"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar"(Prov 30:5-6)

Situational ethics has risen to prominence subtly in the last few years. This belief asserts that truth is relative, and therefore there are times when it is acceptable to disobey God. If the situation demands it, almost any command of God can be set aside. Classic situational ethics cases are presented: A robber breaks into your house with a gun and asks you if anyone else is there. Do you lie or allow him to hurt your family? You're hiding Jews in Nazi Germany when the Gestapo knocks on your door and asks if any Jews are there. Do you lie or allow them to harm those you are hiding? The situation, they claim, makes sin necessary.

Interestingly, some Bible texts are used to support this line of thinking. When the Pharisees criticized Jesus' disciples for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, Jesus answers: "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless"(Matt 12:3-5). Jesus, they assert, is telling us that for David, the need for food to survive overrode the fact that eating showbread was against God's law. In some cases, they surmise, Jesus is saying that survival is more important than keeping God's law. Situational ethicists also call up Rahab, who lied in order to hide the spies (Josh 2:1-14), and is praised for her faith (James 2:25, Heb 11:31). On these examples and the above logic, many today-even Christians!-take the position that in desperate circumstances, God winks at our sin. Let us examine some problems with situational ethics.

First, a look at the Scriptures cited in this connection reveals that God is not in fact urging us to dismiss His law at our whim. When Jesus is responding to the Pharisees about the Sabbath (Matt 12), He is exposing their hypocrisy in condemning Him and His disciples. If David could enter the tabernacle itself and eat the showbread, yet you Pharisees do not condemn him, how can you condemn My disciples for plucking heads of grain? He does not quibble about whether the disciples were even breaking the law, but is interested in exposing the evil of the Pharisees' hearts. He later says, "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless"(Matt 12:7), indicating that His disciples were innocent of breaking any laws of God. This disposition of trying to find reasons to condemn and reject Jesus and His disciples is against the spirit of God's desire for mercy. But to accuse Jesus of teaching "David broke the law, so I can too" is to accuse Him of sinning and encouraging His disciples to sin.

Rahab's example is troublesome because God rewards her behavior despite the fact that she was clearly lying (Josh 2:4-5). However, it is important to remember that Rahab was not a Jew and seemed to have no knowledge of God's law. She only knew a little about God, but knew that "the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath"(Josh 2:11). When she acted out of blind faith, God blessed her, and sets her up as an example of faith. But God never commends Rahab to us as a moral paragon-remember, she was a harlot-or as a perfect example of godly living. Does the fact that God does not record condemning Samson's going to a harlot (Judg 16:1) or Abraham and Isaac's lying (Gen 12:13, 26:7) mean He doesn't care if we do those things? Clearly not.

Situational ethics is wrong because it makes us the judge of when God's law is binding. If the situation demands it, any law of God can be set aside at our discretion. Who decides when the situation requires a dismissal of God's law? We do! Consider that each law God gives now must have an "unless" statement attached to it. Colossians 3:9 now reads, "Do not lie to one another, unless you think it is necessary". James warns us that no law of God is to be set aside because they all come from God: "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all"(James 2:10). Further, in the context of speaking evil of our brother, he warns, "If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge"(James 4:11). What right do we have to judge when we think God's law should be followed? I shudder to think of those who teach Christians to ignore God's law when they deem it wise. "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven"(Matt 5:19). We are not the judges of God's law!

Another problem with the theory is it asserts there are situations where we must sin. Whether it's a scenario with a robber in a house or Nazi Germany, we have a choice only between sin and sin, and we are urged to choose the "lesser of two evils." This is simply wrong. God says, "No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it"(1 Cor 10:13). In every situation, God promises to make a "way of escape" so that we can still follow Him if we choose. That does not mean situations are always clear-cut, or that sin is easy to avoid. God promises, though, that we do not ever have to sin! James tells us that "Blessed is the man who endures temptation"(James 1:12) because temptation can be endured! I don't know the best way to avoid sin when a robber comes into the house, or Nazis knock on the door, but I do know that we don't have to sin! Certainly there are situations that test our mettle, but it's important to remember that we don't have to sin! Seek God's way of escape instead of man's way of giving in!

A fatal flaw of this teaching is that it removes obedience when it's hard. Because there are situations when sticking to God's law is difficult, situational ethics tells us we should just give in and sin. We are told that Jesus "learned obedience by the things which He suffered"(Heb 5:8), indicating that obedience is most important and most difficult in the crucible of suffering and trouble. Paul warned that "all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution"(2 Tim 3:12). He spoke of "the offense of the cross"(Gal 5:11) and warned of those who changed the gospel to avoid persecution (Gal 6:12). Perhaps the apostles and Jesus didn't realize that when the situation became difficult, they could just fold! The great heroes of the Bible are not those who sinned when it was difficult, but who obeyed when it was hard! When prayer was forbidden, Daniel prayed anyway! When baptism was dangerous, the Philippian jailer was baptized anyway! When false worship was commanded, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego stood up anyway! When purity meant prison, Joseph went to prison! God wants obedience in easy situations and hard ones!

Situational ethics is not a biblical teaching. Certainly situations arise in life where it is hard to see the best way. We must have a deep respect for God so that when we are in those situations, our obedience won't bend. Choose to obey God!
___Jacob Hudgins