Both situational ethics and liberation theology share one common ground. They both address specific situations. They converge in this common way of addressing specific situations but diverge in their approach and scope of doing the ethics. Christian ethics is not a matter of obeying strict rules set down by the Scriptures or the church’s dogma, but it is determined by the application of “the one principle of love” to each particular situation as it arises.  According to this school of ethics, the two specific marks of Christian ethics are conspicuous. They are the adoption of the single principle of love (agape) and the rejection of legalism.

Situational ethics is not antinomianism, but moral rules. They are only rules of thumb and are in no sense absolute in every situation. Laws or rules may be unnecessary in particular situations where they have to be overridden in the name of love. The love is agape, the Greek word to denote God’s love for mankind that Jesus used to summarize the laws. It is real heart and spirit of the divine command which relativises every other ordinance. Contemporary situations may present law of the past illogical to use. For instance, the common example from the Bible is Jesus’ commendation of David and his hungry soldiers entering the temple and eating the holy bread preserved only to be eaten by the priests (Matt.12:1-8). There is no conflict between situational ethics and justice; for justice is love distributed fairly. The ‘situation includes all who are affected by the act, and any one acting out of love will aim to do what he can to maximize the well-being of all concerned.’ A Christian who does not read situations and act in them as an isolated individual, but judges and acts as a member of the church is not doing a situational ethics out of love.

One observes as one of the salient characteristics of Jesus’ ethics was his attempt to ‘reconstruct men’s attitude, rather than lay down rules’. He further says “Jesus was tactician, not strategist of charity, dealing with each case as it arose.” Each man must act according to his own judgment in the situation, but he must be open and informed about the ultimate context of the divine love. Furthermore, there must be room for growth into mature perception of man’s true end and of what makes his ultimate well-being. Christian action, inspired by love, in response to the particular situation, represents the authentic freedom of the Christian man.

However, there are pros and cons to the situational ethics. One such criticism is that of Haring. He says ‘the concept of love is structureless.’ Love must be spelled out in terms of detailed norms to guide an action aright. The complicated one is in the field of medicine where specific rules and regulations are put in place because of the seriousness of the life and death situation. When there are exceptional act, it is love rule that guides it. However, it is not advisable to make more exceptional cases in medical ethic than traditional rules of its treatment of people.

Liberation Theology, on the other hand, is an attempt to spell out the social and political implications of the Christian gospel in terms of the liberation of men and women from oppression and injustice. It rejects any interpretation of Christian ethics in either individualist or otherworldly terms. It denounces the political involvement as legitimization of the status quo and betrayal of the message of the Bible. It makes reference of the Old Testament, to the God of Exodus, who led his people to liberation, to Judaeo-Christian concept of God active in history, to Christian doctrine of incarnation, resurrection, redemption as all demanding much more than just individual conversion. All these doctrines imply that God is at work in the world to change man’s total situation.

The liberation theology insists for Christian social ethics for social and political transformation or even revolution. It has its roots in Latin America initiated by the Roman Catholics. There were support from theologians in Germany and America. It is a response by Christians out of a changed church context to the rapidly changing situation of the poor in the developing world.

It is an attempt to address social and political aspects of the love of the neighbours, which the traditional Christian ethics fail to do. To some degree, liberation theology has proponents of Marxist analysis of situation. But Marxism also has utopianism dimension where it neglects the problem of the abuse of power and it tends towards totalitarianism. Critics also question the actual theology of liberation. There is no equation between redemption and liberation. The fact that was criticized is that man can be redeemed even though he remains politically in bondage and too, man can be redeemed without being liberated politically. Christian ethics cannot ignore this dissimilarity. The main problem with liberation Theology is the problem of means. That is, the church’s willingness to give moral support to revolution and guerrilla warfare or to an extent fully gets involved.

Liberation theology has not taken Christian social ethic further than situational ethics. It must be seen and read as an instance of situation ethics in the social and political sphere, open to the same reservations and the same guarded support that we give to situational ethics in general.

References

Joseph F. Fletcher, Situation ethics: the new morality, Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

Mahan, Brian and L. Dale Richesin, The Challenge of Liberation Theology: A First World Response, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, 1981.