New Covenant Consequentialism

propositional posts: Moral Absolutisms

Under the New Covenant, we make decisions in consideration of their consequence, rather than simply in consideration of their conformity to the Law. Sometimes the Law is in harmony with the best consequential decision, but as Jesus often explained, imperative legalism can undergo maladaptation over time, and should be reconsidered in light of end goals.

Similarly, we may find, from time to time, that a decision we make, while "justified by the Law" or "legally permissable," is not consequentially justifiable. Again and again under the New Covenant, we're taught that though something may be "right," it may not be right, due to consequential byproducts that we're able to predict.

Matthew 17 When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-draghma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and me."

Though Jesus knew that, legally, he shouldn't have to pay the tax, he did so anyway because doing otherwise would be counterproductive. Putting up a big fuss would have been principled, perhaps, but it wouldn't have been pragmatic.

I Corinthians 8 (With regard to whether it's permissable to eat pagan "sacrificial" meat...) We are niether the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, having knowledge [of the invalidity of idols], dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things [as if they were] sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Paul knew that since idols aren't real, it's not legally wrong to eat food from apparent idol sacrifices. But he also knew that not everyone understood that. If he wanted to be selfishly principled, he could have said it's the fault of the ignorant for their misunderstanding. Or, he could have said that the solution to the problem was to educate the ill-informed.

Instead, however, he made the pragmatic choice: he suggested avoiding such food.

Paul made a similar argument in the next chapter, when he explained his reason for not accepting payment for missionary work. He explained that he would be perfectly justified, based on both the Law and on simple reason, to accept payment, but he rejected payment simply because he didn't want anyone getting the wrong idea about what he was doing. Does this imply that no Church official should be paid? As Paul would say: "By no means!" This was a particular concern of Paul's in the situation he was in.

This New Covenant consequentialism, pushing aside the Old Covenant paradigm of thorough and imperative mandates, must be acknowledged by Christians. It's especially relevant to political issues. If a practical position does net harm, it's junk, even if it's "principled."

Principles are valuable only insofar as they are productive. Rules must follow results.