Christian Ethics

The realism in Christian Realism lies in the tension between the redemption and hope that the Gospel brings for a world ensnared in sin and cynicism, and the reality that sin and its effects are still pervasive and will continue to cripple and limit the possibilities for justice this side of paradise.

What will be lost to many—including too many Christians—is the fact that this pledge of “never again” is, if it is to mean anything at all, a promise to fight if, in the last resort and with the aim of peace, nothing else will protect the innocent, requite an injustice, or punish evil.

How should Christians respond to the killing of someone so monstrous that their death seems to be a net gain for the world, a victory for the goods of justice, order, and peace?

The debate in America about Iran is not about war vs. peace. That is not the debate because that is not the choice.

A basic rule of discriminating moral reasoning is that we are only obliged to do an action that we are able to do. That is, an ought implies a can.

Integralism is confused because it misunderstands the epoch of history in which Christians now live. Jesus is king, yes, but a long tradition of theology understands that Jesus’ kingdom has been inaugurated, though not yet consummated in full.

I am grateful to Paul D. Miller for his recent review of “Between Babel and Beast.” Some of his criticisms hit home, some miss the mark. I respond to a few.

Why wasn’t the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi “happier,” even as many Americans are grateful his evil has been restrained?

Several Christian pacifists have warned against celebrating the death of ISIS terror chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who blew up himself…