A Theological Middle Way: Generalism Compared with Antinomianism and Situationalism

Lesallan Bostron

Ohio Christian University
Professor Mark Godbold
October 2, 2025

A Theological Middle Way: Generalism Compared with Antinomianism and Situationalism
Lesallan Bostron
Ohio Christian University
Professor Mark Godbold
October 2, 2025

A Theological Middle Way: Generalism Compared with Antinomianism and Situationalism

This paper explains three nonabsolutist ethical systems—antinomianism, situationalism, and generalism—as presented in Geisler (2010) and in classical treatments of situation ethics (Fletcher, 1966). Definitions and distinguishing features of each system are provided, followed by case studies that illustrate how each approach would guide moral decisions. The paper analyzes strengths and weaknesses of each system and argues that a theologically informed generalism best balances moral norms, compassionate discretion, and communal accountability.
Christian ethicists frequently confront ethical systems that reject strict legalism while also refusing to embrace unchecked relativism. Antinomianism, situationalism, and generalism represent three such nonabsolutist approaches examined by Geisler (2010). Each approach offers resources for moral discernment in complex situations, but also raises significant theological and practical concerns. This paper defines and explains each system, presents case studies showing how each would inform decisions, and evaluates their comparative strengths and weaknesses considering Christian ethical commitments (Geisler, 2010).
Antinomianism
Antinomianism denies that universal moral laws bind a person’s conscience and conduct, asserting instead that moral obligations are essentially nonabsolute or dispensable (Geisler, 2010). In its stronger forms, antinomianism treats moral directives as optional, determined by subjective preference or contingent circumstances rather than by objective moral norms. Theologically, antinomian tendencies emerge when moral authority is detached from divine command or an objective moral order, resulting in a framework that prioritizes personal autonomy over communal moral constraints (Geisler, 2010).
Situationalism
Situationalism affirms a single overriding principle—classically articulated as agapeic love—that determines the moral status of particular acts (Fletcher, 1966). Rules function as helpful guides but are not absolutely binding when they conflict with the most loving outcome in a specific situation (Fletcher, 1966). Geisler (2010) characterizes situationism as nonabsolutist because it allows exceptions to established rules while maintaining love as the decisive standard for action.
Generalism
Generalism holds that moral rules are generally valid but not exceptionless; exceptions are permissible when exceptional circumstances justify overriding a usual rule (Geisler, 2010). Generalists rely on general principles to maintain order and expectation while recognizing that strict rule-following may sometimes produce greater harm than benefit. In practice, generalism often requires consideration of consequences, prudential judgment, and appeal to widely shared moral intuitions when determining whether an exception is warranted (Geisler, 2010).
Case studies illustrating each system
Antinomianism Case Study
A physician working in a state experiencing severe infrastructure collapse must decide whether to sell a patient’s prescribed narcotic to secure funds for food and shelter for her dependent children. Under antinomian reasoning, the physician is not bound by universal prohibitions against theft or misuse; her choice rests on personal conscience and immediate pragmatic needs. The decision may be justified by appealing to survival and compassion, absent appeal to binding moral law (Geisler, 2010).
Situationalism Case Study
A pastor learns that a congregant endures ongoing domestic abuse and seeks divorce, contrary to denominational teachings that generally discourage divorce. A situationalist applies agape as the guiding principle and judges that ending the marriage best secures the abused person’s safety and flourishing. Rules against divorce serve as guidance but do not trump the immediate moral demand to protect life and dignity, an approach consistent with Fletcher’s emphasis on love as the ultimate norm (Fletcher, 1966; Geisler, 2010).
Generalism Case Study
Hospital administrators face a shortage of ventilators during a severe epidemic and must allocate resources. A generalist policy prioritizes saving the greatest number of lives as a guiding rule, yet it permits limited exceptions—such as giving priority to front line healthcare workers—if doing so maximizes overall survival and public health benefit. This approach relies on general norms about preserving life while allowing contextually justified departures when overall welfare would be enhanced (Geisler, 2010).
Analysis: Assets and Deficiencies
Antinomianism
Assets: Antinomianism emphasizes individual conscience, situational sensitivity, and flexibility in crises where rigid rules may be counterproductive. It forces ethicists to consider the moral seriousness of singular human needs that standardized rules sometimes obscure (Geisler, 2010).
Deficiencies: Antinomianism is self-defeating because the global claim “there are no binding moral laws” functions as an implicit absolute, undermining the system’s internal coherence. The approach lacks reliable external checks against abuse, produces unpredictable moral outcomes, and cannot readily sustain communal moral critique or accountability (Geisler, 2010).
Situationalism
Assets: Situationalism resists legalism and centers moral deliberation on concrete human flourishing by making love the decisive criterion. This emphasis corrects rule-bound insensitivity and calls moral agents to prioritize relationships and well-being (Fletcher, 1966; Geisler, 2010).
Deficiencies: Defining and applying the concept of “love” with sufficient clarity poses a persistent problem for situationalism. Determinations of what is most loving often require consequentialist forecasting and subjective interpretation, allowing divergent and possibly conflicting judgments among moral agents, without an external standard to adjudicate competing claims of love; situationalism risks arbitrariness (Geisler, 2010).
Generalism
Assets: Generalism offers a balanced approach that preserves the normative force of moral rules while acknowledging the need for exceptions in extraordinary circumstances. The system supports consistent expectations and institutional stability, permitting prudential judgment when rigid adherence to rules would cause injustice (Geisler, 2010).
Deficiencies: Generalist reasoning can slide into consequentialism if exceptions are justified solely by outcome calculations, potentially compromising rights or duties for perceived utilitarian gains. Determining when exceptions are legitimate requires criteria that generalism does not always specify, inviting dispute over discretionary judgments (Geisler, 2010).
Comparative Evaluation and Recommendation
Antinomianism is the weakest framework for Christian ethical reflection because it severs moral decision-making from objective standards rooted in divine character and revealed moral norms, making sustained moral critique and communal accountability difficult (Geisler, 2010). Situationalism offers a vital corrective to legalism by prioritizing love and concrete human needs, but it lacks robust procedural means for defining or adjudicating competing claims of love and therefore risks subjective variability (Fletcher, 1966; Geisler, 2010).
Generalism emerges as the most persuasive approach when properly theologicalized. When generalism is anchored to a theologically informed conception of human dignity, divine moral character, and scriptural norms, it preserves the normative authority of moral rules while permitting circumscribed exceptions in cases where strict rule following would produce greater harm. This balance combines principled moral guidance with compassionate discretion and communal accountability (Geisler, 2010). Generalism remains vulnerable to unchecked consequentialist reasoning unless supplemented by clear theological and moral criteria that delimit when exceptions are permissible.
Conclusion
Antinomianism, situationalism, and generalism each respond to the inadequacies of rigid rule-based ethics in distinctive ways. Antinomianism foregrounds conscience and situational responsiveness at the cost of coherence and communal standards. Situationalism centers on love and context but struggles with definitional and adjudicative clarity. Generalism, when grounded theologically, best integrates moral norms and contextual discernment for Christian ethical practice. A theologically informed generalism—one that respects enduring moral principles while allowing carefully constrained exceptions—provides the most defensible framework for navigating complex moral dilemmas within Christian ethics (Geisler, 2010).

References:
Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation ethics: The new morality. Westminster Press.
Geisler, N. L. (2010). Christian ethics: Contemporary issues and options (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.