In the controversy surrounding the controversial “Can We _______?” chapter of Mark and Grace Driscoll’s new book Real Marriage, I have been hoping that someone would raise the issue of natural law as it relates to sexual ethics. To my knowledge no one thus far has brought that up, and to my way of thinking it’s the key issue at play.
So I’m thankful that Doug Wilson—who has significant praise for the book but a few serious concerns—raised the issue in the third installment of his ongoing review.
Here is an excerpt:
There are more words that we have to use in our evaluation than lawful, helpful, or enslaving. We should also consider natural, unnatural, honorable, dishonorable, shameful, and so on. Now it order to be able to say that a particular activity between a married man and woman is “unnatural,” it should be obvious that we need to have a hermeneutic of nature.
You can read the whole thing here, but I should mention that this is an in-depth discussion of the most controversial thing in the Driscoll book, so I would encourage discretion and discernment, based on context and conscience, of whether a review like this will be necessary, edifying, and appropriate to read.
For those who would like to think a bit more about the role of natural law in ethics, J. Budziszewski says that C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man is the greatest work on natural law in the 20th century (also the shortest!).