Welcome back to the Fourth Way podcast. So I recently came across a very interesting interview that Al Moeller did with a former director of counterintelligence in the CIA whose name is James Olsen. It was a fascinating interview because it touched on so many of the interests that I have highlighted in this podcast. You know, violence, consequentialism, morality and ethics, the kingdom versus the little k kingdom, just war theory, etcetera. Lots and lots of things.

After hearing the interview, I ended up getting James Olsen's book on Scribd and I read through it. I wasn't at all disappointed because the book was jam packed with good discussion points. Now to be clear, I disagreed with almost everything that Olsen concluded about ethics and violence, but what I did appreciate about Olsen is that he came right out and said what he believes because he's had to confront these moral issues head on. I mean, says in the book that, you know, as a as a spy, he basically had to lie, cheat and steal, like, every day of his of his career. So he's definitely had to to deal with these issues head on and and come to some strong conclusions about what he believes morally.

But there's another thing that he says in his book which I think everybody really should hear and listen to if you're a Christian. He says in his book that what he and the CIA do are done on behalf of the American people and in their name. And I I wholeheartedly agree with him. If we participate in the system, then we prop up what that system does, and our name is tied to their actions. So those of us who condemn Olson's position while practically approving of it through our actions and lack of criticism are really in a position which is self deceived self righteousness.

We're happy for the comfort, safety and results that our government gives us and we continue to vote for that government and prop them up through our patriotism, but we don't want to admit to our own complicity and responsibility in what is done in our name to accomplish this security. And so that's one thing I really appreciate about Olson, he's straightforward there. And now he justifies the things that he does, but he says, Look, we're doing this in your name, and that's a hard thing to hear when you hear some of the things that that get argued for in terms of of the CIA and the actions that they commit. Now it's really tempting for me to get into all of the thoughts on Fair Play that I that were elicited in regard to to the podcast. However, I I am planning on doing a full episode on the book at the tail end of our season on Government, so if you want more of that focus, you can kind of tune in for that.

But today, I wanna focus only on something that came to mind about just war theory, which I think highlights some interesting ramifications to that ideology. And Olson's book kind of uncovered that in my mind. So, let's dive in. Olson says several times throughout his book that he does not advocate for immorality based on results. Yet there are many times where his conclusion of what is right seems to be based solely or mostly on the results.

Sure, what spies do is unsavory. They have to lie, cheat and steal. But what is the alternative if we're to live in a secure nation? A very lengthy section of the book is Olsen laying out 50 hypothetical but very real world scenarios. And he asks a variety of people to give their thoughts about the morality of particular situations that a spy might face.

Over and over and over again, the rationale for what is deemed moral is based on results. One that sticks out in my mind is a scenario in which a known terrorist cell is operating, and the CIA considers giving an informant anthrax, a biological weapon, to kill the 400 or so people training at that that complex. I think there's only one respondent who mentions that some of the anthrax, which is indiscriminate in its killing, will likely kill at least some innocents. But everyone else seems relatively unconcerned about this. While most of the respondents say that it would be wrong to use the anthrax, the major rationale given is that if we start using biological weapons, then that will legitimate other countries and terrorists using them.

It will encourage escalation. Some others say that if the anthrax could be administered and we guarantee that it can't be traced to The US, that would make it okay. I mean, this is what goes on for pretty much all of the 50 scenarios. Many of the other scenarios involve betraying people or lying to informants and such, and often the rationale for doing the right thing isn't that it's the right thing, but that if we lie or go back on our promise, then it will make future recruitment more difficult. Morality is determined by results, essentially.

The ends justify the means. Consequentialism galore. Now Olsen doesn't always chime in on where he lands, but I think it's it's usually pretty clear that a lot of the times, his morality is based on what works. Meaning what is best for The United States and their citizens long term. This type of thing shouldn't really be surprising.

We spent a whole season talking about consequentialism and how it pervades Christianity, and that shouldn't be a surprise at all. I mean, just look at the lengths that just war theory goes to rationalize itself morally. Just war theory has consequentialism baked right into it. When it says that in order to be a just war, there has to be a reasonable chance of success, that's consequentialism. The right thing is determined by results.

By just war's own standards, the Revolutionary War, the French resistance against Nazi Germany, Tank Man Stand at Tiananmen Square, the Filipino dissidents who sparked a revolution non violently and overthrew a dictator, I mean, all these actions that just war, adhering Americans love and think are beautiful, should be immoral and repulsive because the odds of success for each of these seem horrendously low. To justify them in hindsight is moral relativism. The people who acted in each of those instances were immoral according to what they knew at that time, at least if you adhere to just war theory. So in my estimation, just war is messed up when it comes to moral determination, not to mention the way in which its adherents are absolutely inconsistent in regard to what they deem praiseworthy and condemnable by their own standards. So I wanna dig a little bit deeper here.

With this aspect of Just War Theory, the idea that probable success is required for moral validation, I want to explore what I think is a problematic ramification of the Just War Theory on another aspect of our theology, the atonement. I'm going to argue that just war theory undermines the cross. And here, I don't mean that it is antithetical to the cross, that choosing to kill someone is the antithesis of what the cross is, the the kenosis or whatever you wanna call it. This idea of laying down our lives even for our enemies. I'm not even gonna go there.

I think that is a huge problem with Just War Theory, but that's not what I'm talking about. What I wanna look at in this episode is how just war theory undermines the morality of Christ's choice to bear cross. I am arguing that according to just war theory's morality, God was immoral for bearing the cross, at least on some theological traditions. So let's begin with what I think is probably the general Christian view, the maybe majority Christian view, a non Reformed view of the Atonement. A lot of Christians believe that Jesus died for everyone, right?

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish. His death procured the salvation of everyone and their salvation is guaranteed if they only accept His offer. The thing is, many Christians believe that broad is the path which leads to destruction or hell and narrow is the path which leads to eternal life or heaven or the new heavens and earth, however you wanna characterize it. The vast majority of those who are ever born will choose destruction and hell and will not accept the gift of eternal life procured by Jesus. When it comes to Christ's mission, he fails.

Sure, he saves some people, but unless you're a non reformed universalist, the cross is an overall mission failure in terms of numbers. But there's an even bigger problem, in fact an infinitely bigger problem for those who are non reformed and hold to eternal conscious torment, the idea that hell will be torturing the damned for all eternity. The view of eternal conscious torment or ECT, I'll use from from here on out, justifies its fairness on the basis of valuation. A lot of people ask, how can ECT be just if people are punished an infinite duration for a finite sin? And the common response is that the duration of punishment isn't determined by how long our sin takes to commit, but rather by the object who has sinned against and the severity of the offense.

Murder, for instance, may only take a millisecond of a trigger pull, but its punishment is often life imprisonment or The United States may even be death. Those who adhere to ECT then argue that since we humans are pond scum and God is infinitely valuable, our offense against God is of infinite severity, and therefore is justified in being punished for a torturous eternity. Now this view of ECT, which many non reformed evangelicals hold to, brings up another problem for the cross. See, on ECT, the value of a human is absolutely nothing in comparison to God. It's infinitesimal.

God is of infinite value and we are infinitely less valuable. That's the only way to make sense of ECT. Think about someone who spends their life living very morally, but they may tell little white lies or have a few mean thoughts here and there. If any of their lies against another human being were ever exposed, we might chastise them but we'd never consider that they deserve to be punished harshly, let alone harshly for all of eternity. You can arrive at ECT being justified either by increasing the severity of the crime or by increasing the value of a victim.

Most people aren't going to see a life that had a few little white lies as being worthy of eternal hellfire due to the action itself. The action just isn't that immoral, like it's it's not good, but it doesn't deserve an eternity of torturous punishment. So if the action itself doesn't deserve eternal torment, the only way you arrive at ECT is to expand the chasm of moral failure by increasing the value differential between the offender and the offended. So for example, to take a play from Greg Kockel's playbook here, to smack a fly or a cockroach may be commendable, while to smack a dog may be condemnable, and to smack a child may be damnable. So for people who live relatively moral lives or for kids who die the second after they reach the age of accountability if there is such a thing, The only way you get to ECT is by having a huge value differential between humans and God.

Now I recognize that all of this might be really confusing for those who haven't been steeped in Christian jargon. If you want some more thoughts on this topic and it would be easier for you to see it kind of laid out in a written form, you can get kind of the the foundation for this argument in an article that I wrote on ECT, which I will throw in the show notes. But for this discussion today, I wanna to stop here on this foundation and and zoom in. If you think that Jesus died in an attempt to save everyone, yet most people, or even a lot of people, are going to hell, then Jesus is a pretty big failure in terms of numbers saved. But even worse than this, if you adhere to eternal conscious torment and you think that the value differential between humanity and God is infinite, then Jesus paid an infinite price to procure something which was infinitely less valuable.

So not only was Jesus' action of cross a failure in terms of numbers, but it was also a failure in terms of value. On just war theory, such an action would be utterly immoral and abhorrent. Imagine sacrificing one's whole nation, hundreds of millions of people in order to save one life. And even this extreme scenario doesn't get at the cross since the cross would represent an infinite differential. Imagine instead maybe sacrificing one's whole nation, hundreds of millions of people to save one cockroach.

Such an action would be morally abhorrent. The cross is immoral because Jesus wasted his blood to procure something of practically zero value and he even failed at procuring most of that target. Now I do want to say that I think there are a number of responses to what I just laid out here, which may allow just War Theory to be salvaged. I haven't thought through all of these yet, so consider these thoughts to pursue in order to further this discussion. And that's really the intent of this episode, to foster a a discussion from a different perspective.

First, the most obvious way the obvious way to avoid the dilemma laid out here would be to go the reformed route. If Jesus did not come in order to procure everyone, the problem of numbers goes away. On reformed theology, particularly with the idea of limited atonement, Jesus only paid for the ones that He was going to save. That means Jesus only paid for those who believe in Him and for everyone He paid for, they're saved. So numbers wise, Jesus saves a % of those He intended to save on Reformed Theology.

You can't get any better than that. However, a problem arises for reformed individuals who hold to eternal conscious torment because ECT has serious implications in regard to the value of what Christ procured. Don't forget that on Just War Theory, success isn't just a numbers game, but also a values game. If I sacrifice a hundred thousand soldiers to save 2,000,000, that might sound justified, but the question has to be asked, 2,000,000 what? Sacrificing a hundred thousand soldiers to save 2,000,000 mosquitoes may not be justified, but it may in order to save 2,000,000 humans.

So being reformed may help you dodge the quantity bullet in regard to measuring success, but if you hold the ECT, you have the much weightier quantity bullet to deal with. Another way you could salvage just war theory is to adhere to universalism. If you're a universalist, then Jesus died for everyone and He saves everyone in the end. You got the numbers game in the bag, and as a universalist, you don't have to believe that God is infinitely more valuable to prop up your view of just damnation for all eternity. Of course, I think that perhaps the best thing to do would be to just jettison just war theory.

Just war theory is steeped in consequentialist morality, which isn't a Christian ethic. Sacrifice sometimes actually entails, I don't know, a loss of something, A cost to oneself? You know, an actual sacrifice maybe? We recognize all the time that heroism of those who take stands against injustice in the face of overwhelming odds because we know that doing the right thing is the right thing simply because it's the right thing. Determining morality based on results just isn't a Christian thing.

And when we try to make it a Christian thing, and we consistently apply this consequentialist morality by applying it to the central Christian act and idea, atonement, and we find that this consistent application undermines the whole thing. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think we should be adhering to an ideology which undermines the cross. When one's belief in the justification of cavalry undermines the justification of cavalry, you've got problems. 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 non violence and Kingdom Living.