Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A podcast focusing on issues related to nonviolence, and a member of the Kingdom Outpost.
Automatically generated transcript. Not manually reviewed. Names, quotations, and speaker attribution may contain errors.
If you've listened to this podcast for any length of time, then you know that I couldn't go a whole season without talking about the topic that we're going to talk about today, consequentialism. I spent a whole season on it back in season 2, and I probably talk about it like at least every other episode on average, but it's something that I just touch on constantly.
And part of the reason that I touch on it so often is because it's what I think is at the foundation of most of the evil in the world. Consequentialism is the moral ethic which believes essentially that the ends justify the means. Where one thinks that so long as they are pursuing what they determine is a good end, then that means they can do kind of whatever needs to be done in order to achieve that end.
The means to obtaining the good end are relatively irrelevant. I mean, everybody's going to have their line somewhere, but the end can be used to justify quite a bit of what would otherwise be deemed evil or wrong.
You know, if some means are unpalatable, but if they're required to achieve the good end, and usually that's kind of the catch there. They won't just dismiss any evil to accomplish an end, but if they feel like they have to compromise on something to accomplish the end, then that justifies it, right?
So, the ends justify the means. So, I know I've talked about consequentialism throughout this season as well, but I really couldn't go a whole season without spending at least one episode devoted exclusively to the concept of consequentialism. To maybe draw it out for those who haven't listened to season two or any extended discussions about consequentialism, I think it's really worthwhile to dig in here and hopefully catch people who haven't
Listen to everything. Now, you might say, well, that seems like a little paranoid, hyper-focused. This might be a pet issue of mine. And I get that, but I really don't think that's the case, that I'm hyper-focused on consequentialism. At least, I mean, I hope that's not the case. Rather, I think that the reason I focus so much on consequentialism
on consequentialism is because...
It's at the heart of pretty much every moral compromise in existence. Pretty much. I mean, for people who are just, like, straight up evil, like, they have embraced nihilism or, I don't know, whatever sorts of systems just embrace pure evil. Like, that's different, right? That probably doesn't incorporate consequentialism so much, but if you're talking about
Other moral systems where they have this good and evil. I think most of those systems where you see evil, you're going to have consequentialism involved. And really, at least historically, that's been most people in the world. If you look at most politicians, most government officials, most business people throughout history, they're going to have had some moral...
System. They're going to have had some moral grounding. They're not going to be just like pure nihilists who are out there and don't believe in any morality. So I think most people would be susceptible to consequentialism.
I think for me, consequentialism really started to come to the forefront of my mind when I read... I think the first book that I read that made it click for me was John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus. That was when it just dawned on me that, man, I don't believe in moral relativism, but...
I do believe in it. The ends justify the means. I believe that in so many scenarios. And the one that stuck out to me was I had long... I loved moral conundrums, and so I had long asked people...
about one of my favorite moral conundrums, which was the mash baby. You know, you've got a crying baby on this bus full of people, and the North Koreans are hunting for the people, and they have to get the baby to be quiet, and so the mother smothers the baby to save.
Presumably the 50 or so souls who are on that bus, right? From getting captured and probably killed either outright or through their horrendous treatment. And so you're like, oh man, what do you do? One life for 50? And so that had just long been a conundrum for me, and so many of those conundrum sorts of things. And reading John Howard Yoder, it just clicked for me like, no, that's...
Not a moral ethic. The ends justify the means. I say that I'm not a moral relativist because I can condemn those sorts of...
...compromises that other people make that I don't think are worth it, but I have the same moral ethic. I just determine that it's only worth it in scenarios that I deem it as being worthwhile, right? Whether that's telling a lie or killing a baby to save 50 lives. All kinds of scenarios.
So, there were definitely other instances where I saw consequentialism come up in other writings and other thinkers. But recently, and even back in the propaganda season when I first read Jacques Ellul, and now that I've gotten back into him, he's somebody where it just comes up.
A ton. A ton again. And I think the book that I just read from Ellul was The Politics of God and The Politics of Man. I think that even references Yoder, maybe. It might have been a different book. I can't remember. But Jacques Ellul definitely, definitely is thinking a lot about consequentialism, though I don't know that he ever outright calls it that. Maybe he does.
And it's extremely affirming to me particularly to look at Ellul's life, or at least thought, like how his thought seemed to take a similar trajectory to mine.
And it's always reaffirming when you find somebody who you think is independently, I thought, man, Ellul, he's awesome. And then now as I learn more about him and realize that independently my thought was on the same trajectory as his, that's reaffirming. If I had just been infatuated with Ellul and then I find that my thought is very similar to his...
I'd be like, oh, maybe I read too much Ellul and maybe he influenced me too much. Maybe he's just, you know, I elevate him too highly. But the fact that independently my thought process took a very similar trajectory, it doesn't prove that Ellul or I are correct. But it is an interesting piece of information. It's an interesting touch point because if something is true, you'd expect
People to be able to come to those conclusions independently. I mean, that's how science works, right? If somebody performs an experiment and says, hey, this, you know, I discovered this, then people should be able to recreate that independently.
Because if only you can do it, then maybe you're lying. You're doing something to try to get fame, and you're manipulating the process. Maybe the conditions in your location are unique. Maybe there's some unique bacteria floating around, some whatever. But you need to be able to independently recreate it for...
But validity. And so my trajectory seems to be extremely similar to Ellul's, though in a slightly different order, I think. And I still don't know that much about Ellul. I'm actually just getting on a kick where I'm starting to read more of him, so hopefully I find out more. But just looking at his bibliography, it looks like our trajectories are the same, just in a different order. So for me, I saw
The Ethic of Consequentialism first. That, to me, kind of triggered in my mind. Then, recognizing the ends don't justify the means, then I kind of moved to nonviolence. Like, well, you know, if the ends don't justify the means, then maybe I really shouldn't kill people like the early church said you shouldn't and like Jesus said you shouldn't.
And then if the way of God is peace and not violence and force and power over but power under, if the way is kenosis, sacrifice, submission, love, patient pursuit, then maybe that means I shouldn't wield the sword or promote the wielding of the sword in the government. And so that led me to Christian anarchism.
And as I see how wicked and evil violence, and especially the government, the biggest user of violence and power over and evil in the world, as I see that, I recognize, dang, it's not just physical violence that they're doing, they're doing violence to truth. They're doing violence to information, and they do that through propaganda.
And then finally, you know, coming to recognize it's not just what they do violently or what they say violently, but there are other
More subtle, perhaps, ways that we are controlled and that people seek control. Talking with Drew Johnson and looking at epistemology, Michael Polanyi, and thinking about Jacques Ellul's technique, the technological society, and then recently having just finished the technological bluff, which is phenomenal.
Recognizing that, man, it's rituals, like Drew Johnson talks about. Rituals, the things that we do, the things that we consume, which are really consuming us and forming us. That's a really big deal. That's way bigger than I ever thought it was, how I'm influenced by those things.
So that was sort of my trajectory. Looking at Ellul, I think for him, technique, like the technological society, I think that came first. Then propaganda. Don't know where nonviolence came in. And consequentialism kind of fits in with technique. I think maybe consequentialism might have been first or second for Ellul as well. But interestingly...
You know, Jacques Ellul is the popularizer, re-popularizer? I don't know what he'd be considered. I don't really know the history of Christian anarchism. He might have really been the first major voice on it. Oh, Ellul, he references Bernard Eller, so I think he picked stuff up from him. But Ellul probably is the popularizer of Christian anarchism. And when I looked, he wrote The Technological Bluff. I think it was published in 1988.
And I found conflicting sources on Christian anarchism, or anarchy and Christianity I think it's titled, and that looked like it came out in like 1991. So, anarchism seemed to be kind of the final place where Ellul landed after getting there through all of these other stepping stones. Whereas for me, anarchism kind of came early on for me.
Nevertheless, I mean, that's a lot of major ideologies that we have in line, even though we might have taken a slightly different trajectory in getting there. I find it really interesting. So, those kind of long excursives. Go check out Lule. He's got some great stuff. And, yeah, consequentialism is definitely at the heart of a lot of what he talks about as well.
But I didn't bring Ellul up for nothing anyway. There's actually a quote that I want to read here from him from his work, The Politics of God and the Politics of Man. Ellul says, quote,
Whenever the Church thinks it has succeeded and become great, it is to that degree unfaithful. The adulteration of the Church by power, e.g. its social conformity in the Middle Ages, corresponds precisely to the action described here, namely that of Ahaz. Our only guarantee of efficacy is the achievement of non-conformity."
I thought that was really interesting, that Ellul essentially says that the church's waywardness is directly proportional to its desire and attainment of efficacy, or power. I mean, that's really what efficacy is, isn't it? It's power. It's our ability to make happen that which we desire and intend to make happen.
That power, that efficacy is really, in some ways at least, the antithesis of God and Christianity. If you think about God, he creates a universe with his voice.
So sure, that seems super efficient. If I could just say it and be done. I think of Bewitched. You just wiggle your nose and stuff happens. It seems extremely efficient, right? So sure, God creates the universe with his voice, but he lets that universe then steer its own course, essentially. He pursues his creation, but he allows his creation to reject him, and he becomes incarnate.
But when he does, he does so as the most powerless and inefficacious person you could possibly be. First, as a child. Helpless child. Can't even run away from Herod's goons who come to try to kill him. He's reliant on his parents to do that. His poor, weak parents. And then, sure, as he grows up, he's just an impoverished subject in a poor, weak region.
He's subjected to an extremely powerful empire. It's extremely inefficacious, right? That's kind of the way that God does things.
And it's what Philippians 2 declares to us. The elevation of Jesus is actually his humiliation. It's kenosis. He becomes incarnate and he doesn't grasp at the power of God. He lays that power down, the glory down, and for this reason, God elevates him. Our God, the Christian God, is constantly laying aside his power, his efficacy of the moment.
He patiently allows history to unfold. I'm not arguing for a deistic God here, I'm not saying that God never interacts, and I'm not saying that God doesn't eventuate his purposes, that he's not in control.
I'm rather just saying that the control of God, the way that he does things, it looks far different than our sense of control. He doesn't require that immediate control. He knows how he created the world. He knows that the moral arc of the universe is long but bends towards justice. He understands eudaimonic principles.
That talked about in our propaganda season about how you create a good world, it's going to lead to the good, right? Doing the good things are going to end up working. And when things are not good, sure, God can rain down fire and brimstone, he can smite people, but he doesn't have to. If you are a jerk, if you are cruel, if you are unjust, you are going to create a
Society and people and children and future rulers who are unjust, and that injustice bakes into the system, and eventually the people will revolt, and right? That evil is going to be correcting. It's going to fester for a while. It's going to produce a lot of injustice, but God created the world so that injustice doesn't lead ultimately to good ends.
God patiently waits and hopes that all will come to him, right? 1 Peter. God has not sown his promises towards us, but he's willing that none should perish. God is a God of patience, not of immediate efficacy. So, the church, going back to Ellul.
The church, when it thinks that it's succeeding and it's efficacious and it's got a lot of power and control, what Ellul said, right? Then that is directly proportional to how wayward that church is. Because rather than follow the simple ways of God, it has become complex. The simple way of God is to just be faithful.
When the king tells you not to pray, you pray. When the king says to bow down to idols, you don't bow down. When the king says to kill babies, you don't. Its simplicity brings about consequences in the short term, sure, right? You are going to get thrown into the lions then, or you're going to get increased burdens, called before Pharaoh. You're going to get thrown into a fiery furnace.
But that's the way of fidelity. Not being efficacious, but being faithful. That's trusting in God. And it's truly simple. You just do the right thing. When I think about modern Christian nationalism and the dominance, the dominionist or the theocratic movement, they're filled with layers and layers of complexity and self-deluded justifications.
I think growing up, the rights, a lot of the people who are now Christian nationalists and dominionists and all that, they condemned Clinton for sexual misconduct and they bemoaned the dissolution of the family and all of that. In politics, we should have moral people. And now in the last 10 years, my gosh, we're not voting for a
Pastor-in-chief, we're voting for a commander-in-chief. We don't want somebody who can follow the Sermon on the Mount, right? We want somebody who's tough. And they defend people, I mean, all kinds of people. It's not just President Trump. Now, I can't think of the guy's name down here in the south, but I think from Mississippi or something. But you've got, like...
Pedophiles, you've got sexual assaults, people who've done sexual assaults like multi-divorcees who are...it's a way of life for them to not be faithful. Just all kinds of people that they're defending in order to get power, right?
And these people, they're employing the same political strategies that they once denounced by other parties. They're embracing relativism, and they redefine truth and morality constantly. They're hopping into bed with wealthy and powerful people while belittling and oppressing the poor and marginalized.
I mean, the complex web that has to be spun to prop up the immorality, injustice, psychofancy, I mean, it's astounding. But they have to do it, right? Don't they? They have to. Because it's what's good. Because if they could just win, you know, those two big swing states, and then if they could just redraw those voting districts, and then if they could just get one more Supreme Court justice to leave the bench.
And if they can just get one of those two new justices passed through Congress, and then if they could just get that one court case to make its way to the Supreme Court, and then just pass that one law, and if they could just keep the churches tax-exempt, and just... I mean, the things these people think they need to be accomplished in order for good to prevail? In order for them to be a part of the good?
It's just mind-blowing. And it's no wonder they make so many moral compromises, right? Isn't it? The good and faithfulness are balanced on a pinpoint atop a precipice, and it's up to them to accomplish it. Even if that means formulating a convoluted moral system that embraces the antithesis of faithfulness and the good. But the ends will justify the meanings. If only they can ever achieve those ends.
I mean, how different does that consequentialism look to simplicity, to faithfulness, to justice, to the good? How different does that look to God? Consequentialism is about efficiency, and that involves, you know, you gotta work hard, you gotta get all things done. That involves busyness, which is so antithetical to Christianity and to the good.
Patience. Yeah, and consequentialism also involves impatience, right? About trying to get control now, right? Control rather than submission and patience. And no wonder. The greatest worshipers of Mammon and Bullock are Christians today, right? You gotta get in bed with the wealthy so you can accomplish things.
Alright, you have to throw poor kids and immigrant kids under the bus. You just have to because we've got to preserve our nation, right? The biggest worshipers of Mammon and Moloch today, some of the biggest, equivalent, are Christians. Christians who are doing it for the good.
It reminds me of the story of Abraham and Hagar. I think you see it. Great. It's a simple story. We've just been talking on the national level. Abraham and Hagar, I think, point it out really well. Abraham gets this promise from God. Abraham, I'm going to turn you into a great nation. I'm going to do great things through you. I know you don't have a kid yet. I know you're old. Your wife's barren. I get that, right? But look, I'm going to turn you into a great nation. I promise.
Okay? Abraham believed God. Man, amazing. How could you believe God? Like, that's amazing to believe something like that. But what does Abraham do? Abraham believes the ends of God, but he doesn't trust them for the means. So what does he do? He, instead of, he's being like, well, you know, I think God's going to do it. Oh, I get it. Yeah. He's not going to do it through Sarah, my wife.
He's gonna do it through her maid. He's gonna do it through Hagar. She's young. Haven't tried her out yet. So, Abraham goes and forces sex on his maidservant.
All right, great. He got a kid. Look, Abraham fulfilled God's promises. Not God. He didn't let God fulfill his promises. Abraham fulfilled it for him, because he had to. He had to take the means into his hands to accomplish God's purposes, because he believed in God's purposes. Let's give Abraham credit for that. He believed in God's purposes. Great. He had faith. But faith without works is dead, and Abraham violated Sarah's maid.
And then, when it became inconvenient, he dismissed them into the wilderness essentially to die. They didn't because God preserved their lives, but he raped her and then essentially killed her for all he knew because he believed in God's promises and believed in God's ends. How terrible, right? How terrible. And that's exactly what consequentialism does.
It takes half of the equation. It takes the faith, not the works. And really, that's not so much faith, is it? Just believing that the ends are going to come about, but not trusting that God's going to take care of the means. That's not really believing in God. That's believing in me with a little push from God. God will do the easy part. I'll do the hard part. I'll make sure it happens.
So, I want to end this episode with a quote from, who else, of course, Søren Kierkegaard. It's a great quote, and I think it just wraps things up really well here as to what we've been talking about. Kierkegaard says, quote, and now the means that you use. What means do you use in order to carry out your occupation? Are the means as important to you as the end?
Holy as important? Otherwise, it is impossible for you to will only one thing. For in that case, the irresponsible, the frivolous, the self-seeking, and the heterogeneous means would flow in between in confusing and corrupting fashion. Eternally speaking, there's only one means and there's only one end. The means and the end are one and the same thing. There is only one end. The genuine good.
And only one means. This, to be willing only to use those means which genuinely are good. But the genuine good is precisely the end. In time and on earth, one distinguishes between the two and considers that the end is more important than the means. One thinks that the end is the main thing and demands of one who is striving that he reach the end. He need not be so particular about the means.
Yet this is not so. And to gain an end in this fashion is an unholy act of impatience. In the judgment of eternity, the relation between the end and the means is before reaching the goal. For reaching the goal comes at the conclusion, but using the means comes at the beginning. Reaching the goal is like hitting the mark with his shot, but using the means is like taking aim. And certainly the aim is a more reliable indication of the marksman's goal than the spot the shot strikes.
For it is possible for a shot to hit the mark by accident, as the end never comes too late. Eternity is not curious and impatient as to what the outcome in this world of time will be. It is just because of this that the means are without exception as important as the end. To earthly and worldly passion this observation must seem shocking and paralyzing. To it conscience must seem the most paralyzing thing of all.
For conscience is indeed a blushing innocent spirit that sets up a tumult in man's breast and fills him with difficulties. Just because to conscience, the means are without exception as important as the end." The means are the ends in the process of becoming. You look at the means used by a lot of people today, and specifically here I look a lot at Christian nationalists because
You know, in some ways, they're my brothers and sisters, but I feel so much farther from them than, you know, a lot of other people because it's just so important to me what they're doing. The means that they're using, the complex means, the convoluted means, the means antithetical to God.
Like, their ends, the end that they're seeking in a lot of cases, that resonates with me. My heart wants that end too. For people to love God, to live in community, to be at peace. The ends declared with their mouth, I want that too. And that's why I feel a kinship with them in some ways. We desire the same end.
But the means that they're employing, the means that they're embracing, the means that they fantasize about, to just, you know, the psychofancy, like I said, sycophancy to just get with all these powerful and wealthy people. When I see all of these means, that really declares to me what their end is, whether they say they want that or not. It's the end that they're creating.
A complex, convoluted, violent, unpeaceful, chaotic society. That's what they're creating, all the while pointing the finger at others. So hopefully...
Hopefully this episode was somewhat helpful for you if you were unfamiliar with consequentialism. If you are familiar with it and you've heard it a bunch from me before or from somewhere else, then hopefully it helps to round things out a little bit more and help things make some more sense. Definitely go read Ellul. He's going to be great at helping you see this even more.
That's all for now. So, peace. And because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. This podcast is a part of the Kingdom Outpost Network. Please check out the links below to find other great podcasts and content related to nonviolence and kingdom living.