If we set aside Schweitzer's idiosyncratic solution to the challenge of social ethics (without devaluing it), do the positions surveyed above represent a retreat into the ghetto? Context was a major concern. Can one be wholly contextualised in today's world and still be true to the gospel? Eschatology, one of the strongest features to emerge from a contextual understanding of the New Testament, tended to be resolved, at least partly, into the summons to ultimate decision. This implies personal commitment to God and neighbour: hence the emphasis on the interpersonal and interactive, and on ‘personalism’ in ethics. Does eschatology mean the abandonment of social ethics? The proposition can be resisted on a variety of grounds. M. Keeling, observing that ‘in the twentieth century, Christian ethics has become concentrated on the question of social justice’, pointed to the question of global survival and the necessity to connect our understanding of God with our perception of human need. Eschatology also has an intrinsic link with creation and the fulfilment of the creator's purpose, as in the theology of Pannenberg and Moltmann.

But how has Christian ethics come to terms with this dilemma, which has become more obvious with the collapse of the liberal synthesis?