At Lutherans and Procreation, Pastor Keith asks,
Dr. Baker, could you please elaborate on the “strong divine command theory ethic”? I was recently accused of perpetrating the heresy of “taking the Bible literally”, an error which was portrayed as being a phenomenon which sprang up in the early 1900s in response to scientific advances. I think my accuser was saying I am a Fundamentalist, which I am not.
Pastor Keith, at the turn of the last century many Christians were divided over the issue of evolution, the purpose, role, and authority of Scripture, etc.
The world was changing. Because believers also use the language of the world, which brings with it ideas and concepts foreign to the faith, they begin to reflect and write on their faith in a different way. Some believers followed after the Princeton theologians and accepted Fundamentalism. Others, following Kant and Schleiermacher, accepted Liberalism. When you are accused of being a Fundamentalist, or a literalist, or a traditionalist, for example, most likely the person making such an exaggeration is operating from a Liberal set of beliefs, whether or not he or she is aware of it.
In addition to Fundamentalism, another reaction to Liberalism came through the teaching of Swiss Reformed theologian, Karl Barth. Barth denied Natural Law and taught a strong divine command theory ethic, which means that the only commands valid for the Christian are those recorded verbatim in Scripture. If you cannot find a Bible verse specifically condemning any activity, then you are free to do that activity.
I find this line of reasoning being utilized, with no apparent credit to Barth, by Missouri Synod theologians beginning in the 1930′s, about the same time as when Barth was having his famous debate with Emil Brunner.
The strong divine command theory ethic is why, in my opinion, that modern ["conservative"] Lutherans accept contraception (because it is not specifically condemned in Scripture), whereas orthodox Lutherans (Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Gerhard, et. al.) condemned it as violating the first, fourth, fifth, and six commandments.
This [ethic] is also why “conservative” Lutherans today are unable successfully to address current moral crises. To wit, most current condemnations of the ELCA’s decision to allow same-sex unions and the ordination of gays and lesbians highlight that these are condemned in Scripture.
True, but same-sex attraction and activity also violates the moral law embedded in human nature. [In addition to God's wrath, there are also severe temporal consequences for violating Natural Law. "Conservative" Lutherans don't talk about those, either.] Even without Scripture, these folks should know better. If you don’t believe me, ask St. Paul.
For more about my views, log on to bioethike.com.
Blessings,
Robert C. Baker
Brilliant! This comment by Rev. Gifford A. Grobien in the parallel discussion over at Four and Twenty Blackbirds is also excellent: http://tinyurl.com/kmtd9e
Sorry, the tiny url doesn't seem to work right. The hyperlink "This comment" takes you right to Rev. Grobien's comment.