http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1064
Situation Ethics
Human beings throughout history have been susceptible to a desire to be
freed from the dictates of higher authority. Most people wish to be
free to do whatever they desire to do. This attitude runs rampant among
the baby boomers whose formative years occurred during the 1960s.
Expressions that were commonplace at the time included, “Do your own
thing” and “Let it all hang out.” These simple slogans offer profound
insight into what really was driving the countercultural forces at that
time. Underneath the stated objectives of love, peace, and brotherhood
were the actual motives of self-indulgence and freedom from
restrictions. This ethical, moral, and spiritual perspective has
proliferated, and now dominates the American moral landscape.
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 “co-dependency.” 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).
SITUATIONISM DEFINED
In the mid-1960s, Joseph Fletcher published the book, Situation Ethics,
thereby securing for himself the dubious distinction, “the Father of
Situation Ethics” (1966). Of course, Fletcher was by no means the first
to advance the ideals of situationism. Men like Emil Brunner (The Divine Imperative), Reinhold Niebuhr (Moral Man and Immoral Society), Harvey Cox (The Secular City), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Ethics), and John A.T. Robinson (Honest to God)
promoted ethical relativism before Fletcher’s popular expression of the
same. Existentialist philosophers like Sartre, Kierkegaard, and
Heidegger promulgated this same subjectivism. Though Fletcher at first
attempted to deny this tie to existential philosophy (1967, p. 75), he
eventually ended up admitting it (pp. 77,234). However, we need not
think that situation ethics is a twenty-first-century phenomenon that
was invented by modern theologians and social scientists. Situationism
goes all the way back to Eden when Satan posed to Eve circumstances that
he alleged would justify setting aside God’s law (Genesis 3:4-6).
Fletcher summarized his ideas in terms of six propositions that he came
to identify as “the fundamentals of Christian conscience” (1967, pp.
13-27). This ethical theory stresses “freedom from prefabricated
decisions and prescriptive rules” in exchange for “the relative or
nonabsolute and variant or nonuniversal nature of the situational
approach” (p. 7). “Right and wrong depend upon the situation” (p. 14).
The “situation” is defined as “the relative weight of the ends and means
and motives and consequences all taken together, as weighed by love”
(p. 23). The situation ethicist feels free to “tinker with Scripture”
and to form “a coalition with the utilitarian principle of the ‘greatest
good of the greatest number’ ” (pp. 18-19; cf. p. 56).
Situationism is simply ethical relativism, in that it moves “away from
code ethics, from stern and ironbound do’s and don’ts, from prescribed
conduct and legalistic morality” (p. 24). Situationism bears close
affinity with existentialism (pp. 26, 77,234). “Imitative practice,”
uniformity and conformity, and “metaphysical morals” are all disdained
(pp. 26,106,240). Objective principles and abstract rules are
repudiated, in exchange for “freedom and openness” (pp. 72,76,233,235).
Concrete absolutes are viewed unfavorably as “authoritarianism” and
“rules-bound thinking” (p. 240).
Situationism calls for “creative” moral conduct, accommodation to
“pluralism,” “freedom,” and “openness,” as well as “spontaneity and
variety in moral decision-making” (pp. 78,123-124,235,241). Constant
emphasis is placed on “love” as the only intrinsic good, with the loving
thing to do depending on each situation that arises. Since “love” is
the only inherent, intrinsic value, the moral quality or value of every
thing or action is extrinsic and contingent—depending upon the situation
(pp. 14,26,34,38,55,76,123-124).
Though Fletcher offered formal expression to these concepts several
decades ago, it would not be an exaggeration to state that situationism
has “gone to seed” in American society, and now constitutes the
prevailing approach to making ethical decisions. As pollster guru George
Barna remarked in a 2003 survey of American moral behavior:
This is reflective of a nation where morality is generally defined according to one’s feelings. In a postmodern society, where people do not acknowledge any moral absolutes,
if a person feels justified in engaging in a specific behavior, then
they do not make a connection with the immoral nature of that action....
Until people recognize that there are moral absolutes and attempt to
live in harmony with them, we are likely to see a continued decay of our moral foundations (2003, emp. added).
FLAWS IN SITUATIONAL THINKING
At least two foundational errors cause Fletcher’s theory of
situationism to be irreparably flawed. The first is the failure to grasp
the Bible’s identification of the central concern of human
beings: to love, honor, glorify, and obey God (Ecclesiastes 12:13; Micah
6:8; Matthew 22:37; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:9; 10:5; 1
Peter 4:11). Fletcher is virtually silent on this dimension of human
responsibility. Instead, he focuses his entire theory on love for fellow
man. While love for fellow man is certainly crucial to Christian
ethics, and is absolutely mandatory for the Christian (e.g., Luke
10:25-37), it must be viewed in its rightful position, subsumed beneath
the greater, higher responsibility of loving God. One cannot love God
without loving one’s neighbor (e.g., 1 John 4:20-21). But,
theoretically, one could love another person without loving God.
Consequently, love for fellow man must be viewed in the larger framework
of focusing one’s life on pleasing God first and foremost.
Since this must be the singular all-consuming passion of human beings, God’s Word must be consulted in order to determine how
to love God and fellow man. In other words, to comply with the number
one responsibility in life, one must consult the absolute,
prefabricated, prescriptive, ironbound do’s and don’ts of Scripture!
This, by definition, is love for God (1 John 5:3; John 14:15). It
follows, then, that Fletcher is incorrect in identifying the only intrinsic good as “love” for fellow man (1967, p. 14). According to the Bible, intrinsic good includes fraternal love. But superceding even this love is filial
love, i.e., love for God (Matthew 22:36-37; cf. Warren, 1972, pp.
87ff.). Consequently, God defines what love entails in man’s treatment
of both God and fellow man. But those definitions are found in the Bible
in the form of prescriptive rules, regulations, and ironclad do’s and
don’ts.
The second fundamental flaw of Fletcher’s brand of situationism is the
subtle redefinition of “love.” While Fletcher was correct when he
identified love as an active determination of the will rather than an
emotion (pp. 20-21), his idea of “love” is materialistic and secular,
rather than scriptural and spiritual. “Love,” to Fletcher, is what human beings
decide is “good” or “best” in a given situation. This humanistic
approach allows man and his circumstances to become the criteria for
defining morality, rather than allowing God to define the parameters of
moral behavior: “The metaphysical moralist with his intrinsic values and
laws says, ‘Do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.’
The situational moralist says, ‘Whether what you do is right or not
depends precisely upon where the chips fall!’ ” (p. 26).
But the Bible simply does not place law and love in contradistinction
to each other. In fact, according to the Bible, one cannot love either
God or fellow man without law. The only way for an individual to
know how to love is to go to the Bible and discern there the specifics
of a loving behavior. When Paul declared, “love is the fulfilling of the
law” (Romans 13:19), he did not mean that it is possible to love one’s
neighbor while dispensing with the law (cf. Fletcher, 1967, p. 70; Hook,
1984, p. 31). Rather, he meant that when you conduct yourself in a
genuinely loving manner, you are automatically acting in harmony with
the law (i.e., you are not killing, stealing, coveting, bearing false
witness, etc.). God, in His laws, defined and pinpointed how to love. To treat any of God’s laws as optional, flexible, or occasional is to undermine the very foundations of love.
In situationism, human beings become the standard of morality. The
human mind, with its subjective perceptions of the surrounding moral
environment, becomes the authority, in direct conflict with the words of
an inspired prophet: “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself;
it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).
The psalmist certainly could be accused of being a “metaphysical
moralist with his intrinsic values and laws.” In his great psalm on the
law of the Lord (Psalm 119), the writer conveyed his conviction that
objective, prescriptive rules and prefabricated principles were
indispensable to his survival. Observe carefully a small portion of his
unrelenting extolment of divine laws: “You have commanded us to keep
Your precepts diligently” (vs. 4); “I would not be ashamed, when I look
into all Your commandments” (vs. 6); “Behold, I long for Your precepts”
(vs. 40); “I will delight myself in Your commandments, which I love”
(vs. 47); “I will never forget Your precepts, for by them You have given
me life” (vs. 93); “Through Your precepts I get understanding;
therefore I hate every false way” (vs. 104); “The entirety of Your word
is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever”
(vs. 160); “My soul keeps Your testimonies, and I love them exceedingly.
I keep Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are before
You” (vss. 167-168).
To Fletcher, “love” directed toward one’s fellow man is a
materialistically defined love that he calls “personalism.”
“Personalism” is “the ethical view that the highest good, the summum bonum
or first-order value, is human welfare and happiness” (1967, p. 33).
Fletcher’s ethical humanism is “a personalist devotion to people, not to
things or abstractions such as ‘laws’ or general principles. Personal interests come first, before the natural or Scriptural
or theoretical or general or logical or anything else” (p. 34, emp.
added). What such assertions really mean in practical, behavioral terms
is that, ultimately, human beings may do whatever they deem “good” or
“best.” A glance at Fletcher’s illustrations shows that the most
“loving” decisions are those that ease physical pain, alleviate
hardship, lessen emotional suffering, or accommodate human desire and
personal preference. For Fletcher, “evil” is physical imprisonment,
separation from family, the hardship of unjust labor, an unpleasant
marriage, or lack of commitment to a person (e.g., pp. 32,39). “Human
happiness” is, by definition, what human beings think will make them happy—not what God says actually will bring true happiness—even in the midst of, and while enduring, unjust or unpleasant circumstances.
Sin, in situationism, is not “transgression of God’s law” (1 John 3:4).
Rather, “sin is the exploitation or use of persons” (p. 37). It is
withholding what a person perceives to be the means to personal
happiness. But this understanding of sin is a radical redefinition of
love and happiness in comparison to the Bible. In contrast, the
Scriptures make clear that “intrinsic evil on the purely physical level
does not exist” and “neither pain nor suffering is intrinsically evil”
(Warren, 1972, pp. 93,40). Since sin (i.e., violation of God’s law) is
the only intrinsic evil, “evil” and “good” exist only in relation to the
ultimate will of God (pp. 39,41).
By Fletcher’s definitions, many people in Bible history were not
sinners as previously supposed, but were, in fact, mature, responsible
individuals who acted lovingly: Eve (Genesis 3:1-6); Cain (Genesis 4:3);
Lot and Lot’s wife (Genesis 13:12; 19:16,26); Nadab and Abihu
(Leviticus 10:1-3); the Israelites (Numbers 21:4-6); Balaam (Numbers
22-24); Saul (1 Samuel 13:9; 15:9,21); and Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6ff.). On
the other hand, if situationism is correct, many persons in the Bible
were not righteous, as is claimed, but were slaves to abstract rules and
principles, and were unloving in their conduct toward their fellow man,
including: Noah (Genesis 6; 2 Peter 2:5); Joseph (Genesis 39:7-12);
Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14:6-9); Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-9); Joshua
(Joshua 7:24-25); and John the baptizer (Mark 6:18-19). Here were people
who set aside the preferences of their fellow man, ignored their
contemporaries’ desire for “happiness” and “self-fulfillment,” and
instead followed divine prescriptions—even though those precepts were
considered to be contrary to the consensus view.
Taking into account the components of “the situation” as Fletcher
recommends—“the end, means, motive, and foreseeable consequences” (1967,
p. 25)—Uzzah would have to receive Fletcher’s sanction as a loving,
moral person (2 Samuel 6:1-7). His motive was unquestionably good, since he wanted to avoid the unpleasant end and foreseeable consequences of the Ark of the Covenant toppling from its precarious resting place. The means
that Uzzah used were the only ones available to him at that particular
instant in time. His only mistake, which resulted in his immediate
execution by God, was his failure to give heed to the prefabricated,
prescriptive, abstract, legalistic, absolute, metaphysical, ironbound “don’t”
of Numbers 4:15,—i.e., “don’t touch!” [For a useful treatment of
situation ethics, especially for young people, see Ridenour, 1969].
SITUATIONISM ILLUSTRATED
The true nature of any false philosophy or ethical system is often
apparent in the concrete examples that advocates set forth as
illustrative of their position. Fletcher is no exception in this regard.
He approves of divorce “if the emotional and spiritual welfare of both
parents and children in a particular family can be served best”
(1967, p. 23, emp. in orig.). He would approve of the suicide of a
captured soldier under torture to avoid betraying comrades to the enemy
(p. 15). Two additional instances are seen in the following comments.
Fletcher said that he knew of
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 (p. 32).
Additional examples of situation ethics at work are seen in the
statements: “Lying could be more Christian than telling the truth.
Stealing could be better than respecting private property” (p. 34).
Fletcher asks: “Is the girl who gives her chastity for her country’s
sake any less approvable than the boy who gives his leg or his life?
No!” (p. 39). Further,
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 good (pp. 39-40, emp. in orig.).
Consider also the situation ethicist’s view of abortion:
When anybody “sticks to the rules,” even though people suffer as a
consequence, that is immoral. 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 to do so to a conceptus
following rape or incest, at least if the victim wanted an abortion (p.
36; cf. Hook, 1984, p. 34).
When one abandons the objective standard conveyed by the eternal
God from Whom flows infinite goodness, the means for assessing human
behavior is then “up for grabs,” and is pitched into the subjective
realm of human opinion in which “everyone does what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Such a person will inevitably begin misrepresenting the biblical
treatment of Christian liberty and freedom, and will maintain that
“freedom in Christ” means being relieved of the “burden” of a “legal
code.”
The Bible certainly speaks of the wonderful freedom that one may enjoy in Christ. But biblical freedom is a far cry from the release from restriction, restraint, and deserved guilt
touted by the antinomian agents of change (cf. Hook, 1984, pp. 43ff.).
The Bible does not speak of the “flexibility and elasticity” of God’s
laws (pp. 29-31). Rather, with sweeping and precise terminology, Jesus
articulated the sum and substance of exactly what it means to be “free
in Christ.” In a specific context in which He defended the validity of
His own testimony (John 8:12-59), He declared the only basis upon which
an individual may be His disciple. To be Christ’s disciple, one must
“continue” in His word (vs. 31). That is, one must live a life of
obedience to the will of Christ (Warren, 1986, pp. 33-37). Genuine
discipleship is gauged by one’s persistent and meticulous compliance
with the words of Jesus.
The freedom that Jesus offers through obedience to His truth is noted
in His interchange with the Jews over slavery. Those who sin (i.e.,
transgress God’s will—1 John 3:4) are slaves who may be set free only by
permitting Christ’s teachings to have free course within them (vs.
34-37). This kind of freedom is the only true freedom. Genuine freedom
is achieved by means of “obedience to righteousness” (Romans 6:16).
Freedom from sin and spiritual death is possible only by obedience to God (vs. 51).
SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS:
THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN
Another way to grasp the substance of a false philosophy is to assess
the way in which the Scriptures are given treatment to support the
philosophy. The remainder of this article will confine itself to
examining two favorite proof texts frequently marshaled in an effort to
defend situationism. [Additional proof texts (e.g., 2 Chronicles
30:18-20; Matthew 12:1-8; 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23, the notion of
“legalism”) are examined in a lengthier, unabridged version of this
article, which can be found on-line at www.apologeticspress.
org/rr/rr2004/r&r0411b.htm.]
“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.”
SITUATIONIST PROOF TEXTS:
THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE LAW
But doesn’t the Bible make a legitimate distinction between the ‘letter
of the law’ and the ‘spirit of the law’?” It is argued that sometimes
it is necessary, even mandatory, to violate the “letter of the law” in
order to act in harmony with the “spirit of the law.” According to this
line of thinking, those who insist that obedience to the law of God is always
required without exception are “hung up on the letter of the law”
instead of being led by the “spirit of the law” (cf. Hook, 1984, p. 42).
This perspective naturally breeds and nurtures a relaxed attitude
toward obedience. It militates against a desire to be precise and
careful in conformity to biblical teaching. One individual explained how
his feelings of devotion to Jesus made him feel that as long as he
maintained a close “sense of nearness” to Christ, he did not have to
fret over “nit picky” concerns, like whether Christians should be
meticulous in their obedience to the laws of the land. Another person
avowed that she did not “sweat the small stuff,” since she was living
her life in recognition of God’s grace, and felt certain that Jesus
would “cut her some slack.” The “small stuff ” to which she referred
included such things as whether God will accept instrumental music in
worship to Him, whether God will approve of unscriptural divorce and
remarriage, and whether sprinkling may pass for New Testament baptism.
The primary passage in the New Testament marshaled in an effort to
support the “spirit vs. letter” antithesis is Paul’s remarks to the
church of Christ in Corinth (2 Corinthians 3:4-18). I urge the reader to
pause and read the third chapter of Second Corinthians before reading
the analysis that follows. Two phrases are typically excised from the
context and used as proof texts to support a notion contrary to the
chapter: “not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but
the Spirit gives life” (vs. 6), and “where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty” (vs. 17). These phrases are set forth by some as proof
that Christians ought not to be too meticulous in conforming strictly
to various New Testament directives. Those who suggest such assume that
“letter” refers to the commands of God—the written statements of
Scripture that specify and regulate human behavior. They also assume
that “spirit” refers to one’s attitude or feelings. Hence, if the
individual feels devoted, concerned, and sincere, he or she is
deemed in line with “the spirit of the law.” On the other hand, the
individual who appears inflexible and rigid, or overly concerned with
strict obedience, is perceived to lack “compassion” and “sensitivity,”
and too concerned with “the letter of the law.”
However, if a person takes the time to study God’s Word, and refrain
from mishandling its intended meaning (Acts 17:11; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 1
Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 2:15), he or she will see that neither Paul nor
any other inspired writer agreed with such thinking. In a pericope
dealing with his apostolic ministry, Paul crafted a beautiful
allegory—what D.R. Dungan once called “the most perfect antithesis to be
found in the whole Bible” (1888, p. 349). By arranging the contrasting
phrases of the antithesis into two columns, the Bible student is able
more easily to grasp Paul’s intended meaning.
|
2 CORINTHIANS 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ministers of the new covenant (vs. 6) |
|
Of the letter (vs. 6) |
Of the Spirit (vs. 6) |
|
The letter kills (vs. 6) |
The Spirit gives life (vs. 6) |
|
Ministry of Death (vs. 7) |
Ministry of Spirit (vs. 8) |
|
Written/Engraved on stones (vs. 7) |
|
|
Ministry of condemnation (vs. 9) |
Ministry of righteousness (vs. 9) |
|
Glorious (vss. 7,9.11) |
Much more glorious (vss.8-9,11) |
|
Passing away (vs. 7) |
Remains (vs. 11) |
|
Veil on Moses’s face (vs. 13) |
Great boldness of speech (vs. 12) |
|
Veil remains in reading O.T. (vs. 14) |
Veil taken away in Christ (vs. 14) |
|
Veil lies on their heart (vs. 15) |
Veil taken away when one turns to the Lord (vs. 16) |
Comparison of “the letter” vs. “the spirit” of the law (O.T./N.T.)
It should be immediately evident to the unbiased observer that “the two
legs of the antithesis are the New Covenant in contrast with the Old
Covenant” (Dungan, p. 268). Precisely the same meaning is conveyed by
the same terminology in Paul’s letter to the Romans (2:29; 7:6). The Old
Testament legal system, though an excellent system for what God had in
mind (Romans 7:12), was unable to provide ultimate forgiveness for
violations of law and, in that sense, “kills.” It took Jesus’ death on
the cross to make “life” possible—i.e., actual cleansing from sin.
When one recognizes the existing contextual meaning, it becomes apparent that these verses have absolutely nothing to do
with the alleged “spirit vs. letter” contention! In fact, the Bible
nowhere postulates such a thing. Like all liberal thinking, one must
refrain from thinking too much about it if one does not wish to see the
absurdity and nonsensical nature of it. The “spirit vs. letter” contrast
is “better felt than told” gobbledygook that makes no sense. In an
article titled “The Letter that Killeth,” written on April 3, 1897, J.W.
McGarvey responded to this type of thinking:
Just once in the course of his writings Paul makes the declaration that
“the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:7);
and no remark that he ever made has been applied in a greater number of
unlicensed ways. If a man insists upon preserving some ordinance in the
very form of its original appointment, such an ordinance as baptism or
the Lord’s Supper, for example, he is accused of contending for the
letter that killeth, while the man who makes the charge, and who changes
the ordinance, claims that he is following the spirit that giveth life.
All of that large class of writers who make free with the Scriptures
while claiming to reverence their authority, employ this device to
excuse their departures from the word of God, while those who
remonstrate with them for their license are denounced as literalists or
sticklers for the letter that killeth. In all these instances, it seems
to be claimed that if you stick close to the ordinance as Christ gave
it, you will kill somebody. The last example that attracted my attention
was in connection with the number of elders that should be appointed in
a church. The writer says: “It has been thought to be a greater evil to
have a congregation without a plurality of elders than to have an
eldership without the requisite qualifications;” and he adds: “This is
to do violence to the spirit of the New Testament in an effort to be
loyal to its letter.” But which, in this case, is the letter, and which
is the spirit? To have a plurality of elders is certainly the letter of
the New Testament; that is, it is the literal requirement; and the
literal requirement also is to have elders of prescribed qualifications.
Where, then, is the spirit as distinguished from the letter? Echo
answers, Where? The writer was so in the habit of using this favorite
expression where he wished to justify a departure from Scripture
precedent that he evidently applied it in this instance from pure habit
and without thought (1910, pp. 160-161).
Indeed, redefining the biblical expressions “spirit of the law” and
“letter of the law” enables the situationist to promote his agenda under
the cloak of Bible backing.
If one wishes to use the expression “the spirit of the law” to refer to
a proper attitude, and “the letter of the law” to refer to compliance
with the explicit dictates of Scripture, it certainly is true that a
person can distort or disregard “the spirit of the law” while following
carefully “the letter of the law.” A person may engage in external, rote
compliance without heartfelt, genuine love for God and His will. But it
is impossible to represent faithfully “the spirit of the law” (i.e., to
have the right attitude) while acting out of harmony with the specific
details of the law. When Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My
commands” (John 14:15), He pinpointed the fact that “love” for Him includes
obedience. It is possible to obey and not love; but it is not possible
to love and not obey. One may have good intentions in one’s religious
pursuits, but if those religious actions are contrary to God’s specified
will, the activity is unacceptable to God. The situationist’s claim
that sincerity and feelings of “love” legitimize whatever action “love”
takes, is in direct contradiction to Bible teaching.
Situationism, antinomianism (freedom from law), and liberalism (loosing
where God has bound) share in common their mutual aversion to law
keeping. Christians must not fall prey to these sinister forces that
attempt to soften and obscure the clear call from God to render
obedience to His directives. What He seeks from people is conformity to
His laws out of hearts full of sincerity, earnestness, and love.
CONCLUSION
Probably no greater threat to the stability of society exists in our
day than the humanistic, antinomian philosophy of situationism and its
multi-faceted pluralistic and/or post-modernistic manifestations. It is
part and parcel of the general rebellion against the authority of God’s
Word that engulfs America. Vast numbers of people are living life and
making decisions based upon their own subjective perceptions and
personal feelings. For them, the concepts of right and wrong, truth and
error are obscure, blurred, hazy, gray, and complex. What is wrong in
one situation may be right and acceptable in another. Satan has done his
job well. He has made great strides in American culture in the last
half century in his effort to break down biblical values and moral
absolutes. He has succeeded in replacing this framework with a tolerant,
open, permissive attitude and outlook that refrains from passing
judgment on anybody or anything. The “I’m OK, You’re OK” perspective has
been embedded firmly into American civilization.
The mindset of today’s situationist is not new. We humans do not
generally regard rules and regulations as positive phenomena. We usually
perceive them as infringements on our freedom—deliberate attempts to
restrict our behavior and interfere with our “happiness.” Like children,
we may have a tendency to display resentment and a rebellious spirit
when faced with spiritual requirements. We may feel that God is being
arbitrary and merely burdening our lives with haphazard, insignificant
strictures. But God would never do that. He never has placed upon anyone
any requirement that was inappropriate, unnecessary, or unfair. During
the Israelites’ final encampment on the plains of Moab prior to their
entrance into Canaan, Moses articulated a most important principle: “The
Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes...for our good always”
(Deuteronomy 6:24, emp. added; cf. 10:13). God never would ask us to do
anything that is harmful to us. He does not restrict us nor exert His
authority over us in order to purposely make us unhappy. Quite the
opposite! God knows exactly what will make us happy. Compliance with His Word
will make a person happy (John 13:17; James 1:25), exalted (James
4:10), righteous (Romans 6:16; 1 John 3:7), and wise (Matthew 24:45-46;
7:24).
Those who wish to relieve themselves of restriction will continue to
invent ways to circumvent the intent of Scripture. They will continue to
“twist” (2 Peter 3:16) and “handle the word of God deceitfully” (2
Corinthians 4:2). They will exert pressure on everyone else to “back
off,” “lighten up,” and embrace a more tolerant understanding of ethical
conduct. But the “honest and good heart” (Luke 8:15) will “take heed
how [he/she] hears” (vs.18). The good heart is the one who
“reads...hears...and keeps those things which are written therein”
(Revelation 1:3, emp. added). After all, no matter how negative they
may appear to humans, no matter how difficult they may be to obey, they
are given “for our good.”
The Bible simply does not countenance situation ethics. Jesus always
admonished people to “keep the commandments” (e.g., Matthew 19:17). He
kept God’s commands Himself—perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26). And He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9, emp. added).
REFERENCES
Barna, George (2003), “Morality Continues to Decay,” [On-line], URL: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?Press ReleaseID=152&Reference=F.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1955), Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge (London: SCM Press).
Brunner, Emil (1947), The Divine Imperative, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Chesser, Frank (2001), The Spirit of Liberalism (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs).
Cox, Harvey (1965), The Secular City (New York: MacMillan).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Fletcher, Joseph (1966), Situation Ethics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fletcher, Joseph (1967), Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Hook, Cecil (1984), Free in Christ (New Braunfels, TX: Privately published by author).
Hook, Cecil (1990), Free to Change (New Braunfels, TX: Privately published by author).
Lucado, Max (1996), In the Grip of Grace (Dallas, TX: Word).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press), second edition.
Metzger, Bruce M. (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Society).
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1932), Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Charles Scribner’s).
Ridenour, Fritz (1969), The Other Side of Morality (Glendale, CA: Regal Books).
Robinson, John A.T. (1963), Honest to God (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Warren, Thomas B. (1986), The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only Christians (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Woods, Guy N. (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
vs. Veil taken away; liberty