Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. We are continuing our discussion of consequentialism by looking at rebuttals and accusations against my position. The first accusation I'll deal with is the idea that my advocacy for uncompromising holiness is pharisaical. That pushback to my position comes largely as a result of a few specific ideas. First, individuals want to argue that this this idea of uncompromising ideals is is actually not holiness because holiness that God calls us to is love and uncompromising ideals are unloving, especially when the ideal seems less important than another ideal.

So for example, when we did the episode on lying to save lives, a lot of people have problems with that because what they're gonna say is lying is so much less important than preserving somebody's life. Therefore, if you are going to try to uphold lying instead of doing everything you can do to save somebody's life, then that's rigid and unloving. And the the second problem that people have is that the uncompromising holiness position seems to be fruitless and pointless. In the lying to save lives example, for instance, what good is it really to tell the truth or to to be silent? If you can lie and your family gets left in peace and the people you're hiding gets get left in peace, then why would you just to not lie, why would you be quiet and arouse suspicion so that potentially you and your family are harmed and the people you're hiding are killed?

It just it seems pointless. Before we get into particulars, I I really hope that you were able to listen to episodes five through eight where I talked about how consequentialism seeped into my own life. And I I think if you listen to those and then you hear out my case on some of these topics like lying to save lives, I think you're gonna you're gonna hear me out or at least understand my heart and know that I am not just trying to promote some rigid ideal for the sake of of simply being holy. But I I truly believe that inconsequentialism allows us to live a life that is more filled with love and that that is more inclusive because it includes hopeless people and it includes enemies. And that's something that the consequentialist ethic so often throws to the side.

So just look specifically at at episodes five through eight. Listen to those and you tell me, was was my love towards others hindered by the ideal that that I started to learn, which tells me that I I should be unwilling to compromise? Or was my love towards others expanded in in my throwing off of consequentialism? And I think if you answer that question honestly, it would be very difficult to accuse me of being pharisaical here. I might be wrong in my assessment of things, but I'm not pharisaical or in theory I'm not pharisaical.

It doesn't mean my heart is never pharisaical. So let's jump in and look specifically at what Pharisaicalism is, in my assessment and why I don't think I fit the bill. The first thing that Pharisaical moralism is, is it is hypocritical. Matthew 23 shows that Jesus has little to no problem with what the Pharisees taught. In fact, he told the hearers in Matthew 23, he told them to do everything that the Pharisees taught.

But then he criticized the Pharisees for not following everything that they taught and for not going far enough. It's very reminiscent of Matthew five. If you read Matthew 23 and then go back to Matthew five and read especially the portion on on lust and hate where Jesus says, hey, look, it's not just adultery that's bad, it's lust. It's not just murder that's bad, it's hate. That's essentially what he's saying in Matthew 23.

He's saying, hey, look, the Pharisees are right. You should really be doing everything they're doing, but actually you gotta add quite a bit more because they're not doing enough. They're hypocritical. They do some things but not others, and that's a problem. So pharisaical moralism is hypocritical.

Second, pharisaical moralism is prideful. If you look at the pharisaical actions, the actions of the pharisees in Matthew 23, there a lot of them are for show. And especially Matthew five through seven, we see a lot of examples where Jesus is like, hey, when you fast, make sure you wash your face. Don't do it to be seen by other people. And when you pray, pray don't pray with all these big words and things.

When you give, don't let your one hand know what the other is doing. Right? It's not about show, it's not for other people. Pharisaical moralism is. It's for status or it's it's for show, it's for acknowledgement.

Number three, pharisaical moralism is all about hierarchical status. So it's not just about being acknowledged, it's about this this authority sort of structure too. An authority isn't inherently bad, but Jesus tells us that lording our authority over others is. He tells his disciples that in his kingdom, right, we don't they're not gonna lord, their position over others like the Gentiles do. The Pharisees viewed themselves as being above others.

There's the famous prayer that the Pharisees or religious leaders would do where they thank God that they're not a woman or a Gentile, because, you know, they're better than them. They're above them. The church's power is not an authority but it's in weakness and servant servanthood. Again, Philippians two, great example. We talk about a lot.

Finally, what we see in Matthew 23 and other places is that the Pharisees were unjust and perpetuated injustices. They'd perpetuate those probably the famous one that Jesus brought brings to attention is he calls them devourers of widows' houses. And in their their immovable rigidity, they would they would basically just suck the widows dry either through themselves or through their through their family who's supposed to take care of them. And the law which was set up, you know, there were tithes and all kinds of things. While those were set up to to provide for the poor, they ended up using those sorts of things to hang over people's heads and actually suck them dry as opposed to to help them.

Kinda like the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. Tithes and offerings and other sorts of things, at least in part, large part were created for resolving injustices yet the Pharisees used them unjustly. So those are our four main things I think you can pull out of Pharisaicalism and seeing what that is. Now, let me tell you why I don't think my position fits that bill. First of all, the law is harder than pharisaicalism.

Do more than the pharisees teach. That's what Jesus said. The pharisees don't go far enough. Love is great, but love must extend even to our enemies and even to those humans who love, whom love may be wasted on, like the Roma or like the fetus who seems to have no chance at life in an ectopic pregnancy, or to fill in the blank to the the Nazis who come to your door and ask if you're hiding Jews. And love extends to everybody.

Whereas, pharisaicalism stringently adheres to one aspect of the law while forsaking others, Inconsequentialism doesn't do that. It says that obedience is better than sacrifice and that faithfulness is the ultimate standard that the means are important. Kingdom, law, and love requires that we sacrifice no one on the alter of our agenda or effectiveness. That's what inconsequentialism says. Consequentialism, on the other hand, does not.

And it is consequentialism then that is pharisaical. Pharisaicalism is usually easier. It's usually easier for for two reasons. First, it's usually formulaic and easy to manipulate. The Pharisees could memorize laws and value sets and then just play rock paper scissors with the situation and figure out what should be done.

Yeah. I I can imagine in the discussion on tithes and offerings and all these laws on on gifts and things, they're probably discussing saying, hey, you know, the the Bible says widows are important. And then somebody else will say, yeah, but God is more important. Rock beats scissors, so sacrifice the widows. You know, formulas are are easy to manipulate out of self interest, and it's easy to be biased and and kinda get what you want out of it.

And of course, for Pharisees, money going to God, aka the temple, would would be more interesting for them than money going to some old widow who's not gonna know what to do with the money other than eat. So Pharisaicalism is easy to manipulate and it's formulaic. It it thrives on those things. Inconsequentialism, it seems to me, is is much less formulaic. There's there's no rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper.

There is right and wrong. God is truth and nobody can be sacrificed on the altar of effectiveness to be told a lie. God is life. Nobody can be sacrificed on the altar of effectiveness and which allows me to kill them even if they're my enemy. God is love.

Nobody can be sacrificed on the off altar of hopelessness because everybody is deserving of my love regardless of how much hope I think they have. There's there's no manipulating that because there's no such thing as compromise. You don't compromise anybody for any reason. Another reason that I would say my position is not fairsake is because Jesus commands absolute holiness, which is exactly what I'm advocating. Now, I'm not saying that we're gonna achieve this, and in fact, I'm gonna have a whole rebuttal episode discussing why this isn't hopelessness asking us to be perfect when we know we can't be.

I'm not saying that we're gonna achieve perfection, but it's our aim to be like Christ. Jesus said that not even the littlest part of God's law is disposable. He fulfilled it all and he did not come to abolish the law. First Peter tells us to be holy because God is holy. Matthew five and six tell us to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect.

First Thessalonians four tells us to be sanctified because that's God's will. And the list goes on and on and on. Christian holiness and distinctiveness is vital to Christian life and witness. It's not secondary. It's not disposable.

It is the means of God that we have as we are as we are a testament to the world. And that's not legalism to say that's what we we are to do. Alright? That's legalism when you say, if you don't do this, God doesn't love you. This is not legalism to say that this is what we do.

Ephesians says so much that that Jesus Christ create we're are saved by grace through faith, not of works. It's a gift of God so that we can't boast. And we are Christ's workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works. This is not legalism. To say otherwise is Fideism, to to think that all you need is faith.

Right? That that faith is it. You pray a prayer once and you're good to go and don't see any fruit after that. And that's not Christianity. We are called to holiness.

That's a long journey. It's a process. There's grace and forgiveness because we fall all the time, but we are called to holiness, and that's our pursuit. If we don't pursue that, then we really need to question whether we are a follower of Jesus Christ. Third reason I am not a Pharisee here is that I argue that we are to objectify no one.

Pharisees were willing to sacrifice others for their cause. They sacrificed Romans for their cause. They sacrificed women. They sacrificed widows. They could sacrifice the lepers and the sick.

They could sacrifice the Gentiles. They could sacrifice the Samaritans. They could sacrifice children, not on altars, but, you know, because they were unimportant. And they could sacrifice enemies and fellow Israelites and ultimately Jesus. They sacrificed lots of people.

People were expendable. They're expendable for God. Right? Accomplishing God's ends made other people expendable. But Jesus tells us and shows us that no one is worth sacrificing.

We are only able to sacrifice ourselves. We go the extra mile for the Romans and centurions. Jesus heals Gentile woman. Jesus turns the talks about turning the other cheek. Jesus praises a centurion.

Jesus praises Mary, who comes to the feet of Jesus and chastises Martha who who doesn't. He he upholds women. Jesus let the children come to him. Jesus praises a Samaritan in the story of the good Samaritan. Jesus heals a leper on the Sabbath.

People were not expendable to Jesus. Every downtrodden category is held out the olive branch by Jesus as he stretches out his arms to all people and even dies for his enemies on the cross and ask for their forgiveness while he does it. Once again, it is consequentialism, not faithfulness that's pharisaical because consequentialism sacrifices others in order to maintain the moral hierarchy that it establishes. Number four, point number four. Another reason that I am not a Pharisee here is that my position engages sinners but not the sin.

You know that accusation that's inconsequentialism is a holier than thou endeavor is just not true. You know, what I think is is interesting is that the the Pharisees were consequentialists who engaged in sin for a perceived greater good. They produced false witnesses and accusations against Jesus and ended up murdering Jesus essentially. And I think it's Caiaphas who even says, it's better that one man die for the people. Right?

If we just kill Jesus and and save our temple and our nation, like, let's do that. Even though that ended up destroying his nation and scattering his people. Right? Consequentialism there, The perceived immediate good often is not long term good. But anyway, Jesus on the other hand was far holier than the Pharisees.

He did no evil. None whatsoever. Didn't even think about it. Yet, Jesus engaged much more with sinners. He was willing to eat with sinners, but unwilling to sin.

He broke stereotypes and social boundaries, but not the law. Now I hear this so often that that what I'm what I am advocating is this holier than holier than thou idea that that keeps sinners at arm's length and just makes you ineffective in the world and prevents you from acting in the world. But that makes no sense because if if holiness was that way, then how in the world did the most holy person that ever lived, Jesus Christ, how did he engage with sinners? Because it's not the holiness that that prevents you from engaging with sinners. It's your your objectification of people as tools to get to some end that you wanna get to.

But when your means are love and grace and everybody is a recipient of those things, then you can eat with sinners. It's the consequentialists who can't do that. Holiness is so important. You know, you think about Jesus and His Holiness and you you ask, how could He be so engaged with sinners and and how did that work? It's it's because Jesus was incarnational.

And, you know, it is absolutely impossible to be incarnational without these two components, without being holy and without a willingness to engage the sinner. Because if if you're a sinner, you might be like somebody else and you might be willing to engage somebody, but what hope would the Samaritan woman at the well have had if Jesus was an adulterer who came and talked to her and said, oh yeah, I know where you're at, I'm there too. Right? He couldn't have offered her living living water and the bread of life because he wouldn't have those things. He'd be just like her.

But if he was like the Pharisees who who thought that they were so holy and he was unwilling to engage with sinners and he had this holiness but an unwillingness to engage the sinner, then he might have had the bread of life and and living water. But what good would that do to anybody if if he wasn't incarnational and able to bring that to them? It wouldn't make any difference. In order to be salt and light in the world, you need not only a willingness to love the sinner and engage with them, you need a holiness that is is a sweet aroma, that is a sweet taste, that is a light that illuminates the darkness. You don't have incarnation without those two aspects.

And that's what where the Pharisees got went wrong. They didn't really have holiness or willingness to engage the sinners, but just say they had the holiness they thought they had, that didn't do anybody any good. What consequentialists are are asking me to do and and other people who refuse to get on board with the religious right and and politics, And they're saying, you have to sacrifice something. You have to sacrifice your holiness. And that just that just isn't gonna work.

I wanna end with a quote from Justin the Martyr in his dialogue with Trifo the Jew. And I think of this in a short reply, it it shows a lot of what I'm trying to argue here as it paints a picture of of what Trifo thinks of early Christians. And this is what Trifo says in his reply, quote, this is what amazes us. But concerning the things of which the masses speak, they are not worth believing for they go right against human nature. Moreover, I know that your teachings written down in the so called gospel are so wonderful and so great that in my opinion, no one can keep them.

For I have read them with interest. But this is what we cannot grasp at all, that you want to fear God and that you believe yourselves favored above the people around you. Yet you do not withdraw from them in any way or separate yourselves from the pagans. You observe neither the festivals nor the Sabbaths. You do not circumcise and you set your hopes on a man who is crucified and believe you will receive good things from God in spite of the fact that you do not obey his commands.

Trifo astutely recognizes that the Christians of his day preached about a God who had immeasurably high standards. Standards so high that even they themselves could not attain those things. Yet, that's what they preached and they found hope in a God who would love them in their weakness and yet still tried to follow him in his commands. And in that, they did not withdraw from the people around them even though they didn't keep the festivals or Sabbaths or or the other pagan events, they they still ended up communing with with their community around them and participating. And Trifo just didn't get it.

You're so distinct but you're so much a part of us. Like, we just don't get it. And that's that's what I'm advocating here in inconsequentialism. Inconsequentialism says that the means of God are holiness and that obedience is is imperative. But in that, there's a a a beautiful aspect which says that because there is no compromise, that means there's no compromise for anyone.

And so in my uncompromising love, that uncompromising love applies even to pagans, even to enemies. It applies to everybody. And that unwillingness to compromise is what allows me and my desire for a holy pursuit of God. It allows me to participate with those around me who are not Christians. There's this distinctiveness yet this communalism.

And of course, like Trifol also identified, there's a humility and recognizing that it's this uncompromising love and and holiness that God enacted towards me. And in the incarnation, my hope isn't simply that that, Emmanuel, that Christ dwelt among us. My hope is that he was holy and he brings me to him. And that's the aspect of of of our incarnation that we forget as we incarnate to the world. We think that we need to be in the world, but we think that we can compromise in our holiness and our example as we seek to bring them to Christ.

And we just can't compromise those means. Obedience is better than sacrifice. Faithfulness better than effectiveness. That's all for now. So peace.

Since I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it.