion: "I am convinced it exists, and one day may become known"! Ah, yes. Hope springs eternal in the breast of the "natural law" true believer.

And in his novel Tom Jones, Fielding has the character "Thwackum" saying, right on target: "The law of nature is a jargon of words, which means nothing. I know not of any such law, nor of any right which can be derived from it. To do as we would be done by, is indeed a Christian motive...." Amen again!

For more than 30 years John Lofton has covered national politics and cultural/religious issues as a journalist, nationally-syndicated columnist, TV-radio commentator/analyst, and political advisor. He is a member of Harvester Presbyterian Church in Springfield, Virginia and resides in Laurel, Maryland. He can be reached at Jlof@aol.com.

back to top