I like this, from the same book as below (The Peacable Kingdom):

Alternative accounts are mentioned only as a means of clarifying my own position. As a result the book may be said to be decidedly “one-sided” for an introduction. My only defense is that I know no other way it can be done. As I try to show throughout, there is no way to do Christian ethics neutrally, since there is no agreement on what Christian ethics is or how it should be done’ that does not involve substantial theological and philosophical disagreements. Therefore I have not tried to write a text in the mode of William Frankena’s Ethics. Rather this “introduction” is closer to Bernard Williams’s Morality: An Introduction to Ethics, since, like him, I make no attempt to offer an account of what makes ethics ethics

Amen. Go for it Stanley. I’m all ears/eyes.

During this past election, I got so weary of the calls for “diplomacy” amongst Christians. Not that this would be undesirable, if only it were done faithfully. But much of what I hear as examples of how to do this are more compromise than arrival at some righteous , “peaceful” summit. I use the term “peaceful” there in jest of the idea that there is , at bottom, no real conflict when we all reach that quintessential Christian position. I do believe there IS a Christian stance, although it requires much attention to the knowledge that we are always on a journey and incomplete. But there does come a point where Christians abandon the radical stances of Jesus and his “love your enemies” ethic, and his obvious and clear call for us to “do unto the least of these” on behalf of himself.

Let’s pay attention to the call to true Peace, which the Religious Right would have us believe is an ethic that exists only “in their hearts”, with no distinct call for that ethic of peace to impinge upon this world. That’s what I call a practical heresy.