Be Ye Doers. . . Of The Word!

The popular and widespread adoption of "situation ethics" stands diametrically opposed to truth. Though Christians are to be lovers and seekers of truth, we have discarded truth and chosen instead movable standards provided by the code of situation ethics. This approach to life is now steadily and relentlessly infiltrating our approach to truth and doctrine in the church as well. In fact, situation ethics have become firmly entrenched in the church! For not only have our ethics become situation oriented, so have our doctrines. Perhaps in the church we should call this vague new philosophy "situation doctrines!" Adopting "situation doctrines" means omitting objective Truth that comes from God's Word. Is human judgement about the relevancy of ethics and doctrine really reliable or simply a more convenient way for a valueless society to avoid the pangs of conscience? "Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, 'If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.'" (John 8:31,32) These words of our Savior seem radically at odds with the modern philosophy which maintains there are no Biblical or moral absolutes! Let's see how situation ethics has influenced the church.

The concepts known as "situation ethics" were popularized in a book published by Dr. Joseph Fletcher in 1966 entitled, Situation Ethics. Situation ethics is the offspring of French existentialism. The writings of many liberal theologians such as Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoffer, Rudolph Bultman, Paul Tillich and others were influenced to various degrees by existentialism. Though these men, who are influential in denominationalism, were religious, they deny the validity of the Bible to serve as a uniform code of conduct for all mankind. Existentialism can be summarized as a philosophy which believes ". . . man's own feelings and mystical experiences have become . . . the final measure of truth." This is the ultimate end of subjectivism. When the subjective experiences of an individual become the guide for determining moral and doctrinal "truth," the result is ethical and doctrinal anarchy. Each man does what is right in his own eyes. The resulting chaos of conflicting doctrines and flexible standards is readily apparent in the religious world today.

Existentialism has been defined and given new terminology for our modern times in the doctrines of "situation ethics." The basic teachings of situation ethics are:

1. There are no absolutes.
2. Love is pre-eminent over all else.
3. Truth is relative to a particular time or situation.
4. Circumstances determine right behavior.
5. All other rules and maxims are to be used only in an "advisory" capacity.

Sound familiar? The doctrine of situation ethics is best summed up in the phrase, "The end justifies the means." The priests of situation ethics use several "Catch 22" situations to confuse and overpower those who believe in absolute standards. Many students have been given hypothetical situations specifically designed to conflict with God's moral standards. For example, a student may be told that there has been a nuclear war. Because the bomb shelter only has limited room and supplies, they must choose out of a group of people who must live and who will be excluded and left to die. The student is to write a paper giving the reasons for who they select to live and who they would let die. They are often told, "There are no right or wrong answers." As long as the student gives reasonable arguments, no one cares who lives or dies. The purpose of such exercises is to deliberately break down the standards and moral codes learned from church and family.

In seeking to justify breaking the rules, the followers of situation ethics will even appeal to the Bible. There were several times when Jesus "broke the rules" (when the disciples plucked grain on the Sabbath, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath, etc.). These are cited in an effort to prove that there are no absolutes!

Situation ethics have completely permeated our society and are constantly being reinforced by popular TV programs and demonstrated in politics. Virtually all of the TV "private investigators" steal, murder, break and enter, lie, etc., all in the name of securing "justice" for their clients. Since they are portrayed as heros, the audience cheers them on in their criminal activities. Thus, breaking the law becomes a good thing to do in a particular situation. Politicians routinely say whatever is necessary to win an election and then promptly disregard the promises they made. The end (getting elected) justifies the means (dishonesty and fraud).

Humanism and the New Age Movement are dominated by the doctrines of situation ethics. Value-based education and values clarification are simply evangelistic techniques used to win converts to the situation ethics gospel.

These are religions and philosophies Christians oppose as being man-made and fathered by Satan. We preach against them, and we are frightened by theirintroduction into local school curriculums. But the doctrines of situation ethics have become firmly entrenched in most churches of Christ today.

Biblical relativism and situation doctrines have become the accepted approach to the Bible and doctrine in most churches. The objective Truth of God's Word has been quietly cast aside and is now rejected and opposed by Christians! Because, in every day practice, we declare the Bible to be relative. Selected portions of the Word are explained to be fine for Jesus' day, but out of touch with 20th century life. Likewise, our doctrines are determined by the "situation" and not by the clear commands of God's Word. Though we oppose the Humanism and New Age religions, we believe and practice their "doctrines of demons." Our "elastic" approach to doctrines can be heard in popular phrases voiced among Christians: "That's your interpretation," "Love is really what matters," and "It's what's in your heart that count's."

Our doctrines clearly depend upon the situation. We may say we believe that immersion in water for the remission of sins is essential for salvation. But we also insist, "Aunt Susie was never baptized, but you can't tell me she's not in Heaven!" or "Evangelical Christians are our brothers in Christ." Anyone who dares to point out what the Bible actually says about baptism is censured and dismissed with cries of "don't judge," or they are branded with that dreaded label of "legalist!" We even set up our own hypothetical situation in order to prove that baptism is not essential for salvation (just like the bomb shelter exercise) by creating a mythical person in a mythical desert who wants to become a Christian but has no access to water!

The "end justifies the means" doctrine is the excuse for utilizing denominational singing groups and preachers. Supposedly, because they will draw crowds, we can overlook the fact that these leaders are not even Christians and that they teach false doctrine. So the end (luring into a meeting a few more bodies, raising money, etc.) justifies the means (encouraging false teachers to teach and lead our people). Do you see how the church has swallowed situation ethics?

The Lord's Supper is taken any day of the week. We do this not because of the commands and examples in the Bible, but because it accommodates our society that wants to work overtime, sleep in, or play on the Lord's Day! One church doesn't take the Lord's Supper to Christians in the hospital until Monday or Tuesday because the men want to spend Sundays at home. Repeatedly, we bend and modify doctrine to fit the situation, ignoring the New Testament pattern.

Our motto has been "Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent." Now we have decided the Bible has little or no relevance to 20th century life. Women are commanded to be "keepers at home" in Titus 2:5, but that is dismissed as a cultural practice that only applied in Jesus' day and has no relevance for all the employed Christian women around today. Our materialistic greed has joined with situation doctrines to help us ignore the Bible. The world has told us that women must work to be fulfilled, independent and for a family to get ahead. We have listened to the world and ignored the Bible and God's promises. Now the church , evangelism and our families are paying the price. Often, because there are so many careerists in the congregation, we simply avoid the issue so the offerings won't be diminished and the feathers won't be ruffled. Once again we allow the situation to dictate our doctrines, and the Word of God is tossed aside.

Just as "situation ethics" says that love must be the overriding factor in all moral and ethical decisions, today a twisted, superficial form of love is trumpeted as the litmus test for all doctrines in the church. In reality, love is being used as a shield to hide compromise, lack of conviction, Biblical ignorance and spiritual apathy. While people say they want a church that "loves and uplifts them," what they really mean is, "Don't tell me I'm wrong!"

What ever happened to our love for Christ and His Word? What is required to rekindle our allegiance to the objective commands of the Bible? The sentiment that our "deep love" for an individual prevents us from correcting their errors in a bold and straightforward manner is a farce. The time has come for the superficial gush falsely called "love" to be replaced by genuine love of truth, sound doctrine and accuracy that is demonstrated by loyal obedience to all that Christ commands. Since Jesus is coming again to punish those who are disobedient (2 Thessalonians 1:8), we must carefully obey His commands if we expect to see Heaven. Since doctrine frees us from sin (Romans 6:17,18) we must make sure our teaching and preaching is solidly grounded in the Word of God - not based on the subjective whims of the human race. The doctrines of men (regardless of how "loving" they may be) can only result in worship that is wasted and in vain (Matthew 15:9). Instead of being enamored with "love" and captured by the empty philosophies of "doctrinal relativism," we need courageous commitment to God's Word.

The world is content to excuse immorality and sin under the cloak of "situation ethics." In much the same manner the church has stooped to excusing doctrinal and ethical error under the guise of "love." Such is the hypocrisy brought on by biblical relativism. If the church does not know where to stand on truth and doctrine, how will a lost, confused world ever be influenced to follow Christ? As Paul asked, "For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?" (1 Corinthians 14:8) When the church abandons the Bible as the absolute standard of ethics and doctrine, the message of the church becomes garbled, contradictory and feeble. The world's philosophies and man's subjective feelings are in critical competition with the Bible to be the voice of truth and righteousness. Who will call the tune for the church's dance?