Truth Magazine

Situation ethics is a philosophy that teaches that sin may be acceptable, or at least, overlooked by God under certain specific situations. The philosophy says that one may be placed in a situation where he must choose be- tween the lesser of two evils. Those in the secular world would not view either choice as sin, but the child of God would readily see the sin involved. So, the idea facing us as Christians is that we may be placed in a situation in which the only choice we have is to sin or face some horrible, agonizing situation that we deem intolerable.

For example, the abortionist uses situation ethics to convince young, pregnant girls that termination of a fetus (murder of a baby) may be preferable to bringing a baby into a poor, unwanted situation. They portray the life of the baby and mother as being very difficult and disadvantaged and the only viable option is to abort the fetus and try to do better the next time. There are clearly other and better alternatives, but the abortionist has an agenda to promote and he will promote it with whatever lie he has to use in order to further his cause. Abortion is murder and no amount of mental gymnastics will change it (Gen. 9:6). It violates many Bible principles (Matt. 7:12; Rom. 13:9; Mark 12:31).

The idea of euthanasia is promoted by liberals in our society and situation ethics is one of the wicked tools they use to promote it. Sometimes children are subtly taught situation ethics, or values clarification as it is sometimes called, in school at an early age in order to soften them for this sinful practice. A picture is drawn of three people on a deserted island with no food. There is a young man, a middle-aged man, and an elderly man, but no food to support their existence. It is determined that one must die, but who? Obviously, the conclusion they want the young to arrive at is that the elderly must die in order to help the younger generation. He has, according to this theory, lived most of his life and now it would be better for him to die so that the younger might live. What about what God’s word says about murder (Gen. 9:6; Exod. 20:13)? To the situation ethics promoter, it is no longer murder because of the situation these people find themselves in. It is a small step from that island to our old-folks homes and Dr. Kervorkian. If an elderly person gets in the way of a younger person leading a better and easier life, then just remove the older person after determining that such is necessary given the present situation.

God has already determined the way that we should go in any and every situation and he has not given man the authority to change that way based upon any particular situation. It is always wrong to do wrong and right to do right. Choosing the right course may produce hardships, but God has promised to carry us through those hard times (Heb. 13:5-6).

Consider some in Bible times who could have utilized situation ethics to alleviate hardships in their life. Joseph was pressed by Potiphar’s wife to commit fornication (Gen. 39:7-9). From the viewpoint of those promoting situation ethics, Joseph would have been right to commit fornication and avoid offending Potiphar’s wife and going to prison. This is a very subjective doctrine and each man ends up doing what is right in his own eyes based upon the particular situation. Who can say he is wrong if such a doctrine is allowed?

Daniel and his three friends all could claim exemptions from God’s law based upon the extreme positions they found themselves in, but they chose to put their faith in God and do right (Dan. 3:16-18; 6:10). Situation ethics would have taught otherwise!

Stephen was arrested for teaching the truth and in making his defense before those who arrested him, but he continued to teach the truth. This action cost him his life (Acts 6:12- 14; 7:51-60). Situation ethics would allow him to soften his approach, compromise the gospel, and accommodate those listening to him, but faith in God would not allow such!

Situation ethics appeals to human reason and logic, not the Word of God. We do not have to reason about the truth, God has revealed it (John 8:32). Whatever situation we find ourselves in, we can trust that God will provide a way of escape that will not cause us to sin (1 Cor. 10:32). We should teach people to trust and obey, not analyze the situation and determine if sin should be committed or would a sinful action be allowed under the given circumstances.

Some preachers are theorizing that we may be placed in situations where sin must be chosen or where we must choose between the lesser of two evils. They use, or misuse would be a better term, Old Testament examples and comments from worldly men as their source of authority. The Bible records the errors of many people in the Old Testament without commenting on God’s approval of their actions. We must not use these situations as justification for transgression. Let us have faith in God, always do right, and trust that God will deliver.

From the time I was a teenager and began trying to preach the gospel, I have had a keen interest in preaching the gospel to the whole world. This began when we had a preacher at Hopewell, Virginia who had just spent some time preaching in Alaska before it was a state. His ac- counts of work there, along with pictures he showed whetted my young appetite to someday have a part in preaching the gospel in other parts of the world. Before my first wife and I were married, we talked about spending some of our life on foreign soil in the work of the kingdom. It was that determination which prompted us to go to Norway in 1957 to help begin the work in the land of the midnight sun.

In the years since, we have been back to Norway four times and maintain a keen interest in what is being done there. The light of truth has flickered at times, but it is still burning. All of my life as a preacher, I have prayed for the Lord to open doors of opportunity for me to preach the gospel. He has abundantly answered those prayers and sometimes there have been several doors open at the same time and so decisions have been made as to where we could do the most good at that time.

It is very easy to become excited about the work in which we are involved. It is natural for this to happen. But it is also easy to become judgmental as to the motives of others who have chosen to work in other fields. Remember, the field is the world. All of it — not just the part in which we have taken a special interest.

While it is true that the scattered disciples went everywhere preaching the word (Acts 8:4), it is also true that some of the apostles and other brethren remained in Jerusalem for there was still much work to do there. I don’t read about those who were scattered questioning the motives of those who stayed in Jerusalem. Those who left and those who stayed were all involved in the Lord’s work.

Why This Article?

A good brother who lives in Nebraska (a state where there is much work to do and where congregations are scarce) wrote a piece in the November-December, 1997 Russian Update entitled “Why Not Russia?” Along with many others, I have followed with interest the reports from several brethren who have worked in Russia since the fall of the Iron Curtain. We have had some part in helping and encouraging some of those who have gone. I look forward to the Russian Update and read every article with keen interest. But I fear that our Nebraska brother got a little carried away in his article.

First, he talked about those who “are missionaries.” Now, I have had a part in preaching the gospel in several countries, but I simply did the work of an evangelist the same as I do in Kentucky or wherever else I preach. Evangelists work to convert souls to Christ and establish congregations, not missions. This whole notion of missions and missionaries is born of denominational jargon.

Then he spoke of “hot spots” where some “missionaries” have gone. He named the Philippines, Africa (which country? — it is a huge continent), Eastern Europe, and even China and Vietnam. Well, I have been to both the Philippines and South Africa in the heart of summer in both places and he is right — they are “hot spots.” They are also places where much good work is being done and fruit being borne. Trips to any of these places involve much expense and hectic schedules which are physically and mentally exhausting. Some of us have also been in some “cold spots” even as he has in Russia.

He then began to judge the hearts of brethren who choose to stay where they are and preach when he said, “Some sit in their offices and say, ‘There’s too much work to do right here!’” Well, has our brother considered the possibility that might just be true? He wondered if we are so vain as to think the work would not survive without us. It well might, but does that mitigate the fact there are times when a work might be hindered by a precipitous move?

He then shames us by saying, “Russia is not an exotic location like Africa or the Philippines.” Has our brother been in either place yet? If not, I would like for him to tell me how “exotic” Tondo is in the Manila area or Soweto near Johannesburg. Both of these are huge areas which can be largely described as ghettoes. I have seen garbage piled waist high in Tondo and open drainage ditches into which raw sewage flowed. You could smell the stench far away. How “exotic” is it to wade water to your knees after the river overflowed and flooded the town, or to preach with a towel to wipe sweat. How exotic is it to ride a bus with the passenger seated beside you holding a goat, or two chickens with the feet tied together? How exotic is it to sleep under a mosquito net in a nipa hut? The brethren who work in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, or India can add much to the “exotic” list. He says Russia is a “dirty, depressing environment” where the work is difficult. I am sure he is right. But Russia is not the only place in the world where that is true.

But the most severe judgment of all is when he wondered out loud “if some American preachers are not still cold warriors at heart who just can’t get excited about the idea of making our former enemies our brethren.” My brother, if you seriously have wondered this, it would have been far better if you had kept that to yourself. That is a serious indictment of your brethren and unless you have hard, cold facts to sustain such a suspicion, it would have been far better to have withheld that suspicion. I get around among a good many brethren over the country and I just don’t believe that is a proper assessment at all.

Then he raised this question: “What right do we have to say where we will and will not go? So you don’t want to go to Russia. Are you here to do your will or his?” Has all choice now been removed from us and placed in the hands of this brother? Is it his right to decide where in the world we all shall preach? Then he said, “But if you don’t go to Russia, nobody will.” That is not quite true. We have had three men from here in Kentucky to go to Russia. John Smith of Winchester has made several trips. One of the elders of a Louisville congregation took early retirement from his job, learned the Russian language and moved to Russia.

Is there work to do for the Lord in Russia? To be sure. There has been an open door and we are praying that the recent legislation there will not bring to a halt the access which American workers have had to that field. If it does, there are native Christians remaining and it can only be hoped that they will be steadfast in the face of whatever hardships there may be.

But, why not Libya? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Iraq? Or Iran? Should we lecture the brethren and say, “If you don’t do to Libya, nobody will.” Brethren, there is something to be said for open doors. Several times in the New Testament reference is made to these “open doors” (1 Cor. 16:9; Col. 4:3; Acts 14:27; Rev. 3:5). These references indicate that opportunities were present. Sometimes doors open and sometimes they close. We must be alert to opportunities and strike while the iron is hot. If that makes a place a “hot spot,” then so be it.

Now, none of this has been said to dampen or discourage the work of good men in Russia, or those who may be planning to go. Of course, more help is needed. Gospel preachers around the world are spread thin. If you don’t think so, then talk to Tom or Terrell Bunting in Norway. Ask them about the rest of Scandinavia. The last thing Scott Tope said to me when we parted after the training school for preachers at Eshowe, South Africa was “tell the brethren in America that we are spread very thin.” We need more work done in Russia. We need more work done in many places in the world, including many parts of the U.S.A. But I, for one, do not intend to allow a preacher who has made a trip to Russia to deprive me of my right to use the best wisdom I can as to where and when I shall preach the gospel for my remaining days. I appreciate his desire to promote the work in a part of the world where he has a special interest, but please don’t put the rest of the brethren on a guilt trip when their zeal leads them to other parts of the field.