Law, Gospel, and The Ordering Art

Aaron made an excellent observation in an earlier comment about how different fields of study are related, but ought to be distinguished. I was so excited I wrote something that really ought to be its own post. If you're busy and don't think you'll have time to read my ramblings, then skip this entry. But Aaron sparked some good thoughts.

Keaton, I think you go a step further than I do in what you say to Brennick. I say, "You're right, but work on explaining yourself better." I'm going to try to synthesize your long comments to mean that you say to Brennick "Your thought process is good, but you are not properly distinguishing between theology and other fields of study. In theology, most everything can be put in terms of Law and Gospel, but this is not true of all other fields of study." I have a complex thought in response to this.

You are right in that when we study nature, we are studying law, and that the Gospel is revealed to us in Scripture and Sacraments. But I would add to this that when we fully understand a field of study (say we learn ALL there is to know about chemistry), we realize that we don't really, truly understand it until we apply it to everything else. What good is chemistry is it doesn't lead us to questions about biology, sociology, geography, and theology? Not much. What I'm saying is this: when we study nature, we study law, but as the law (of a field of study) becomes more fully understood, so too its need for other fields of study in which to become manifest and applicable is shown. 

Yes! Every field of study is inter-related. Some things are good when their results are applied to other areas of study. For example, chemistry is pretty useful when it can be applied to medicine, nutrition, or the making of plastics. The Liberal Arts, classically understood, claim to be not only useful, but good things to study in and of themselves (i.e., knowing “Logic” makes you a better human being in general, not just a better maker of plastics). Yet at some point, someone has to ask the question: “How do we know how all these various disciplines are interrelated?” Stop. Think about that for a second. What art/discipline of study is the one that figures out the proper relationships between the others?

A random picture of a plane in a tree for variety.

How does chemistry relate to biology or physics, and how do all of those relate to medicine, ethics, or the art of making of pastries? We like it when biology can help inform the medical arts—this seems fitting. You and I might get suspicious when biology makes claims about the origin of life or intelligence, as this seems to be the domain of some other discipline of study. What happens when scientists, who don't know about how laws are made, begin doing something outside of their “jurisdiction,” making laws and ethical demands? (All of the sudden, you can't buy soda in quantities larger than 20oz. And it has to be “green” soda, or else you feel bad about yourself.) Firemen and policemen both serve the public, but it doesn't make sense to ask firemen to catch thieves, and have policemen put out fires. Each should stick to its own area of study, and help each others out as best it can.

So... yes. They are all related, and the question is: HOW are they all related? There is a need for an Art of putting all these many disciplines in their proper places. Not for the sake of restricting them, but for the sake of freeing the others to do their own jobs. What art is that? Can I go to college for a "figure everything out" degree?

Plato called it “philosophy” (φιλέω [love] σοφία [of wisdom]). Aristotle called it “the ruling art,” or “politics” (πολύ [many] τεχνὴ [arts]). Medieval scholasticism called it “theology,” because God rules over all arts (this ended up weakening specific theology, dealing with the relationship between God and man as expressed in scripture, but that's a different story for a different day). Today, there isn't one word for this “ordering art.” Philosophy, politics, political science, and theology all have specific meanings, as well as being used by oddballs like myself special “ordering art” ones from the past. (Shameless plug: Hillsdale college teaches lots of subjects, but the one it gets at best is training in this "ordering art" of trying to figure out how everything fits together.)

The question of how things are ordered is the question of wisdom. Solomon had it right when he says in Proverbs 1:7 “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Nothing is well ordered unless it is ordered firstly underneath God. That's where it started. Read the first four paragraphs of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, and you'll see an enduring description of the wisdom of this ordering art. Aristotle goes on to suggest... well, a lot of things.

There is a LOT to talk about here, and a lot we could go afield with. I've added some emphasis of my own in the text, so you know. Try reading it out loud if you find it hard to understand. That helps. (If your eyes glaze over and you lose interest...just... sorry. skip it, I guess.)

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from the activities that produce them. Where there are ends apart from the actions, it is the nature of the products to be better than the activities. Now, as there are many actions, arts, and sciences, their ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of economics wealth. But where such arts fall under a single capacity- as bridle-making and the other arts concerned with the equipment of horses fall under the art of riding, and this and every military action under strategy, in the same way other arts fall under yet others- in all of these the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued. It makes no difference whether the activities themselves are the ends of the actions, or something else apart from the activities, as in the case of the sciences just mentioned. 

Aristotle teaching Alexander the Great how to be great. 

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is, and of which of the sciences or capacities it is the object. It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man. (Note: This isn't "politics" in the sense we think of today. No sir.) For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry aims, since it is political science, in one sense of that term. 

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premises to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premises of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs. 

Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit. 

These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected, and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface. 

Oh man. There's so much to talk about here. I brought this up for the sake of laying a framework to think about, and I'm going to try to stay on topic and answer Aaron's question, but it's going to have to be in a very roundabout way.  Aaron continued to ask:

What does Law do? Shows us our need for a savior (Gospel). It doesn't SHOW us the Gospel, but it shows the NEED for one. This goes with my earlier interest in paradox and balance/cooperation.

How do you react to that, Keaton? Do you think that, if in nature we see law, then the law of nature can show a need for the gospel?

I say that every art, inquiry, action and pursuit which man does falls underneath the broad umbrella category of "the Law." Whether the teachers of the law specialize in bridle-making, chemistry, medicine or strategy, they still all ultimately try to serve some good for human beings. Even the art of theft, for example, serves a twisted "good" ...for the thief only. The art of war? The twisted "good" of conquest, or the more justifiable "good" of protecting a nation.

Aristotle points out that the ultimate pinnacle of "why anyone does anything" is "to be happy," or "to have their nature fulfilled." He uses the word "happiness" not just as a momentary moment of pleasure, but as a state of being that fulfills our nature (τέλος). We won't be happy until we are living according to our nature. That's why we do things. It's in human nature to hunger for food and to eat... so... we make food. We grow food, cook it, and throw parties. Sometimes we are twisted by sin and we try to steal food. Or we eat food we're not supposed to. In the long run, that doesn't make us happy, but in the short term it seems like a good idea.

Sin, entering the world through one man

Sin entered the world and gave us this weird quality wherein we cannot actually ever fulfill our nature. We are not good at being human beings. We cannot get back to Eden, which was made for us. We cannot be happy in this life, because we are qualitatively broken. For all the arts and activities and inquires, mentioned above, they can only attempt to get us to fulfill our nature, but they won't actually get us all the way. Aristotle even goes on to point out how very very improbable it is for someone to get even close to fulfilling their actual nature, because everyone seems to screw up along the way (although he did think it was theoretically possible. That's what he gets for being a pagan).

We know, revealed to us in scripture, that this is because of sin, and the only place we will be truly fulfilling our nature... is in heaven. When we live, not in the qualitatively broken flesh of Adam, but in the perfect flesh of Christ Jesus which we were born into when we were Baptized.

Fun Fact: the word "perfect" is related to the Greek word τέλος: as in, "has reached their τέλος, their end, their perfect state, in which they are acting perfectly in accord with what they were created to be. Only then, only when we are given new flesh, birth from above, can we actually be happy. 

That said, the Law is still useful. For lots of things. As I learned it in my catechism class, the law has three ways. As a curb, a mirror, and a guide. The existence of a curb is self-evident, because we've seen the usefulness of every art and action and inquiry above as eventually showing us how we ought to live. It can't keep us from sinning, but it does show us how we ought to live. Bridle-makers ought to make bridles, because the horses need them. The horsemen ought to do well in their jobs, so as to perform the commands of the strategist well. The strategist should defend the country well, so as to defend the life, liberty, and pursuit of τέλος-fulfilling for the people in the country. The curb doesn't do it for you, but it does teach you what to do. That there is a good thing, a nature, that we ought to do, but we can't do it. 

Then, a mirror shows you your sin, your utter failure to fulfill your τέλος. Everyone agrees we ought to live according to righteousness (justice), but the big question is why we never actually live justly. Plato made a pretty good argument in The Republic that living justly is better than living un-justly, because living in justice was better for our natures, for our souls. That assumes that we're not able to live justly. Everyone knows we're sinners. It's a self-evident observation, a law written on our hearts, accessible even to philosopher pagans:

For when Gentiles (like Aristotle), who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.  --  Romans 2:14-16

A guide shows you your need for a savior. It doesn't show you which savior, and it doesn't deliver that savior to you, but it does show you that you need something. That's why there are so many other religions out there--the natural law written on our hearts shows us how to live according to nature, that we are incapable of living that way, and that we need something else. That's a natural religion, as natural to us as the law written on our hearts.Without the revealed word of God, it's not terribly specific. There are other gods who offer a salvation of sorts (they are, of course, false gods offering no real hope). The Law shows you your need for A gospel, but like you said, doesn't point you to THE gospel--Christ Jesus crucified for the forgiveness of sins. 

So in answer to your question... Yes, we've got to distinguish between Law and Gospel. The Law condemns us for our sins in the sternest possible way, and the sweet Gospel of Christ forgives us of all of those same sins. A Lutheran theologian by the name of C.F.W. Walther wrote an excellent book about this very topic, and I highly recommend it if you're interested in learning the right relationship between Law and Gospel. 

As Beautiful and Terrible as the dawn

 In fact, after a time  There are laws for how we ought to treat one another in this life, and how to organize our arts, inquiries, actions and pursuits. That we ought to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Love our neighbors as ourselves. The Law is a beautiful and terrible thing, and we are bound to learn it, to heed the instruction of the Lord in right relationships... taught either in scripture or taught by the law written into nature. Both ways are good for us to learn. Particularly, as it turns out, when we approach the question of the "ordering art." It's been called politics, philosophy, theology, political science, polititheosophy, etc. The bible calls it Wisdom, and occasionally the word "Torah". The Law. The ordering art.

For the purposes of this discussion here, I'd suggest that we're learning about the Law, not the gospel, and that that's okay, as long as we learn it int he context of its right relationship to the gospel. None of what we learn here nullifies Christ's work on the cross, or diminishes the primacy of the gospel in our lives. It teaches us to love our neighbor in a depth of wisdom obtained from our forebears in a great conversation over the ages about the Law written on our hearts. Learning this will make you appreciate the gospel more. Ultimately, Christ Jesus shows that God is perfectly righteous, the source of all justice. Christ lived righteously, died in our place, suffering God's right condemnation of our sin, and justly shows the magnanimously gracious love of God towards humanity.