Today
listening to Stonestreet talk about Consequentialism I was having one of those
Matrix-type moments where I feel like I'm some weird science fiction movie.
Consequentialism
is the idea that the overall result or consequence of your actions determines
its validity. You can do something questionable or dubious if the overall
result is positive.
He was
talking about birth control and Margaret Sanger. I didn't really agree with
him. I haven't read the article he's talking about but I also know that while
Sanger was certainly a lost and misled woman she's not quite what she's
portrayed to be by most in the Christian political community. They've made her
into something beyond what she really was. Abortion is a great evil and sin but
that doesn't mean that telling lies and exaggerating the historical record is
permissible. But that's another topic. Ironically Stonestreet was accusing the
author of Consequentialism and yet I would argue their perversions of history
or yet another example of the same thing!
But it
wasn't the abortion issue that bothered me. It was the whole discussion and the
way he framed the issue of Consequentialism. I literally had to stop work and
just listening.... not a little stunned.
Why was this
so surprising?
Because this
of course the very guiding principle of his entire school of thought. This is
the foundational idea that drives their understanding of the Culture War. When
I hear the term Consequentialism I usually think of people like Colson and his
disciples.
They are
culture warriors. When presented with the ethics and doctrines of the New
Testament the response is almost always universal... well, that doesn't work.
A great deal
of ink has been spilled by those on the Evangelical Left as well as the
Christian Anarchist and Anabaptist communities attacking the idea of
Consequentialism. It's always in context of their critique of the Christian
Right.
The Colson
crowd believes it necessary to conquer every sphere of culture. When there are
inherent problems with being consistent with the New Testament and operating
within these 'spheres' and submitting to their outlooks and goals, the response
is almost always... well, we can't abandon those spheres. We have to do the
best we can. We have to try and construct a Christian way of operating within
that sphere.
In other
words we have to speculate and develop some kind of theology to accommodate it.
To win the
overall culture war we might have to compromise on minor points. This is
Consequentialism. The greater good or goal trumps the individual details.
It is
Consequentialism to suggest that a Christian might be bound to behave one way
on Sunday but on Monday morning they can put on a uniform, pin on a badge or
put on a robe and now behave in a way that is not consistent with Christian
ethics. They're off the hook because their fulfilling an office and a Christian
fulfilling that office is a greater good than a pagan doing it.
Again the
irony is they accuse Two Kingdom adherents of being Sunday-only Christians. We're
saying we have to be Christians 24/7 and therefore in many cases we cannot
integrate with culture. There are many cultural roles and aspects we have to
simply reject.
They are in
fact being Sunday-only Christians. The rest of the week you're off the hook.
Your office may demand that you shoot people, retaliate, threaten, lie, mislead
or worse and that's okay because the job requires it and society (as a whole)
needs this office fulfilled.
And the
supreme example of Consequentialism... and Stonestreet is right, it's basically
the end justifies the means or arguing that we have to do evil so that good may
come...
The supreme
example is utilized by BreakPoint on at least a weekly basis. Their paradigm
(it would seem) is none other than the ultimate Consequentialist Dietrich
Bonhoeffer who basically argued (and this is echoed by BreakPoint) that we can
plot murder so that good may come of it. We can kill in order to save lives.
This is a
denial of Providence, the Sovereignty of God and a complete rejection of New
Testament ethics. This is the polar opposite of what Christ taught in the
Sermon on the Mount.
For
Stonestreet to speak critically of Consequentialism... wow, that was either
done in unbelievable ignorance or he's really got some chutzpah.
Ethics is
complicated and there are some tough binds but this is nowhere on the scope in
their thinking or discussion.
