Relativism or Situational Ethics

[ITS]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

[CJAMESSANTORO]

Where does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

Fletcher notes that we have moved from a hierarchy of values to a spectrum of values. In stating such, we are told that we are very adept at moving back and forth depending on the situation at the time. Situations drive us to the point that we attempt to alter rules and circumstances that govern us. As Christians we employ the same principles with the understanding that there is only one rule or principle - that is love.

However, why we, as a Christian community, choose relativism is that we like norms with regard to ethics. We choose to base our decisions on law and love, authority, and freedom with the primary issue being law and love.

Fletcher points out that the "why" never changes only the "what" and the "how", all based on our estimate of the situation. Love is the only constant. This allows us to stay away from the hard and fast "dos and don'ts" and legalism. One reason is that we believe we are no longer bound by the law ethics of Jesus' time. Today, we have the luxury of living under, what we consider to be, ambiguous commandments. By choosing to live under ambiguous rules, we then can live under ethics based on our situation at the time. We tentatively can set the standard, thus establish the consequences or results that best fit our situation.

[Derek Schultz]

The Christian community can easily fall into relativism or situational ethics when the result of our decisions could adversely affect us. It is easy to hold others to high moral standards, but when we are individually faced with a moral dilemna, we as a fallen race, tend to seek a way inwhich to justify our actions as being correct or right.

It is easy to justify or rationalize our own actions and defend our decisions, but when held to the unwaivering light of the Word of God, our actions and our reasons are measured and weighed with the Truth. Our standards as humankind are faulty and will change dependant on the situation. Therefore, we should rely upon the unchanging standard of the Lord God and strive to abide by His ethics - not ours.

[Kam]

The philosophy relativism denies absolutes. It stresses that all conduct is relative to the circumstances. In other words, right or wrong is nothing other than what is the practiced morality at a given time, in a given place, in a given culture. An extreme antinomian relativism calls for no norms whatsoever.

Unlike relativism, Christian situation ethics does have an absolute norm for morality according to Joseph Fletcher and his followers. This single absolute norm is love (agape); only love is universally good. The ethicist tries to apply this absolute norm as best as he could in each situation rather than to abide to a law(s) that fits all circumstances.

Although situation ethics is not totally relativism; it is not Biblical because it removes God from the center of decision. It deemphasizes the crucial role of God?s precepts in moral decision-making. It removes God from the throne of the universe and replaces Him by an ethnocentric wisdom. Jesus never rejected or disregarded the Ten Commandments, the perpetually binding ordinances. Instead, he emphasized that love fulfills the laws ? laws without love was deficient and hypocrisy.

For many Christians crying for more freedom and claiming that the present society is too complicated for the application of principles posted in the Old and New Testament times, situation ethics and even relativism seem good alternatives in moral decision-making. It seems to me most of the time it is partly because man in moral depravity cannot and do not understanding the moral consequences of our decision. It is partly because man including Christians do not live a life to will the will of God. When we do not accept God?s absolutes ? the creation ordinances and the ten words ? as our standards for living and bends our will to God?s will, the only thing left is uncertainty and ?everyone does as he sees fit?.

[Sue Leland]

II. When does the Christian community often choose relativism
or situational ethics and why?

Definition of Terms
Relativism is the view that ethical truths depend on the individuals or groups holding them. In the relativistic system there is no absolute truth and no right or wrong -- there are only differences of viewpoint. Situationism, as espoused by Joseph Fletcher and others, is a consequential and utilitarian system which has one sole obligation or norm, that of maximizing "love" for the greatest number of people. Situationism therefore allows for any means, provided they serve the end of maximizing "love" for the greatest number. "Love justifies its means" as Fletcher put it. Fletcher maintained that situationism was a method of decision-making, not an ethical system, and as such did not concern itself with ultimate issues such as good and evil. Situationism employs the tenets of relativism, pragmatism, personalism, and positivism. Principles derived from other worldviews, such as Christianity, are not necessarily viewed as wrong -- they are simply evaluated as to whether they fit the "ethic of love" -- and used or discarded accordingly. Thus neither God, nor His word, is viewed as ultimate truth, but rather as having occasional incidental value as a convenient buttress to the love ethic. It is in this sense that Fletcher invokes scriptural texts such as "Love your neighbor, as yourself" (Matt. 22:39).

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics and why?
The church has historically, and with increasing frequency in the modern era, adopted a relativistic or situational viewpoint when it has feared the label of legalism. It has cowered from the criticism that it has "lost touch with the headaches and heartbreaks of life" as Fletcher put it.(1) For example, the church has been singularly uncomfortable in responding to the charge of pro-choice advocates that a pro-life position represents a lack of compassion for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. This discomfort was certainly a factor that contributed to various denominations adopting a situational response as denominational policy; a response in which "love" ("love" for the mother, that is) is seen as justifying abortion.

I believe there are two reasons why the church, at times, adopts a relativistic or situational ethic:

1.) Fletcher is right. The church, in large measure, has "lost touch with
the headaches and heartbreaks of life." In so doing, it has backed
itself into an ethical corner. Moral righteousness is hard to require
of others when you, yourself, are unwilling to assume the
consequences of moral righteousness. For example, the church is
put in a difficult position when it advocates a pro-life position, but
is unwilling to commit itself to the care of unwanted children.

Several years ago, Mother Teresa was invited to speak at the
White House. She surprised her audience by speaking on the topic
of abortion. She said: "It is a poverty to say that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish." Along with the rest of the
audience, the President and Mrs. Clinton awkwardly applauded her
comment. Mother Teresa was able to speak freely, because no
one could challenge her beliefs as "legalistic and unloving". The
testimony of her life, her orphanage, and her adoption ministry,
prevented this. But if the church retreats from ministry in the
world, the church's call to moral righteousness will be both hollow
and hypocritical. So, to avoid the sister charges of legalism and
hypocrisy, the church has, in some instances, adopted situational
"love" as denominational policy.

2.) The church does not always operate from a voluntarist ethic. In
situations where God's will doesn't quite make sense to us, we
conclude that man might be the best judge of right and wrong
after all. We are unable to believe that God's will, as revealed in
scripture, is right even when it does not make sense to us. God's
will is right because it is the will of our perfect and loving God who
proved His love in dying for us. The fact that it is God's will is
what makes it right. Situational "love" on the other hand is
deceiving and appeals to us because, to use Dr. Grier's language,
our "God concept" is weak. We feel comforted if we can appeal to
some outside concept which makes sense to us in immediate
terms --for example, situational "love" -- as our standard at those
times when God's will does not make sense to us or carries a cost
that we are unwilling to assume.

1Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1966), 20.

[Sue Leland]

The philosophy relativism denies absolutes. It stresses that all conduct is relative to the circumstances. In other words, right or wrong is nothing other than what is the practiced morality at a given time, in a given place, in a given culture. An extreme antinomian relativism calls for no norms whatsoever.

Unlike relativism, Christian situation ethics does have an absolute norm for morality according to Joseph Fletcher and his followers. This single absolute norm is love (agape); only love is universally good. The ethicist tries to apply this absolute norm as best as he could in each situation rather than to abide to a law(s) that fits all circumstances.

Although situation ethics is not totally relativism; it is not Biblical because it removes God from the center of decision. It deemphasizes the crucial role of God’s precepts in moral decision-making. It removes God from the throne of the universe and replaces Him by an ethnocentric wisdom. Jesus never rejected or disregarded the Ten Commandments, the perpetually binding ordinances. Instead, he emphasized that love fulfills the laws – laws without love was deficient and hypocrisy.

For many Christians crying for more freedom and claiming that the present society is too complicated for the application of principles posted in the Old and New Testament times, situation ethics and even relativism seem good alternatives in moral decision-making. It seems to me most of the time it is partly because man in moral depravity cannot and do not understanding the moral consequences of our decision. It is partly because man including Christians do not live a life to will the will of God. When we do not accept God’s absolutes – the creation ordinances and the ten words – as our standards for living and bends our will to God’s will, the only thing left is uncertainty and “everyone does as he sees fit”.

Response to this posting:
While I had viewed situationism and relativism as parallel viewpoints, the respondent pointed out the key difference that I had not seen: relativism denies absolutes, whereas situationism functions under the absolute of "love." Although this might seem to make situationism an acceptable viewpoint for Christians, in fact, it does the opposite. As the respondent writes: the absolute of love "removes God from the center of decision." God is reduced to being a convenient means to an end and "love" becomes a deceptive cognate for God in the mind of the Christian.

[akridgeg]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

The Christian community often turns to relativism or situational ethics when they begin to focus on self, and forget the Word of God. It is quite easy for man to begin to worship himself, giving in to self-indulgence in many areas of his life. Many begin to think education, success, and position or station in life elevates them to some new level where they receive "scientific" revelation. They then begin to interpret, or seek someone who will interpret, scripture in such a way that it "tickles their ears", saying what they want it to say. At the root of the problem is the fact that a sort of "buffet" theoloy evolves. People begin to take bits and pieces of scripture saying to themselves "I'll believe this, but not that". In other words it is like going through a buffet line choosing the things you like and leaving the rest. The Word of God has not changed over the centuries but man quickly forgets who "brought him out of Egypt" and begins to turn back to a theological position based on situation ethics or relativism.

[Mark M]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

With the holiday season here, it becomes easier to identify when and where the Christian community chooses to be a bit more relativistic. If you look around at the Christmas decorations and the vast amount of holiday "cheer" you will see that the Christian community is beginning to accept the relativistic ethic of fitting in with popular culture. Not only do we see angels atop Christmas trees, hovering over the materialistic presents that many people cherish so much at this time of the year, but we also see those same Christmas trees now in our places of worship! Where does that fit into God's plan for the church? You can call me Scrouge if you would like, but the Christian community has assimilated many cultural norms into our "church" community that maybe should be reserved for another forum.

Relativism avoids identifying with absolutes. The Christian community appears to be flirting with the relativistic attitudes of popular culture in order to build "programs" to attract seekers - (which is necessary) - while pushing the envelope against absolutes which have existed for many years in the Christian community. I believe we have to be careful in our sincere efforts to attract members of our society. We must not cross the lines of accepting everything popular culture has to offer, especially in regards to a celebration of the birth Jesus Christ, the reason for the Christmas season.

[Mark M]

The Christian community can easily fall into relativism or situational ethics when the result of our decisions could adversely affect us. It is easy to hold others to high moral standards, but when we are individually faced with a moral dilemna, we as a fallen race, tend to seek a way inwhich to justify our actions as being correct or right.

It is easy to justify or rationalize our own actions and defend our decisions, but when held to the unwaivering light of the Word of God, our actions and our reasons are measured and weighed with the Truth. Our standards as humankind are faulty and will change dependant on the situation. Therefore, we should rely upon the unchanging standard of the Lord God and strive to abide by His ethics - not ours.

I agree. The Christian community unfortunately appears to be more often concerned with keeping up with the trends of this world than in following after the plan of God. The Christian community in our nation, the United States, is young when compared to the community of believers worldwide. It is easy in our youth to become consumed with ourselves and not think things through. As a "young" community of believers we have changed from a very strict community to one of very liberal practices. Does this indicate a change in our ethical framework? Certainly such practices such as accepting "practicing" homosexuals as ministers in "Christian" chuches indicates that somewhere the Christian community is changing and that those changes do indicate an ethical deviation. Justification for acceptance of such practices is coming more and more from a political/human rights perspective, and not as a Godly practice. I believe that those of us who have a voice and a responsibility in the spiritual formation of others must speak out against this relativistic trend. Otherwise, the Christian community will become no more than a club or another social service organization filled with people who are doing a lot of things that are not in line with God's precepts and commands. The "church" as the body of Christ must be pure, as a bride waiting for her bridegroom. As society, (Christian community included), becomes accepting of many actions such as adultery, fornication, and homosexuality, it becomes defiled. The Christian community must be separate, shining as examples to the world of the transformed lifestyle that comes as a child of God. The ethic of God's word must not be compromised!

[evansk]

Relativism is basically what the word states, everything is relative to the individual. There are no absolutes in the relativists theory. There is not a right or wrong way of living life.

In situationalism, love is the key to defining the absolutes in life. Love is the ideal in decision making and in deciding what is the best ethical system. This is not a biblical system because love does not necessarily equate to God. Scripture tells us that God is love. In situationism all we need is love, not a higher power, to make the right decision.

I belive the church clings to relativism and situationism because we refuse to bow to any other will besides our own. We do not want to follow Godly direction/wisdom, God's laws, and God's ways. We do desire to make our own path to heaven by doing good works, by sinning so more grace abounds, and by looking out for those things which in the end benefits only our good.

Relativism and situationism helps us become who we want to be. The slogan, "be all that you can be" suggest that we can live life on our own and make the right decisions without the involvement of God. Without God we are nothing, with God we can do all things.

[evansk]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

With the holiday season here, it becomes easier to identify when and where the Christian community chooses to be a bit more relativistic. If you look around at the Christmas decorations and the vast amount of holiday "cheer" you will see that the Christian community is beginning to accept the relativistic ethic of fitting in with popular culture. Not only do we see angels atop Christmas trees, hovering over the materialistic presents that many people cherish so much at this time of the year, but we also see those same Christmas trees now in our places of worship! Where does that fit into God's plan for the church? You can call me Scrouge if you would like, but the Christian community has assimilated many cultural norms into our "church" community that maybe should be reserved for another forum.

Relativism avoids identifying with absolutes. The Christian community appears to be flirting with the relativistic attitudes of popular culture in order to build "programs" to attract seekers - (which is necessary) - while pushing the envelope against absolutes which have existed for many years in the Christian community. I believe we have to be careful in our sincere efforts to attract members of our society. We must not cross the lines of accepting everything popular culture has to offer, especially in regards to a celebration of the birth Jesus Christ, the reason for the Christmas season.

I totaly agree with your viewpoint here. We have become relative, hedonistic, and situational with our ethics on Christmas. We must be careful to not fall prey to the enemy's entanglement at the holiday. I like what one pastor said on the Today Show...it doesn't matter if the secular society removes the word Christmas because Holiday means Holyday. What a perspective on ethics, changing what is meant for evil to good. We as christians must be very strong in our Christian ethic and take a stand for absolutes in our personal, family, and social lives.

[eric.j.davenport]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

When we teach parents in our society not to bend the will of thier children, and we allow our children to learn the precepts of Secular Humanism through public schools, TV, and other means, we can now see the effects of the moral decay. Our parents no longer are teaching the moral precepts of God at home. Instead, our children are learning that homosexuality is alright, that it is ok to have premarital sex, and it is ok to have more then one mommy and daddy because of adultry. The vows of marriage no longer have meaning with over 40 percent divorce rate in the church. Added to this, 42.8% of women having abortions claim to be Protestant and 13% claim to be born again Evangelical Christians according to the Guttmacher institue.
http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf
Not only are these facts heartbreaking, but in addition to these is the fact that our pastors are no longer preaching with conviction because they have fallen to the same sins. You can see this with how many pastors falling prey to pornography, how many pastors falling to adultry and divorce, and now pastors are even allowed behind the pulpit if they are homosexual in some denominations.

Francis Schaffer speaks on the same philosophical shift in his book "How Should We Then Live" as Dr. Grier has taught in the first lecture. This shift has lead to relativism, that there are no right moral precepts. When you make a stand and say that something is wrong, you are asked the question back "According to who's morals? And then they respond "Everything is relative to the individual's own values."

The classic definition of situationism is this: There is no absolute ethical laws; all decisions are based on changing situations. God's word doesn't change. Ecclesiates 1:9 says "There is nothing new under the sun."
Has the world changed so much that the Christian community now is changing with each situation?

God told Moses that homosexuality is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 states "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Today, the church is pressured to accept homosexuality in the church, even among its leaders. If we don't accept them we are called unloving, uncompassionate and legalistic ect. It all goes back to the question of what the church believes. Do they believe the Bible to be absolute? These incidents prove that at times some of the church is embracing situationism.

Within the church, parents must make a conscious effort to teach their children Biblical values because they are not going to get it in the world. The world will teach the children that homosexuality is acceptable. Geisler wrote "claiming that morals can change confuses facts and values." The church cannot change their values with the situations.


Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ehtics Options and Issues, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989).

[eric.j.davenport]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

The Christian community often turns to relativism or situational ethics when they begin to focus on self, and forget the Word of God. It is quite easy for man to begin to worship himself, giving in to self-indulgence in many areas of his life. Many begin to think education, success, and position or station in life elevates them to some new level where they receive "scientific" revelation. They then begin to interpret, or seek someone who will interpret, scripture in such a way that it "tickles their ears", saying what they want it to say. At the root of the problem is the fact that a sort of "buffet" theoloy evolves. People begin to take bits and pieces of scripture saying to themselves "I'll believe this, but not that". In other words it is like going through a buffet line choosing the things you like and leaving the rest. The Word of God has not changed over the centuries but man quickly forgets who "brought him out of Egypt" and begins to turn back to a theological position based on situation ethics or relativism.


I agree that this is the way some in the Christian community have become. Self has a great deal to do with it. When we are ruled by our desires rather than submitting to the word of God, we begin to make excuses for our behavior. This is why Fletcher's situationism doesn't work for us. It doesn't work because we are human. As a church, we need to believe the whole Bible is absolute, otherwise our values begin to be swayed and we want our ears "tickled".

[Nate]

Many participants in the Christian community apply relativism or situational ethics to issues ranging from the war in Iraq, to the use of torture in prisoner interrogation, homosexual marriage, and the “right to die.” George Barna reports that, among American adults, about one-third say that moral truth is absolute, one-third say that morality is determined according to each situation, and about one-third say that they are not sure if morality is relative or absolute.[1] This is among a population in which 80% claim to be a “Christian,” 68% claim to be a “committed Christian,” and 45% claim to be a “born again Christian.”[2] Barna asserts that the lack of a “biblical worldview,” a set of beliefs that includes belief that absolute moral truth exists, is the primary reason why people within the Christian community choose relativism or situational ethics. Could anything else be expected when less than 10% of Protestants possess a biblical worldview?[3]



[1] The Barna Group, Ltd., “Most Adults Fell Accepted by God, But Lack a Biblical Worldview” The Barna Update (August 9, 2005), http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=194 (accessed April 25, 2006).
[2] The Barna Group, Ltd., “One-Quarter of Self-Described Born Again Adults Rely On Means Other Than Grace to Get to Heaven” The Barna Update (November 29, 2005), http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=204 (accessed April 25, 2006).
[3] The Barna Group, Ltd., “One-Quarter of Self-Described Born Again Adults Rely On Means Other Than Grace to Get to Heaven” The Barna Update (November 29, 2005), http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=204 (accessed April 25, 2006).

[Nate]

The Christian community can easily fall into relativism or situational ethics when the result of our decisions could adversely affect us. It is easy to hold others to high moral standards, but when we are individually faced with a moral dilemna, we as a fallen race, tend to seek a way inwhich to justify our actions as being correct or right.

It is easy to justify or rationalize our own actions and defend our decisions, but when held to the unwaivering light of the Word of God, our actions and our reasons are measured and weighed with the Truth. Our standards as humankind are faulty and will change dependant on the situation. Therefore, we should rely upon the unchanging standard of the Lord God and strive to abide by His ethics - not ours.

I would agree that implementing the truth of God’s revelation in everyday life is very difficult to do. I can so easily convince myself that I am living according to “His ethics,” as I ignore my (literal) neighbors for the sake of studying God’s Word. God would prefer that I “protect my time” so that I can become a sharpened tool for his glory. Right? I am so thankful for my Christian community for confronting me when I rationalize my unethical actions.

[its_brad]

Posted By: Dan Biegler
Post Date: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:16 pm
Post Subject: Re: Relativism or Situational Ethics

ITS wrote:
When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?
In a limited sense, I agree with Fletcher that in keeping with Luke 10:25-28, and I Co 13, love must be the governing factor in all that we do. If we simply rely on the letter of the law, we are in essence Pharisees and will eventually grow cold to human need and fail to properly contextualize our practice of the law. I do not agree with Fletcher that law is as relative as he claims and that love is so nebulous in terms of each individauls percieved need. His assertions go too far in denying absolutes where law is concerned and make love so hard to define that it seldom looks the same from day to day. With that in mind, I have personally experienced church life as being more law-based on the whole than love-based, by somehow wrongly believing that to act from love before law is to "throw sound doctrine out the window!" But if the question at hand asks how the church opperates from a love moitve, keeping the law as a governing force, I am hard pressed for personal examples unfortuantely. Yet I do recall instances of tough-love exercised through church discipline where a offending believer was disciplined for sin issues but then reinstated after a time. If we are asking how believers exercise a more relative form of love with loosely defined parameters and a more sloppy view of the law, well how often have we heard it said, "who are you to judge me", God loves me and I am saved by grace, not the law!" Thinking it the more "loving" response, we cow to such reasoning and allow sin to go unchallenged.

[its_brad]

Posted By: Dan Biegler
Post Date: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:55 pm
Post Subject: Re: Relativism or Situational Ethics

akridgeg wrote:

ITS wrote:
When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?
The Christian community often turns to relativism or situational ethics when they begin to focus on self, and forget the Word of God. It is quite easy for man to begin to worship himself, giving in to self-indulgence in many areas of his life. Many begin to think education, success, and position or station in life elevates them to some new level where they receive "scientific" revelation. They then begin to interpret, or seek someone who will interpret, scripture in such a way that it "tickles their ears", saying what they want it to say. At the root of the problem is the fact that a sort of "buffet" theoloy evolves. People begin to take bits and pieces of scripture saying to themselves "I'll believe this, but not that". In other words it is like going through a buffet line choosing the things you like and leaving the rest. The Word of God has not changed over the centuries but man quickly forgets who "brought him out of Egypt" and begins to turn back to a theological position based on situation ethics or relativism.
Yes, I recall many times when I or someone else has said, "God has spoken to me...Such-in-such" Or "I have prayed on this issue", and I am now closed to any more debate. I recally the thesis of Dallas Willard in his book, "Hearing God". He says that what we are prone to believe is the voice of God is often our own subconscience. My point is that what when we want our way bad enough, we think we hear God telling us that it is Him. We have been trained by relativism and secualrism that the individual decides what is the highest good and it usually plays out to his own adavantage before it plays out for God.

[jkrause]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

Original answer for this question: A Christian should minimize a relativistic ethic when at all possible. We are to be a people who are certain about certain issues and that those issues must be considered against the backdrop of scripture. Love can be a great way to base decisions, however, what if you have some wounding or childhood training with some dysfunctional thought patterns about some issues. Or act out of past experience and thus you perceive a situation or event, and your love is not perfected yet in Christ in that area of your life, you increase the chances of error. Just because the heart is sincere, it could be sincerely wrong on an issue. I do believe you cant go wrong when you don’t have a specific value, or conviction and must make a decision and base it on love. We choose love as our final authority because love finds it anacedent in God.

[lindseyhawley]

Relativism, looking at any case in relationship to it's unique circumstances, is the pervasive ethical philopsophy in the Western world today. Fletcher, in his book Situation Ethics, presents a form of relativism which he calls Situation Ethics. The essence of his theory is that in any situation, the highest good is love and whatever choice is the most loving is the choice that one is obligated to make. He does not describe his theory as relativistic, as he claims that love is the absolute. However, the problem he runs into, as he cites specific examples near the end of his book, is that in any case, the way one person defines love (and the conclusions that brings concerning actions) may be quite different from another person's definition.

This philosophy is often used by the Christian community in matters where Scripture seems to be unclear. In some cases this is a very helpful way of understanding how to exercise our freedom in Christ. For instance, Paul seems to describe a situational ethic of love when describing the Jews freedom to eat whatever they wanted. He states in 1 Corinthians 8:9 that we must be careful that the exercise of our freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. We are free to eat whatever we please, but we must look at situations to evaluate if we are acting in a way that is loving and promotes the good of those around us.

However, we get in trouble as Christians when we rely on our own subjective, if Biblically influenced, definitions of love. One example is the way we treat money and wealth. Often we think that the accumulation of wealth is a responsible act and a demonstation of love and care for our families and the ministries we support, and it may be. Yet Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell everything he has and give it away. Jesus definition of love in that man's life was not what he expected.

Relativism takes a high view of the individual, asking him to constantly use his reason to evaluate situations in light of their unique circumstances. The problem is that individuals are finite, created and ultimately can not know every factor influencing a decision. That is why situation ethics is so dangerous, it seems to place the authority with fallen humans. Only an infinte God can fairly judge situations and act justly and with love as the greatest good. It falls to the individual then to adopt his absolutes, as laid out in Scripture, rather than trusting their ability to make decisions relative to circumstances. Where Scripture is unclear, human reason in partnership with the Holy Spirit, must be used.

[lindseyhawley]

With the holiday season here, it becomes easier to identify when and where the Christian community chooses to be a bit more relativistic. If you look around at the Christmas decorations and the vast amount of holiday "cheer" you will see that the Christian community is beginning to accept the relativistic ethic of fitting in with popular culture. Not only do we see angels atop Christmas trees, hovering over the materialistic presents that many people cherish so much at this time of the year, but we also see those same Christmas trees now in our places of worship! Where does that fit into God's plan for the church? You can call me Scrouge if you would like, but the Christian community has assimilated many cultural norms into our "church" community that maybe should be reserved for another forum.

Relativism avoids identifying with absolutes. The Christian community appears to be flirting with the relativistic attitudes of popular culture in order to build "programs" to attract seekers - (which is necessary) - while pushing the envelope against absolutes which have existed for many years in the Christian community. I believe we have to be careful in our sincere efforts to attract members of our society. We must not cross the lines of accepting everything popular culture has to offer, especially in regards to a celebration of the birth Jesus Christ, the reason for the Christmas season.

I respectfully think that Mark is confusing or making wrong assumptions about the ethical theories being employed by those who are participating in the consumption of the goods he mentions or packaging of ministry methods in a way that is attractive to seekers. While it is true that a relativistic ethic could lead someone to use wrong methods when presenting the gospel or do make poor financial choices in relationship to holiday spending, it is also true that it is possible to participate in holidays and new ways of communicating truth while honoring God's absolute ethical standards.

We can not call what is evil holy. That is if we are showing movies that contain things that are offensive and ungodly in the name of presenting a seeker sensitive event, we are allowing a relativistic ethic (which says that the potential salvific good of showing the movie outweighs the evil the movie contains) to influence our thinking. However, employing new methods that are amoral (using MediaShout instead of hymn books or meeting in homes and coffee shops instead of church basements) should not be considered a sign that we are practicing a relativistic ethic.

I think these two things have been largely confused by some in the movement I am a part of and as a result, change is seen as an attempt to assimilate into culture, to become relativistic concerning the Gospel, rather than to simply rightly using technology and new cultural norms redemptively within the Scriptural absolutes we adhere to.

[Normafro]

Relativism has led to a society with no durable norms. The individual approves his own behaviour and that is sufficient approval. With more individual freedom, the value of human life has declined, there is a loss of moral restraint and a shocked conscience is now laughable.
In such an atmosphere the Christian community does not want to be so different that they will put a barrier between the church and the world. They do not want to appear that they are out of date. It must still be appealing.
One area that has become more relativistic is our speech. Words are powerful. God’s holy name is heard spoken is a useless way to make a joke or exclamation. Jibes between speakers become more pointed and damaging, destroying a time that could be used for building up. Even dirty jokes and sexual innuendos are tolerated and laughed at. And the gospel is watered down to make it easier to swallow.
In this process, the Word is hindered, not displayed in the wonder of holiness, mercy and forgiveness.

[Normafro]

Fletcher notes that we have moved from a hierarchy of values to a spectrum of values. In stating such, we are told that we are very adept at moving back and forth depending on the situation at the time. Situations drive us to the point that we attempt to alter rules and circumstances that govern us. As Christians we employ the same principles with the understanding that there is only one rule or principle - that is love.

However, why we, as a Christian community, choose relativism is that we like norms with regard to ethics. We choose to base our decisions on law and love, authority, and freedom with the primary issue being law and love.

Fletcher points out that the "why" never changes only the "what" and the "how", all based on our estimate of the situation. Love is the only constant. This allows us to stay away from the hard and fast "dos and don'ts" and legalism. One reason is that we believe we are no longer bound by the law ethics of Jesus' time. Today, we have the luxury of living under, what we consider to be, ambiguous commandments. By choosing to live under ambiguous rules, we then can live under ethics based on our situation at the time. We tentatively can set the standard, thus establish the consequences or results that best fit our situation.

Response by Normafro

I appreciate the truthful way, without gloss, that this evaluation has been presented.

When I first read this entry, I thought, no way, not me, not my church. Reading it again, the realization came that some parts of this evaluation do relate to me. Good works are to be done, but it is easy to slip into the thought that there will be some reward attached. Maybe even some recognition. Programs in church are supported for my needs. Situations have become decision influencing. And tithing - God honors tithers, doesn't He?
There is benefit in evaluating what is the guide and motive to my actions. It is easy to dismiss criticism, harder to consider it and often impossible to agree.

But agreeing with God is what is our highest good, whether we see rewards or not, of course.

[johndegrassie]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

The Christian community often chooses relativism or situation ethics for cases of moral conflict. One example is capital punishment: capital punishment is supported by Scripture, but Christians are to preserve life and express love to all. The feeling in these cases of moral conflict is that love conquers (must conquer) all. Therefore, rules and laws are bendable/breakable in particular situations because of love. Also, relativism appears within the Christian community as a result of an over-inflated view of self (i.e. existentialism). The idea here is that Christians often act on what “feels right to them” rather than on some objective principle (this is most frequently seen in biblical interpretation, but I believe it appears in ethics too). Both of these points can be seen as a reaction to legalism (a sometimes unspoken anathema in Christian communities).

[johndegrassie]

The Christian community can easily fall into relativism or situational ethics when the result of our decisions could adversely affect us. It is easy to hold others to high moral standards, but when we are individually faced with a moral dilemna, we as a fallen race, tend to seek a way inwhich to justify our actions as being correct or right.

It is easy to justify or rationalize our own actions and defend our decisions, but when held to the unwaivering light of the Word of God, our actions and our reasons are measured and weighed with the Truth. Our standards as humankind are faulty and will change dependant on the situation. Therefore, we should rely upon the unchanging standard of the Lord God and strive to abide by His ethics - not ours.

The observation that relativism or situational ethics creeps into Christian communities when Christians search for rationalizations of aberrant moral behavior, is an excellent observation. One can, I image, think of numerous cases when this type of rationalization occurs. However, I believe that relativism may creep into Christian communities in a less “unattractive” way, i.e. it can appear to be a good thing, rather than some Christian trying to rationalize “bad” behavior. It apparently comes to the rescue when Christians are faced with a moral dilemma where both choices are instances of Christian obedience (e.g. Corrie Ten Boom’s dilemma). Here it comes in as the solution and finds much more company than in the rationalization case.

[deb3]

Relativism says that right or wrong is relative and not absolute. It varies from person to person and time to time. Situation ethics does have an absolute and that absolute is love. Love is the ulitmate law. I think that the Christian community leans toward relativism and situation ethics because it is easier. We can create our own direction by doing what we define as "good" works. It's hard to do God's will. It's hard to follow His direction, so we choose the path of least resistance.

[deb3]

Relativism has led to a society with no durable norms. The individual approves his own behaviour and that is sufficient approval. With more individual freedom, the value of human life has declined, there is a loss of moral restraint and a shocked conscience is now laughable.
In such an atmosphere the Christian community does not want to be so different that they will put a barrier between the church and the world. They do not want to appear that they are out of date. It must still be appealing.
One area that has become more relativistic is our speech. Words are powerful. God’s holy name is heard spoken is a useless way to make a joke or exclamation. Jibes between speakers become more pointed and damaging, destroying a time that could be used for building up. Even dirty jokes and sexual innuendos are tolerated and laughed at. And the gospel is watered down to make it easier to swallow.
In this process, the Word is hindered, not displayed in the wonder of holiness, mercy and forgiveness.


I agree with what is stated here. I am a teacher, and am constantly dismayed with the behavior of not just our youth, but entire families. We are becoming self-centered and as a result, you are correct, the value of life has definitely declined.

[kcole1]

The rise in relativism-is the idea that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative. This concept denies the existence of some or all universal truths, particularly ethical ones. 2) Loss of moral restraint—we laugh at things that are destructive, we have become desensitized to violence and crime and call it entertainment. In our homes and our churches.

Situational ethics refers to an approach to personality that holds that people are more influenced by external, situational factors than by internal traits or motivations.

In our churches and communities people will often go with marjority or what feels right to do. Examples of murder and capital punishment. The Bible and the Laws tell us what is right, but decisions are based on factors or situations not based on the word. We find it easier to lean toward these to when making moral decisions.

[ethicswalla]

"When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?"

This question is somewhat difficult to answer given it's vague terminology. How one defines "the Christian community" will greatly affect the sort of answer one arrives at here. That being said, one area in which I feel the Christian community chooses relativism is in the area surrounding life and death issues.
Some Christians seem to feel that there is nothing ethically imbalanced about being against abortion, in favor of the death penalty, against euthanasia and in favor of militarily aggressive foreign policies. From my perspective, they seem to imagine that some people's lives have greater or lesser value than others, and that a "proper" interpretation of Scripture as they understand it will support their point of view.
It seems sometimes as if they taken Situation Ethics and replaced love with "Scripture" or "Truth" and then proceed to justify any number of incongruous ethical viewpoints on the basis of serving this highest ethic, an approach which does not seem particularly Christ-like to me .

[ethicswalla]

Posted By: Dan Biegler
Post Date: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:16 pm
Post Subject: Re: Relativism or Situational Ethics


In a limited sense, I agree with Fletcher that in keeping with Luke 10:25-28, and I Co 13, love must be the governing factor in all that we do. If we simply rely on the letter of the law, we are in essence Pharisees and will eventually grow cold to human need and fail to properly contextualize our practice of the law. I do not agree with Fletcher that law is as relative as he claims and that love is so nebulous in terms of each individauls percieved need. His assertions go too far in denying absolutes where law is concerned and make love so hard to define that it seldom looks the same from day to day. With that in mind, I have personally experienced church life as being more law-based on the whole than love-based, by somehow wrongly believing that to act from love before law is to "throw sound doctrine out the window!" But if the question at hand asks how the church opperates from a love moitve, keeping the law as a governing force, I am hard pressed for personal examples unfortuantely. Yet I do recall instances of tough-love exercised through church discipline where a offending believer was disciplined for sin issues but then reinstated after a time. If we are asking how believers exercise a more relative form of love with loosely defined parameters and a more sloppy view of the law, well how often have we heard it said, "who are you to judge me", God loves me and I am saved by grace, not the law!" Thinking it the more "loving" response, we cow to such reasoning and allow sin to go unchallenged.

I agree with this respondent in all of his major assertions. Love is a good deciding factor, up to it's proper limits. It can be hard to integrate law and love in our ecclesiastical practice, but I feel that it is essential to do so if we are to continue to grow as the Body of Christ.

[Redgardencow]

When does the Christian community often choose relativism or situational ethics, and why?

For me the question is ambiguous at best; we have to have some definitions to even begin to understand the context. Oh, by the way, my answer: they use if frequently and for their own self-interests.

Now to the definitions: We have to know what is meant by “Christian?” Also, what is the definition of “Community?” Finally, how often is often?
These are some problems that belie the entire scope and gamete of relativism or situation ethics.

1) What is meant by Christian? For some, me in particular, that means saved from my sins, born by salvation into the Family of God. It means I have been forgiven of my sins, on my way to Heaven and my Summum Bonum is to do the will of God throughout my life on earth. Others however, have a must different perspective; for some it is idealism, for others, a token word and then convenience for anything they have done wrong. For some it is legalism, for others it means a dry religion and there are those that define Christian as fun loving or still yet, a quiet monk-style-holiness or even a wild-eyed, dance felt with the brush of the Holy Spirit.

2) Then there is the problem of Community? Is this the Christian community as defined by the local church? Is this the Christian Community as defined by the Bible as the Body of Christ? For many the “community” of years gone by is the church in their neighborhood that the family attended for ever and for every thing. The place of baptism, marriage, burials, where the bench creaked, where the kids played, and where the family reunion is held each year. Yet with the passage of time, this community is broadened to mean the church I drive to; the quick ‘throw a buck in’ environment that demands perfection from a minister when the member gives very little. In this age of consumer mentalities, we find that people in the ‘Christian Community’ want more and give less. In fact there are those who make habit of reading the paper on Friday and making attendance that week with the church who has the best singing, the best pot-luck and the choicest seats!

3) We also have to define “often.” How often is often? For some, often is weekly, others it is monthly. For one, a drink once per week is often and for others a yearly glass of wine on Christmas is often. I contend in the context of this question that ‘often’ is justified only by the person attempting to justify their stance of what is relative based on the situation that best suits them.
According to Fletcher, the greatest, best, highest good is love. He also states “Only the end justifies the means.” With this in mind, and the ‘adjusted’ definitions of the above, I feel that most of the Christian Community will often choose the ethic of situation because it fits their life, plan and desires.
Here is an example: Just today, I was verbally accosted (I pastor a church of some 250 in Sunday AM attendance) by a person, and officer of the church for parking my car (nearly new, clean, no mechanical problems) under the drive through area while it was raining.
Now this brother did this out of love –haven’t I heard the phrase “I love you but,” more times than I can count – and he may love me, but I didn’t get the memo. His desire to serve God was in love (loved the building) his desire to serve the people was love (he wanted the most pleased) his desire to do his job well, on and on and on may have been rooted in love, but it was situational.

Had someone else, a quest, parked there, there would have been no problem. He chose what fit him the best at this time – regardless. Now I’m not saying that most are so callous as to choose only for their own gratification; that would be hedonism, but we do choose what is best for us at the time.

Another word parallels relative or situation; it is the word 'justify.' We as humans, tend to justify what we want, what suits us at the time, but making it fit. We might hurt another, we might give preferential treatment to one, and we might overlook something or be extremely brutal to another. These or other ‘situations are justified’ every time we ‘call in sick,’ skip church for a ballgame,’ tell the pastor a ‘white lie,’ and on and on.

Back to the question - When? Why? I content very frequently and for their own conscious desires. Most of what Fletcher says makes me very mad, but you have to agree that most do just what he says, whether they admit to it or not.

[Redgardencow]

Fletcher notes that we have moved from a hierarchy of values to a spectrum of values. In stating such, we are told that we are very adept at moving back and forth depending on the situation at the time. Situations drive us to the point that we attempt to alter rules and circumstances that govern us. As Christians we employ the same principles with the understanding that there is only one rule or principle - that is love.

However, why we, as a Christian community, choose relativism is that we like norms with regard to ethics. We choose to base our decisions on law and love, authority, and freedom with the primary issue being law and love.

Fletcher points out that the "why" never changes only the "what" and the "how", all based on our estimate of the situation. Love is the only constant. This allows us to stay away from the hard and fast "dos and don'ts" and legalism. One reason is that we believe we are no longer bound by the law ethics of Jesus' time. Today, we have the luxury of living under, what we consider to be, ambiguous commandments. By choosing to live under ambiguous rules, we then can live under ethics based on our situation at the time. We tentatively can set the standard, thus establish the consequences or results that best fit our situation.

I agree with you – yes, we also employ the same principles that Fletcher notes, but is it for love? And if so, love of what? Whom? There are times in the life of a ‘believer’ that he/she makes a call of judgment based solely on love for another and at times for selfish reasons, yet masked by a ‘love’ relationship.

My question with Fletcher is the “HOW?” How do we govern if things change – even if love remains the constant, we are still questioning how we decide, how we proceed, how we judge, how we make this all fit.

You seem to want to say away from the hard and fast do’s and don’ts and I want to as well, but aren’t we proverbially ‘throwing the baby out with the bath-water,’ when we do not use something besides love as a basis for our decisions? The “ambiguous commandments” that you refer to is the law of grace, yes, we are under it, but still isn’t grace governed by the one (I say this carefully) who gave the grace? i.e., Christ?