Searching for the Truth in the King James Bible;
Finding it, and passing it on to you.

Steve Van Nattan







By Steve Van Nattan

Situation Ethics has never gone
away. Satan loves this tool from
his ancient tool box.




Ethics- 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.

Situation 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.

Situation 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.

The 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.



The failure of Situation Ethics:

A 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.

The 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.

The 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.

When 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.

Situation 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.

Thus, 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:

Luke 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.

Notice 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.

There is a lesson in The Ten Commandments:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Honor thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet

Caveat: If thou canst find a way to break any of my laws in order to do good, thou mayest break my laws.

The first four commandments tell us how to reverence and exalt God in our lives.

The last six tell us how to love our brother.

There 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 good.

The 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.

Does God care about how you feel about things?

Of 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.

Does God care about how your brother feels?


1 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.

The 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.

God cannot, and will not, change the plan to let you redesign holiness for him or for humanity.

Malachi 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 hosts.
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:
3 And 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.
5 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 hosts.
6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Deal 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.

By 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.

Fletcher started out trying to help people love one another and ended up presiding over a murder machine.

We need to dig a little deeper into this issue.



Genesis 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.

Satan, 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.

Satan 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.

Satan 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.

Genesis 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.

Verse 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 lady.

Did they suddenly become gods full of wisdom? No, they became naked.

I 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.

Situation Ethics can also be called a couple of other things:


Jesuit Casuistry

Jesuit 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.

The 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.

This 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.


Compartmentalized Morality

This 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.


Progressive Ethics

This 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.



We 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.


Situation One

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.

Will 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?

The 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?


Situation Two

You 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?


Situation Three

This is happening now in Europe. I am not making this up.

You 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."

As 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.

What 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?

There 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?


Situation Four

Your 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,

1 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.

Will 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.


Situation Five

You 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.

Will 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?

The 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 right thing?

You 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 sin.

I 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.

Doing 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 your life.

Get it over with. Be the person Christ would be in your situation. Do the right thing, and the devil take the hindmost.


Situation Six

You 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.

Then, 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.

This 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.

Are 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?"

Do 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.

All 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 to do?

Hint: 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.


What does the Bible teach?

Doing nothing is no solution to issues

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

That 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.

So, 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?

Put 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.


This is one of the saddest stories in the whole Bible

Uzziah 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.

2 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.
3 Sixteen 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 Amaziah did.
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.
9 Moreover 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.
14 And 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 him.
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.

Uzziah 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.

God 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.


"It is sometimes not loving to do the right thing"

"Despite 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)?

"No, 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.


Here are situations where love was used to excuse wickedness

There 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.

Still 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.

We 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.

We 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.

When 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.


The biblical standard has been established

John 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.

Situation 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.

Hebrews 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;

How 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.

Is 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.


The most popular Bible text, used to justify Situation Ethics, is debunked

This discussion is by Dave Miller Ph.D.

“What 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)?

Those 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.

First, 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.

Second, 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!

A 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 Bible teaching.

So 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)?

Most 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.”

So what is the answer to this puzzling circumstance? Consider two possibilities.

First, 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.

A 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).

Consequently, 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 them publicly.

Observe 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!”

Incredible! 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.”

End of quote by Dr. Dave Miller

Read the whole article here.

Again, 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....."

If 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 ones.

What 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.

The 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.


Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?


What is at the root of Situation Ethics?

Situation Ethics are justified by men who want to live in sin.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Situation 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 sin.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
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.

Situation Ethics apologists have no sacrifice for sin. They are damned to Hell. It is time to speak the truth about this.

1 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:

The time is past for sin. We cannot, under any color of law or justice biblically, justify doing sin in order to do good.

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

All 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.

Titus 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 another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
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 Holy Ghost;
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.

To 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.

1 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.

You 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.

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

When 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.

Jeremiah 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.

Your 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.

Psalms 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.

Do you delight in the way of the Lord, or do you delight in the way of sin?


"Conscience is a Jewish invention."
Adolph Hitler

Isaiah 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.

God 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?


I 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.

If you promote Situation Ethics, you are a full participant in the Laodicean Church of the End Times.

Revelation 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:

You 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.

I 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.



SEND 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.