|
 
April 1, 2007, Vol.6, No.7. "Something Greater Than Law" Keith Sharp Cecil Hook claims to be a member of the church of Christ and has been a preacher for many years. He has written several books which have had a large impact, particularly on younger, well educated Christians. He claims churches of Christ are guilty of "legalism," and calls us away from bondage to law to freedom in Christ. In reality, what he advocates is well described by the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 2:19: While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. Hook’s most popular book is entitled Free in Christ. In chapter 5, entitled "Something Greater Than Law," he sets forth his one moral principle. If, in a specific instance, our efforts to keep a law hinders or prevents the principles of justice, mercy, faith, or love, then the higher principle must take precedence. The principle is greater than the law intended to promote it (32). In application he justifies abortion (33), euthanasia (mercy killing) (ibid), suicide (Ibid) and unscriptural divorce and remarriage (34) if they promote justice, mercy, faith, or love. Are we ready to accept a view of Scripture that justifies the very worst aspects of our immoral society? Are we ready to accept assisted suicide and abortion as moral? Hook realizes "Some may decry this as situation ethics" (34). Indeed! In 1966 modernist Professor Joseph Fletcher authored the book Situation Ethics. It relegated to the trash heap the basic standard of morality, known as the Judeo-Christian ethic, that had long been accepted as the norm in our nation. Fletcher contended: I. Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely, love: nothing else. II. The ultimate norm of Christian decisions is love: nothing else. (Fletcher/Montgomery. 25) Thus Fletcher justified fornication, lying, abortion, homo-sexuality, suicide, euthanasia and murder (among other things) as long as it was the "loving thing to do." He contended, "love ethics is infinitely superior to law ethics" (Ibid, 24). Hook claims not to teach situation ethics, i.e., to "do evil that good may come," because he claims the actions he advocates (abortion, adultery, etc.) are not evil if done to achieve "justice, mercy, faith, or love." His denial not withstanding, this is exactly "the end justifies the means" criterion Paul denounced in Romans 3:7-8 and is perfectly parallel to Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics. Hook is different only in that he includes "justice, mercy and faith" along with love. The difference is only apparent in that Fletcher equated justice and mercy with love (Ibid. 25-26). Hook correctly recognizes that both testaments teach strict adherence to divine law (Deuteronomy 4:1f; Hebrews 2:1f; 10:28; Matthew 5:19; John 12:48; Matthew 28:19; James 2:10). But then he sweeps all this aside by appealing to supposed examples of God overlooking sin. He argues that Rahab was listed in the role call of faith (Hebrews 11:31) because she lied. So, forget "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone" (Revelation 21:8). If you lie for a worthy cause, it will lead to your salvation. The Catholic doctrine of mental reservation is right after all. Paul was wrong, the end does justify the means (Romans 3:8). The Scriptures neither state nor imply that God approved Rahab’s lie. She was saved because of her faith, not her lie. He argues that David was justified in eating the holy bread (1 Samuel 21:1-6; cf. Matthew 12:3-4; Mark 2:25-26; Luke 6:3-4). The Lord here made an ad hominem argument, i.e., he took an argument they made and used it against them. The Jews justified David even though he ate bread which the priests alone were to eat, thus turning holy bread into common. Thus, they were inconsistent in condemning Jesus for supposedly treating a holy day, the Sabbath, as if it were common. David’s action was no act of love, mercy, or justice. It was done to feed his belly and caused the deaths of the priests along with their wives, children, and livestock (1 Samuel 22:6-19), as David himself admitted (1 Samuel 22:20-22). Jesus did not approve David’s conduct.Hook noted the instances in which the Jews alleged that Christ violated the Sabbath as proof that it is sometimes acceptable to violate divine law. Jesus only violated the Jewish traditions about the Sabbath. When Christ challenged them to name one sin in His life (John 8:45), the Jews could not. Had He repeatedly violated the divine law of the Sabbath, they could have named many instances. Christ taught them that they misunder-stood the purpose of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27) and that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Mark 2:4; Luke 6:9). It is not that the purpose of the law is above the law. Rather, when one so interprets a law of God as to violate its purpose, he misunder-stands the law. Hook, as all situation ethicists, tries to determine right by constructing difficult moral dilemmas. Thus Protestants try to get around the necessity of baptism and continuous cleansing advocates try to get around the necessity of repentance. Hard cases do not determine divine law. God’s word determines what is right and wrong (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I’ll let the Lord judge the destiny of those caught in dilemmas; whether concerning baptism, forgiveness of a sin of ignorance, or morality (James 4:12). Hook’s position makes us our own moral compasses. We must decide in each difficult situation what is loving, just, merciful and faithful. We are not capable of this (Jeremiah 10:23). A teenage girl, lacking in self-confidence, wanting loving approval, is told by her good looking date that if she loves him she will have sex with him. Does she need to decide what is the loving, just, merciful, faithful thing to do in this situation; or does she need to remember "fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4)? What will the church be like if we all accept the situation ethics of Cecil Hook and Joseph Fletcher? Are you familiar with the Clinton White House? Work Cited Situation Ethics True or False: A Dialogue Between Joseph Fletcher and John Warwick Montgomery.
|
