Is "the ends justify the means" compatible with Christianity?

The ends justify the means is a succinct statement of utilitarian ethics. Now, a utilitarian ethic can yield good and holy outcomes. But it can also yield strikingly evil outcomes.

This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.(NRSV, John 15)

Is a similarly succinct statement of agape ethics. This kind of ethical approach recasts the means ("laying down one's life") and the ends ("for one's friends") in a way that makes even death a life-giving act.

No, it is not compatible with Christianity. Consider this verse:

Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

If we do not do things according to the word, it isn't right no matter how much perceived good may come. We must do everything "according to the pattern" God has revealed in His word. Dr. Bob Jones Sr. used to say, "It's never right to do wrong." That's a cliche we as Christian ought to have.

Consider those "Christians" out there who use the "ends justify the means" logic in evangelism. Instead of using the law to show them their need of Christ, they simply ask through the screen door, "Do you want to go to Heaven? Ok, say this prayer... you're in." For many, many folks, a decision can justify any method, no matter how ungodly it might be.

Results should never be a basis for judgement when it comes to our faith.

The old testament has a story relating to this question. Exodus 1:15-21 ( in my translation, available on Wikisource,

And the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwifes, one of whose names is Shiphrah, and the second Poo'ah. And he said, "When you deliver for the Hebrews, and you saw upon the paired rocks, if it is a son, and you killed him, and if it is a daughter, she lives." And the midwives feared God, and did not do that which the king of Egypt commanded, and they let live the boys born.

And the king of Egypt called the midwives, and told them "Why did you do this thing, and let the boys born live?" And the midwives told Pharaoh that the Hebrews are not like the Egyptian women, that they are animals, not even does the midwife arrive, and they have delivered. And God made good for the midwives, and multiplied the nation, and they became very mighty. And it was because the midwives feared God that he made households for them.

Here, the midwives say that the Hebrew women are like animals, not needing a midwife. This is an obvious lie, and it is a useful lie, because it allows the midwives to save the boy babies. God rewards the midwives financially for this.

In traditional translations, the midwives statement is translated to "the Hebrew women are very lively, they deliver before the midwife arrives". This mistranslates the word "Chayoth", which means "animal" by substituting a different meaning, which is a feminine adjective meaning lively, which is both a painfully stretched interpretation and completely spoils the beautiful and jarring sentiment. This sentence reveals a lot about Pharaoh's Egyptian supremacy ideas--- he is willing to believe any demeaning fact about the Hebrews. This is a biblical parallel to the Nazi-hiding example used in Matt White's answer.

The midwives lie for the purpose of a greater good. Exodus does not ask people to be stupid, and if they have to lie to the authorities, this can sometimes be a good thing. Established religion is authoritarian, so it is not a good interpreter of the holy texts, which are written by inspired authors. This passage is both mistranslated and ignored by Christians and Jews alike.

Let's take the extreme example of Germans hiding Jews in their houses during WW2. (inspired by this question) When asked if they are hiding Jews, what do they say? Do they lie to protect them, or do they tell the truth knowing they'll be sent to a concentration camp? I can think of 3 possibilities:

1. Choose the outcome that is the most loving. I certainly wouldn't want to be handed over to the Nazi's.

   Do to others as you would have them do to you.

   Matthew 7:12 (NIV)

2. You can justify lying in the same way as you justify resisting an evil government. See this question. Lying would be ok in the same way that hiding the Jews in the first place would be ok.

   Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered the king, "... be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up."

   Daniel 3:16-18 (NRSV)

3. Faith. Realize that it is actually not you, but God, who is in control, and he won't punish you for obeying him. Do what he commanded and trust that he will work it out. In our example, you could refuse to answer the Nazi's question even though that causes suspicion.

   A controversial Biblical example of this would be Lot refusing to break the hospitality he had offered to two strangers, and instead putting his own daughters at risk. God protects them.

   "Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

   Genesis 19:8 (NRSV)

Which option you choose in the extreme case should also guide your decisions in the everyday moral conundrums. I personally believe that the third option is the highest, but also by far the most difficult in practice, because it requires us to give up control.