Truth Magazine

By James R. McCain, M.D.

Dolly and Harry give a schoolboy some white stuff that looked like stardust. He ran with great speed to the yard where he lay in the grass and looking up into the blue heavens dreamed of taking trips where he could have. juice, fags, and a businessman’s high. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? These sentences were constructed using slang names for drugs that are being used today! Methadone, Heroin. Codeine, Morphine, Cocaine, Amphetamines, Marijuana, Barbituates, LSD, Alcohol, Tobacco and DMT.

Drug abuse is not just a problem for the underprivileged families and for the ghettos, but it is a problem for all society, the Christian family included. Drug abuse to the Christian should immediately bring to mind the “works of the flesh” in Ga. 5:19. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like . . . .” Any and all of these works could conceivably be a resultant factor in drug abuse. But a Christian need practice only one “work of the flesh” to miss inheriting the Kingdom of God. Among all the “works” mentioned in the above scripture, sorcery stands out as the one that would embrace drug abuse. The Greek word for sorcery is pharmakia from which we get our English word pharmacy. Its meaning primarily signifies the use of medicine, drugs, spells. Others “works” such as uncleanness, lasciviousness, drunkenness and revellings very often are associated with drug abuse.

If we wanted to use one phrase to describe why people abuse the use of drugs, it would probably have to be because of its “mind-altering” effect. Here again Christians are taught to be sober – sober-minded. The word “sober” as used in 1 Thess. 5:6-8 (not drunken), 1 Pet. 1:13 (gird up mind by being sober), and 1 Pet. 5:8 (be sober, be watchful; your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour) is translated from the Greek word nepho. This word nepho signifies in the New Testament to be free from the influence of intoxicants. We must therefore be keen of mind, lucid, ever watchful whereas the drug abuser is easy prey for the devil and will be devoured by the “roaring lion.”

This paper is being written in the hope that those who read it may be better informed about the dangers of the drugs that are being used today by our young people and even older people. These drugs, that alter the mind, and have the potential for causing organic damage, should be relagated to the devil and not be a part of the sober Christian’s armor.

The most prevalent drug used today is alcohol. By definition alcohol falls in the category of being a food as it does contain calories. However, it has no nutritional value. It also can be categorized as a drug because it affects the Central Nervous System. Unfortunately the term alcoholic does not apply to only the older generation. The average age for becoming an alcoholic is becoming increasingly younger and younger. There are even cases recorded of 7-year old children becoming alcoholics. The average age a young person begins to drink alcoholic beverages is 12-14 years. The addictive years for alcohol are between 18-24 years. It takes a teenager 15 months to become addictive; it takes an adult, 15 years to become addictive.

Twenty percent of the alcohol consumed by an individual goes into the blood stream immediately; the remaining 8©% goes in only slightly slower but once in the blood stream begins its tranquilizing effect, although at first it may seem to be stimulating. Depending upon the amount taken in, size of the individual, whether consumed with food, and how rapidly it is taken in determines how quickly the brain becomes depressed. If steady, heavy drinking persists, the brain can become anesthetized to such a degree that coma and death may result. The more chronic long-term effect of alcohol is seen to contribute to cirrhosis of the liver, gastric ulcers, heart disease, serious nervous and mental disorders and even permanent brain damage.

Many homes are destroyed because of alcohol; many accidents are the direct result of alcoholic consumption. There are several million so-called alcoholics in the world today and a recent survey revealed that 68% of American adults drink at least occasionally. Twenty percent of those who drink become alcoholic. Forty-one billion dollars a year are spent on alcohol. Many young people are turning from other drugs to alcohol. The lowering of the legal age to 18 years has not helped the situation.

Some states are considering going back to age 21 as the legal age to buy intoxicating beverages. (Why not age 100?)

Marijuana is, at the present time, the second most popular and widely used drug. Marijuana is derived from the flowering tops and leaves of the Indian Hemp plant, cannabis sativa. It has been known by man for nearly 5,000 years but was not introduced into the USA as an intoxicating drug until 1920. Eighty percent of the Marijuana used in the USA comes from Mexico, the rest from Africa, India, the Middle East and the USA. It has been estimated that $100 million a year is spent on Marijuana use.

It can be smoked or a concentrate of it called Hashish oil can be dropped on a regular cigarette or in food. It enters the blood stream and acts on the brain and nervous system. It works by affecting the mood and thinking process. Among other things it affects decision-making processes. It makes a person highly vulnerable to other people’s suggestions, therefore often results in highly irresponsible activity. Marijuana use does not result in a physiological dependence (body has to have it to function) but does result in psychological dependence – therefore habituating. Although medical science does not know all the effects of Marijuana, since it is classified as a mindaltering chemical. society in general, and Christians in particular should refrain from its use.

There are a group of drugs known as Hallucinogens. The most popular one of these has been LSD (D-Lysergic acid diethylamide) developed in 1938 from a fungus, Ergot, that grows as a rust on rye and other cereals. It is so powerful that a single ounce provides 300,000 average doses.

Another hallucinogenic drug is derived from the peyote cactus and is called mescaline. The Indians of northern Mexico have used it for years as a part of their traditional religious rites. Psilocybin, DMT, and STP are other hallucinogenic drugs.

The hallucinogens produce sensory illusions, making it difficult to distinquish between the fact and fantasy. In large doses they may produce unreal sights and sounds and users may describe “hearing” colors and “seeing” sounds. Sense of direction, distance and time become disoriented. Restlessness and sleeplessness are common symptoms. Tolerance to the drugs develop after prolonged use; therefore, larger and larger doses are required for the user to get the desired effect. And the effect is unpredictable and may result in “good” trips or “bad” trips.

Chronic use does not apparently cause physiological dependence, but can alter the user’s values and impair his power of concentration and ability to think. It is not known how LSD works but it is thought to affect the levels of certain chemicals in the brain and to produce changes in the brain’s electrical activity.

There have been reported many cases of panic and fear of losing one’s mind; paranoia (feeling someone is trying to cause harm or control one’s thinking); a recurrence of “the trip” days, weeks or even months after having used the drug with the resultant fear of losing one’s mind; accidental death because the user thinks he can fly or float in the air therefore leaps from great heights, etc. Although research has not proved it, the use of LSD becomes a high risk to pregnant women because of the possibility of chromosomal changes in an unborn child, causing defects.

Many volatile substances produce an intoxicated state when inhaled. Young children and adolescent are more prone to try these methods of distorting consciousness. These fall into 3 groups:

(1) Commercial solvents such as Toluene, benzene, acetone, carbon tetracholride, and other volatile substances found in airplane glue, plastic cements, paint thinner, gasoline, cleaning fluid, nail polish remover, and cigarette lighter fluid.

(2) Propellants in aerosols.

(3) Anesthetics – chloroform, ether, etc.

The psychic effects of these may produce a high dreamlike state, drunkenness, sleepines, disorientation, hallucinations, delusions, and stupor. Most sniffers do not recall the events that occurred while “under the effect.” The young people who engage in this practice often have a history of delinquent activity. Because of the intoxicating effect that impairs judgement and motor function, many accidents occur, often fatal. Habitual use, depending upon the material, may cause lead poisoning (gasoline), kidney and liver disease (carbon tetrachloride) and tissue damage to the brain.

Another group of drugs on the drug abuse list are the depressants. These are Chloral Hydrate, Barbiturates, Clutethimide (Doriden), Methaqualone (Quaalude), Meprobamate (Miltown, Equanil), Benzodiazepines (Valium, Librium). These drugs are widely prescribed by physicians for the treatment of insomnia, relief of anxiety, irritability and tension. In excessive amounts they produce symptoms similar to that of alcohol. These drugs can cause physiological dependence. Taken with alcohol they can become lethal. Depressants are often used particularly by women as a means of suicide.

Stimulants are chemical drugs that excite the central nervous system. The most common are nicotine (Tobacco) and caffeine (coffee and tea). In moderation they relieve fatigue and increase alertness. The stronger stimulants are cocaine, the amphetamines, and the anorectic drugs (appetite suppressants). All the stimulants produce mood elevation and a heightened sense of well-being. Chronic users feel stronger, more confident, decisive and selfpossessed. If given directly in the vein they may produce a sudden sensation known as a “flash” or “rush.” The protracted user, after getting a stimulating effect, may later lapse into a state of depression known as “crashing.” As a result another injection is given and the condition may progress to delirium, psychosis or physical exhaustion. Those in professions that require alertness for long hours often take stimulants (uppers) to stay awake. In some, a pattern of “uppers” in the morning and “downers” (alcohol or depressants) at night develop. It is not certain whether these drugs cause physical dependence but very definitely cause psychological dependence. There have been. some fatalities among athletes who have undergone extreme exertion who were taking moderate amounts of stimulant drugs.

Cocaine is extracted from the South American coca plant and is currently used infrequently in the medical profession. When sniffed or snorted or given in the vein, it causes extreme euphoria. Because of its intense pleasurable effect, a strong psychic dependency may develop. The Amphetamines are used medically for unusual states of sleepiness, appetite control and hyperactive behavioral disorders in children.

The anorectic drugs such as Tennate, Presate, Ionamin are used for appetite control and are less potent than the amphetamines.

When we say narcotic drugs, we think of Heroin, Morphine, Paregoric and Codeine. Certain synthetic drugs such as Demeral and Dolophine are also considered narcotic drugs – pain killers. These are definitely among the most dangerous drugs and cause addiction – physiological dependence as well as psychological dependence. These drugs are being used by young people in the ghetto as well as some middle-aged and older people who take then regularly to relieve pain. Heroin at first reduces tension, eases fears and anxiety. Following the exhilaration period, the user may sink into a stupor. Heroin decreases appetite, thirst and the sex drive. Many habitual users therefore suffer from malnutrition. Heroin addiction is particularly lethal because it is such an expensive habit. A user may need to spend from $75-$100 a day to satisfy his needs. Therefore, oftentimes he has to resort to stealing and other crimes. Women often resort to prostitution. Those addicted to heroin and other narcotic drugs are by far the most difficult to cure because of withdrawal sickness. Once the drug has been withdrawn, the difficult task lies in keeping the user from picking up the habit again.

Abusive drugs are everywhere – in the grammar schools, high schools, entertainment and professional world and on the street. As responsible citizens and concerned Christians, we should be aware of the danger of these drugs. They are truly, intimately and unequivocally related to the. “works of the flesh.”

QUESTIONS

1. Define the Greek word pharmakia which is translated “sorcery” in Gal. 5:19.
2. Define the word nepho which is translated “sober” in 1 Thess. 5:6-8; 1 Pet. 1:13; 5:8. How does the word relate to the subject of drug abuse.
3. What is the most prevalent drug abused today?
4. What age is alcohol addiction most likely to occur?
5. How does prolonged alcoholism effect the body?
6. What is the second most popular drug abused?
7. What effects come from using marijuana? .
8. How do hallucinogenic drugs affect an individual?
9. What kinds of “drugs” do young people sometimes sniff and what effects do they have?
10. Define physiological dependence and psychological dependence.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 21, pp. 338-341
May 24, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

Three years ago, the Institution for Social Research at the University of Michigan made an extensive study of gambling in the United States. The study revealed that in 1974, two out of every three Americans made a bet. Gambling is a mufti-billion dollar business of crime and sin. More than 30 billion dollars is gambled etch year in this country!

Definitions of Gambling

Gambling is defined by various sources as: “to play games of chance for money or some other stake.” “Gambling is the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident, or which may have an unexpected result by reason of the betters miscalculation.”

What We Are Not Discussing

First, we are not discussing the stock market. One who “plays” the market purchases something of value. His money is used by the company. Both the buyer and the company may profit from the purchase of stock, or both may lose. The buyer may receive a return, a profit, or a loss in the business; this is economics, not gambling as we have defined it.

Second, We are not concerned with a farmer who takes a risk in planting his crops. He does not expect something for nothing. He does not profit at another’s expense. His success benefits everyone and harms no one.

Third, we are not talking about the “gamble in the game of life.” There is an element of risk in crossing a street, driving a car, and walking down a flight of stairs. This is not the issue.

Fourth, we are not arguing that the term, “gamble,” is in the Bible. It is not. One who wants to dispute that fact may have the field to himself. That is not the question.

Is Gambling Sinful?

“To gamble or not to gamble, that is the question,” the point of dispute. Gambling is sinful because:

(1) It violates the principle of stewardship. The child of God is to be a faithful and wise steward (Lk. 12:42; 1 Pet. 4:10; 1 Cor. 4:2). The prodigal son perhaps squandered part of his family fortune by gambling (Lk. 15:13). Though it was his “portion of goods,” still, he had an obligation to use it wisely. The elder son recognized this when he sullenly said, “Thy son . . . hath devoured thy living with harlots.” It was the younger boys’ possession from the father. Our possessions come from our Father in heaven. Everything ultimately belongs to Him (Psa. 50:8-10), though there is a sense in which it belongs to us (Acts 5:4). As such, we must oversee our share of this world’s goods with the virtues of labor, benevolence, and thrift. Gambling is not a virtue. Would you want someone to take your gift and wager it?

(2) Is goes against the “golden rule” (Matt. 7.12). The Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbor as we do ourselves (Matt. 22:39), and, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor” (Rom. 13:10). However, in gambling, if one is able to acquire his brother’s goods by trickery or chance, it is simply “too bad.” Can the gambler say he does unto others as he would they do unto him? No, the gambler’s motto is, “I hope I can do it unto you before you do it unto me.”

(3) It is stealing. Murder is wrong, but, at times, men and nations have “legalized” duels; hence, murder by common consent. Likewise, men and nations have laws against stealing; yet, they often seek to legitimatize it and call it gambling. Do you think God approves of murder just because it was done under the strict rules of a duel? What makes you think he endorses thievery under the guise of gambling?

(4) It contradicts the work ethic. The Bible teaches that men are to earn their bread by work, by the sweat of their brow (2 Thess. 3:10 Gen. 1:19). Granted, a gambler may have cause to sweat because of a large debt, but his “labor” is not productive. His winnings do not represent renumeration for the exchange of goods and services. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes extol the virtue of toil, of riches gained by honest labor. Gambling is not consistent with this view of work in the Scriptures; hence, it is sinful.

(5) It exploits others. The Bible sound condemns those who exploit others for their own advantage (Jas. 5:1-5). True, the text does not specifically deal with gambling, but the principle is the same. Observe a parallel. In James 2, James condemns partiality. The prejudicial treatment is based on wealth. James convicts respect of persons on the basis of wealth. The principle would apply in regard to racial discrimination. As we may use Jas. 2:1-4 to comdemn respect of persons based on race, though the text itself deals with wealth; so, we may use Jas. 5:1-5 to condemn exploitation, though gambling is not the immediate subject.

(6) It results in intemperance. The Lord requires moderation, temperance, or self control in all things. Gambling is addictive. It maintains a grip on people like alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, and pornography. To underscore that fact, there is a Gamblers Anonymous (GA) Organization like the more famous Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). There are as many as 10 million compulsivel gamblers in the United States! They are literally hooked on gambling. Perhaps not everything that is addictive is wrong, but gambling is an addiction which results in the loss of things that could be put to use in one’s life in the world and in the service of God, and, as such, it is wrong.

(7) It sets a bad example. Christians must be concerned about their influence for truth and righteousness (Matt. 5-13-16). Children of God must provide things honest in the sight of all men (Rom. 12:17; 2 Cor. 8:21). One must not give occasion for the devil to desecrate the word and name of God (1 Tim. 5:14; Titus 2:5, 10). Tertullian (160-220 A.D.) is reported to have said, “If you say you are a Christian when you are a dice player you say what you are not, because you are a partner with the world.”

(8) It breeds other sins. In Reno, Nevada, the police department estimates that 75% of their embezzlement cases are related to gambling. Gambling corrupts and corrodes character. Dishonesty and deceit are its fruits, and a tree is known by its fruits (Matt. 7:16-18). As drug addicts resort to stealing and prostitution to support their habit, so do gamblers use vice to sustain their habit. When it is observed that 75% of all murders involve the use of alcohol, people are often quick to condemn drinking. Well, if 75% of embezzlement cases involve gambling in Reno, should one let gambling stand without opposition?

(9) It destroys the home. Nearly every gospel preacher or marriage counselor has seen the adverse affects of gambling on a marriage or home. One beset by alcohol evilly affects others and destroys his family, and so does the gambler. In Reno, Nevada, for example, there is an organization called Gam Anon for families that are torn asunder by gambling. Surely, anything that besmirches the sanctity of the home is wrong.

(10) It puts one with evil companions. It is a generally accepted fact that organized crime profits from most public gambling. Gambling attracts evil men like a dead animal lures a vulture. Gamblers are not known as spiritually minded people. Gamblers are identified with drinking and immoralities of all kinds. “Evil companionships corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33), and Paul said, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

You Categorize Gambling

Let us put the ball in your court. Paul said that we are to deny (1) ungodliness, and (2) worldly lusts,” and that “we should live (1) soberly, (2) righteously, (3) godly in this present world” (Titus 2:11, 12). In which category would you place gambling? Would you think it strange if you should see a Christian whom you greatly admire engaged in gambling? You be the judge.

What About “Innocent” Bets?

The question always arises. “I know it’s wrong to gamble, but at the office we match pennies to see who buys the coffee;” or, “We have a little `pool’ for every heavyweight title fight and the World Series. Nobody puts in more than a dollar. It’s harmless. Is that wrong?” Gamblers Anonymous, the organization designed to help compulsive gamblers, urges its members not to gamble on who buys the coffee. They see a danger. The fruits of gambling do not warrant even a little bet. Do not take a chance that a little gambling will not hurt. A defense of “innocent, little bets” is like condeming alcoholism and then having someone attempt to justify “just one beer after work.” Christians should shun the very appearance of evil (Prov. 1:10; 1 Thess. 5:21). This means do not bet on gambling, not even a little. You will be the loser both here and hereafter.

QUESTIONS

1. Define “gambling.”
2. List some things which are not gambling, but which are used to justify gambling.
3. List several scriptural objections to gambling.
4. Where do you place gambling – in worldliness or spiritual?
5. Does the fact that religous groups sanctify gambling make it right in the sight of God?
6. Does the fact that government legalizes gambl ing make it right in the sight of God?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 20, pp. 330-332
May 17, 1979

By Weldon E. Warnock

Ethics means “a series of rules and laws and principles by which we act and which tell us what to do.” But “situation ethics” is not geared to rules and regulations. This system of ethics refuses to be circumscribed by rules and laws. It says there is nothing right or wrong. Moral behavior is relative, not absolute. Decisions depend on the situation at hand, rather than law. It is also called the “new morality,” “contexualism,” “ethical individualism,” “casuistry,” as well as some others. But regardless what one calls it, it does not make the system anymore respectable.

Joseph Fletcher’s Views

Joseph Fletcher, a professor of Social Ethics, an Episcopalian and a well known proponent of “situation ethics,” stated: “As we shall see, Christian situation ethers has only one norm or principle or law (call it what you will) that is binding and unexceptionable, always good and right regardless of the circumstances. That is `love’ – the agape of the summary commandment to love God and the neighbor” (Situation Ethics, p. 30).

Fletcher further wrote, “For the situationist there are no rules – none at all” (p. 55); ” . . . `circumstances alter rules and principles”‘ (p. 29); ” . . . all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love in any situation . . . . the Christian chooses what he believes to be the demands of love in the present situation” (pp. 30, 55). “The new morality, situation ethics declares that anything and everything is right or wrong, according to the situation” (p. 124).

There are three approaches to follow in making moral decisions according to Fletcher (pp. 18-26):

(1) Legalistic. He says, “With this approach one enters into every decision making situation encumbered with a whole apparatus of prefabricated rules and regulations.

(2) Antinomianism. “Over against legalism, as a sort of polar opposite, we can put antinomianism. 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.

(3) Situationism. “A third approach, in between legalism and antinomianism 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 . . . . The situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love’s need.”

Fletcher allows stealing, lying, adultery, and anything else that the law of God prohibits. His thinking is shown in the following statement: “But situation ethics has good reason to hold it as a duty in some situations to break them, any or all of them. We would be better advised and better off to drop the legalist’s love of law, and accept only the law of love” (p. 74).

On pages 164-165 of Fletcher’s book, Fletcher captures the attention of the readers about a German woman separated from her husband at the Battle of the Bulge, and was imprisoned in the Ukraine. While in prison she learned that her husband, also a prisoner of war, had been released from another camp and had located their two children in Berlin.

There were two reasons why the Russians would release a prisoner: (1) For severe medical treatment or (2) pregnancy. She persuaded a Russian soldier to impregnate her in order to be released. Following her pregnancy she was released and joyfully united with her family. All loved her and the child born out of adultery. Fletcher lauds this as a loving act, the law against adultery being superseded by the situation at hand.

From what Fletcher said, we can readily see where situationism is coming from. It is a philosophy of liberalism, pragmatism, relativism and individualism that arrays itself against the Word of God and makes a mockery out of the Bible.

Jesus and Situation Ethics

In his book, The Christian New Morality, O. Sydney Barr stated that “The new morality is biblical morality. Behind it lies the authority of Jesus Christ himself” (p. 6). Situationists use for proof (?) Jesus’ defense of his disciples of the charge brought against them by the Pharaisees of eating grain on the Sabbath (Matt., 12:1-8). The Pharisees considered the plucking of the grain and the rubbing it in their hands to separate the grain from the chaff, work, thereby violating the Sabbath.

Jesus vindicated His disciples, according to situationists, by His approval of David breaking the law of God in eating the forbidden showbread (1 Sam. 21:6; Lev. 24:9). They tell us that human welfare has preference over the laws of God. By sanctioning David’s action, Jesus in turn justified His disciples, and established a precedent for all time to come, they reason.

But Jesus never approved or encouraged the violation of God’s law under any circumstances. Eating on the Sabbath was not a violation of God’s law. Sin is a transgression of law (1 Jn. 3:4). Jesus never sinned (Heb. 4:15). Hence, He never violated a law of God. Neither did He encourage His followers to sin or try to justify their sins.

Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19). From this passage we can see clearly what Jesus thinks of lawbreakers. Adherence to God’s laws is emphasized over and over in the Bible.

J.W. McGarvey, commenting on Matt. 12:3-5, stated: “Jesus expressly admits that what David did was unlawful; and some have supposed that he here intends to justify it on the ground of necessity, and then to argue that his disciples, though guilty of violating the law of the Sabbath, are justifiable on the same ground. There is no doubt that on this ground David excused himself for eating the showbread, and that the Pharisees did the same for him. But it can not be that he who refused to turn stones into bread when tortured by a forty days’ fast . . . would approve such a violation of law as David was guilty of. Neither can it be that he allowed his own disciples while under the law to break the Sabbath. If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end of suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial.

“But it is clear that by the Pharisees David’s act was thought excusable; otherwise they could have retorted on Jesus thus: Out of your own mouth we condemn you: you class your act with David’s; but David sinned, and so do you. Now the real argument of Jesus is this: David, when hungry, ate the show-bread, which it was confessedly unlawful for him to eat, yet you justify him: my disciples pluck grain and eat it on the Sabbath, an act which the law does not forbid, and yet you condemn them” (The New Testament Commentary, pp. 103-104).

In regard to the priests profaning the Sabbath by their religious services in the temple (v. 5), McGarvey says, “Having silenced his opponents by the argument ad hominem, he next proves by the law itself that some work may be done on the Sabbath day. The priests in the temple were required to offer sacrifice, trim the golden lamps, and burn incense on the Sabbath, and these acts required manual labor. In this case, the general law against labor on the Sabbath was modified by the specific law concerning the temple service. The term “profane” is used, not because it was a real profanation, but because, being labor, it had the appearance of profanation. The example proves that the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath was not universal, and as it was not, it might not include what the disciples had just done” (Ibid., p. 104).

Opposition to Fletcher’s Ethics

Peter Wagner, writing in Eternity Magazine, Feb. 1967, said:

(1) “He (Fletcher) says that love is the only norm of ethics. But what is love? How is its context determined? . . . . We need the rest of the Bible to guide us as to just what the law of love expects from us.

(2) “Love, for Fletcher, is neighbor love. But this is only the second table of the law. The first is love of God . . . . It is impossible for us to love our neighbor properly without first loving God, and we in turn show our love to God by obeying his commandments.

(3) “. . . be impossible for him to define with any preciseness a `situation’ . . . . To be able to predict all involved in a moral decision in every case, especially in a crisis of life, is too much to expect even of an ethics professor to say nothing of the man in the street.

(4) “. . . (Fletcher) bases his law of love on revelation. But he does not tell us what criterion he has used to select this particular fragment of revelation and reject the rest. There must be some norm which tells him he ought to believe revelation when it speaks about love, but he need not believe it when it speaks about lying, fornication, or stealing.”

Wagner, as you can see, gets right to the heart of the problem and forcefully destroys the very foundation on which Fletcher builds his theory.

James M. Gustafson, professor of Christian Ethics at Yale University, wrote in Christian Century, May 12, 1966, the following:

“. . .he (Fletcher) states that the situation is determinative. However, he is never very careful to designate what constitutes a `situation’ . . . . If one says that the situation plus love makes for the right action without being clear about what love is and is not, one-has a simple formula, a radical ethic in both substance and method.”

Henlee H. Barnette, professor of Christian Ethics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote, as quoted in The Situation Ethics Debate, p. 136, “Love alone, or situation ethics, is characterized by a one-sided methodology in arriving at moral decisions. It is a misplaced emphasis, a false polarization in Christian ethics.”

John Macquarrie wrote in his book, “Three Issues in Ethics, pp. 33-35, the following:

“One of the most telling objections against situationism is that is a fundamentally and incurably individualistic type of ethic. Paul Ramsey is correct in his warning that `no social morality ever was founded or ever will be founded, upon a situational ethic.’

‘ . . . As well as suffering from individualism, radical situational ethics suffers from the allied vice of subjectivism. The situationist seems to be compelled by the theories to assume on extraordinary degree of moral sensitivity and perceptiveness in those who are expected to read the demands of the situation .

“. . . The situationist is less than realistic in the extent to which he is willing to recognize the weakness of human nature and the fact that even our conscience can be distorted.”

William Barclay stated, “If we insist that in every situation every man must make his own decision, then first of all we must make man morally and lovingly fit to take that decision; otherwise we need the compulsion of law to make him do it” (Ethics in a Permissive Society, p. 81).

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no way that a Bible believer can embrace situation ethics and remain true to the Bible. The Bible and situation ethics are on different planes and operate on different channels. Situation ethics or the new morality sets aside the Bible whenever man wants to and injects his own judgement in its place.

Consequences of Situation Ethics

There are several adverse consequences of the situation ethics philosophy.

(1) Destroys respect for the Bible. The Bible claims for itself to be an all-sufficient guide (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3). It saves us (Jas. 1:18), and by it we will be judged (Jn. 12:48). The situationists tell us we need not be too concerned about what the Bible teaches, but just let love have its way.

(2) Makes love and law exclusive. For the situationist it is either love or law. For the Christian, it is both law and love. Jesus said, “If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15, ASV).

(3) Deifies man. It makes man his own god. Man decides what to do and when to do it. He becomes his own standard. Jeremiah tells us that it is not in man to direct his own steps (10:23). God knows what is good for man and, therefore, we shall follow him (Duet. 6:24).

(4) Obscures right and wrong. The system implies that each one is to do his own thing as he interprets the problem or issue in a particular situation. There is nothing inherently right or wrong, they say, but it must be judged in context on the spur of the moment.

(5) Presumes each act will turn out well. What if the woman in the concentration camp who got herself impregnated in order to be released had been resented by her husband and children? Things like this are always the possible consequences of the arbitrary and subjective acts in situation ethics.

(6) It encourages permissiveness. At least, Fletcher’s approach encourages permissiveness. Listen to him: “Does any girl who has `relations’ . . . outside marriage automatically become a prostitute? Is it always, regardless of what she accomplishes for herself or others – is it always wrong? Is extramarital sex inherently evil, or can it be a good thing in some situations” (Ibid., pp. 17-18)? To Fletcher, extramarital sex may at times have intrinsic value. A man decides for himself when this is true.

Conclusion

Actually, situation ethics is not something new. Catholics have had for centuries their form of situation ethics, called “mental reservation,” enabling them to lie whenever they deem it necessary. Protestants have always practiced situation ethics in setting aside God’s command of baptism for the man on his death bed or the man in the desert.

But faithful Christians have always obeyed God in all things (Acts 5:29). Christians wait for the way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13), pray, often for strength and guidance (Jas. 5:16; Phil. 1:9-10), and study the Bible regularly to know God’s way (Psa. 119:11). With rapturous acclaim, they say with the Psalmist, “O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day” (Psa. 119:97).

QUESTIONS

1. Define “ethics”.
2. Define “situation ethics”.
3. What is the one universal moral law admitted by situationists?
4. Is there any contradictions in this statement, “There are absolutely no universal rules in ethics.”
5. Explain these different ethical approaches: Legalistic, antinomian, situationism.
6. Discuss Jesus’ usage of David eating shewbread in Matt. 12:1-8.
7. How is “love” used by a situation etheist?
8. List several consequences of accepting situation ethics.
9. List several denominational doctrines which use “situation ethics” type of justification. before us.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 20, pp. 327-330
May 17, 1979

By Norman Midgette

While attending the University of Richmond (Virginia) I was required to take a course in Classical Greek. It was a study of Plato’s Euthyphro, his Apology and Crito. The setting was Greece; the story was about Socrates and the time approximated that of Malachi. The writings were of Socrates’ philosophy, teaching, trial, and death.

Socrates

Many who write on ethics consider Socrates the “father of moral philosophy.” A brief analysis of the reasoning which led to his death and the reasoning of others who tried to convince him to escape death shows the weakness of trying to use human wisdom alone to decide what is morally right and wrong. To study ethics is to study what is morally right and wrong. It also is a study of the reasoning used to determine what is right or wrong. If there is a difference in what is ethical and moral, it is very slight. Webster suggests that ethical may suggest the involvement of more difficult and subtle questions of rightness, fairness, and equity.

Now to the moral reasoning of Socrates as reported by Plato. Suppose you are a teacher trying to live a good life and do what is beneficial for your fellow-countrymen. But some of them dislike you and consider you a danger to society though there is no proof. You are arrested, tried and condemned to death and in a way that is unjust. While you are awaiting execution your friends offer you an escape that will give you a longer life to continue with your family. So you consider the offer. You know that most people think you should escape and that you are guilty of no crime. You have not harmed anyone but have only tried to help your country. If you live you can continue to teach and do good and, furthermore, your family and friends need you. Should you take the opportunity and escape? Socrates said, “No!, I cannot escape.” He drank the hemlock and died. However, before he died he gave us some of the rules he followed in deciding what was morally right for him. Here are the main ones. (1) Moral decisions cannot be decided or affected by emotion but must be settled by reason. (2) We should never act in such a way as to harm anyone. By escaping he reasoned he would be harming the state. (3) Always keep a promise. He reasoned, by staying in Greece when he was free to go elsewhere he was “promising” to keep the laws of the country. (4) Always obey your superiors. He considered his country, his parents and teacher. He would not disobey its laws. (5) He said moral questions could not be answered by a public vote of the majority of people. The fact that most people thought he should be free did not justify him escaping.

But his friends reasoned he should escape and here, in part, is their reasoning. (1) Socrates believed he had been “called” to teach by the god Apollo and that should weigh heavier than any other consideration. However, Socrates argues that what is right and what is commanded by the gods are not synonymous. They also reasoned, (2) Your teaching is for the good of the state. If you surrender and do not teach you are not really helping the state but hurting it. Socrates recognized and acknowledged that conflict in this thinking but further reasoned there are times when one standard had to take precedence over another. Socrates’ self-imposed standard of morality in this given set of circumstances led to his death. His friends’ ethical reasoning by their self-imposed standard would have led to their escape. Conflicting judgments, conclusions and actions have always followed where moral standards of right and wrong have been left to the human will. It is the same today.

Today

One group today contends that the ultimate criterion for determining what is morally right is the standard of good. This is called by the moral philosophers the teleological theory. To them an act is right if and only if the standard and the act will produce or is intended to produce more good than evil or bad. An act is wrong “if and only if it does not do so.” But, these moralists differ on the question, “Good for who? “John Stuart Mill argues it has to be the greatest personal good. The reasoning of Hitler made mass murder of the Jews morally right because he reasoned it was for the greatest national good. Such reasoning is logically possible under this theory or morality.

A second theory says theory one is fallible. It argues an act may be morally right if it does not promote the personal or general good as judged by men. To them an act toward others or self is morally right if it keeps a promise, is just as commanded by God or by the state. However, they also have a problem of trying to decide if (l) “1 must always do what is just,” or if, (2) “In this particular situation I must do what is just.” Those who follow this theory of morality are called deontologists. There is no absolute answer for them so they also become a law each to himself.

A third group today says simply, “If it is the loving thing to do it is right.” This moral theory has made greater inroads into the seminaries, church leadership and moral religious writings than either of the first two. Armed with this moral standard, a preacher for the United Church in Chatham, Ontario, made available to young unmarried couples a room for sexual revelry. This was shortly after the book, Situation Ethics, became popular. This philosophy of morality says love, not God, determines what is right and wrong.

God

There is another alternative to this moral dilemma. It is a standard much easier to understand. It is the standard that will establish the greatest good for all, not just for now but for eternity. There is a single standard of ethics for the Christian, for all Christians. But, equally important are the reasons this single standard must be accepted.

One is the limitation and ignorance of man. This should be evident to the smart men who are floundering around in the various moral theories with all their unanswered questions and conflicts. There is no agreement among them and no possibility of agreement unless, that is, everybody agrees to submit their thinking to the thinking of one man. Experience shows that this is not going to happen.

God pointed out in the Bible what many should have learned from repeated experiences. We are limited in our ability and wisdom. God has said, “. . . it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Yet the, “. . . way of a fool is right in his own eyes” (Prov. 12:15). We are further informed, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes . . .” (Prov. 21:2). But the fact remains, we know not what is right and best without help from God. When men alone have tried to give that help and moral direction confusion has resulted. So one of the major reasons we need a standard is because we are unable within ourselves to know the answers. And it is not a matter of willful ignorance, but rather a matter of mortal inability.

The second reason we need that standard established by God is because of His inherent authority. The irreligious and those with their backs toward God will not accept this fact. It will not be accepted until one is willing to take a good look at the evidence for God and His rights and give them a fair hearing. Once His being and works are accepted, His authority to direct and guide of necessity follows. The last verse of Hosea says, “Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent and he shall know them: for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein” (Hos. 14:9). Because of His authority and supreme position over the universe His ways are right.

In the coming of Christ ” all authority” (Matt. 28:18) was given to Him by God and that is why our only standard of moral authority for the exercise of moral rightness is found in the doctrine of Christ. It is His word that will finally judge (Jn. 12:48).

That foundation on which Christian Ethics is built is the Revelation of God, the Bible. And the reason we gladly accept this basis is because of our mortal inability to know and because of the Right of God. Peter gave our marching orders and pointed our direction when he said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:14).

Socrates had his rules; John Stuart Mill his standard, and Hobbes and Hitler rationalized morality to their satisfaction. But, Christ has revealed God’s will and it is not only more beneficial and humanly considerate than all the rest but most of all He has the authority to enforce it and hold us accountable for it.

QUESTIONS

1. Define “ethics.”
2. Explain the basis for determining right and wrong in the teleological theory of ethics.
3. What problems face the teleological ethicist?
4. Explain the basis for determining right and wrong for the deontologists.
5. What is the basis for determining right and wrong for the situation ethicist?
6. What standard does the Christian use for deter mining right and wrong?
7. Name two reasons why this standard should be accepted.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 20, pp. 325-327
May 17, 1979