Truth Magazine

By Wayne T. Galloway

There is a plague that sometimes goes undetected in Christianity although we look at it, examine it, preach against it and understand that it will destroy. It not only destroys all Christianity, but is like a cancer constantly eating away at our morals. What is this plague? It is diagnosed by several names: situationism, the new morality, contextualism, occasionalism, circumstantialism and principled relativism to name a few.

Perhaps the most well known advocator of situation ethics is Joseph Fletcher. Fletcher has written two publications relating to the subject of situationism, Situation Ethics – The New Morality and Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work. In the first of these he points out three approaches to decision making. Let us examine these approaches noticing Fletcher’s definition for each. The first is “legalism”.

“With this approach one enters into every decision-making situation encumbered with a whole apparatus of prefabricated rules and regulations. Not just the spirit but the letter of the law reigns. Its principles, codified in rules, are not merely guidelines or maxims to illuminate the situation; they are directives to be followed. Solutions are preset, and you can “look them up” in a book – a Bible or a confessor’s manual.”(1)

The second approach is “antinomianism.” In defining antinomianism Fletcher says,

“Over against legalism, as a sort of polar opposite, we can put antinominianism. This is the approach with which one enters into the decision-making situation armed with no principles or maxims whatsoever, to say nothing of rules. In every “existential moment” or “unique” situation, it declares one must rely upon the situation of itself, there and then, to provide its ethical solution.”(2)

The last approach, the one Fletcher advocates is “situationism.”

“. . . in between legalism and antinomian unprincipledness is situation ethics. The situationist enters into every decision making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just the same he is prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so.”(3)

The Christian is indeed faced with three approaches to decision making, but which does the Bible teach, which does the immoralist teach and which does Joseph Fletcher teach? It is easy for any follower of Christ to understand that he must enter his decision making with the Bible (the law of God) in mind, so that eliminates “antinomianism” (literally -against law). According to Fletcher we should approach a situation with the Bible in mind but be able to disregard or compromise it if we find the Biblical way in contradiction to the most loving thing to do. In other words we can disregard the laws of God if we think it wiser or more loving to do something else. Joseph Fletcher and anyone who believes in situation ethics, please consider what the writer of Proverbs said in 16:25, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” The God of the Bible is all knowing; can we question His wisdom as He lays down laws for us to obey and at the same time realize our own ignorance? 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work (emphasis mine, wtg).”

The approach to decision making that the Christian must use is the legalist approach. God has all knowledge and says that every scripture inspired by Him is able to make the man of God complete, furnished completely unto every good work. Any decisions made contradicting the commands of scripture are not good works.

To bring situation ethics a little closer home to those of us who already understand that we must follow the Bible and not our own wisdom, let us consider some ways in which we practice situationism without realizing it. How often have you found yourself late to an appointment (perhaps even the worship of the church) and therefore justify breaking certain traffic laws to gain time? Do you ever justify lying so that you can protect someone from some kind of information you feel may hurt them? Do you ever forsake the assemblies of the church and stay home with your mate so you do not discourage him or her from becoming a Christian? Of course these are only a few ways that we allow this plague to afflict us. The terrible thing is that we feel justified in our disobedience. In a short time we may even digress to the point of ignoring God’s laws altogether. We must be careful that we are not lead astray by something that looks good. The fish is lead astray and then caught by good looking bait. We must remember to use the Bible as God’s “hook detector.”

Endnotes:

1. Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics – The New Morality (The Westminister Press, 1974), p. 18.

2.

3. Fletcher, p. 26.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, pp. 665-666
October 18, 1979

By Pat Higgins

Freeloader. We all know what a freeloader is. He is a person who partakes of the good things provided by others and never gives anything in return-a parasite. Society has a distaste for such people: the neighbor who is long on borrowing and short on returning; the relative who comes to visit and stays on and on, with no effort to contribute to the household expenses; the able-bodied welfare recipient. A freeloader is easily recognized: all take and no give. He wants to enjoy the benefits minus the responsibilities.

It occurs to me that there is another group of such parasites: the spiritual freeloader. These people fall into at least four classes:

The Non-Believers

This type freeloader enjoys the bounty of the earth freely given by the Heavenly Father, attributing it to evolution or whatever. He figures the world and all that is therein just sort of happened, and that no Being is responsible for it. The Psalmist David said that such a man was a fool: “The fool hath said in his heart. There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). The Apostle John calls the same man a liar and an antichrist: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 Jn. 2:22).

Those Who Acknowledge An “Existence”

There are several variations of this class, one of which we particularly want to notice at this time: the man who blissfully declares, “God is everywhere-in the flowers, the beautiful sunset, the loveliness of the mountain scenery, etc.” Not so! God is not in the flower. God made the flower; He created the conditions that illustrate the sunset; the loveliness of the mountains is a result of His power (Gen. 1). All these things declare the glory of God and His handiwork (Ps. 19:1).

This type freeloader acknowledges the existence of the “effect” but denies the existence of the “cause” as a Personality. He thoroughly enjoys and appreciates the physical blessings, but feels no compunction to seek out and revere the One who so liberally bestowed the good things for the benefit of all mankind (Gen. 1:28-31; Jas. 1:17).

Those Who Believe In God And Worship In Vain

This is the man who recognizes the benevolence of God and realizes he should give something in return. However, in his zeal to pay homage to God, he establishes his own doctrines and creeds, ignoring the revelation of God’s requirements. This man’s worship is vain, empty, because it is not according to knowledge. Rather, it is based upon the traditions and commandments of men who are ignorant of God’s righteousness (Rom. 10:1-3; Mt. 15:8-9).

He sets his own price and devises his own payment plan. He seems not to understand man’s inability to direct his own footsteps (Jer. 10:23). He is a freeloader in the sense that he is not giving appropriate payment for value received.

Inactive Christians

Into this category falls the man who recognized the goodness and mercy of a bountiful God and keenly felt the need to manifest his gratitude. He searched for a way to repay the Lord and found in His revealed Word the specifications for worship unto Him who is above all. As a result, he obeyed the gospel by faith in Jesus Christ (Jn. 8:24), repenting of his sins (Lk. 13:3), confessing that Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 10:9, 10; Acts 8:37), and by being buried in baptism to arise a new creature, henceforth to walk in newness of life (Mk. 16:16; Col. 2:12; 1 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6:3-6).

After becoming a child of God, this man once again became a freeloader. He sits back and lets his brethren do the working, studying, and the teaching. He feels he has now fulfilled his obligation and expects a free ride to heaven.

All the aforementioned freeloaders share two things in common: (1) they want something for nothing, and (2) they are all indebted to the Creator both physically and spiritually. The Psalmist David recognized this when he wrote, “What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?” (Ps. 116:12).

The Hebrew word translated render is shoov and can be properly translated return, restore, brought back, requite (Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldea Concordance, pg. 1244). Using the word requite, we see that Webster defines it as “to make return to for a benefit or service.” All men are beholden to Jehovah God and are obligated to requite Him (return or restore to the Lord for all His benefits toward us).

Again, hear the Psalmist: “Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness” (Ps. 29:2). The inescapable fact is that man owes God. He owes Him for all the benefits bestowed upon him. The man who will not render acceptable worship unto God will be banished from the presence of the Lord and punished with an everlasting destruction (Mt. 7:21-23; 2 Thess. 1:7-9). He is a freeloader. We all know what a freeloader is.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, pp. 664-665
October 18, 1979

By Steve Willis

The Apostle Paul is believed to have written several of his epistles and letters from prison. Among the Pauline prison epistles and letters are: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon. The fact that these may have been penned in the “pen” makes them no more (or less) inspired, but it is of interest if we seek to know the situation of the writer.

Some are proposing that we accept another prison epistle. It- was not written by Paul, Peter or one of the apostles, but by Martin Luther King. The Today Newspaper (Cocoa, Florida) reported this item August 20, 1979. “A group of black ministers from across the country aims to add a new book to the Bible – a letter by the late . . . Martin Luther King.” Muhammad Kenyatta, a Baptist minister said, “We believe that God worked through Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr.) in that jail in Birmingham in 1963 to reveal his holy word.” The article explains that while in jail, King penned the letter in response to a group of “eight white Alabama clergymen who criticized him as an outside agitator and termed his actions as `unwise and untimely.’ ” They hope to make this addition available later this year.

Though not a racial issue, this issue is certainly black and white; the Bible is plain about this matter. To add to the word, “which was once for all delivered to the saints,” is wrong (Jude 3; 2 John 9; cf. Dt. 4:2; Rev. 22:18, 19). Joseph Smith (Mormon), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientist), Ellen White (Adventist), Judge Rutherford (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the Pope (Roman Catholic) have done the same thing that these men propose to do with Martin Luther King’s writings: add them to the Bible under the guise of “new” revelations from God. Occasionally the “new revelations from God” is in harmony with the Bible. More often than not, it contradicts the scriptures.

Let us not add any man’s word to the scriptures that God has delivered to us. And, let us expose those who would seek to make additions, or deletions, in the scriptures.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, p. 664
October 18, 1979

By Bob Waldron

In an article by George Cornell, AP religion writer, we learn that a Presbyterian scholar, Dr. Arthur F. Glasser, has discovered that religious tolerance indicates a spiritual vacuum. Sounds good! Let me quote. “We’ve become so mushy-headed and tolerant in America that people say any religion is okay, but the fact is that they can be demonic. Such relativism is the curse of Biblical faith.” Several of his statements are worthy of circulation. “Many people are so jaded that they uncritically accept any idea that comes down the pike.”

Much of what the dean of Fuller Theological Seminary had to say was addressed to the mass suicide in Guyana. “In all this tide of relativism, the flood of eastern cults and the assumptions that any religion is okay as long as it’s sincere, we’ve tried to face the situation and say plainly that there is truth and there is error.”

In my experience it is such a novel thing to hear such statements from denominational leaders that I would like to encourage this thinking among them. Therefore, I want to avoid the temptation of sarcasm and yet point out a few problems for denominational preachers and leaders who would reason in the manner of Mr. Glasser.

Let me quote once more: “Tolerance, in its best sense, is a virtue” and “we must allow for a measure of differences, listening to one another, and learning, a principle of the ecumenical movement.” Frankly, this last statement, in the ecumenical context, means that whereas we should not be mushy-headed enough to tolerate the far-out cults, we should be mushy-headed enough to continue tolerating enormous differences on everything from organization to what is necessary for salvation.

Tolerance and ecumenism are like father and son. The grandfather is a lack of respect for the authority of the Bible. The existence of ecumenism demands tolerance. The movement the ecumenical unity has involved the discounting of more and more that might be important enough to differ over. In other words, when there are vast differences between two or more parties, they can achieve togetherness in three ways. (1) One side can be converted to the other side. (2) Both sides can give up their positions. (3) Both sides can be converted to the truth. The ecumenical movement has been accomplished primarily by the second method. Such a course, however, creates more and more tolerance for different ideas and directly fosters as “anything goes” attitude. When this attitude boils over in the acceptance of such cock-eyed cults as the Peoples’ Temples, we are shocked. Trying to keep ecumenism alive while not tolerating cults is like trying to have a mild fatal illness.

Those denominational leaders who have taught that “one religion is as good as another” and “it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere” are going to have to count the cost. If they say it does matter whether one is sprinkled or immersed, whether one is “once saved always saved” or not, and whether one is born totally depraved or not. If, on the other hand, it does not matter which one of these positions one holds, then they will need to decide which of the possible following answers is the reason why. (1) Everything is true. There is no false doctrine. Two plus two is one, two, three, four, or whatever. One is saved by faith only as well as not by faith only. It is all true. (2) Everything is false. There is no truth. Anything one believes is false, so it does not matter.

If it does not matter what one believes, these are the only two valid possibilities why not. If we once grant that both truth and error exist, then they differ, men can tell the difference, and we cannot blithely ignore the difference.

What a dilemma: on the one hand to see the proliferation of personality cults or to give up the beauties of ecumenism. There is an alternative. Reject denominationalism and make the Bible the sole rule in faith and practice.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 41, p. 663
October 18, 1979