Do Circumstances Ever Justify A Sin?
Preaching
Lions And Cows Dining Together
And 111 Other Sermon Ideas
Object:
Purpose Statement: It is time to discuss situation ethics.
Everyone tells us the world is not black and white. Instead of clearly defined options and obvious answers, we have extensive areas of gray where we flounder for moral direction. Situation ethics enters the picture right about here. Situation ethics may have had its moment in the spotlight during the '50s and '60s, but because of the nature of the issue it is timeless, and it is a theological conundrum.
One scripture that introduces the subject as well as any other would be the account of Jesus and his disciples walking through the grain fields on a Sabbath. His disciples picked wheat and ate it, which constituted work according to the legalists (Matthew 12:1-6). The Pharisees confronted Jesus with the charge that his disciples were breaking the law concerning work on the Sabbath. Jesus replied with a reference to a historical incident preserved in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 concerning David and his soldiers who, though they were ritually unclean, went into the temple and ate the holy bread. Jesus said this was against the law (v. 4). This was a "situation ethics" moment.
a. What is it? In some instances, situation ethics will be the "lesser of two evils" in decision-making. It is the "one size doesn't fit all" of morality. This means we create rules of right and wrong to govern our conduct, such as: don't steal, don't kill, and don't lie, only to find they may need to be suspended given certain circumstances. People of the social ethics persuasion tell us that we cannot have blanket rules to cover every contingency. For instance, we agree stealing is wrong, but when it becomes a matter of life and death it is permissible to steal food to save a life. This may have been what Jesus was saying concerning David's unlawful eating of sacred bread in the temple. We should obey the rules unless there is some unique reason why that rule should not apply. That is situation ethics. Should we consider it bending the rules or exercising the fine print?
b. Is it necessary? It is true that special circumstances may call for doing what would ordinarily be called a sin. A very simple example I always use is the hypothetical hospital room where a patient who has had a heart attack and is in critical condition inquires about her family. By hypothetical coincidence her family has just been killed in an automobile crash. If the nurse or doctor tells the patient the truth it may be too much for her weak heart and kill her. Knowing she will eventually recover and be able to receive tragic news, they tell her her family is doing fine. They lie. But isn't it better to lie (a minor sin) than to kill the patient (a greater offense)? Another less dramatic example from scripture would be Jesus' excusing the woman of the accusation of foolish waste when she poured expensive perfume over him (John 12:1-8). Ordinarily, the disciples would have been right. Jesus, no doubt, would agree it might have been better to sell the perfume and use the proceeds for the poor. However, he chose to ignore the economic good deed in favor of making her feel she had done something very worthwhile instead of embarrassing her. If we are to do the very best thing in every situation, we must weigh all the elements involved and do that which is the least harmful. It may mean committing a "sin" to avoid committing a greater sin. Often a circumstance will inadvertently pit one principle against another principle. The dilemma forces us to make a decision that will violate one principle in order that we might observe another, and we must choose the "lesser of two evils." For example, do we protect the freedom of speech even if it harms someone by violating her or his right to be free from abuse?
c. Are there dangers? If we are ever going to exercise the privilege of justifying some "sinful" conduct by claiming situation ethics dictated a certain action even if it seemed questionable, we should acquaint ourselves with the pitfalls involved. I once identified a dozen or more, however, let's mention only three.
1. Too often we believe our situation is unique and different from what others experience, and it calls for action that will be inappropriate for others. Has our biased subjective judgment excused behavior that was not appropriate? Are we, indeed, really the exception to the rule others need to follow?
2. Examples of situation ethics too often overlook third, fourth, or even more possibilities. The tendency is to only see two options. To take a favorite example from one situation ethic expert: should a women give herself sexually to a man who is having problems of emotional sexual anxiety and seduce him in order to "help" him over his impotence? The situation ethicist may say, "Yes, we should break the rules for a higher good." What ever happened to other alternatives? Why not explore seeing a therapist?
3. Another danger is in making the end justify the means. Is it a sin if it works? This is a mistake we make in international relationships. We justify killing innocent men, women, and children in war to protect our interests. (This sermon idea only begins to explore the issue.)
Everyone tells us the world is not black and white. Instead of clearly defined options and obvious answers, we have extensive areas of gray where we flounder for moral direction. Situation ethics enters the picture right about here. Situation ethics may have had its moment in the spotlight during the '50s and '60s, but because of the nature of the issue it is timeless, and it is a theological conundrum.
One scripture that introduces the subject as well as any other would be the account of Jesus and his disciples walking through the grain fields on a Sabbath. His disciples picked wheat and ate it, which constituted work according to the legalists (Matthew 12:1-6). The Pharisees confronted Jesus with the charge that his disciples were breaking the law concerning work on the Sabbath. Jesus replied with a reference to a historical incident preserved in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 concerning David and his soldiers who, though they were ritually unclean, went into the temple and ate the holy bread. Jesus said this was against the law (v. 4). This was a "situation ethics" moment.
a. What is it? In some instances, situation ethics will be the "lesser of two evils" in decision-making. It is the "one size doesn't fit all" of morality. This means we create rules of right and wrong to govern our conduct, such as: don't steal, don't kill, and don't lie, only to find they may need to be suspended given certain circumstances. People of the social ethics persuasion tell us that we cannot have blanket rules to cover every contingency. For instance, we agree stealing is wrong, but when it becomes a matter of life and death it is permissible to steal food to save a life. This may have been what Jesus was saying concerning David's unlawful eating of sacred bread in the temple. We should obey the rules unless there is some unique reason why that rule should not apply. That is situation ethics. Should we consider it bending the rules or exercising the fine print?
b. Is it necessary? It is true that special circumstances may call for doing what would ordinarily be called a sin. A very simple example I always use is the hypothetical hospital room where a patient who has had a heart attack and is in critical condition inquires about her family. By hypothetical coincidence her family has just been killed in an automobile crash. If the nurse or doctor tells the patient the truth it may be too much for her weak heart and kill her. Knowing she will eventually recover and be able to receive tragic news, they tell her her family is doing fine. They lie. But isn't it better to lie (a minor sin) than to kill the patient (a greater offense)? Another less dramatic example from scripture would be Jesus' excusing the woman of the accusation of foolish waste when she poured expensive perfume over him (John 12:1-8). Ordinarily, the disciples would have been right. Jesus, no doubt, would agree it might have been better to sell the perfume and use the proceeds for the poor. However, he chose to ignore the economic good deed in favor of making her feel she had done something very worthwhile instead of embarrassing her. If we are to do the very best thing in every situation, we must weigh all the elements involved and do that which is the least harmful. It may mean committing a "sin" to avoid committing a greater sin. Often a circumstance will inadvertently pit one principle against another principle. The dilemma forces us to make a decision that will violate one principle in order that we might observe another, and we must choose the "lesser of two evils." For example, do we protect the freedom of speech even if it harms someone by violating her or his right to be free from abuse?
c. Are there dangers? If we are ever going to exercise the privilege of justifying some "sinful" conduct by claiming situation ethics dictated a certain action even if it seemed questionable, we should acquaint ourselves with the pitfalls involved. I once identified a dozen or more, however, let's mention only three.
1. Too often we believe our situation is unique and different from what others experience, and it calls for action that will be inappropriate for others. Has our biased subjective judgment excused behavior that was not appropriate? Are we, indeed, really the exception to the rule others need to follow?
2. Examples of situation ethics too often overlook third, fourth, or even more possibilities. The tendency is to only see two options. To take a favorite example from one situation ethic expert: should a women give herself sexually to a man who is having problems of emotional sexual anxiety and seduce him in order to "help" him over his impotence? The situation ethicist may say, "Yes, we should break the rules for a higher good." What ever happened to other alternatives? Why not explore seeing a therapist?
3. Another danger is in making the end justify the means. Is it a sin if it works? This is a mistake we make in international relationships. We justify killing innocent men, women, and children in war to protect our interests. (This sermon idea only begins to explore the issue.)
