Most readers will recognize the label, "SITUATION ETHICS." You have probably heard of it, but you may not be certain what it is. If you haven't studied this issue, I believe it will be good for you to know what this is, and what the Bible says in reply. To avoid any confusion, let me clarify...
WHAT SITUATION ETHICS ISN'T!
1. It isn't a matter of changing a traditional practice or custom. We do not do everything just the way our ancestors did. We don't dress like them, and we have many ways of doing things and customs they didn't know. Changes take place from generation to generation, and this isn't necessarily bad. YES! If there is a change from doing good to doing bad, that is wrong. YES! If there is a change from following God's Word to following the vain reasonings of men, that is wrong. But, in matters of method and human judgment (things morally neutral), there are changes - and this isn't the same as situation ethics.
2. Situation ethics isn't the same as duty being dependent on circumstances or conditions. In a lot of ways, duty is dependent on circumstances and/or conditions. This isn't the same as situation ethics. ILLUSTRATION: In the matter of generosity or benevolence, the duty to share depends upon the condition or qualification of the recipient (see 2 Thess. 3:10). I am not under obligation to give to one who is able, but will not work for a living; and is making no effort to secure his own living.
3. The approach we take in dealing with problems, must take into account the nature of the problem ... and this isn't situation ethics. We are to warn those who are unruly; comfort those who are fainthearted, and uphold those who are weak (1 Thess. 5:14; Jude 22,23).
4. Finally, in some cases, the Bible attaches exceptions to its' own rules. Wives should submit to the authority of their husbands and obey them (Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1). Yet, the Bible clearly implies an important exception to this rule: If the husband requires his wife to sin, in that case she cannot and must not obey (Col. 3:18; Acts 5:29). Is this situation ethics? NO!
What is Situation Ethics? It is a matter of setting aside the law of God, because, in the judgment of the person, the law of God just won't work in a particular situation. This is the theory of ethics known as "situation ethics," and we'll explain it further and see what God's Word says, in the next article.
An Example
Situation ethics is the label given to a popular belief about God's law and man's obligation to it (or in this case, lack of obligation). It is simply a matter of setting aside the law of God, because in the judgment of the individual, the law of God just won't work in some situation.
You've heard people remark: "Well, I believe God's law is good and we should obey it ... but in certain situations, or under certain circumstances, I believe it would be all right to set aside some law of God." What they are really saying is: I'll follow God's law, until such a time as I think it won't work; then, I'll do what I want. This is the essence of situation ethics.
Here's an example of situation ethics: The Bible sets forth the rule: DO NOT LIE! In Colossians 3:9, the apostle Paul plainly says: "Do not lie to one another," and in Ephesians 4:25, we are commanded to put away lying and speak truth with our neighbor. God has spoken: DO NOT LIE!
The false doctrine of situation ethics says: "That's fine, but there are special situations that come up where this rule won't work; situations where it wouldn't be wrong to go ahead and lie."
So, even though the all wise, authoritative God has decreed: DO NOT LIE! Some believe they can find situations where God's rule isn't good, or won't work! Those who believe in and practice situation ethics are busy finding loopholes, mitigating circumstances and a variety of conditions where God's law should be suspended ... because, in the judgment of the individual, this is the thing to do.
The all-time champion of situation ethics is JOSEPH FLETCHER. While serving as Professor of Social Ethics, Episcopal Theological School at Cambridge, Fletcher wrote a book advancing situation ethics: "SITUATION ETHICS: The New Morality."
According to Fletcher, you go into every situation, or you approach every moral decision with the principles of the Bible. But, you must always be prepared to be flexible; make exceptions and recognize where God's law won't work. You are to evaluate every situation carefully, consider the alternatives and their consequences, and then DO WHATEVER LOVE DEMANDS. His position is that "love" is absolute, but obedience to God's law is secondary. He says, that in many situations the best thing to do is disobey the law of God.
May I recommend - the Christian's position is, to go into every situation with the law of God, ready to obey His law regardless of the consequences. The child of God understands something Fletcher will not admit, that "the law of the Lord is perfect," (Psa. 19:7; Jas. 1:25). And we believe that
"His divine power hath granted unto us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness," (2 Pet. 1:3).
James 2:25
Does James 2:25 teach situation ethics? "Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" The typical argument is: Here is a woman who was a prostitute, and to protect the spies SHE LIED; yet, she is held up as a hero of faith by James. But consider what is often overlooked:
1. IF THE ADVOCATES OF SITUATION ETHICS CAN QUOTE FROM JAMES, SO CAN WE. "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to them that love him," (1:12). James teaches - in temptation, we should seek to overcome, endure and be approved. Those who argue for situation ethics represent temptations as occasions where we may decide to go ahead and sin. Note also, these statements from James, which go against the theory of situation ethics: 1:15, 1:22, 4:17. If those who promote situation ethics can quote from James, so can we.
2. WE MUST KEEP IN MIND THE MAIN POINT JAMES IS STRESSING IN CHAPTER TWO. His main point certainly isn't to recommend lying or prostitution; he isn't trying to prove that "in certain situations" these things would be excusable. His main point is: faith must express itself in action. In the case of Abraham, faith expressed itself in action. Likewise, Rahab believed what the spies said, and acted. THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THE WRITER'S REFERENCE TO HER. He is simply illustrating the concept of believing, then doing something because you believe!
3. IN VERSES 21 & 25, SPECIFIC EVENTS are under consideration. Verse 21 is not the final verdict as to the entire life and character of Abraham; it's a reference to A SINGLE EVENT in his life, that illustrates faith acting. Likewise, verse 25 is not the final verdict on the whole life and character of Rahab; it's a reference to another single event, which also illustrates faith acting.
The whole point is: If you really believe something, you'll act on it; and your action will show you really believed ... in regard to that particular, single thing. So, Rahab doesn't help situation ethics at all. And James made one of the strongest cases against situation ethics when he told us to be doers of the word, not just hearers.
Matt. 12:1-8
{Begin this study by reading Matt. 12:1-8.}
Those who argue in the interest of situation ethics LOVE THIS PASSAGE. They believe this text gives divine or biblical endorsement favoring situation ethics. Their argument is - it was wrong, ordinarily, for these disciples to do this (pluck heads of grain and eat), but in this "special situation" they didn't have to obey. Looking further into the passage, they argue -- David practiced situation ethics, and the Lord condoned it; and "the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless." Consider the passage through the perspective of these questions:
DID THE LORD'S DISCIPLES VIOLATE OLD TESTAMENT LAW? It says that "His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat." Luke's account says: they "plucked the heads of grain and ate them, rubbing them in their hands." This was not a violation of anything in the Old Testament; all they did was to eat a meal, and this was permitted on the Sabbath. This wasn't harvest work (which was prohibited). There is no evidence of extensive preparations of a meal, which was prohibited. It was simply a matter of these men eating, and this wasn't in violation of Old Testament law. I don't believe these disciples violated any precept or ordinance of the law they were under (the Old Testament).
WHY WERE THEY ACCUSED THEN? The disciples were accused of doing something unlawful, because they had violated - NOT GOD'S LAW ... BUT THE PHARISEES' LAW! There is no evidence the disciples violated any actual Old Testament law. But they had violated the human additions, the cherished traditions held by the Pharisees!
WHAT WAS THE MEANING OF THIS APPEAL JESUS MADE TO THE CASE OF DAVID (verses 3 & 4)? David (see 1 Sam. 21:1-6) not only ate consecrated bread, he lied! Jesus doesn't appeal to David's case to prove His disciples were right; He appeals to David's case to prove how hypocritical and inconsistent these Pharisees were! They were condemning the innocent (the disciples), and acquitting the guilty (David, whom they regarded as a hero). (Note, in verse 4, Jesus plainly says that David did that which "was not lawful!")
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF VERSE 5? "Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" The man-made rules of the Pharisees (in regard to the Sabbath) were so absolute; so rigid and restrictive ... an application of their rule would make it impossible for the priests to do what they had to do on that day! (See Mrk. 7:8).
WHAT IS THE POINT, in verses 6-8? The point is - the superiority of Jesus above the rules, regulations and interpretations of the Pharisees! Jesus fully understood what the Sabbath law actually said in the Old Testament, and He fully understood that the "weightier matters" of the law gave the rituals and sacrifices their validity.
Thus, there is nothing in Matthew 12 to endorse, justify or teach situation ethics. SITUATION ETHICS is just another man-made effort to circumvent the law of God, create loop holes and excuse disobedience.
WRONG IS ALWAYS WRONG. You may not get caught ... it may be for a "good cause," ... other people may be doing things that are worse ... it may not bother your conscience ... the majority may approve of it ... it may be enjoyable ... the situation may be difficult ... but WRONG IS ALWAYS WRONG.
"O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps," (Jeremiah 10:23).
Conclusion
Situation Ethics amounts to this: setting aside the law of God or the obligation to comply with some part of it, because in the judgment of the individual, the law of God just won't work in some special situation. My objections are as follows:
1. SITUATION ETHICS IS AN INSULT TO GOD. There may be some people who have embraced this doctrine without any definite intention to insult God, but when you look at the essence of this doctrine - this is the effect: it is an insult to God.
This is so, for the moral law of God (given in the Bible) is a perfect law, given by a perfect God! "The law of the Lord is perfect," and in the New Testament we have "the perfect law of liberty," (Psa. 19:7; Jas. 1:25). The apostle Peter asserts that "His divine power hath granted unto us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness," (2 Pet. 1:3). Note: When we take this perfect body of law, this standard that is so well adapted to man - and decide that some part of it won't work in the situation we are in, we naturally reflect on the Giver of that law!
I would recommend - if we will study and learn the principles of the Bible; if we will completely devote ourselves to the wisdom, the rules, the warnings and prohibitions in this book --- there isn't any moral dilemma nor ethical question that can't be addressed! Even in those circumstances where we are not certain or ignorant, we can follow the course of safety. The Word of God is adequate to every human situation; His law is sufficient for whatever circumstance we find ourselves in.
Joseph Fletcher, and other advocates of situation ethics, are really implying that God's law is pretty good, but NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO HANDLE EVERY SITUATION. Situation ethics insults God.
2. SITUATION ETHICS OVER-ESTIMATES HUMAN WISDOM. There is great potential in the human intellect, and there are many very knowledgeable people in the world - but I deny that any person is smart enough to say that some part of God's law can be set aside in some special situation. If we practice situation ethics, we are really saying to the Father: "Lord, here is a situation your law doesn't cover; here is a circumstance I am in, and I've decided to disobey your law." Not only is that thinking an insult to God ... but I don't believe man is so smart, as to be qualified to set in judgment of God's law! "But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge," (Jas. 4:11b).
Situation ethics is one of many human theories which over-estimates human wisdom. It is "not in man" to direct his own steps (Jer. 10:23).
3. THE BIBLE REQUIRES OBEDIENCE. Man owes a debt of obedience to the Creator, and the Creator has not given us the right to suspend His law when we want to! "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments!" (1 Jno. 5:3).
WRONG IS ALWAYS WRONG. You may not get caught ... it may be for a "good cause," ... other people may be doing things that are worse ... it may not bother your conscience ... the majority may approve of it ... it may be enjoyable ... the situation may be difficult ... but WRONG IS ALWAYS WRONG.
"O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps," (Jeremiah 10:23).
