Source: The Sword or the Cross, Which Should be the Weapon of the Christian Militant? (1921), Ch.4 p. 69-70
Context: None of us believes that rulers are infallible or that their commands should constitute our highest standard of right and wrong. Quite apart from the belief of the ruler, the method of war is either Christian or un-Christian, and his command does not determine whether our participation in it is moral or immoral. Therefore, the Christian citizen must come to his decision on a basis of the spirit and teaching of Jesus, quite independently of the command of the ruler. To say that Jesus and St. Paul recognize the function of the state is not to say that they command the Christian to participate in war when ordered to do so by the ruler of the nation; any more than their recognition of the state meant that they sanctioned human slavery, polygamy, extortion and the other evil practices which were approved by the [Roman] state.
“After Constantine … the ruler, not the average person or the weak person, is the model for ethical deliberations. A moral statement on the rightness of truth-telling or the wrongness of killing is tested first by whether a ruler can meet such standards.”
Source: The Priestly Kingdom (1984), p. 138
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
John Howard Yoder 15
20th century American Mennonite theologian 1927–1997Related quotes

2000s, 2005, Second Inaugural Address (January 2005)

Source: Social Justice in Islam (1953), p. 133

“Circumstances are the rulers of the weak, but they are the instruments of the wise.”
Book Sometimes you win Sometimes you Learn

In "Staff members' personal donations for giving season 2016" https://blog.givewell.org/2016/12/09/staff-members-personal-donations-giving-season-2016/, December 2016
Context: Regarding (b) ["checking boxes I want to check for considering myself a personally moral/ethical person, which is related but not identical to trying for maximum expected positive impact on the world"]: every year, I want to give a significant amount to "charity" as conventionally construed, straightforwardly helping the less fortunate. I generally believe in trying to be an ethical person by a wide variety of different ethical standards (not all of which are consequentialist). And I wouldn't feel that I were meeting this standard if I were giving nothing (or a trivial amount) to known, outstanding opportunities to help the less fortunate, for purposes of saving as much money as possible for adversarial projects (such as political campaigns) and/or more speculative projects (such as work related to artificial intelligence). I think the best giving opportunities in this category are GiveWell's top charities, so I will be giving a portion of this year's donation there, following the recommended allocation.
Source: 1960s, Economics As A Moral Science, 1969, p. 1

Source: Reason and Hope: Selections from the Jewish Writings of Hermann Cohen (1971), p. 122

"The Scientific Aspect of Monte Carlo Roulette" (1894)