Steve Van Nattan
Ethics has never gone
away. Satan loves this tool from
his ancient tool
A system of the culture, religion, or the individual, generally agreed upon by
all, that there are things we ought to do, and there are things we ought not to
do. Ethics can be codified into law, defined as violations or as crimes punishable
by the justice system. Ethics can also be common law, in that, society simply
adopts them, and they nag one another to comply. An example today is the "politically
correct" obsession in the White Race world.
Ethics- In ethics and
theology, Situation Ethics is the position that moral decision making is contextual
or dependent on a set of circumstances. Situation ethics holds that moral judgments
must be made within the context of the entirety of a situation and that all normative
features of a situation must be viewed as a whole. What is the right thing to
do in one situation may be the wrong thing to do in another situation or location.
ethics was developed by American Anglican theologian Joseph F. Fletcher, whose
book Situation Ethics: The New Morality (1966) arose from his objections
to both moral absolutism (the view that there are fixed universal moral principles
that have binding authority in all circumstances) and moral relativism (the view
that there are no fixed moral principles at all). Fletcher based situation ethics
on the general Christian norm of brotherly love, which is expressed in different
ways in different situations.
problem with situation ethics is that it offers no certainty. Every decision is
up for grabs, and the individual analyzing the situation will color his conclusions
by his own selfish of misguided emotions and observations. Situation Ethics apologists
try to imply that it is their devotion to humanity and God that forces them to
sin so that some good thing will happen. When a culture or religion is governed
by law, it is well known what is right and what is wrong.
ETHICS IS A CONFRONTATION WITH GOD
failure of Situation Ethics:
man is on his way to the hospital after hearing his child was taken there in an
emergency. He comes to a traffic signal, and the light turns red. He decides to
run the red light because he has an emergency more urgent than keeping the law.
The cop pulls him over, and the cop soon learns there is a very serious reason
the man ran the light. The cop now has the choice to give the man ticket and delay
him, or the cop can wave him on and wish him well. If the cop does wave the man
on without ticketing him, the cop is not suspending the law. He is showing mercy,
and these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
ONLY one who can measure the situation against the law is God, NOT YOU. Only God
can decide not to give you what you deserve, which we call mercy. When you decide
to be the arbiter of the law, and revoke the law, God has every just right to
punish you for doing so, even if the little kid got to see his Daddy.
point is, after the law has been broken, or after the cultural code has been offended,
is the time to decide whether or not to show mercy. The law was broken, and the
man should have gotten a ticket. Good law, and good justice, shows mercy. So does
God. But, God never tells us that we can decide when to keep the law and when
to break it.
a lynch mob went looking for an outlaw in the old Wild West, if they caught him,
they were supposed to haul him to a judge for a hearing and verdict before they
hung him. If they hung him without getting the verdict from the judge, the leader
of the lynch mob might be arrested and hanged for murder. The outlaw deserved
to die, but justice depended on the lawful process to be honored.
Ethics is a system of negotiating the law of God, and the culture, which relies
on how I feel about it. This system, if taken to the extreme, would serve the
serial killer well. All he needs to do is convince himself that the people he
kills are offenders in some way, and he is simply eliminating trouble makers.
we can boil it all down to this..... will you determine your choices in life based
on brotherly love, or will you base your life choices on the law of God? Certainly,
God commanded you to love your brother:
10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written
in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength,
and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him,
Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
the order please. We are to FIRST love God, and THEN love our neighbor. Situation
Ethics leaves God out and makes loving my neighbor the total consideration. If
I can commit a sin while doing good to my neighbor, shove over God. It is time
for me to break your law, God.
is a lesson in The Ten Commandments:
shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Honor thy father and thy mother
shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet
If thou canst find a way to break any of my laws in order to do good, thou mayest
break my laws.
first four commandments tell us how to reverence and exalt God in our lives.
last six tell us how to love our brother.
is no Caveat at the end of the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses another 360 laws
to keep in order to please God and live a life that honors God. Nowhere does God
tell Israel how to negotiate his law so that they can break it in order to do
Ethiopian Church has a rule that you are not permitted to lie to your friend to
make him feel good. This is a very old and deep ethical issue with the Ethiopian
culture. You may be talking with another man about some person you both know.
You will make the comment that the third person was very generous to you, and
you will show you approve of him. The man you are talking to despises that third
man being discussed. But, your friend will lie and tell you that he too thinks
very highly of the third man, possibly making up some story which flatters the
third man. This is classic Situation Ethics that was around long before Joseph
Fletcher came up with it. The ethic is, lie if you have to, but it is top priority
to make everyone you talk to feel good.
God care about how you feel about things?
course he does. Consider all the Psalms written by David talking about the good
shepherd and his care for the sheep. The point is, God's care for you does not
come at the price of his law. He knows how to enforce his law and how to comfort
you at the same time.
God care about how your brother feels?
Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of
you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth
the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
6 Humble yourselves therefore under
the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7 Casting all your
care upon him; for he careth for you.
tear jerking emotion soaked tales of sorrow the Situation Ethics gurus tell us
about unwanted pregnancy and brutal husbands..... these stories are designed to
imply that God could not possibly have been serious when he presented his law
to us. This is total blasphemy and makes a witless donkey out of God.
cannot, and will not, change the plan to let you redesign holiness for him or
3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:
and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger
of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when
he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons
of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD
an offering in righteousness.
4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem
be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against
the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against
those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and
that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of
6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not
with it. God has not changed his eternal plan for humanity. While he made a way
for man to repent and confess faith in the substitutionary sacrifice of his Son
on the Cross, God nowhere in the Word of God tells us he has developed a softer
and more fluffy view of sin.
the way, to show where you can end up when you start to button your shirt wrong
at the bottom, Joseph F. Fletcher, who started out as a pastor of a church, became
the father of Situation Ethics, and he ended his life serving as president of
the Euthanasia Society of America (later renamed the Society for the Right to
Die) from 1974 to 1976. He was also a member of the American Eugenics Society
and the Association for Voluntary Sterilization.
started out trying to help people love one another and ended up presiding over
a murder machine.
need to dig a little deeper into this issue.
FIRST SCHOOL OF SITUATION ETHICS
3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD
God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat
of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may
eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree
which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither
shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye
shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
the Serpent, first tried the trick in verse 1 in which he implies that God is
totally depriving Eve of eating from ANY of the trees in the Garden. Eve, very
piously, schools Satan and straightens him out. She tells him she cannot eat of
only one tree.
then goes on to inform Eve that there is something to be gained by disobeying
God. She will become a goddess. Now, that seems to be a great possibility, and
think of all the good she could do as a goddess. She would be like God, and she
would do all sorts of wonderful things to please God.
used the plural "ye" when he offered Eve godhead. Thus, he included
Adam. Eve, by one selfish act, could bring her husband and herself into the Godhead.
What a great opportunity to do good by doing just one little act of evil.
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant
to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit
thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
6 shows the logic of situation ethics is based in self-gratification, not in pleasing
God. Eve would titillate her belly, she would be eating something very pretty,
and she would become wise. In false humility, she ate and then gave the fruit
to her husband. Was she not generous to share godhead with Adam? What a sweet
they suddenly become gods full of wisdom? No, they became naked.
might as well tell you right where this discussion will end. If you indulge in
situation ethics you will become naked, naked before God, naked before your fellow
Christians, and naked in your own eyes. Guilt will be the only emotion, not wisdom,
as Eve imagined.
Ethics can also be called a couple of other things:
Casuistry was invented by a militant Catholic priest named Ignatius Loyola. He
taught that the Roman Church should do evil if some good came out of it. This
is really an old trick, and it was right there in the sin of Eve. She did evil
to seek a good result.
Catholic priests in Tanzania, when I lived there with my missionary parents, would
go to an African beer drink. These were bashes when a huge pot of beer was placed
in he center of a group of men, and they would sit around and use bamboo straws
to slowly sip the pot dry. By the time the pot was empty, the men were laid out
drunk as a Liverpool sailor. At this point, the priests would go through the crowd
and slip a Mary necklace, or a rosary, over the head of each man. When they came
to, the drunks realized they had been made into Catholics while they were stoned.
was Jesuit Casuistry at its worst. Look the other way about the wretched sin in
the man's life, and make him a Catholic converted by a fetish. The Roman Church
has been doing this sort of thing for centuries. The Vatican looks the other way
as its priests live the life of sodomites and Satanists. Malachi Martin exposed
this in his three epic books on the Vatican.
is becoming very common in Christian circles today. When you ask an older Christian
if they have Contemporary Christian Music in their mega church, they will say,
"I personally do not like that music, but it is bringing in the lost and
the youth." These people have decided to box off their convictions on music
in church meetings so that they can go forward in other areas. They may participate
in Sunday School teaching, and they may be on the church board. They do many allegedly
good works in the church. The irony is, across town is a small storefront church
struggling along, singing the old hymns of the faith, and they need a Sunday School
teacher. This flaming hypocrite is simply boxing up music and ignoring it so that
he can hang out with the mega church mob and drink the Starbucks latte between
services. He has passed up the chance to help the little church that is living
the Ethics of the Carpenter of Nazareth.
is the art of dumping the old ways and old paths under the wretched logic that,
"Times change, and we need to change with them." God's holiness does
not change, but your holiness is being trashed as you allow yourself to believe
that "going forward" to new methods and new interpretations of the Bible
pleases God. Thus, while you used to feel comfortable in your soul about the leader
of worship being dressed in a suit and tie, you now rejoice in this fugitive from
a baboon convention with tattoos all over himself dressed in clothes that look
like they came from the "free" box at Goodwill Industries.
all are thrust into situations which force us to make choices. The choice we make
cannot be handed off to a theologian like Joseph Fletcher. We will own the results
of our choices. Here are six.
You are standing in front of you house. A man is walking down the sidewalk who
looks thuggish and ominous, but he is dressed well in a suit and tie. He comes
to your neighbor's driveway. The paper boy has thrown your neighbor's newspaper
on the driveway near the sidewalk. The man looks at your neighbor's house briefly,
and then he stoops over and picks up the newspaper and tucks it under his arm.
you shake your head in disgust, or will you shout at the thug and tell him to
put the paper back where he found it?
risk here is very low. The thug will not really do you any physical harm, but
you will be told to F___ off, and he will probably flip the finger at you. This
will not feel good. He may even threaten you. Will the consequences of doing the
right thing stop you from reacting as you should?
are walking from the super market back to you car. As you approach the parking
lane, someone backs out of a parking space and crunches into another car. They
get out and look at the damage, and they walk back to their car and prepare to
drive away. Will you pull out your cell phone and take a photo of the car? You
will make a lot of trouble for yourself. You will need to wait until the owner
of the damaged car comes out of the store. Then, you will have to give them your
email, or get theirs, and send the photo to them. They may want you to be a witness
later in court, or you may be questioned by the police as a witness. Finally,
the offending party may threaten you and make trouble for you. Will you do the
right thing or let the consequences and situation rule your actions?
is happening now in Europe. I am not making this up.
are walking down the sidewalk, and you come on a woman, usually young, who is
being accosted by two Muslims. One Muslim is in a robe with an embroidered cap.
He is probably a Mullah from the mosque. These men are pressing the women, telling
her she should have a hejab over his head. She is trying to reason with them and
tell them she is not a Muslim, and,"This is a free country, and I do not
have to dress like a Muslim."
you arrive near these people, the woman is clearly showing signs of being threatened
and trying to terminate the discussion. But, the two men will not leave here alone.
will you do? Will you step between the woman and the two men, put your face nose
to nose with them and tell them to shove off? Forget the cell phone trick. These
Muslims beasts do not threaten well. So, if they start shouting in your face,
will you kick one of them in the balls?
are consequences in defending people against Muslims. They love confrontation,
they believe it is a service to Allah to kill you, and you must be ready to become
physical and bash them up. Will you take that risk?
daughter is dating a young man from your church fellowship. He is known as a decent
young man. He comes to you, your daughter's Dad, and asks you if he can start
kissing your daughter, "And stuff like that." The Bible says,
Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good
for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let
every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
you let this loving polite decent well thought of young man kiss your daughter?
The Bible says NO. Why are you even confused and wondering what to do? Do you
believe "times have changed?" What an idiot you are. Times do change,
but human nature, and the libido of men and woman has not changed since Adam looked
at Eve and liked what he saw. The fact is, the young man may need to be run off.
The only thing we can say good about the young man is that he at least asked.
Most good godly young men in the Lord's Church today do not ask for anything,
they take it like Donald Trump.
really appreciate your pastor. He lives an orderly life, and he is a great Bible
teacher. As you drive along the boulevard, you see your pastor's car parked in
front of a cocktail lounge, and as you pass he is coming out of the place with
a woman on his arm who is not his wife.
you simply decide to flee from that Church? Will you decide he may have had a
good reason to be there, and it really is not your job to ask the pastor personal
questions? Or, will you get the pastor alone, tell him what you saw, and ask him
if he can explain why he was escorting a strange woman out of a bar?
consequences are almost 100% predictable. The pastor will tell you there is no
problem, don't worry about it. He may claim he was doing something related to
his ministry. Later, he will go cold with you, and finally, he will push you toward
the door by saying things which are offensive and trouble to you and your family.
You will probably have to move on and look for another church. Will you do the
may also, as one man I know did, find the pastor broken hearted with what he did.
He may need YOU more than anyone else to help him get his victory back and resist
had a young man in a church I pastored who has a problem with drinking and running
to bars. He did not carouse there. He drank himself drunk in a hurry and fled
home. He was miserable in Sunday services the next day on Sunday. He asked me
what he could do. I knew he liked to shoot pool, and there was a pool table in
the recreation building at the KOA campground nearby. The drink machine had no
beer in it. I told him when he got an urge to go to the bar, call me, and we would
go shoot pool until he got over the urge. He did this several times, and he eventually
got victory. But, it was rough for me. He always called on Saturday evening while
I was getting my sermon ready for Sunday. That meant working into the wee hours
of the morning to finish the sermon.
the right thing is not necessarily convenient. It is sometimes very troubling.
But, I promise you this..... Resorting to Situation Ethics will leave you with
a lot more sorrow, and it can leave you with pain in your soul for the rest of
it over with. Be the person Christ would be in your situation. Do the right thing,
and the devil take the hindmost.
are discouraged with the way America, or your nation, is being overwhelmed by
Progressive Liberals. Sin and evil seems to be overtaking the government, and
there is no hope of a leader who will bring back the old ways of "God and
country" which you love.
along comes a man who talks about "make America great again," and he
promised to "drain the swamp." He is elected, and you are pleased you
voted for him.
leader plays the religion card and has high powered preachers praying for him
at various events. The preachers also come to this leader and lay hands on him
and pray for him. Meanwhile, his formula for getting a girl's attention is, "Grab
them by the p______y." And, in an interview he says he does not confess sin.
He gets up, dusts himself off, and determines not to make that mistake again.
He says that the time when he feels his religion the most is when, "I take
my little sip of wine and eat the cookie" at the Lord's Supper.
you still praising God for this fake Christian? He may seem to be doing good for
the nation, but he is NOT a born again Christian. What are you telling your kids
about this man? Are they going to keep hearing Daddy claim that the President
is "a man of God?"
you need to talk about this with your family? It is one thing to vote for the
lesser of two evils, but to claim that your man is a godly person is perilous
in modern politics. It also teaches your kids that Situation Ethics are good enough.
of the above situations are not about Situation Ethics. They are about doing right
or wrong. They are about you and your conviction that you must choose right over
wrong. It has always been this way. The good Samaritan was the one who did not
pass by on the other side. He invested time, took a risk that the robbers were
still in the bushes, and paid the price for the victim to stay in an inn. In the
coming election you will have to decide if you are going to help a senile old
man take office who cannot fulfill the job, or are you going to help a man into
office who throws away two wives and marries a porn queen? Or, are you going to
abstain in order to avoid feeling guilt for your choice? What is the right thing
When Jesus said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's," the subject was
paying taxes, not voting. There is no law in America forcing you to vote, at least
not yet. Sorry for you folks in Australia. But, even in Australia, you can leave
the Prime Minister slot empty, or maybe you have a write in choice.
does the Bible teach?
nothing is no solution to issues
4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is
is short and to the point. God the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers to be
blunt sometimes so that our perverse old sin nature will not get around the truth.
Do you know what to do, that is, do you know what is right in the present situation?
And, if you procrastinate and start looking for "extenuating circumstances"
and "unique aspects" and other such ways to go cheap on God's holiness,
you are wicked.
you wanted me to use some vast theological blather to broaden the whole discussion
until you have several ways to skip out the back door on God, right?
up, or shut up. If you refuse to stand on the Word of God and take a plain up
front position on any form of evil, you are a Gospel wimp, not a useful Christian.
Perhaps your reluctance to do the right thing is caused by the fact that you are
simply not born again. You never did have the new God given nature in you, so
there is really no war going on inside you between good and evil. If this is the
case, please leave the church where you pretend to be a Christian, and go to hell
quietly. If you will not confess your faith in Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior,
you are a devil doing nothing in your church but making trouble.
is one of the saddest stories in the whole Bible
was easily among the top five men in the Old Testament for zeal for God and for
might and bravery in defending the people of Israel. You will love him as you
read, especially you men and boys. But, the end of his life is again one of the
most pathetic endings of life in the whole Bible. This is perhaps the most classic
example in the Bible of Situation Ethics.
Chronicles 26:1 Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years
old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah.
2 He built Eloth,
and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.
years old was Uzziah when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty and two years
in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Jecoliah of Jerusalem.
4 And he did
that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father
5 And he sought God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding
in the visions of God: and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him to prosper.
6 And he went forth and warred against the Philistines, and brake down the
wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, and built cities
about Ashdod, and among the Philistines.
7 And God helped him against the
Philistines, and against the Arabians that dwelt in Gurbaal, and the Mehunims.
8 And the Ammonites gave gifts to Uzziah: and his name spread abroad even
to the entering in of Egypt; for he strengthened himself exceedingly.
Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, and at the valley gate, and
at the turning of the wall, and fortified them.
10 Also he built towers in
the desert, and digged many wells: for he had much cattle, both in the low country,
and in the plains: husbandmen also, and vine dressers in the mountains, and in
Carmel: for he loved husbandry.
11 Moreover Uzziah had an host of fighting
men, that went out to war by bands, according to the number of their account by
the hand of Jeiel the scribe and Maaseiah the ruler, under the hand of Hananiah,
one of the king's captains.
12 The whole number of the chief of the fathers
of the mighty men of valour were two thousand and six hundred.
13 And under
their hand was an army, three hundred thousand and seven thousand and five hundred,
that made war with mighty power, to help the king against the enemy.
Uzziah prepared for them throughout all the host shields, and spears, and helmets,
and habergeons, and bows, and slings to cast stones.
15 And he made in Jerusalem
engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to
shoot arrows and great stones withal. And his name spread far abroad; for he was
marvellously helped, till he was strong.
16 But when he was strong, his heart
was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the LORD his God,
and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense.
17 And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests
of the LORD, that were valiant men:
18 And they withstood Uzziah the king,
and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto
the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense:
go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine
honour from the LORD God.
19 Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his
hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even
rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside
the incense altar.
20 And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked
upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out
from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten
21 And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt
in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD:
and Jotham his son was over the king's house, judging the people of the land.
wanted to worship God and exalt him. He also may have wanted to inquire of God
about some plan he had in mind. His motives for burning incense before God were
sterling. The problem was, Moses' Law, given by God on Mount Sinai, made it very
clear that only the priests, from the tribe of Levi, could enter the temple Holy
Place to offer incense and lead the worship. Only the High Priest could enter
the Most Holy Place and sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat
of the Ark of the Covenant.
did not give Uzziah much mercy. God could have justly killed Uzziah, for that
did happen to one man who violated these laws. God did not kill Uzziah, but he
made him a leper, and he was never healed. This meant that, again, according to
the law of God, Uzziah was unclean and had to live in a separate house, probably
outside the city of Jerusalem, for the rest of his life. He ceased to be able
to govern, and his son took his place.
is sometimes not loving to do the right thing"
all of their high and holy insistence that their actions are divinely approved,
and the result of a deep desire to do Christ’s will and save souls, could it possibly
be that those within Christendom who seek to relax doctrinal rigidity are, in
reality, implementing their own agenda of change simply to relieve themselves
of biblical restrictions? Is it purely coincidental that the permissive preachers
have been both willing and eager to accommodate the clamor for “no negative, all
positive” preaching? Is it completely accidental and unrelated that many voices
are minimizing strict obedience under the guise of “legalism,” “we’re under grace,
not law,” “we’re in the grip of grace” (Lucado, 1996), and that we are “free to
change” (e.g., Hook, 1990)?
these circumstances are neither coincidental nor unrelated. They are calculated
and conspiratorial. Those who have aversion to law have breathed in the same spirit
that has led secular society’s psychological profession to view guilt as destructive,
while unselfish, personal responsibility is labeled “codependency.” They have
embraced the same subjective, self-centered rationale that secular society offers
for rejecting the plain requirements of Scripture in order to do whatever they
desire to do: “God wants me to be happy!” and “It meets my needs!” The spirit
of liberalism has indeed taken deep root, both in the country and in the Christian
religion (see Chesser, 2001)."
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
are situations where love was used to excuse wickedness
is a case, in which committing adultery foreseeably brought about the release
of a whole family from a very unjust but entirely legal exploitation of their
labor on a small farm which was both their pride and their prison.
another situation could be cited in which a German mother gained her release from
a Soviet prison farm and reunion with her family by means of an adulterous pregnancy.
These actions would have the situationist’s solemn but ready approval.
have a couple who cannot marry legally or permanently but live together faithfully
and honorably and responsibly, are living in virtue—in Christian love. In this
kind of Christian sex ethic, the essential ingredients are caring and commitment....
There is nothing against extramarital sex as such, in this ethic, and in some
cases it is perceived as good.
know of a British government official during the colonial days in Nigeria who
married an African black lady. He was accepted by his fellow British officials
because this was done a number of times by other colonial officials. He was a
good husband to his wife, and they had four children, one girl, and three boys.
These kids were known as "Mulattos" which means half-caste, and the
word mulatto derives from the word mule, the offspring of a horse and donkey.
When the British official retired, he abandoned his black wife and four sons,
left them in Nigeria, and he took his daughter with him back to England and arranged
for her to be raised by one of his relatives. He made sure she got a good education,
and was generally kind to her. When asked why he only brought the daughter back
to England with him, he told people that if he left her, her only recourse would
have been to become a prostitute in order to survive. He was held in high esteem
for his honorable treatment of the girl, but as to his wife and the four boys,
he was given a pass. The reason was because what he did "is the done thing".
His treatment of the girl was seen as making up for his treatment of his black
wife in Nigeria.
anybody “sticks to the rules,” especially when people suffer as a consequence,
that is seen as immoral by Situation Ethics gurus. Even if we grant, for example,
that generally or commonly it is wrong or bad or undesirable to interrupt a pregnancy,
it would nevertheless be right, according to Situation Ethics, to do so to a conception
following rape or incest, at least if the victim wanted an abortion.
biblical standard has been established
8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my
word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and
the truth shall make you free.
Ethics is a change in the standard of right and wrong, a progression away from
the literal interpretation of the Word of God. When you decide that you need to
do a little evil in order to accomplish a good objective for the Lord or his Church,
God disowns you.
3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief,
in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it
is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence
stedfast unto the end;
did you begin? If you started your Christian life, after confessing faith in Christ,
doing righteous acts, and now you change the standards to sin in order to allegedly
do good, you have, "an evil heart of unbelief." You are no longer a
believer, or more correctly, you never were a true believer. How can your standard
of good and evil change while Christ remains changeless. It is, in fact, a slap
in the face of Jesus as you show the world that Jesus is OK with your little sins
in order to do good. You are actually trying to drag Jesus out of his holiness
down to your level of inventions. You are asking for a thrashing, much like Uzziah
did in the account of his life above.
this your ethic? "JESUS IS JUST ALRIGHT
WITH ME," but he is nothing exceptional. He could not possibly be so
holy that he does not approve of my harmless little sins.
most popular Bible text, used to justify Situation Ethics, is debunked
discussion is by Dave Miller
about the woman taken in adultery? Didn’t Jesus free her from the rigid restrictions
of the Law?” One of the most misused, mishandled, and misapplied passages in the
Bible is the narrative of the woman caught in adultery, recorded in John 8:1-11.
[For a discussion of the technical aspects of this passage as a textual variant,
see Metzger, 1968, pp. 223-224; 1971, pp. 219-222; McGarvey, 1974, p. 16; Woods,
1989, p. 162.] This passage has been used by situation ethicists (e.g., Fletcher,
1967, pp. 83, 133), libertines, and liberals to insist that God is not “technical”
when it comes to requiring close adherence to His laws. The bulk of Christendom
has abetted this notion by decontextualizing and applying indiscriminately the
remark of Jesus: “He who is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her
first” (vs. 7). The average individual, therefore, has come to think that Jesus
was tolerant and forgiving to the extent that He released the woman from the strictures
of God’s law that called for her execution. They believe that Jesus simply “waved
aside” her sin, and thereby granted her unconditional freedom and forgiveness—though
the Law called for her death (Leviticus 20:10). After all, isn’t it true that
Jesus places people “in the grip of grace” (Lucado, 1996)?
who challenge conclusions such as these are derided as “traditionalists” who lack
“compassion,” and who are just like the “legalistic” scribes and Pharisees who
cruelly accused the woman and wanted her handled in strict accordance with Mosaic
Law. Did Jesus set aside the clear requirements of Mosaic legislation in order
to demonstrate mercy, grace, and forgiveness? A careful study of John 8:1-11 yields
at least three insights that clarify the confusion and misconception inherent
in the popular imagination.
Mosaic regulations stated that a person could be executed only if there were two
or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). One witness was insufficient
to invoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:6). The woman in question was reportedly
caught in the “very act” (vs. 4), but nothing is said about the identity of the
witness or witnesses. There may have been only one, thereby making execution illegal.
even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the woman’s sin, the
Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact that both the woman and
the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man? The accusing
mob completely sidestepped this critical feature of God’s Law, demonstrating that
this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit the Mosaic preconditions for invoking
capital punishment. Obedience to the Law of Moses in this instance actually meant
letting the woman go!
third consideration that often is overlooked concerning this passage is the precise
meaning of the phrase “He who is without sin among you...” (vs. 7). If this statement
were to be taken as a blanket prohibition against accusing, disciplining, or punishing
the erring, impenitent Christian, then this passage flatly contradicts a host
of other passages (e.g., Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians
3:6,14; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-11). Jesus not only frequently passed judgment on
a variety of individuals during His tenure on Earth (e.g., Matthew 15:14; 23;
John 8:44, 55; 9:41; et al.), but He also enjoined upon His followers the necessity
of doing the same thing (e.g., John 7:24). Peter could be very direct in assessing
people’s spiritual status (e.g., Acts 8:23). Paul rebuked the Corinthians’ inaction
concerning their fornicating brother: “Do you not judge those who are inside?...Therefore
put away from yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13, emp. added).
Obviously, Paul demanded that Christians must judge (i.e., make an accurate evaluation
of) a fellow Christian’s moral condition. Even the familiar proof text so often
marshaled to promote laxity (i.e., “Judge not, that you be not judged”—Matthew
7:1) records Jesus admonishing disciples: “...then you will see clearly to remove
the speck out of your brother’s eye” (vs. 5). The current culture-wide celebration
of being nonjudgmental (cf. “I’m OK—You’re OK”) is clearly out of harmony with
Jesus could not have been offering a blanket prohibition against taking appropriate
action with regard to the sins of our fellows. Then what did His words mean? What
else could possibly be going on in this setting so as to completely deflate, undermine,
and terminate the boisterous determination of the woman’s accusers to attack Him,
by using the woman as a pretext? What was it in Christ’s words that had such power
to stop them in their tracks—so much so that their clamor faded to silence and
they departed “one by one, beginning with the oldest” (vs. 9)?
commentators suggest that Jesus shamed them by forcing them to realize that “nobody
is perfect and we all sin.” But this motley crew—with their notorious and repeatedly
documented hard-heartedness—would not have been deterred if Jesus simply had conveyed
the idea that, “Hey, give the poor woman a break, none of us is perfect,” or “We’ve
all done things we’re not proud of.” The heartless scribes and Pharisees were
brazen enough to divert her case from the proper judicial proceedings, and to
humiliate her by forcibly hauling her into the presence of Jesus, thereby making
a public spectacle of her. Apparently accompanied by a group of complicit supporters,
they cruelly subjected her to the wider audience of “all the people” (vs. 2) who
had come to hear Jesus’ teaching. They hardly would have been discouraged from
their objective by such a simple utterance from Jesus that “nobody’s perfect.”
is the answer to this puzzling circumstance? Consider two possibilities.
it may be that Jesus was calling attention to their failure to follow legal protocol
in dealing with the woman. He was challenging them for violating the law with
regard to treatment of the woman, essentially condemning them as being incapable
of making a solid legal case against her.
second possibility is that Christ was striking at precisely the same point that
Paul drove home to hard-hearted, hypocritical Jews in Rome: “Therefore you are
inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another
you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (Romans 2:1,
emp. added). Paul was especially specific on the very point with which Jesus dealt:
“You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” (vs. 22). In
other words, no person is qualified to call attention to another’s sin when that
individual is in the ongoing practice of the same sin. Again, as Jesus previously
declared, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will
see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). After
all, it is the “spiritual” brother or sister who is in the proper position to
restore the wayward (Galatians 6:1).
in the context under consideration, it may well be that Jesus knew that the woman’s
accusers were guilty of the very thing for which they were willing to condemn
her. (It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the fellow with whom the
woman had committed adultery was in league with the accusers.) Jesus was able
to prick them with their guilt by causing them to realize that He knew that they,
too, were guilty. The old law made it clear that the witnesses to the crime were
to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). The death penalty could not be invoked
legally if the eyewitnesses were unavailable or ineligible. Jesus was striking
directly at the fact that these witnesses were unqualified to fulfill this role
since they were guilty of the same sin, and thus deserved to be brought up on
similar charges. They were intimidated into silence and retreat by their realization
that Jesus was privy to their own indiscretions—and possibly on the verge of divulging
carefully that, at the withdrawal of the accusers, Jesus put forth a technical
legal question when He asked: “Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?”
(ASV), or “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”
(vs. 10, KJV). The reason for Jesus to verify the absence of the accusers who
had brought the charges against the woman was that the Law of Moses mandated the
presence of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be established and sentence
passed. The woman confirmed, “No man, Lord” (vs. 11). Jesus then affirmed: “Neither
do I condemn you....” The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more
witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she
could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified
to serve as an eyewitness to her action. The usual interpretation of “neither
do I condemn you” is that Jesus was flexible, tolerant, and unwilling to be judgmental
toward others or to condemn their sinful actions. Ridiculous! The Bible repudiates
such thinking on nearly every page. Jesus was declaring the fact that the woman
managed to slip out from under judicial condemnation on the basis of one or more
legal technicalities. But, He said (to use modern-day vernacular), “You had better
stop it! You were fortunate this time, but you must cease your sinful behavior!”
These scribes and Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in a trap. Yet Jesus, as
was so often the case (e.g., Matthew 21:23-27), “turned the tables” on His accusers
and caught them in a trap instead! At the same time, He demonstrated a deep and
abiding respect for the governing beauty and power of law—the law that He and
His Father had authored. Jesus was the only Person Who ever complied with Mosaic
legislation perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). He never sought to excuse
human violation of law, nor to minimize the binding and authoritative application
of law to people. Any interpretation of any passage that depicts Jesus as violating
the law of God in order to forgive or accommodate man is a false interpretation,
as is any interpretation that relegates law to a status of secondary importance
(cf. Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Psalms 19:7-11; Romans 7:12). Jesus was not in sympathy
with the permissive mindset of today’s doctrinally lax thinkers who soften doctrine
and the binding nature of law in the name of “grace,” “freedom,” or “compassion.”
of quote by Dr. Dave Miller
the whole article here.
the author made a powerful statement, in the last paragraph, "Any interpretation
of any passage that depicts Jesus as violating the law of God in order to forgive
or accommodate man is a false interpretation....."
Jesus could forgive sin arbitrarily on his own, he would not have needed to die
on the Cross. He could have just given us all a blanket pass for our sins. Or,
he could have forgiven us our "little sins" and only died for the big
this means is that any Bible teacher, pastor, or Christian leader who claims that
Jesus accepts a little sin in order to do good, IS A HERETIC. When Jack Hyles
uses Samson to prove that God gives merits and demerits based on how many souls
we win to Christ, Hyles was a devil. There are no merits in the mind of God. There
is only the Blood of Jesus as he died on the Cross. The only merit was the sinless
Son of God, not your good works. NOTHING CANCELS SIN BUT THE BLOOD OF
JESUS. And, God does not overlook sin in order to make you like him. God does
not overlook sin because he wants to be a nice guy. God justifies sinners based
on the finished work of Christ on the Cross, and all sins, big or little, damn
us to Hell without the merit of Jesus death on the cross.
supreme irony in the merits and demerits sermon of Jack Hyles was that he claimed
God took into account the great things Samson had done to serve God before he
was blinded and put in the dungeon by the Philistines. So, Samson's merits caused
God to allow him to pull the Philistine temple down and kill thousands of Philistines
while he killed himself. This, according to Hyles, was a great blessing to Samson.
Only a man as full of himself as Hyles was could see Samson having a great day,
blind, in prison, and killing himself.
6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
is at the root of Situation Ethics?
Ethics are justified by men who want to live in sin.
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the
truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Ethics apologists WANT TO sin. By condoning the sins of other people, they set
up the standard by which they want to live and be judged. They love their own
5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings,
and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time
past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ethics apologists have no sacrifice for sin. They are damned to Hell. It is time
to speak the truth about this.
Peter 4:3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will
of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings,
banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
time is past for sin. We cannot, under any color of law or justice biblically,
justify doing sin in order to do good.
4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is
Situation Ethicists admit that they know they are sinning under the pretext of
doing good. They are guilty as a cur dog. They call sin by what it is, and then
they find a way to sin anyway.
3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving
divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to
the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I
will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be
careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
claim that sinning is a "good work" is blasphemy. There is never a time
to sin in order to do good for God. If we use that logic, we open the door for
heretics and Atheists to claim that Jesus sinned at certain times in order to
do good in Galilee.
Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye
are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit,
which are God's.
are bought, paid for by the Blood of Christ, and God owns you. There is NO place
where God told us
directly that we are allowed, at certain times, to blow right through his law
and holiness and sin if we think it is OK to sin.
5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God
rather than men.
a preacher, teacher, or hair brined theologian tells you it is good ethics to
sin here or there, you ought to obey God, and refuse to sin. There are oughts
and ought nots, shoulds and should nots, in the life of a Bible believer. Get
used to it, and live God's way.
10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that
walketh to direct his steps.
steps are not to be directed by men, especially theologians who justify sinning.
Your steps must be directed by the Lord. Anything else is a trashy life under
the direction of the flesh and the devil.
37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his
you delight in the way of the Lord, or do you delight in the way of sin?
is a Jewish invention."
30:21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk
ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.
gave you a con- science to tell you when you are breaking his law. Why are you
looking for a way to ignore your con- science?
REPEAT WHAT I SAID IN THE BEGINNING
might as well tell you right where this discussion will end. If you indulge in
situation ethics you will become naked, naked before God, naked before your fellow
Christians, and naked in your own eyes. Guilt will be the only emotion, not wisdom,
as Eve imagined.
you promote Situation Ethics, you are a full participant in the Laodicean Church
of the End Times.
3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith
the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert
cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased
with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched,
and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
are naked. Anyone who truly loves God and obeys him, sees you for what you are.
You cannot hide. You are naked as a jay bird.
strongly encourage you to repent of this "gimme a sin" religion, and
covenant to do righteous deeds, and make righteous choices, as you serve God.
MAIL Is something not clear about this discussion? Do you need someone to
pray for your situation? Feel free to write. Do NOT write and try to tell me your
story that you imagine is an exception to the teaching of the Word of God. I will
not answer your mail.
TO MORAL ISSUES TABLE OF CONTENTS
TO THE WAR ROOM- ASYMMETRIC CHRISTIAN WARFARE
TO ENTRY PAGE OF JOURNAL