IN THIS ESSAY I ASSERT THAT AFFLUENT CONSUMER CULTURES INCULCATE in their residents certain forms of desiring. One of those forms tends to silence the complicity that the affluent enjoy through appropriating the material benefits that come to them through the labor and poor living conditions of people in domestic and global poverty. A prime example is the cheap food that political policy and economic structures promote. The affluent are themselves spiritually stunted through the dynamics of complicity. The essay suggests that contrition is a gift of grace in the face of complicity. Consumerism blocks contrition; that is the operative dynamic here. The failure to be contrite blocks the work of grace in people's lives. However, contrition can slingshot those who experience the Christian vision of desire into a budding transformation which reeducates their desires. Some of those consequences involve a redirection of our sensory experience and an increase in community and compassion.

Moral injury, the experience of having acted (or consented to others acting) incommensurably with one's most deeply held moral conceptions, is increasingly recognized by the mental health disciplines to be associated with postcombat traumatic stress. In this essay I argue that moral injury is an important and useful clinical construct but that the phenomenon of moral injury beckons beyond the structural constraints of contemporary psychology toward something like moral theology. This something, embodied in specific communal practices, can rescue moral injury from the medical model and the means—end logic of techne and can allow for truthful, contextualized narration of and healing from morally fragmenting combat experiences.

This essay addresses two growing edges of the just war tradition. First, theorists have been accused of focusing narrowly on justifying war (jus ad bellum) and governing its conduct (jus in bello), neglecting wider considerations that encompass justice during the years prior to and after war. Second, calling a war "just" allegedly makes it seem "good" so that it is easier to fight a war and to bend or set aside the rules. Based on "imperfect justice," we argue for a "justified" war theory, taking all criteria and categories seriously, including jus ante bellum and jus post bellum.

President Barack Obama entered office with a promise to change the style and substance of his predecessor's foreign policy. This essay evaluates his efforts by identifying the key policy goals and principled underpinnings of what might be called an Obama Doctrine. I argue that Obama's distinctive worldview, which holds idealism and realism in generative tension, is deeply rooted in Niebuhrian Christian realism yet diverges from it in important ways. I close with a brief articulation of an Obama Doctrine that reflects the president's perspective on the proper role of American power and influence in the world.

This essay explores classical rabbinic literature's understanding of the prohibition of bloodshed alongside its understanding that "the image of God" corresponds to the physically embodied individual. This conception generates radical implications so that, apart from the narrow instance of a direct aggressor with intent to kill or rape, it is never legitimate to cause the death of any person, even in pursuit of a supposed "greater good." While notions of war and execution are retained in principle, the requirement of direct divine sanction for such actions neutralizes them in practice, removing them from the domain of human judgment and justification.

Modern readers appalled by Abraham's unquestioning obedience to a divine command to slaughter his son on the altar of sacrifice readily and repeatedly comply with governmental calls to sacrifice their own and others' children on the battlefield. But the God who interrupts the sacrifice of Isaac awakens Abraham and modern readers from the idolatrous nightmare of a patriotism that commands and blesses the sacrificial slaughter of our children.

In this essay I examine how compulsory military service and the Roman Catholic Church uphold and perpetuate an inadequate notion of masculinity in South Korea. I argue that the militaristic and Catholic definitions of masculinity significantly and pejoratively affect Korean culture. To unlearn these definitions, I propose an educational "readjusting" program that denounces any unjust discrimination on the basis of sex and gender.

In 1983 the US Catholic bishops noted that "insufficient analytical attention has been given to the moral issues of revolutionary warfare." Decades later systematic analysis of armed revolutionary resistance remains a lacuna within theological scholarship on war and peacemaking. While nonviolence is always preferable, traditional just war criteria can and should be revised to provide guidelines for ethical, armed, revolutionary resistance. Examining the just war criteria of legitimate authority, last resort, and proportionality not from the perspective of society's dominant classes but from that of the oppressed begins to yield a theory of just revolution. When properly met, revised understandings of the just war criteria allow for limited armed resistance as a moral response to severe repression.

To what extent is the Christian ethic, in its varied interpretations, commensurable with the experience of military life, including war? In addressing this question, I sketch two contrasting visions of the Christian faith, abolition and perdurance. My discussion of the two types emphasizes their concepts of the Christian ethic with attention to the question of military service and combat. It also offers theological rationales that provide a deeper understanding of the two alternatives. I conclude by siding with the perdurantist position while taking note of an important lesson learned from the abolitionist type.

The debate over whether the just war theory begins with a "presumption against violence" has raged among Christian ethicists for more than thirty years. One camp argues that the theory begins with a presumption against violence that can be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The other camp claims that the just war tradition instead begins with a presumption against injustice. A careful analysis of the debate, however, reveals that the term "presumption against violence" has been used in three different ways, and that clarifying these usages can show the common ground in the debate and move it toward a resolution.

This essay challenges the prevailing presumptions concerning the antithetical relationship between nonviolence and natural law. In conversation with the representative natural law positions offered by J. Daryl Charles and Jean Porter, I turn to the framing of the relationship between the new law and the natural law in Aquinas's "Treatise on Law" and appeal to the writings of John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas (sometimes against themselves) in order to argue that nonviolence can and should affirm natural law in some form if it intends to claim to represent "the grain of the universe."

This essay shows how South African Pentecostal teachings about sexuality, particularly HIV prevention and divorce, constrain women’s real and imagined choices. Institutional Review Board–approved fieldwork revealed the prevalence of wives remaining faithful to unfaithful husbands despite high risks of physical abuse and HIV infection. Maintaining the “ideal” of abstinence and faithfulness, male pastors actively oppose condom use and emphasize that “God hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16). In this essay I engage and resist such hermeneutics. Using scripture as source and norm, I construct an A-B-C-D prevention strategy to enhance women’s freedom: Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms, or Divorce.

Mutually critical conversations between theology, ethics, and law have been underdeveloped with respect to juvenile justice. I appropriate recent theological work on the rights and agency of children to critique adultcentric approaches to juvenile justice. I focus on recent trends in juvenile justice, including sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole. In developing my polemic against such policies, I analyze Graham v. Florida and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and their implications for juvenile justice. The final section constructively proposes juvenile justice reforms and advocates for the elimination of juvenile life sentences without parole.

In this essay I make a fundamental claim about and a recommendation for professional ethics: the lack of professional ethics in the academy is noteworthy and members of the Society of Christian Ethics ought to begin to address this reality as a matter of what is right and just for the SCE and for the academic professions at large—it is time to get our personal and corporate house in order.

This essay considers the complexities associated with faith-based initiatives for poor black people, as these initiatives have become one antipoverty strategy within some black churches. Deploying a womanist perspective on public policy, my contention is that faith-based initiatives have a contradictory nature in relation to ameliorating poverty among blacks. While these initiatives provide the necessary funding for many religious organizations such as black churches that are already doing antipoverty work, these initiatives simultaneously fail to consider how free-market institutions exacerbate poverty in general and black poverty in particular. Black churches must acknowledge that faith-based initiatives are an insufficient strategy for the amelioration of poverty if such a strategy is not situated alongside more structural and class-based efforts to ameliorate systemic injustice.

The current economic crisis arose in large part from financial activities in which capital was practically and logically alienated from real economy. This essay examines the exploitative logic of modern finance while considering two alternative models—microfinance and Islamic banking. These models will be considered against the backdrop of medieval arguments over usury, notably the debates between Franciscans and Dominicans surrounding the lending institutions known as monti di pietà. While noting that either model is decidedly preferable to current normative banking practices, this essay argues for the interest-free logic of Islamic finance against the logic of usury insofar as usury lends itself to a double alienation—of lender from borrower and of profit from value.

Highlighting the importance of historical methods for Christian ethics, this essay begins with a general overview of recent trends in historiography that culminate in the ideologically attuned and textually based work of Elizabeth Clark. Clark's work provides the basis in the second part of the essay that identifies Constantinianism as a dominant master narrative in the work of Stanley Hauerwas through which he rereads Tertullian's concept of patience and undergirds his call for pacifism. The final section explores the dangers of such master narratives for Christian ethical analysis and calls instead for a critical, collaborative, and self-reflexive approach to history more capable of reconciling power, privilege, and marginalization.

Two contrasting conceptions of politics have divided contemporary Christian political ethics, particularly Protestant political ethics in the United States. The first construes politics as a matter of statecraft that uses power to achieve social order and justice; a second views politics as an exercise in soulcraft intended to cultivate virtuous people. After identifying this divide by considering the work of Reinhold Niebuhr and Stanley Hauerwas, this essay reconceives politics within a broadly Augustinian eschatology that demonstrates the necessity of both statecraft and soulcraft and specifies the relation between them, arguing that Martin Luther King Jr. exemplified such a political ethic.

Many recent Christian writers have called for the reintegration of natural law theory with biblical ethics. This essay takes up that challenge with focus on the book of Proverbs. Through a close study of several major themes in this book, it argues that Proverbs points toward a conception of natural law as natural moral order, a realist natural law epistemology, the reality of moral insight across cultural and religious divides, the appropriateness of pragmatic natural law arguments, and a profound modesty about what natural law can accomplish.

The exegetical stories of Genesis Rabbah 8 portray God as engaged in an ethical debate over the implications of humanity's creation. These stories narrativize the necessity of favoring mercy over justice. The Deity must mobilize the attribute of mercy to overcome the justice problem of human fallibility. These stories rehearse the conflict of values in an "organic" fashion as opposed to discursive argumentation over abstract principles, and suggest a virtue theory grounded in mercy and kindness without being inflexible or absolutist. As such, mercy and kindness should be inculcated not over and above Jewish law but prior to the law.