Christians need to (continue to) speak out against torture
Image courtesy of www.nrcat.org
This past weekend the Post-Dispatch ran an excellent column by Leonard Pitts, Jr, entitled “Why this tolerance for torture?” It is a sharp and necessary response to a recent Pew research poll showing that those who attend church regularly are more likely to endorse torture, and reads in part:
It turns out the religiously unaffiliated are the least likely (40 percent) to support torture, but that the more you attend church, the more likely you are to condone it. Among racial/religious groups, white evangelical Protestants were far and away the most likely (62 percent) to support inflicting pain as a tool of interrogation.
You’d think people who claim connection to a higher morality would be the ones most likely to take the lonely, principled stand. But you need only look at history to see how seldom that has been the case, how frequently my people — Christians — acquiesce to expediency and fail to look beyond the immediate. Never mind that looking beyond the immediate pretty much constitutes a Christian’s entire job description.
The little bit of good news I take away from this: mainline Protestants (by which I believe the pollsters meant Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians) were the most likely to say torture is never justified. Three in 10 from that group say torture is never justified, compared to two in 10 non-hispanic Roman Catholics. It is intriguing that the group more often accused of moral relativism (mainline Protestants) would have the firmer, more principled stand (in my opinion). Does this speak to the concern that some people put political partisanship ahead of their religious teaching? Or is something else at work here? Whatever the cause, I don’t think any Christian can feel really afford to feel comfortable with the survey results.
A recent analysis of the poll on the “God in Government” blog takes the “politics first” view, arguing that a stated support for torture is all about party affiliation and tells us little about religious beliefs.
Another place I’ve found excellent writing on the subject is the website ethicsdaily.com. More than one of their bloggers is tackling this topic. For example, Baptist minister James L. Evans writes
For a long time now, Christians on the left and the right have closely associated their faith with the American experience. Saving America has been the righteous cause of Christians since the founding of the republic.
Out of that nationalistic experience there has grown a sense that America is so important to the world that whatever means are needed to keep us alive are fully justified. Even if that means jettisoning every moral principle we hold dear.
Chuck Warnock, also a Baptist pastor and the author of the blog Confessions of a Small-Church Pastor wrote this:
Of course, the response we hear [when we invoke the radical words of Jesus to "turn the other cheek"] is one I have heard, “But in the real world, that’s not possible.” And that, my friends, is what the incarnation of Christ is all about. To show that this Kingdom of God stuff does indeed work in the real world. May God have mercy on our souls for not being clear that we are following the Lord of love, the Creator of the universe, and not expedient political policy.
Powerful stuff. The Pew poll is just a snapshot, not the whole picture. But I hope that the concern it has raised will continue to push more Christian leaders will speak out against torture of all kinds, and that the rest of us will begin to listen. If we do our job, maybe the same poll taken a few months or, one hopes, years from now could have different results.
But then again, we need to remember that many religious leaders have been speaking out against torture for years now, and still our country persists in this twisted debate over it. For example, The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT)
is a growing membership organization committed to ending U.S.-sponsored torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Since its formation in January 2006, over 250 religious groups have joined NRCAT, including representatives from the Roman Catholic, evangelical Christian, mainline Protestant, Orthodox Christians, Unitarian, Quaker, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh communities. Members include national denominations and faith groups, regional organizations and congregations.
This is the group behind the “Torture is a Moral Issue” campaign. They’ve been at it for nearly three years; let us hope their voices only get louder until there is no longer a need for this campaign. In the mean time, if our churches and our nation can be said to have “a conscience,” then we are in for some serious self-examination.
Pamela Dolan is on staff at Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Webster Groves and is a Candidate for Holy Orders. After high school in Hawaii and college in California, she earned a master's degree in theology from Harvard before spending several years in New York studying medieval religion and literature. Pamela is married with two children. 
Those that epitimize christian conduct have often been put to death by Royal authorities for advocating nonviolence. The new testment instructs christians to be gentle as doves in their attempts at christianizing peoples. Holy war has been forgone by most major christian powers. Given these facts it is difficult to condone torture as an aspect of christian conduct regardless of reason or motive. War is conducted only as a last resort when all other methods have been exhausted. War is not an aim it can only be justified as a last resort so it is never desireable. Given these facts it is evident that violent men and women are attempting to use the church for their own purpose.
Do you realize that your version of a “turn the other cheek” national policy would require you to adopt a no-military form of government?
I personally don’t know that Jesus was advocating “no self defense” as much as a “no revenge” point of view. There’s a lot to be said and discussed here, but if we take the incorrect meaning, we could easily make a Christian policy that we must cease all attempt at putting down Al Quaeda or any other enemy that wishes us harm. We could easily say that any attempt to stop an attack on our country should not be stopped if it might harm an enemy. This is a complex subject to say the least, and I think some of the advocacy groups are oversimplifying it and using christianish arguments for essentially political purposes.
Well said Mikew.
Pamela, Do you think that waterboarding was done for the fun of it? Or do you think the waterboarders were sincerely trying to stop innocent people from losing their lives?
Whether you believe the act was right or wrong, you can’t possibly question the motive, can you?
I agree that torture is unnecessary and we have no need for it. The Pew survey is a startling revelation about the integrity of those who accept Jesus.
My view is, “Do not torture.”
I do not agree that Leonard Pitts wrote an excellent article concerning it. I agree it bears consideration.
I question his premise that the church did nothing in the examples he mentioned.
I also question the premise that justifies the blame in his opinion, that believers are the keepers of moral authority. We are not. God is.
It is this arrogant view of ourselves that confuses and tempts.
The temptation that our opinion concerning the righteousness of torture or not torture is what matters is the pretense.
If some one wants to know why I choose not to torture, my answer is a simple one.
I am not inspired by it, and it does not work. There is no moral authority or righteousness in this view.
The act of it, any pleasure taken in it, and the information gained from it neither inspires me or do I have trust and confidence in it (faith). It does not align with my commitment to love and acceptance in the world, or to honor my word as a Christian.
There is no act of self defense in torture any more than there is in death as punishment.
If I allow myself to be true to what inspires, moves, and touches me I have placed my faith in God.
If I ignore that presence, and reason another outcome to justify what I consider repugnant I yield to the temptation of self righteousness.
The ultimate test of integrity, does it work? It does not. Argue this if you will. Argue the morality of it, and you are arguing against wants is your power in this world.
The corruption of it continues. Obama has reversed himself and subcumbed to the view that he is a better judge of what America and the world can see than each of our conscious is.
Using the reason that it will inflame, he will hide the impact of torture. Suppressing the impact of who we are in the world will not lead to transformation. We must first experience the ugliness of who we are being. Without this integrity we will not create the opening for ourselves for another way and the possibility of what inspires us.
Torture is not the only way to gain what we want. To argue we have no choice in the matter is to argue that others make our choices for us.
I am willing to sacrifice my life and the life of my family to maintain my integrity. The founders of this country were, and did. Are you?
Is your own life more valuable to you than the possibility that you declare for yourself and the world? Jesus did not think so.
Another, Suppose your children were kidnapped and placed in a house that was going to be bombed in 24 hours. And you were standing next to a person that knew where they were, but this person would not tell you.
Are you saying, in order to maintain your “integrity”, you wouldn’t beat the pulp out of that person to get him to give you the location? I hope your integrity will be enough to overcome your guilt.
jmas,
Your scenario still does not justify torture. Why don’t I ask you and all others who are Christians this?
_______________________________________________________________________
If a Satan worshipper held a gun to the head of your child and told you that you could live if only you would bowl down and worship Satan and take a tattoo of 666, would you do it to save your life and the life of your child?
I know what the Word of God tells me that I MUST be willing to do and pray that I would be able to show my loyalty to Him first above all things including my own life and the life of my children or anyone else. Can you explain to me how your “what if your child” question is any different than mind? What would you do?
By the way, regarding turn the other cheek. First off a slap in the face was regarded as an insult and not intended to cause physical harm or was it considered violence when Jesus walked this earth. So please, take things in their correct context and I myself must learn better to let things roll off my back, shoulders or whatever that saying is.
And lastly, having a military has nothing at all to do with torture nor I determine from scripture that God would have a problem with defending self upon an attack or an evil attack upon your neighbor.
I think Christians need to really examine their first loyalty, is to God/Christ, politics or self or others because if your mind can’t even fathom being willing to die for the sake of Christ, then you are in a really sad state as a Christian.
D.Walker,
I would absolutely bow down and claim to be a devil worshipper in order to save the life of my child. If I were lucky enough to have that work, and my child and I were to get out of the situation safely, I would pray to God to forgive me. He would know in my heart that I didn’t mean it, and that I did it to save the life of someone I loved and that he put me on this earth to protect.
God would forgive me, because Jesus promised he would. And I believe that unless the gunman who held my child captive repented for his sins, he would be judged harshly by God and would suffer for what he did, in one way or another.
I am a Christian. Do I think that torture is good? No, I don’t. But holier than thou people like you just kill me. How anyone can honestly say, without a shadow of a doubt, that they wouldn’t beg, cheat, steal, kill, even TORTURE in order to save the life of a loved one is beyond me. You never know until you are there exactly what you would do. You should leave the judging to God and stop trying to wear the robe yourself.
D.
That’s exactly my point - take scripture in context and don’t let an overly simple reading lead to mistakes.
One could take turn the other cheek to mean “do no harm regardless of who may be hurt if you don’t defend them.” I’m not sure that’s how Jesus meant it, as you aptly put it, he was speaking somewhat figuratively. Last time we talked about the “radical peacenick Jesus” I recall taking some exception to the ideas being put forward. That view of Jesus would perclude governance, defense, and punishment of crime. That doesn’t really jive with the whole of scripture, and I can’t really believe that Jesus’ life as a whole can be taken out of the context of the whole of scripture. The greatest commandment was the greatest commandment during Abraham’s, Moses’, David’s, and Jesus’ time. The truth did not change, so we need to understand Jesus’ ministry in light of that truth. People in His own time misunderstood His minsitry and I think it’s easy to do the same today.
Joey and jmas, you make good points. So we are clear, I would lie, cheat, steal, and kill in self defense to save my life or that of another. I can do all of that and maintain my integrity.
I am not a pacifist.
Still, I would not torture, nor would I pay ransom.
You give a mouse a cookie….
I don’t think ‘turn the other cheek’ is the correct Biblical reference here. I’d suggest the better one is the command to love our enemies.
I heard this preached once on the admonitions to turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the cloak as well as the coat, and similar ones.
In all cases, the response is actually an insult to the one doing the demand. Example: In middle eastern culture even today, one would use his LEFT hand to slap someone (the right hand being ‘clean’ and the left being ‘unclean’). So, when you slap someone with your left hand, you would strike them on the right cheek, correct? By turning the other cheek, you either require the one doing the slapping to use the right hand, or to backhand you…both of which are forbidden as unclean acts.
Similarly, under Roman rule, a soldier could demand that any citizen carry his pack and arms for 1 mile. By carrying it two miles, you would insult the soldier by essentially saying “i’m stronger than you are”.
And so on.
It DOES appear, and I agree with Pamela, that there is a strong thread on the Evangelical Right, that has expressed willingness to abandon 2000 years of Christian ethics related to just war, treatment of prisoners, and so on in the name of fidelity to a political party. This is a major area of concern, and should continue to be discussed.
I like to think of myself as Christian FIRST, and American SECOND. If that makes me a disloyal citizen, so be it.
On the various scenarios presented, I’d suggest asking some of the various Martyrs over history whether it was OK to put saving one’s own life ahead of keeping the faith. Dietrich Bonhoeffer comes to mind as one recent example.