CHRISTIAN ETHICS
Situation Ethics
 History: Desire to be freed from
dictates of higher authority
• Self-indulgence, freedom from
restrictions
• Dominates American moral
landscape
 Israelites an example (Ex. 32:6,
19)
 Prodigal son an example (Luke
15:11-32)
 History: Desire to be freed from
dictates of higher authority
• Self-indulgence, freedom from
restrictions
• Dominates American moral
landscape
 Israelites an example (Ex. 32:6,
19)
 Prodigal son an example (Luke
15:11-32)
Situation Ethics
Situationism (situation ethics)
widely accepted by non-believers
and believers in God
 Philosophy that all ethics
depend on the immediate
situation
Rationale of Situationism
 No absolute right or wrong
• Only love for fellow man is
intrinsically good
• Only malice intrinsically evil
 No absolute laws to be kept
• Every situation is different
• “Love” makes judgment
• Principles are only relative
Rationale of Situationism
 With love attitude, law not needed
• Human judgment the standard,
human wisdom the guide – man
is autonomous (I.e., self law)
• Situationist hesitate to define
love – usually “concern for
neighbor”
Rationale of Situationism
 Principles upon which it is based
• Pragmatism – end justifies the
means
• Relavitism – Everything is
relative to situation, there is no
absolute good or absolute evil
• Subjectivism – Decisions by
loving will, not rationalistic
thought [fact, logic]
Rationale of Situationism
 Principles upon which it is based
(continued)
• Humanism – man is supreme,
not laws
 Not a 21st century phenomenon
• Traced to Adam and Eve (Gen.
3:4-6)
Situation Ethics
 The situation ethics of nonbelievers in God
• Best set forth in Humanist
Manifestos I & II
• The evolutionary, humanistic
system of origins cannot
account for any kind of
objective moral / ethical system
Situation Ethics
Situation ethics of non-believers
in God (continued)
 Claim that ethics is autonomous
is a contradiction
• Cannot be a situation in which
a person could do wrong?
• Ethical autonomy and
situational morality are
mutually exclusive
• George H. Walser
founded town of
Liberal, MO
• Objective: found a
town without a
church or Christians
• Clark Braden (1885)
wrote article in St. Louis PostDispatch, describing how terribly
immoral the town had become
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885
Situation Ethics
 The situation ethics of nonbelievers in God (continued)
• To contend that there is not any
ultimate standard of ethical
truth, leaves no choice but to
accept a relativistic system of
ethics
Situation Ethics
 The situation ethics of believers
in God
• Cloak their philosophical
similarity with atheism by
identifying it as the “new
morality
• Chief spokesman is Joseph
Fletcher
Situation Ethics: The New Morality
by Joseph Fletcher
 Words that are absolutistic such
as “never,” “always,” “no,” and
“only” are to be avoided
• Only absolute is “love
 Biblical injunctions are only
generally or provisionally true
• Exceptions to every command
and precept
Situation Ethics: The New Morality
by Joseph Fletcher
 Three approaches to follow in
making moral decisions:
1.Legalistic (cf. Absolutism) –
there is an absolute, objective
standard of right and wrong
[grounded in the holy nature of
God Himself], set forth in Bible
Situation Ethics: The New Morality
by Joseph Fletcher
 Three approaches to follow in
making moral decisions:
2.Antinomian (cf. Nihilism) – there
are no rules for human conduct
[absolutely none]; according to
this ideology, every person is a
law unto himself
Situation Ethics: The New Morality
by Joseph Fletcher
 Three approaches to follow in
making moral decisions:
3.Situational (cf. Relativism)
a.A balance between
“antinomianism” (no law) and
“legalism” (bound by law)
b.“Love” is the sole factor in
making moral judgments
Situation Ethics: The New Morality
by Joseph Fletcher
 Twist the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16)
 Ethical maxims of his community
and its heritage
 Fletcher attempts to justify his
position with the illustration of a
woman who commits adultery in
order to get pregnant, and
thereby be released from Russian
prison and be reunited with her
family
Fundamental Error in
Situational “Reasoning”
1.Fail to see Bible teaching on the
central concern of human beings:
love, honor, glorify, & obey God
a.Eccl. 12:13
e.2 Cor. 5:9
b.Micah 6:8
f. 2 Cor. 10:5
c.Matt. 22:37
g.1 Pet. 4:11
d.1 Cor. 6:20
 Fletcher silent concerning this
 While love for fellow man is
essential (Lk. 10:25-37), it must be
viewed subsumed beneath
responsibility of loving God
 Can’t love God if not love fellow
man (1 Jn. 4:20-21)
 Bible reveals how to love God and
fellow man – do’s and don’ts
(1 John 5:3; John 14:15)
 Thus, love for fellow man is not
the only intrinsic good
 Bible teaches:
• Intrinsic good includes love for
others
• But, love for God supercedes
(Matt. 22:35-37)
 God defines [in Bible] what love
entails toward God and man
Fundamental Error in
Situational “Reasoning”
2.Subtle redefinition of “love”
a.Idea of love is materialistic and
secular, rather than scriptural
or spiritual
b.Fletcher: love is what each
decides is good and best in a
given situation
 Fletcher makes love and law
mutually exclusive
• Bible teaches law and love are
mutually interrelated
• Love preceded by faith and
followed by obedience (Jn.
14:15; 1 Jn. 2:3-5; 4:19-21; 5:2f)
• Love acts in harmony with the
will of God
 Fletcher’s perception of love is
self-contradictory: “love” is the
sole factor in making moral
judgments
 Two quotes from Norman Geisler
 Fletcher: man and circumstances
are criteria or defining morality,
not God
notice
 Bible does not place law and love
in contradistinction to each other
 Can’t love without law
 “Love is the fulfilling of the law”
(Rom. 13:19):
• Verse is not saying love while
dispensing with law [Fletcher]
• But, when behave in genuine
loving manner, you are in
harmony with the law
• If we treat law as optional, then
undermine foundation of love
 Fletcher assumes love is no-rule
cure-all for all moral problems
• Like two football teams playing
game with no rules except
“fairness”
• Fairness according to whom:
teams? Referees? Spectators?
Sports writers?
• This line of argument is utter
nonsense
 Situationism assumes that each
one is able to always precisely
predict what is the most loving
course to take
• Who can foretell consequences
for all parties in what we do?
• Christian ethics means more
than solving the immediate
problem
• Who is able to foretell in
advance consequences of
lying, adultery,murder, etc.
• Dr. William Banowsky – case
of Mrs. Bergmeir
• Wayne Jackson – scenario
• Wayne Jackson - martyrs
 Love is sole factor in making
moral judgments – yet unable to
define love, it is purely subjective
 “There are absolutely no
absolutes” is oxymoron
 With inability to define love, the
absolute of love does not seem
to be absolute
 Situationism – man is standard of
morality
• Human mind, with its subjective
perceptions of the surrounding
moral environment (cf. Jer.
10:23)
 “Love” = “personalism” = highest
good is welfare and happiness
• What man thinks will make him
happy, not what God reveals
 Situationism: sin not transgress
of of God’s law (cf. 1 John 3:4) –
but withholding what is perceived
to be means of happiness
 By Fletcher’s definition of sin,
many thought to be sinners in
Bible were acting lovingly: Eve,
Cain, Lot and Lot’s wife, Nadab
and Abihu, Balaam, Saul, Uzzah
• Fletcher’s definition of sin
makes many thought to be
righteous were actually sinners,
unloving toward their
fellowman: Noah, Joseph,
Joshua and Caleb, Phinehas,
Joshua, John the baptizer
Revealing Illustrations
of Situationism
Situationist approves of:
•
•
•
•
•
Divorce
Suicide
Adultery
Lying
Stealing
•
•
•
•
Living together
Homosexuality
Extramarital sex
Abortion
“Freedom in Christ” = relieved
of “burden” of a “legal code”
Proof Texts
Situation Ethics
Adulterous Woman (Jn. 8:1-11)
 Error: God is not “technical”
– Jesus released from
strictness of God’s law in
order to forgive
 Law stated must 3 witnesses
(Deut. 17:6; 19:15)
 Law stated both man & woman to
be executed (Deut. 22:22)
 “He who is without sin…cast the
first stone” (v. 7)
Not a blanket prohibition
against accusing,
Notice
disciplining, or punishing
• Discipline commanded (Rom.
16:17; 1 Cor. 5; Gal. 6:1-2; 2
Ths. 3:6,14; Tit. 3:10; 2 Jn. 9-11)
• Jesus passed judgment (Matt.
15:14; 23; John 8:44, 55; 9:41)
• Jesus enjoined followers to do
the same (John 7:24)
• Apostles judged (Acts 8:23; 1
Cor. 5:12-13)
• Matt. 7:1, 5; cf. John 7:24
 Law stated must 3 witnesses
(Deut. 17:6; 19:15)
 Law stated both man & woman to
be executed (Deut. 22:22)
 “He who is without sin…cast the
first stone” (v. 7)
Then what did
His words mean?
Notice
• Like Paul (Rom. 2:1, 22),
exposing hypocrisy, which
disqualifies their action (Matt.
7:5 – cf. Gal. 6:1)
• They and her adulterous
partner conspired this plot
• Now, no witnesses, therefore
no first stone (Deut. 17:7; cf.
John 8:10-11)
• “Sin no more” (v. 11)
Therefore:
Jesus avoided the trap - showed
respect for the law
He did not break law in order to
forgive – this would relegate law
to secondary importance (cf. Dt.
6:24; 10:13; Psa. 19:7-11; Rom.
7:12)
Jesus only person to comply to
Law perfectly (Mt. 5:17; 2 Cor.
5:21; Heb. 4:15)
Proof Texts
Situation Ethics
Rahab’s lie (Josh. 2:4-6)
 Error: Rahab is commended
for her lie (Heb. 11:31; Jas.
2:25)
• Rahab’s lie is never condoned
• Rahab is commended for her
obedient faith, in spite of her
character flaw
Consider the immoral, pagan
culture she was just now
leaving
• God’s word condemns all lying
(Rev. 21:8)
Proof Texts
Situation Ethics
The Spirit and Letter of the law
(2 Cor. 3:4-18)
 Error:
• Distinction between letter
of the law and spirit of the
law
• May need to violate the
letter, in order to keep the
spirit
 This error breeds relaxed
attitude toward obedience
 See misuse of 2 phrases (vs. 6,
17)
 Assume “letter” = command;
“spirit” = attitude, feelings –
spirit is to over-ride letter
 Must consider entire context of
2 Cor. 3
Notice
Context:
 “letter” = O. T.; “spirit” = N. T.
(cf. Rom. 2:29; 7:6) – see chart,
p. 18 of outline
 O. T. legal system unable to
provide ultimate forgiveness
 Took Jesus’ death to make life
[cleansing of sin] possible
 Thus, these verses have nothing
to do with “spirit vs. letter”
contention
Context:
 “letter” = O. T.; “spirit” = N. T.
(cf. Rom. 2:29; 7:6) – see chart,
p. 18 of outline
 O. T. legal system unable to
provide ultimate forgiveness
 Took Jesus’
death
to make life
See
McGarvey
[cleansing article,
of sin] possible
p. 19 in
 Thus, these verses
have nothing
outline
to do with “spirit vs. letter”
contention
 If use “spirit of law” = attitude,
and “letter of law” = obedience to
Bible, then one can disregard the
spirit of law while following the
letter of law
 Love includes obedience (Jn.
14:15) – then possible to obey
without love, but not vice versa
 Thus to say love legitimizing
disobedience contradicts Bible
 If use “spirit of law” = attitude,
and “letter of law” = obedience to
Bible, then one can disregard the
spirit of law while following the
letter of law
See chart, p. 21
 Love includesinobedience
outline (Jn.
14:15) – then possible to obey
without love, but not vice versa
 Thus to say love legitimizing
Notice
disobedience contradicts Bible
 To emphasize one dimension of
obedience over the other is to
displease God
 Examples of those who
possessed form without
sincerity:
• Pharisees (Mt. 23:3)
• Ananias & Sapphira (Acts 5:2-4)
• Israel (Amos 5:21-24)
 Examples of those who
possessed sincerity without
form:
• Paul (Acts 22:3; 23:1)
• Cornelius (Acts 10:1f)
• Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:6)
• Nadab & Abihu (Lev. 10:1-3)
• Sabbath breaker (Nu. 15:32-36)
• Moses (Nu. 20:11f)
• Saul (1 Sam. 13:13f; 15:12f)
O. T. examples are illustrations
to not disobey (Rom. 15:4;
1 Cor. 10:11)
Obedient faith is acceptable
(Heb. 11; James 2)
Worship in truth (John 4:23f)
Proof Texts
Situation Ethics
Plucking Corn on the Sabbath
(Matt. 12:1-8)
 Error:
• Disciples broke the
Sabbath
• David was justified when
he disobeyed
• “Love Jesus vs. love the
law”
 Shifts standard for decision
making to emotion, feelings, and
subjective perception
 Truth: not either/or but both/and
(John 14:15, 23; 1 John 5:3; 1 Th.
2:10)
 Why would God give His law and
then have us ignore it
 Man incapable of determining
right on his own (Jer. 10:3, Prov.
21:2; 16:2)
Meaning of Matt. 12:1-8:
 Disciples’ action lawful (Matt.
12:7; cf Dt. 23:25; Ex. 12:16)
 Jesus illustrates their hypocrisy
and prejudice with case of David
• While tired and hungry, David
lied and deceived (1 Sam. 21)
• Bread for priests only (Lev.
24:8f; cf. Ex. 29:31-34)
• Pharisees honored David, but
condemned disciples
Meaning of Matt. 12:1-8:
 Jesus noted priests worked in
temple on Sabbath (12:5; e.g.,
Num 28:9-10)
• Blameless (v. 5) because their
work was authorized [see
examples on p. 26 in outline]
• “Profane” – by assumed
appearance only (e.g., Gen.
37:10; Lk. 2:48; Jn. 6:42; 1 Cor.
1:21; Gen. 18:16; 19:10)
Meaning of Matt. 12:1-8:
 Jesus next notes that if priests
can serve God on Sabbath, so
He and His disciples (vs. 6-8)
 Service to Jesus is greater
than temple service
 “I desire mercy and not
sacrifice” (Hos. 6:6) – statement
against mere superficial
observance of law (cf. Mt. 15:6;
23:23; Micah 6:6-8; 1 Sam. 15:15)
Meaning of Matt. 12:1-8:
 Jesus next notes that if priests
can serve God on Sabbath, so
He and His disciples (vs. 6-8)
 Service to Jesus is greater
If Pharisees had
than temple service
understood these things,
 “I desire mercy and not
they would not have
sacrifice” (Hos. 6:6) – statement
accused the disciples of
against mere superficial
Sabbath breaking (v. 7)
observance of law (cf. Mt. 15:6;
23:23; Micah 6:6-8; 1 Sam. 15:15)
Meaning of Matt. 12:1-8:
 Jesus concludes by asserting
the accuracy of His message (v.
8)
 Confirms His deity,
authoritative credibility for
making accurate application of
the Law of Moses
Notice
 Mt. 12 does not sanction
violation of His law under
extenuating circumstances
 His laws never optional, relative,
or situational (e.g., Jn. 6:60; Mt.
11:6; 15:12; 19:22; Mk. 6:3; 1 Cor.
1:23)
 If heart is receptive to God’s will,
His will is not a burden (Mt.
11:30; Dt. 30:11; 1 Jn. 5:3)
 If heart resists His will, God’s
word is a burden (Mt. 15:12; Jn.
6:60; Mt. 7:14; Jer. 23:29; Mt.
21:44)
Proof Texts
Situation Ethics
“Legalism”
 Error: If do not have open
attitude toward morals [i.e.
situationalism] then one is
“intolerant,” “meanspirited,” “negative,” “lacks
compassin,” “legalistic”
 To situatiionist “Legalism” = too
much attention to legal details,
complete obedience
 “legalism” not occur in Bible
 Those spoken of as “legalist”
because they trusted their own
righteousness (Lk. 18:11f; Prov.
25:27; Rom. 12:3) – merit
salvation (Lk. 17:10; Rom. 3:918, 23; 11:35; 1 Cor. 9:16)
 To situatiionist “Legalism” = too
much attention to legal details,
complete obedience
 “legalism” not occur in Bible
 Those spoken of as “legalist”
because they trusted their own
righteousness (Lk. 18:11f; Prov.
25:27; Rom. 12:3) – merit
Notice
salvation (Lk. 17:10; Rom. 3:918, 23; 11:35; 1 Cor. 9:16)
 God condemns the proud who
trusts in his own goodness,
merits God’s grace (Lk. 18:9-14;
Rom. 9:31-33)
 God commends faithfulness
(John 14:15; Rom. 2:6-7, 13; 6:16;
Heb. 5:9)
 Difference between the above is
attitude – which only God can
perceive (Lk. 6:8)
Pharisees – example of legalism
• Pretended devotion (Mt. 23:4-7,
25-28)
• Neglected biblical matters of
greater importance (Mt. 23:23f;
Lk. 11:42)
• Misrepresented Mosaic law (Mt.
5:17-48) – elevating human
traditions (Mt. 15:1-9; Mk. 7:1-13)
– say & do not (Mt. 23:2)
Pharisees – example of legalism
• Pretended devotion (Mt. 23:4-7,
25-28)
• Neglected biblical matters of
greater importance (Mt. 23:23f;
Lk. 11:42)
• Misrepresented Mosaic law (Mt.
5:17-48) – elevating human
Notice
traditions (Mt. 15:1-9; Mk. 7:1-13)
– say & do not (Mt. 23:2)
• Not condemned because they
were too zealous about strict
obedience to God’s will!
• God always approved those who
gave great care to please Him
by obeying details (Lev. 10:1-3;
2 Sam. 6:1-7; 1 Chron. 15:12f)
Proof Texts
Situation Ethics
1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23
 Error: statement is proof
that moral absolutes are
not binding in all situations
 Paul referring to legality of
eating foods sacrificed to idols
in contrast with the expediency
of doing so in light of weaker
brothers
 Teaching must be willing to
make concessions on
indifferent, lawful matters for the
sake of weak Christians
 Not saying no absolute laws,
nor God’s law can be set aside
on occasions
 “All things are lawful for me” –
referring to things that are
legally optional