THE END DOES JUSTIFY THE MEANS

We should be careful about off-handedly saying that the end does not justify the means, for if the means are ever justified it has to be the end that does the justifying. It all depends on what the means are and what the end is. We go through life facing the dilemmas of means and ends. A current issue is whether parents should allow their sons to play football. The means, which include the danger of brain concussions, is deemed by some as too high a price to pay for whatever benefits playing football may bring (the end). In such cases the end might not justify the means. But in most other sports the safety of the means is not questioned, so the end would justify the means.

A classic example of this dilemma was when President Truman had to decide whether to use the atomic bomb against Japan during World War 2. It was estimated that an invasion of Japan, a people not given to surrendering, would cause two million Japanese fatalities, plus tens of thousands of lives of the Allied forces. It was a matter of choosing the lesser evil. President Truman said sometime after his decision that he harbored no doubt as to which was the right decision. The end — the surrender of Japan — justified the means — the destruction and massacre of two Japanese cities.

Even the God of heaven faced such a dilemma — whether to sacrifice his only Son on a cross (the means) for the salvation of the world (the end) The gospel is a testimonial that the God of heaven concluded that the end justified the means, as horrific and cruel as they were.

For our actions to be right we are to have both noble ends (goals) and morally acceptable means (methods). Good intentions are not enough. Robin Hood's desire or intention to help the poor was commendable enough to give him an honorific name, but the means (methods) he used — stealing from the rich — rendered his behavior wrong. The end, commendable as it was, did not justify the means. When the means are inappropriate and morally offensive, the end cannot be right.

This gives us a different view of sin. Sin is when either the means or the end, or both, are wrong. Both the means chosen and the end desired are actions of the heart, and mistakes of the heart are serious sins. But this allows for grace and forgiveness when erring means and ends are only the mistakes of judgment. It is sometimes the case that when we attempt to help someone our efforts fail, and we unintentionally end up dong more harm than good.

In Philippians 3:8 the apostle Paul named the noblest of ends — "that I might gain Christ." To achieve that end he had to pay a dear price (the means). In the same verse he writes, "I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish." The apostle was proud of his heritage in Judaism — a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he described himself — but he was willing to count all this as rubbish so as to gain the glorious end in view. He was willing to pay any price or make any sacrifice so as to gain Christ.

This is the nature of grace. It is free but not cheap. It is both unconditional and conditional — unconditional in that it is there and available to all; but to enjoy its benefits it is conditional. Grace may demand superlative means. Even self-denial.

And this has always been man's undoing, selfish pride and inordinate self-love. He may be attracted to spiritual ends, but he finds the means — sacrifice of self — too great a price to pay. But to those who hunger and thirst sufficiently the end does justify the means.

Article written by Leroy Garrett