SITUATIONAL ETHICS

What appears to be interfering with many Christian’s experience is this new phase of life called, “Humanism”, or “Humanist Religion”.  What is surprising many are devotees of this belief and are not aware of how they’re being sucked into the vacuum by way of their thinking and acceptance of others.  Let’s be clear, God is certain and exact.  We, too, must be the same.  There is a “Moral Law” of absolutes.  They’re commonly referred as the “Ten Commandments”.  They are not “ten suggestions” or “ten ideas left for consideration” but are “commands” and there is no wiggle room insofar as how we are to observe and keep them.

We hear, now, too often this phrase, “Don’t judge me.”  This often is equated to:  “You are not God and you have not lived as I have lived and you don’t know me.  So, only God can judge me.”  WRONG!  If you are persuaded to be involved in “situational ethics”, then you are correct, but if you are a Christian and follow the “Moral Law” of “code” for living, then there are absolutes, as compared to that Law and if you are living in violation of these absolutes, you can and are judged and it is the duty of others to point you to THAT Law, and not to ourselves, as if we are in fact God.

Consider this:  Would you listen to someone offering truth even if they are drunk or a joint is hanging out of their mouth?  Some would have the gall to respond, “No”.  But the truth is, IF it is the truth, then who cares who is delivering it! You are too focused on the “messenger” and not the “message”, and this is where situational ethics gets us into trouble.

Situational ethics is defined as:  takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards.

Dr. Arthur E. Gravatt, M.D., defined the term for a scientific journal: “… moral behavior may differ from situation to situation. Behavior might be moral for one person and not another. Whether an act is moral or immoral is determined by the law of love;’ that is the extent of which love and concern for others is a factor in the relationship.”

Did you get the good doctor’s meaning?  What he is implying is this:  Even if someone is wrong in what they do and believe, our “love” for the individual overrules the act and should make us accepting of the act because of the individual and our love for them.  THIS IS WRONG!  And, truly, this whole concept perverts the true understanding of “love”, and sadly this is what many are spouting today in an attempt to win other’s to God or in defense of their need and desire to continue living wrong, whether in their private life or in their religious life.  No wonder we hear people stating the “Law (Ten Commandments) are done away at the Cross, and we are no longer obligated nor bound to follow them.”  These are the same individuals who would have you to “love” them “in” their wrong acts, without them making any effort to overcome those acts, but without a “Moral compass” to guide you and to point you to absolutes, then uncertainty becomes the rule, and you are to “love me” anyhow!  Not this man.

I was explaining to a young lady the true meaning of the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” and used the story of Christ and the woman brought to Him caught in adultery.  The death penalty was legit and Christ was directing those who brought her to go ahead in carrying out the penalty; however, He further qualified it with these words, “Ye who are without sin, cast the first stone.”  The woman had better been glad because there was One who had not sin, and could very well have cast the stone, but He was also in the position to offer forgiveness and grace.  However, many were stoned previously and certainly had sin, but God doesn’t command needlessly.

While it is true, “Love overcomes all…” it will never overcome the willful sin in our lives and we should not expect to be saved in it.  It makes me consider all the good words which have gone forth from my laptop and the pen of many others regarding those Ten Absolutes and their violation of it upon their congregational worship on Sunday.  We need to begin calling it what it is, “sin” and not “okay to do at this time, because God has not called them out and will when the “fourth” angel of Rev. 18 speaks.”

This is the time of the composing of the 144,000 and we’re told “their mouths had no guile.”  In short, they spoke the truth, the “absolute” truth and it didn’t matter the situation.  If you were/are wrong, you are wrong and you need to get right.

 

February 1, 2016

Situational Ethics

Advertisements