Situation Ethics
The above title may sound like something out of our distant past. 'Situation Ethics?', someone might say, 'Isn't that something only advocated by humanists and atheists?' It was Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopalian and professor of Social Ethics who said such things as, 'As we shall see, Christian situation ethics has only one norm or principle or law….that is binding and unexceptional, always good and right regardless of the circumstances. That is love… Everything else without exception, all laws and rules, and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love in any situation' (Situation Ethics, p. 30). 'love only employs law when it seems worthwhile.' (p. 71) 'Even a "pearl of great price"---whatever it is-might be sold for love's sake if the situation demands it.' (p. 121) 'Paul was certainly obscure and contradictory about the problem of the justice of God…But the real error in it, by which all them are victimized (Paul…), is the intrinsic theory under which, logically, a thing is either good or evil…..what is sometimes good may at other times be evil, and what is sometimes wrong may sometimes be right when it serves a good enough end-depending on the situation.' (pp. 122-123) 'In short, is there any real "law" of universal weight? The situationist thinks not.' (p. 146)The purpose for this lesson, is that the above ideas are making inroads into the Church. Cecil Hook, wrote a book entitle Free In Christ. In the fifth chapter of that book he writes, 'Even the most rigid of God's laws were not always inflexible. There are examples showing that in certain circumstances there was elasticity in the most absolute laws.' (p. 34) 'These "violations" became good because of the higher motives which prompted them…Sometimes it is easier to keep legal specifics than to make responsible decisions.' (p. 37) In this lesson I want to address some of the errors which Hook and others are spreading.
I. Commands And Love:
Both Fletcher and Hook are under the impression that commands revealed in the Scriptures may not always be the loving thing to do. Even denominational writers can see the error in this. Peter Wagner, in Eternity Magazine wrote, 'Fletcher says that love is the only norm of ethics. But what is love? How is it's context defined? We need the rest of the Bible to guide us as to just what the law of love expects from us.' (February 1967)
Points to Note:
1. To Love God and your neighbor as yourself are commandments (Matthew 22:36-39). In addition, these two commandments do not override all other commands, rather they embrace and include every law of God (Matthew 22:40 'On these two depend the whole Law and the Prophets').
2. Notice what Paul said, 'For this, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."' (Romans 13:9) Regardless of the situation, love will never prompt one to commit adultery, murder, steal or transgress any law of God! 'Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.' (Romans 13:10) What will love always do in reference to the commands of God? Will love violate them? Or will love fulfill them?
3. The very definition of love argues against love ever involving itself in something that is sinful, 'Love…does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth' (1 Corinthians 13:4-6). The 'truth' isn't something which is left up to each individual to decide upon for themselves, rather God has already defined what is and what isn't truth, that is, the Word of God is truth (John 17:17).
4. Jesus knew all about grace, mercy, and love and yet Jesus never argued that love takes precedence over the commands of God. Rather, He argued that every command of God is an expression of authentic love (John 14:15 'If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.') John wrote, 'but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected' (1 John 2:5). It is obvious that both Fletcher and Hook completely misunderstand what is means to love God and others.
II. Rahab:
Hook argues that while the Bible condemns lying, 'But the Bible gives record of other persons who were dishonest and were not punished…Rahab lied and deceived in protecting the spies (Joshua 2:1f). Yet she is listed among the heroes of faith for that very reason.' (pp. 34-35)
Points to Note:
1. It is dangerous to argue that simply because a person wasn't immediately punished that God approved of their behavior (Noah's drunkenness-Genesis 9:21; Sarah's lack of faith-Genesis 16:2-5).
2. Others were punished! (Acts 5:1-11) And it could be argued that Rahab as well as Ananias and Sapphira were all seeking a good end, that is trying to help the people of God.
3. And let it be noted that nothing in Hebrews chapter 11 commends Rahab for her deception. Rather, the text says, 'after she had welcomed the spies in peace.' To say that she is praised for her deception, makes about as much sense as saying that she was praised for being a harlot. If we can say, 'Rahab lied and deceived, yet she is listed among the heroes of faith' (lying isn't always wrong), why can't we argue, 'Rahab was a harlot, yet she is listed among the heroes of faith as being a harlot', therefore adultery and fornication are not always wrong.
4. In addition, those mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11 are not praised for their sins (Noah, Abraham, Sarah, David). Is David praised for his adultery? (11:32)
III. Tired, Worn Out Arguments:
Fletcher and Hook both attempt to undermine the Word of God by using the same old worn out illustration. They would contend that lying isn't always wrong, because if someone breaks into your house, lying about the whereabouts of the other family members isn't wrong.
Points To Note:
1. Who is going to have a conversation with someone breaking into their house? Aren't you going to spend your time calling the police, getting the gun and so on?
2. If you tell them there is no one home, do you think they are going to believe you?
3. Hook thinks that defending yourself (killing or injuring the attacker) and lying are moral equivalents. He needs to spend more time reading his bible. Self defense has always been right (Exodus 22:2).
4. But if such men are right, then deception and lying are always right when it comes to our own personal safety. Therefore, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego needlessly risked their lives when they refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar's image (Daniel 3:16-18). And Daniel should have known that he could have lied, and claimed that he wasn't praying to God, in order to escape from the lion's den (Daniel 6:13f).
5. And what about Peter's denial of Jesus? Wasn't Peter's life in possible jeopardy?
IV. Matthew 12:1-8:
'David and his famished men, fighting for a just cause, could not have been denied the only available food with mercy.' (p. 36)
Points To Note:
1. Such is an irresponsible use of Matthew 12:1-8. Is God (Jesus) arguing against His own laws? It is clear that Jesus is not trying to justify the actions of guilty men, for His disciples had done nothing wrong (12:7 '..you would not have condemned the innocent').
2. Jesus brings up the example of the priests, not because God gave two laws which conflicted with each other, and one therefore overrides the other. But rather, because the Pharisees' interpretation concerning what constituted work on the Sabbath Day was incorrect. Their interpretation would have condemned their own priests.
(2 Samuel 6:6-7).
3. The example of David is not introduced to justify what David did, for Jesus plainly says, 'which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him' (12:4). But the Pharisees had excused David's actions in their commentaries, they held the same view as Hook and others, that the 'need' or the 'good end' justified setting aside God's law. Jesus doesn't agree! His point is that the Pharisees were condemning His disciples for doing something that wasn't wrong (12:1-2) and yet they let David off the hook for doing something that was clearly wrong.
4. To argue as Hook does, you would have to conclude that God is inconsistent and arbitrary. David is excused, but Uzzah was struck dead, and yet both of them were sincere, both were attempting to create a good end
V. The Sabbath Day:
Hook argues that when Jesus healed on the Sabbath Day, that Jesus was in fact violating the Sabbath command. 'Jesus explained, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The law was made for the good of man. Man was not made to fit arbitrary laws. If, in a specific instance, our efforts to keep the law hinder or prevent the principles of justice, mercy, faith, or love, then the higher principle must take precedence. The principle is greater than the law intended to promote it.' (p. 37)
Points To Note:
1. Jesus did not violate the laws concerning the Sabbath Day. Rather, He was only transgressing the Pharisees' interpretation of what constituted work on that day. Doing good on the Sabbath had never been forbidden (Matthew 12:11-12; Leviticus 23:3; 23:27-28; 36-37).
2. Hook is accusing Jesus of deliberately breaking the laws of God, to prove that they weren't binding in all situations.
3. Healing on the Sabbath was right, not merely because of the 'good end', but because it had never been wrong to begin with.
4. He also accuses God of being short-sighted in the laws that He gave. Why would God give a law, if He knew that such would prevent people from extending justice and mercy? If God truly knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), then couldn't this same God design legislation which would work in any given situation?
5. What Hook is also saying (as does Fletcher), is that human wisdom and reasoning must often take precedence over divine revelation. Such men keep telling us to look for the higher principle. But what is the higher principle underlying Paul's condemnation of the works of the flesh? (Galatians 5:19-21) What is the higher principle in the following passages? (Matthew 6:33; Luke 14:26; Revelation 2:10 'Be faithful until death'; Matthew 7:21 'but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven'; 7:24 'Everyone who hears these words of mine and acts upon them.')
(Isaiah 55:8-9; Proverbs 16:25; 3:5).
6. We have been given Divine revelation for the precise reason that man, with his own wisdom, is blind. God ways are not always our ways
VI. Abortion/Suicide/Euthanasia:
He claims that he isn't defending euthanasia, but before this statement he had talked about the family dog they had put to sleep and then says, 'If we can show such compassion to an animal, can we not let one whom we dearly love die with dignity and mercy?' (p. 38) He says, 'Perhaps we should re-appraise the matter of suicide in this context…In fact, he links the death of Christ to this topic, 'He consented to die and accepted the responsibility for it.' (p. 39) Concerning abortion, he writes, 'Abortion is a big issue now. It is not mentioned in the Bible. No one can prove when life begins by the Bible. And that is not necessary, except for the legalist. In each circumstance, a decision can best be made by asking, "What is the most loving, just, and merciful choice for those involved, both for the unborn and the mother?"' (p. 39)
Points To Note:
1. The Bible does define when life begins, if physical life is present then the soul is present (James 2:26 'the body without the spirit is dead').
2. The baby in the womb is alive and he or she is a real person (Luke 1:41; 2:12), just as real and human as the baby outside the womb.
3. Please note what this man is advocating (whether he completely realizes it or not). If his definition of love and mercy dictates that the child should be aborted (because if would cause embarrassment to the mother or family, put a financial strain on the family, the child would be born into poverty, an unloving family, and so on), then love would demand that all children in similar circumstances must be aborted. Fletcher does come to this conclusion, 'no unwanted or unintended baby should ever be born.' (p. 39) In cases of rape he argues, that the baby 'is no more innocent, no less an aggressor or unwelcome invader! Is not the most loving thing possible (the right thing) in this case a responsible decision to terminate the pregnancy?' (p. 39) Please read Deuteronomy 24:16.Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ.