moral relativism – La Vista Church of Christ

Uncompromising

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 01 Sep 2024 00:19:36 +0000

by Sewell Hall

Generally speaking, our generation has an aversion to authority, yet those who heard the Lord’s great sermon observed that “He taught them as one having authority.”

We prefer sermons that deal in generalities; Jesus dealt with specifics.
We prefer preachers who praise rather than condemn; Jesus condemned not only wrong conduct but also wrong motives.
We object to “name calling”; Jesus unabashedly named unfavorably the leading religious party of His day.
We favor motivation by promising rewards, but Jesus, while offering rewards, did not hesitate to threaten “hell fire.”
Our society seeks instant gratification, while the promises of Jesus are primarily for life hereafter.
We tend to think of everything as relative, but Jesus spoke in absolutes.
We criticize any preaching that “makes everything black and white” as simplistic, yet Jesus repeatedly divided His subjects into just two categories: right and wrong.
We applaud broad-mindedness and seek the easy way, but Jesus warned that His way is narrow and the gate is difficult.

Jesus knew that in every generation, those who would follow the heavenly way would be few compared to the many who would reject it. His concern was not with quantity but with quality. Consequently, He compromised His standards, not one iota to accommodate the weaknesses of men or the peculiarities of His generation. Had He made any compromise at all, the resulting kingdom would not have been the kingdom of Heaven.

The Disaster of Relativism

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 20:30:21 +0000

by Shane Scott
Sentry Magazine, March 2000

Philosophers refer to cur present era of intellectual history as the postmodern period. This means that we are beyond the modern period when the scientific method ruled. As hostile to Christianity as scientific modernism is, there is one crucial area in which both Christians and modernists agree. Both agree that absolute truth exists, though each has a profoundly different basis for grasping the truth.

Postmodernism, however, denies that objective truth exists. Truth is only what you perceive it to be, and what is true for you may not be true for someone else. This viewpoint is called relativism.

I tell my students that I am not a postmodern professor because I will give them grades based on the objective standard of my expectations. A consistent postmodern professor would have no choice but to give every student an "A," since every student can say his "wrong" answers were true, from his point of view.

As silly as that prospect is, the bitter consequence of relativism is that all ethical systems and philosophical worldviews must also receive the same passing grade. If there is no eternal standard by which behavior and ideas can be judged, then all behaviors and all ideas must be equally regarded.

Despite its moniker, postmodernism is hardly a recent development. From the standpoint of Scripture, mankind has always been tempted to replace God's objective will with his own self-will. I want to explore what the Bible says about this dangerous course.

The Paradigm - Romans 1

In Romans 1-3 Paul presents his indictment against sinful humanity, concluding that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23). Both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of violating whatever law God has given them. Romans 1:18-32 is Paul's description of the utter sinfulness of the Gentile world. In this passage, I want you to notice two things. First, the root cause for this apostasy, and second. the consequences this had for Gentile society.

The Cause -- Rejection of God

Romans 1:18 declares that God's wrath is revealed against those who suppress the truth. What truth? "That which is known about God" (Romans 1:19). ln particular, Paul argues that the Gentiles could know God's eternal power and divine nature based on "the creation of the world" (Romans 1:20). The Gentiles were given clear proof of God's existence and power through nature, but they suppressed this truth.

Man needs to believe in something. And what Paul goes on to say is that upon rejecting belief in God, the Gentiles invented their own religion. This religion denied God's distinct role as Creator, and instead crafted gods in the image of creation, including man (Romans 1:21 ). This is mankind's story. When we reject God in whose image we are made, we replace Him with a god-man in our own image. This is the essence of relativism -- creating your own religion.

The Consequences

Next, in Romans 1:24-32. Paul outlines three severe ramifications of rejection of God, keying each with the phrase "God gave them over" (Romans 1:24, 26, 28). Far more consequential than men giving up God is God giving up men.

First, God gave the Gentiles "over in the lusts of their hearts" (Romans 1:24). Pagan religion was saturated with sexual overtones, complete with temple prostitution (see Genesis 38:21). It is no wonder that rejection of the true God led to promiscuity.

Second, "God gave them over to degrading passions" (Romans 1:26), defined here by Paul as homosexual and lesbian conduct. God built within His creation the ability to reproduce. Rejection of God as Creator would naturally lead to sexual abominations which fundamentally deny the life-giving reproduction inherent in God's created order.

Third, "God gave them over to a depraved mind" (Romans 1:28). Paul's description of the depraved mind is that it causes complete social chaos (Romans 1:29-31), or what we might call "man's inhumanity to man."

When mankind calls its own shots, the results are profligacy, perversion, and savagery.

A Historical Example

Not only does Scripture outline the evils of relativism, but it also illustrates them. Let's now take a look at a period of Israel's history when "there was no king in lsrael; everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25) -- the period of the Judges.

The Root Cause

The period of the Judges is that time in Israel's history sandwiched in between the exodus and the monarchy. Though Israel had a king on the throne, God Himself, the nation had no visible national leader. Judges 17 opens with a story about a young boy who confesses to his mother that he stole her silver. She responds by blessing him and then vows. "I wholly dedicate the silver from my hand to the LORD for my son to make a graven image and a molten image" (Judges 17:3). Israel has rejected the true knowledge of God.

The Consequences

On the basis of Romans 1, we can anticipate what will happen next. First, the record speaks of a Levite's concubine who "played the harlot against him" (Judges 19:2). This is what Paul spoke of when he said God gives the godless over to the "lusts of their heart."

After tracking her down, the Levite passes through the region of Benjamin on his way home. At the town of Gibeah, he finds lodging with an old man in the city. That night a mob from the city surrounded the house and demanded that the Levite be sent out so that they could abuse him sexually (Judges 19:22). This is the "degrading passion" Paul spoke of.

Desperate, the Levite sent out his concubine to the mob, and she was abused until she dropped dead at the door. The Levite then sent word to all the tribes about this disgrace. When the tribes demand that the men of Benjamin punish Gibeah, they refuse. Gibeah has found "hearty approval" in the eyes of Benjamin, as Paul said of the Gentiles (Romans 1:32).

A civil war ensues in which the 12 tribes make war on Benjamin -- social chaos at its worst. Of the 26,000 men of Benjamin who fought, only 600 survived (Judges 20:47).

Application

I don't think there is any question that our society is in the process of giving up God. Relativism abounds in our country, with no more vivid example than President Clinton. In his testimony during his scandal with Monica Lewinsky, the president repeatedly redefined terms like "sexual relations," "alone," and even "is" in a way that defied objective reality. The overwhelming public support he received can only mean that our society gives its own "hearty approval'' to evildoers.

Further, I don't think there is any question that God is in the process of giving this nation up. The "sexual revolution" has truly rebelled against the purity of sex in marriage that God's word ordains (Hebrews 13:4 ). The acceptance of homosexual conduct is growing, and in some cases with tacit civil approval. And who would deny that our culture is coarsening, hardening in its inhumanity?

Relativism may sound like an esoteric philosophy, but its application is fatal to society. Our responsibility as Christians is to demonstrate consistent obedience to the truth of God's word and to share the news of the One who is "the way, the truth, and the life" to the world (John 14:6).

The Absolute Truth

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:51:37 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-Absolute-Truth.mp3

Text: Jeremiah 32:37-41

I. I’m sure you have heard people who in matters of right and wrong express this belief

A. “I feel it is wrong for me, but other people have to decided for themselves whether it is wrong for them. I can’t push my beliefs on others.”

B. The statement is called “moral relativism.”

1. The standard of right and wrong appealed to is one of self.

2. Since there are multiple selves, there is no on correct view

C. It is a belief that people can define truth in contradictory ways and still be correct.

D. The relativeness of right and wrong can vary by

1. Person

2. Time

a. The argument that Paul did not allow women to address assemblies because of his current culture.

b. The argument that baptism once was by immersion only, but today we can have other methods.

c. The acknowledgment that instrumental music was forbidden in the early church, but we can allow it today.

d. The argument that homosexuality was once wrong, but times have changed.

3. Events

a. The popular “situation ethics”

II. Relativism is popular in our culture and it is creeping into the church

A. A strong drive is being made to deny the Creator in our government.

1. Hence our laws are no longer viewed as being founded on principles handed down by a higher being, but, instead, they stand alone.

2. Since there is nothing to be conformed to, they can be altered by the whim of the people.

3. All connections between the government and God are being steadily abolished.

a. This why you had groups suing to have plaques containing the Ten Commandments removed from public places

4. This drive has reached our schools, where any reference to Christianity and its ethics is forbidden.

B. Moral relativism is the natural result of attempts to explain and enforce ethics without an appeal to an ultimate source of right and wrong.

1. The standard taught is one that appeals to a person’s feelings of right and wrong - in other words a person’s conscious.

2. This might work with a society that holds a consistent standard of right and wrong, passed from generation to generation, but we have cut off the distribution.

a. We are entering the result. Things are happening that we could not imagine happening: school shootings, violence against children, violence in the streets with the approval of government officials.

b. We also see it in the church when children trained in relativistic thinking grow up and apply relativism to the Scriptures

C. Moral relativism is popular, because we fail to explain why something is right or wrong

1. Why is it wrong to lie?

2. Why shouldn’t I hit my brother?

3. How can sex be wrong if I love the other person?

4. Without understanding “why,” the immediate pleasures of sin obscures the reality of the consequences.

III. There is an absolute right and wrong because God is the source of truth

A. John 14:6 - Jesus is the way and the truth (singular)

1. He holds this universe together - Colossians 1:16-17

2. He holds all authority - Matthew 28:18

3. God is therefore the definer of right and wrong

B. God does not change

1. There is no variation in God - James 1:17

2. He is a solid foundation - Deuteronomy 32:4

3. He remains the same - Hebrews 13:8

4. His word, like He, Himself, does not change - Isaiah 40:7-8

5. Since God is the source of truth and God does not change, then truth does not change over time.

C. Even people who believe in moral relativism prove there is an higher, absolute standard

1. A liar is outraged when someone lies to them.

2. An angry person doesn’t like being yelled at.

3. If everything was relative to an individual, then no one should feel bad when they are mistreated. Yet since they do, they realize that other people, at least, are required to follow a moral guideline.

4. We say that the Holocaust was evil, but the Germans argued that it wasn’t evil for their society (relativism)

a. If morality was relative, no one could be condemned for doing what they felt was right.

IV. God’s laws are not arbitrary

A. His commandments reveal His character - Psalms 19:7-11

B. Notice verse 11: There is a benefit to keeping God’s laws

1. They are given for the good of his people - Jeremiah 32:37-40

2. His commands are not burdensome - I John 5:3

3. Deuteronomy 10:12-13 - The commands are for His people’s good. Therefore, violating them would be detrimental to us.

C. This does not mean that a keeper of God’s law will never have bad things happen to them, but, rather, that the quality of life becomes better.

1. We learn multiplication in school. It gives us benefits, such as being able figuring wages or the amount of wallpaper we need to buy.

2. Yet, 5 x 4 is 20 – not because I receive benefits from that knowledge, but because it is reality

3. God’s truths are absolute because they reflect the way things are.

D. God tells us why things are right or wrong. He explains what happens in the long run.

1. Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? - Proverbs 6:32-33

2. Why should I help others? - Proverbs 11:25-26

3. Why is it wrong to lie? - Proverbs 12:19

4. Why can’t I hang around with the class fool? - Proverbs 14:6-7

V. The acceptance of truth requires a relationship

A. This is why Deuteronomy 10:12-13 talks of loving the Lord God

B. Absolute truth does not change, but it does a person no good if it is not accepted.

C. Like a parent with a rebellious teenager, you can state the way things are, but it will not sink in unless the child loves his parent - Ephesians 6:1-4

D. The fear of God is the beginning - Proverbs 1:7; 9:10

How could the Gentiles be guilty of sin when they did not have the Law?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:58:00 +0000

Question:

I was trying to figure out the comparison (or contrast) between Romans 2:12-16 and Romans 7:7-11

"For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the works of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day, when according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:12-16).

"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me" (Romans 7:7-11).

My questions are: The Gentiles did not have the Law of Moses, but, although they didn't, they instinctively did some of the things that the Law required. The first passage says that the Gentiles "by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law". However, my contemplation is that what they knew instinctively was not sufficient as a standard to be judged by, because then that would seem that good and bad were dependent on their standard/available knowledge of good and evil, which would make morality non-absolute. Since the Gentiles (and people in general) cannot know all that is good and evil, there has to be a standard (which God doesn't provide in the Bible), otherwise judgment on them would seem unfair.

So I reason within myself and think, since the Gentiles did not have a written down Law, then this explains what was said in Acts 17:29-31 "Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." Therefore, the Gentiles received mercy because all they had to go on, in regard to morality, was what they did good and bad instinctively. Is this reasonable?

I also contemplate that a Law (not the Law of Moses) always existed even before Moses because sin still existed. I John 3:4 (sin is lawlessness) and reading the story of Cain and Abel, God tells Cain, "sin is crouching at the door, but you must master over it." So what does Paul mean in Romans 5:13? Is he saying that sin is not penalized when the Law doesn't exist? (Which doesn't make sense considering the Flood story). Or is he trying to show that Law has always existed? And how is it possible for sin to have existed before the law?

Romans 7:7 Paul said, "Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet unless the law said 'You shall not covet.'" My question to this is, the Gentiles didn't have the Law, but they instinctively did some things of the Law. So why does Paul say that the Law (of Moses) defined sin when the Gentiles, without the law of Moses, committed sins? (I Might be answering my own question in this question but I can't see it).

Answer:

I read through this twice, but I'm not certain I understand your question accurately.

Romans as a whole is about God's justice in forgiving mankind of sin. Romans 1:18ff establishes that Gentiles had left God to follow what was logically unreasonable. Romans 2 deals with the Jews' false idea of being superior to the Gentiles. Paul charges that they are no different from the Gentiles. The Jews thought the law gave them superiority over the Gentiles, assuming that Gentiles could not do right without the law. Paul's point in Romans 2:12-16 is that it isn't the possession of law that makes a person righteous but the following of the law. The Gentiles were in sin because they did not follow God's laws. God could justly hold them accountable because they were able to do right, even though it wasn't written out for them.

Let me give an example. People understand that taking something that belongs to another person is wrong. It doesn't take a written law to understand this. Thus, when a person steals, moves property boundaries, uses false weights, commits adultery, etc. God can hold them accountable because instinctively they knew that stealing was wrong. Since not every Gentile steals because they know it is wrong, it proves that they can do right.

Having a written law was not as great an advantage as the Jews imagined it to be. Nor were they superior because they were guilty of the same types of crimes as the Gentiles. Romans 3 tells the Jews they had the advantage over the Gentiles because they had the law written out for them. Their inability to keep the law proves that God was right. The law itself states that everyone (Jew and Gentile) is sinful. Thus, it was necessary for God to take steps to rescue mankind from their disobedience. God could do this justly (without arbitrariness or bias) by making it based on faith.

In Romans 5:12-14, Paul proves that law always existed. It didn't suddenly show up when Moses gave the Law to the Israelites. The axiom is that sin is not charged when a person did not know the law. The penalty for sin is death. Everyone dies, even people who lived before Moses. It wasn't because they were guilty of Adam's sin. Therefore, there must have been laws prior to Moses. For example, the wiping out of the world by the Flood because the entire world was in sin is evidence that they had law and were knowledgeable of it. And, yes, Cain could be held guilty of murder because he knew that killing another human was wrong. It didn't take the written Law of Moses to tell men that fact.

Romans 7 deals with why the Law of Moses could not continue. It had a problem: it made people aware of sin, even sins they would not normally commit, but offered no permanent solution to sin. Temptation increases with awareness, causing a conflict between what a person wants to do and what he ultimately does. The Gentiles didn't have this increased problem of temptation, but that lesser burden didn't prevent them from sinning.

Paul's statements in Acts 17 to the Gentiles basically say that there will be a Judgment Day and that the Gentiles will be facing that Judgment. God had not come as He could have to punish the world for their sins, but the Gentiles could not assume that God would never come. The times when God tolerated the sins of the Gentiles would end. He commands the Gentiles to change. Paul said something similar earlier to another group of Gentiles: "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness" (Acts 14:15-17). Stumbling around with only a vague notion of what is right and wrong is no longer enough.

Question:

What I was trying to get at essentially is the concept of human nature. You cleared up the misunderstanding I had by explaining the different chapters. I guess what I was trying to figure out is, regarding the Gentiles as an example, do people at some point in their lives generate the ability to naturally distinguish right and wrong without being taught (by law, for example)?

I was having a conversation with someone, and she stated that in different cultures, they have different beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. In class, we talked about cultural relativism. An example was an Egyptian culture in which, when the husband died, they placed the husband's possessions inside the coffin, including killing the wife, and to the Egyptians, this was seen as normal. Someone else in a different culture can say that's wrong, but for the Egyptians, that's not seen as a bad thing, so how can one standard judge everyone if they all don't possess it? And if they have no excuse, then can you further explain this to me?

Answer:

What you ran into is the idea of moral relativism, where morality supposedly changes based on circumstances, such as situations or cultures.

I would argue that the example of the Egyptians is one of a culture granting an exception to what they know is moral. For example, ancient Egyptian kings would kill retainers to serve them in the afterlife, but this practice was only brief in Egypt's history. "It appears that Ancient Egyptians did sacrifice their servants to take them into the Afterlife, but only in the very early portions of their vast history. This was not a regular practice as some would have the general public believe" [Did the Ancient Egyptians Practice Human Sacrifice?]. I also found that "The union of man and woman often transcended death. Couples were frequently buried in the same or in adjacent tombs, and depicted together..." [Ancient Egypt: Man and Woman]. In other words, just because a husband and wife are found buried together, it does not mean the wife was killed to be with her husband. Therefore, all we can conclude is that some kings of ancient Egypt, for a short period of time, had people killed in the mistaken belief that they would join them in the afterlife. The very fact that it was not commonly practiced and that it stopped is a good indication that they found something wrong with it.

For more on this topic, see: Depending on the Situation.

Should the poor be helped if it makes our life harder?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 11 May 2010 01:46:00 +0000

Question:

I have a penchant for helping the poor. But I came across an article titled "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor" and it was really interesting. Here is an excerpt:

"If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do? First, we must recognize the limited capacity of any lifeboat. For example, a nation's land has a limited capacity to support a population and as the current energy crisis has shown us, in some ways we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our land."

This hit me hard too from the article:

Some say they feel guilty about their good luck. My reply is simple: "Get out and yield your place to others."

It goes directly against the Bible's teachings, and this article's reasoning makes some sense too. Two examples are Matthew 25:37-46 and I John 3:16-20.

Answer:

The philosophy being taught is called situational ethics. It is a belief that right and wrong changes based on the situation a person finds himself in. Thus, instead of examining whether someone in need ought to be helped, the focus is shifted to the capacity to help. Helping the poor becomes "right" if a person decides he can do it with no impact on himself but "wrong" if it might potentially harm his own situation.

The flaw is that moral decisions are being based on a selfish outlook and greed. It hurts me, then I shouldn't do it. How unlike Christ!

"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:3-8).

Yes, each person has limited resources. But it doesn't mean we don't do the best with what we have.

"Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need" (Ephesians 4:28).

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Galatians 6:9-10).

We do what we can when we can. We put priorities on our brethren, but don't neglect others.

"Is this not the fast that I have chosen: To loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and that you break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; when you see the naked, that you cover him, and not hide yourself from your own flesh? Then your light shall break forth like the morning, your healing shall spring forth speedily, and your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard" (Isaiah 58:6-8).

The goal is not to wipe out poverty. Such a task can never be accomplished (Mark 14:7). But what you and I can do is ease a fellow traveler's burden for a moment as we journey through life.

Right and wrong stand independent of situations. It isn't based on our personal view of its impact on our personal life.

Question:

Thank you so much, Mr. Hamilton! Each question was answered so clearly and lengthy, with the perfect Bible verses backing it up. These answers have helped me tremendously. Thanks again and God bless!

Answer:

You're welcome. Write at any time.

Depending on the Situation

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:04:00 +0000

Depending on the Situation - Part 1 Depending on the Situation - Part 2

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Text: Romans 5:18-6:2

I. Dinner time conversation was lively the other night. A few caught Dennis Prager’s Ultimate Issues Hour.

A. Now I like Mr. Prager’s show for the most part. You don’t usually find commentators willing to address moral issues from a biblical viewpoint. And generally Mr. Prager is logical in his approach. But not on this topic.

B. The contention is that what is morally right can change based on the situation

1. In any situation, he claims that there is an absolute right choice, but that doesn’t remain fixed for all situations.

2. What is wrong in many situations may become right in some situations.

II. Defining terms

A. Absolute morality

1. A fixed standard of what is right and wrong, regardless of context, consequence, or intentions.

2. The standard is independent of custom or individual opinion.

B. Moral relativism

1. The standard of right and wrong change by the individual or by a societal group.

2. What might be right for you, may not be right for me

3. It is a claim that there isn’t an absolute or universal standard for everyone.

4. Those who claim that it is wrong to judge others subscribe to moral relativism, whether they realize it or not.

C. Situational Ethics

1. Joseph Fletcher is considered the father of Situation Ethics.

a. He stressed “freedom from prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules”. [Moral Responsibility, p. 7]

b. He defined it as being relative, non-absolute, variant, and non-universal.

c. The rules change, not based on an individual or group, but upon the situation presented.

2. It is actually a form of consequential morality, where right or wrong is determined by the outcome of the decision.

a. Fletcher defined it as “the relative weight of the ends and means and motive and consequences all taken together, as weighed by love.” [Moral Responsibility, p. 23]

b. In other words, whatever generates the greatest “love” is the best choice.

(1) Of course, you can’t know all outcomes in advance, so this is tempered by decisions where you intend to produce the greatest amount of “love.”

(2) More pointedly, “love” is not really defined, so it isn’t surprising that it degrades into a personal feeling, and thus moral relativism.

3. Prager tries to rescue Situational Ethics by saying that right and wrong are based on the situation, but the choice must be based on a moral absolute.

a. Thus, if something morally right results from a choice, then it doesn’t matter if a law was broken to gain that result.

b. He used the illustration of a Polish woman who used sexual favors to distract those looking for Jews hidden in her home.

(1) Prager would argue that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong

(2) But the preserving of life is a higher ideal and thus the sin was justified.

c. Thus, he claims there are moral absolutes where the situation makes exceptions to one rule to uphold another.

d. His aim is to see how God would see the situation and which choice is the one God would make.

III. Problems

A. Prager’s justification is based on verbal slight of hand

1. He points out that killing is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

a. Murder, which he defines as immoral killing, is wrong

b. But a death penalty for a condemned murderer is right

c. Or killing in the defense from harm of yourself or others

2. He then claims that lying is the same. It can be right or wrong based on the situation.

3. But here is the flaw: All murder is killing, but all killing is not murder.

a. Murder is defined in the Scriptures. In is the intentional killing of another, directly or indirectly, because of malice toward the victim - Numbers 35:20-21

b. Manslaughter, the intentional killing of another is also defined as wrong, though carrying a different sentence - Numbers 35:22-23

c. Death penalties were a different class of killing. It had to be by judgment of evidence and it required multiple witnesses - Numbers 35:30

d. Defense of others or self is also commanded - Proverbs 24:11; Exodus 22:2-3; Nehemiah 4:14

e. Does killing change based on the situation as to whether it is write or wrong? Yes

(1) But the criteria is defined by God, not man

(2) And within those criteria, right and wrong doesn’t change

4. But Prager then takes lying and implies it can be right or wrong

a. The problem is that lying is defined to always be wrong - Revelation 21:8

b. Lying is an abomination - Proverbs 12:22

(1) This is particular interesting because Prager has argued that homosexuality is always wrong and a key argument is that God called it an abomination

(2) But Prager argues that there are times that lying is acceptable.

c. There is no acceptable lies in the context of the Scriptures

5. To make a fair comparison, Prager should have said that speech is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

a. He didn’t compare two similar things, which is why he ended up with a falsehood

B. It bases decisions on what is perceived to be the best near-term outcome.

1. Situational Ethics uses a man’s view of a situation to decide what is the best course of action - Jeremiah 10:23

2. We have limited knowledge of situations. We don’t see everything. We might be able to guess near term outcomes, but not long term ones

3. For example, who would choose hardship and persecution for himself or those he loves? - James 1:2-4

a. Consider Matthew 5:12 – those prophets died!

b. The example of Paul - Acts 21:11-14

c. Was Jesus innocent death good? - Matthew 26:39

d. The immediate is bad, but the long term is better

C. It rates laws

1. Situational Ethics asks people to decide which law is more important and then gives permission to break the lesser laws.

2. By saying in some situations a law can be broken, it is giving permission to subtract - Deuteronomy 12:32

3. This is second guessing God about importance of His laws. But God doesn’t think like people - Isaiah 55:8-9

4. One sin is not worse than another - James 2:8-11

5. Jesus taught that all was to be followed - Matthew 23:23

6. Better to suffer for doing good - I Peter 3:17, 14

D. It sets up a false dichotomy

1. There is an assumption that there only two choices.

a. You lie to protect the lives of those in your house or they are killed.

b. There is the option of saying nothing at all or talking about everything else but.

c. Being truthful does not require telling everything you know - I Samuel 16:2

2. There is always a way out - I Corinthians 10:13

IV. The Bible does teach moral absolutes

A. Sin is the breaking of law - I John 3:4

1. Situation Ethics turns this from a definition to a “could be”

B. Take the case of Uzzah in II Samuel 6:1-7

1. Does Uzzah let the ark of the covenant fall? Or does he touch it in violation of the law? - Numbers 4:15

2. Situation Ethics says the touching is a minor infraction.

a. The consequence of a few finger smudges is far less serious than the ark falling and getting damaged.

b. David and Uzzah’s intentions are good.

3. By all intents and purpose, the infraction was justified in this system – yet Uzzah died.

a. The system ignored the fact that this situation should not have even started.

b. If they had carried the ark as God ordered, none of this would have happened - I Chronicles 15:12-13

C. One does not sin to create good

1. It is a false idea - Romans 3:8

2. Grace is good, but you don’t sin to create more grace - Romans 5:20-6:2

3. The idea is self contradictory

D. Trust God in doing good - I Peter 4:19

1. Situation Ethics doesn’t trust that God’s laws are always right

V. There is a reason God said not to alter His word - Galatians 1:6-10

A. Situational Ethics is a poor attempt of justifying alterations of God’s laws to suit a person’s perceptions of the current situation.

B. We need to have more respect for God than this - John 14:15

C. God really does know what He is talking about.