The Fourth Way

Special Edition: The recent release of Christianity Today's article addressing the moral incompatibility of major party candidate's with Christ's call is very fitting for our current discussion on consequentialism. Therefore, we take a short break from hypotheticals to inspect the Right's reaction to CT's article, as I unpack my sentiments and observations.

After looking at the BIble's positive ethic of faithfulness, as well as problems with the consequentialist ethic borne out in the Lesser of Two Evils ideology - we now turn to look at examples of consequentialist actions in the Bible. What sorts of problems did consequentialism get biblical characters into, and how does the BIble seem to view such actions?

Christians often invoke the lesser of two evils (LOTE) concept as a way of making decisions in difficult circumstance. I argue, however, that this ethic is in direct opposition to the Christian ethic revealed to us by God, as it calls us to enjoin ourselves to evil rather than maintain holy obedience and trust in God's power through our weakness. In this episode, I identify eight problems found in the LOTE ethic.

I explore the positive ethic to which the BIble calls us - holy faithfulness. I conclude that obedience, not sacrifice - faithfulness, not effectiveness, is the life to which we are called.

I discuss how God uncovered the ethic of consequentialism in my life, and how I've found that it continues to be uncovered in both myself and my community. In this episode I discuss how consequentialism is at the heart of many of our compromises and confusions in regard to ethics and morality.

This episode concludes our look at the case for Christian nonviolence. I recap the main points as well as some of the main rebuttals and counterrebuttals. This is a great episode to refresh your memory as to all we've talked about, or, if you're new, a great episode you can use to preview the podcast and erect a framework from which to listen.

A list of resource recommendations and explanations to help you further your research

C.S. Lewis is a great and respected Christian thinker who was adamantly opposed to pacifism. We'll take a look at what he had to say and discuss how much weight his arguments carry.

We continue our discussion of how the nonviolent advocate responding to aggressors. Whereas the last episode evaluated the basis of the question and aimed to undercut some of the supposed moral underpinnings assumed in the question, in this episode we attempt to actually answer the question, "what would you do if...?"

Perhaps the biggest hang-up with those assessing the merits of nonviolence is the scenario of an intruder who comes to harm you, your spouse, or your children. Is the loving, moral thing to do seriously to restrain yourself from using violence? In the first part we'll look at the moral aspect of this question.

We know that there are certain circumstances where only violence can bring about good. Don't we? We explore a situation where refusing to do violence is seemingly passive, and even evil.

Pacifism may be good in theory, but how does it face up against the reality of extreme evil? What good would pacifism do if there were another Holocaust?

America prides itself on being built on the sacrifice of the American soldier. We believe our freedoms have been secured and maintained by brave men and women who have been willing to lay down their lives for the nation. If one adheres to a position of nonviolence, doesn't that devalue the sacrifice of those who put their lives on the line for our freedom and security?

We see as early as the mid 2nd century that there are Christians who are in the Roman army, and remain in the Roman army. Isn't the allowance of Christians to remain in the army in clear opposition to the nonviolent claims of what both Christ and the Early Church taught?

Luke 22 shows Jesus telling his disciples to go out and buy swords as he faces a showdown with the unjust authorities. Is this a clear example of Christ condoning violence as an option for his followers?