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.
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.
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)
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?
'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. 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 (2 Samuel 6:6-7).
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.') 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 (Isaiah
55:8-9; Proverbs 16:25; 3:5).
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 with 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.