Jesus Convinces Some Evangelicals to Reject Torture

Trojans 35 Buckeyes 3

Yeah, and the Browns are probably going to get their butts kicked by the Steelers later this evening. Cincinnati already lost earlier today.

Not a good weekend for Ohio football teams.

D

"Thanks for this thoughtful post on the torture poll. Having worked on it myself, I was surprised and saddened by some of the results, but encouraged by others." Dan

Dan--What is the worldview that leads a group at Mercer to sample "white southern Evangelicals." What is distinct in your mind about this group?

One of the more disturbing and encouraging pieces of information was not highlighted in Jimmy's summary. Among the sampled group, over half that related their view to scripture, rejected torture outright. I think it hard to identify a sample as Evangelical if their ethical stances have no relationship to scripture.

I am sure many do ID themselves as Evangelical--but this is a label with many meanings. So without explanation as to how it was used in the "science" and in the minds of those surveyed--it becomes quite meaningless (in my mind).

And there is no way this topic can be heard outside of the political climate/arguments of the last few years. So a question about ethical view of torture immediately carries all kinds of meanings about Iraq, 'war on terror,' George Bush, Guantanamo, etc. etc.

The survey itself demonstrates how context changes answers. Those conducting survey interpreted results as showing that 14% would shift their view when reminded of the Golden Rule. Another interpretation is simply that when first posed with the question they heard it in political terms. The more times the interviewer raised basic ethical principles, it shifted the meaning of the conversation and they responded in more pure ethical terms.

psychorrhagia
Actually. I have been very happy ever since I stopped believing in a God of war and eternal torture. God is Love.

Kevin said he thinks torture should be illegal, but torture is in fact illegal. It is not legal by any branch of government or the military. The laws are clear and the phony "legal opinions " of lawyers like Gonzales and Addington do not change the law. These 3rd rate lawyers do not even cite case law or legal judgements.

Rumsfeld better not go to Spain or he will very likely be put on trial, as he should be.

OK - so this should get discussion going.

I looked up 'torture' and I don't see where the Savior directly addressed it - can someone help me? (and they all rush to big guy's assistance - lol)

What do the RLC have to say about this?

Be blessed -
.

"white evangelicals in the South"

Wow is that a pointed target group or what? Please stop proliferating stereotypes. This helps no one.

I really don't see what your point is with this article...

You sojourners are constantly trying to promote the nuances of your pet projects like abortion-rights--saying that it is too jaded and sophomoric to see the topic in black and white terms--while on topics like torture, capital punishment, and gun rights you see no problem with painting a stark picture which forces the reader to take sides with Jesus who clearly is against these things.

Your attempts to co-opt Jesus on issues that you promote is really sad and transparent.

"I looked up 'torture' and I don't see where the Savior directly addressed it - can someone help me? (and they all rush to big guy's assistance - lol)What do the RLC have to say about this?
Be blessed" -Posted by: big guy

Wow Big Guy, Jesus didn't say anything about hijacking airplanes and ramming them into buildings either-- so by your logic I guess that that's okay too.

Thanks for bringing the discussion to new heights of abstraction and sophisication. We can always count on you for that right word in due season!

Posted by: JamesM | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM

Please James - that is what I have been hit with on other topics that up until the last few years were more or less agreed on until the RLC started their argument.

Case in point - the Savior never addressed homosexuality - therefore it is not a sin. I believe in the whole counsel of the scriptures but RLC will take what the Savior said and if He did not address it - it is open to intrupertation.

Blessings to all -
.

Harold,

Jesus only did that because Gentiles were not being allowed to pray in the temple. Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords but then tells them not to use them, specifically when Peter tried to chop off the Roman's head Jesus said one comment and it was not finish the job. Jesus never advocated wiping out your enemies or torturing them to get information.

p

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity." 2297

"In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors." 2298

Peter S.

"Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Surely you would not make an argument that 'He' is okay with abortion."

I think you are missing the context of her remarks. Big Guy made the point that Jesus did not directly address torture, giving the impression that since He didn't, it must be OK.

Debbie then used abortion to make the same argument to show that even though Jesus had nothing to say on abortion, that doesn't mean He would have thought it was OK.

Thus she was arguing that likewise, Jesus would not have thought torture was OK.

Big Guy/ModerateLad - you were better when you were ModerateLad, please go back and find yourself.

Could we please have another example of Jesus getting angry beside the tired old moneychangers in the temple bit. Please, that incident is outnumbered like 10 to one by gospel accounts of Christ's gracious love for sinners and no one yet, including AlanD to whom the question was originally directed, has adequately responded to my plea last week to offer an interpretation of the John 2 moneychangers story in the context of the overall purpose of John's gospel. Hello?

I've heard that a third question has now been added to the two made famous by Evangelism Explosion. #3 - Do you realize that unless you offer an adequate answer to questions 1 & 2, I will have to torture you in the name of Jesus until you do?

Sheesh! Doesn't anybody here have jobs that they work at? (I have two part-time jobs - WALMART greeter and BK.) But when I am home, work outside also keeps me busy.

I think the money-changers example is a poor one to support torture. To me, it is significant that Jesus's actions in this case were directed at the corruption going on inside the church - not outside the church. After reading some of the posts above, I think the "money lenders" are alive and well.

I VERY MUCH appreciate this quote from another individual that posted: [i]"Christian conservatism is NOT synonymous with political conservatism. Christian values are not synonymous with Republican party values."[/i] Now -- if we can get more of our conservative Christian Brothers and Sisters to live this, things will be much better.

I've been an ardemt Bible-believing evangelical Christian for several years. In the past, we never considered our Christian convictions in political terms, or as "conserative", "moderate", or "liberal". They just are part of us as followers of Jesus Christ. If I am His disciple and believe His Word and Way, then that's how I vote. There's no mistaking Sunday morning services at my church for Republican Party Conventions, and no one blurs the line of 'church & state' or tax exemption by 'naming names' nor specifically TELLING me who to vote for.

While Jim attributes the precepts of the "Golden Rule" to Jesus the concept precedes him by a few hundred to over a thousand years. It is basic to Buddhism, was advocated by Greek philosophers (Pittacus 7th ce. BCE, Isocrates 5th ce BCE, among others), and is echoed in a number of verses in Hindu scripture.

But, to the main theme. Interesting statistics, especially as it relates to Christians needing to be "reminded" of ethical behavior.

I deplore the very concept of torture. It is basic to my sense of morality and ethics. As an atheist I don't need to be reminded of any sayings by anyone, mythical or otherwise, to strongly retain that perspective, anymore than I need some reminder that its wrong to kill, steal, enslave, rape, or treat women or minorities or homosexuals as less than equals.

That anyone needs to be reminded that cruelty toward his fellow beings (or to animals for that matter), isn't endorsed by some figure who may or may not have existed some 2000 years ago in order to jog their humanity is a complete marvel to me. Frankly, it is indicative of a basic character flaw. It speaks poorly of their personal philosophy.

But then again, just as some Muslims distort the Q'uran for their purpose, the scripture has been either ignored, or used to justify any number of hideous actions by Christians through the ages. Genocide, slavery, the subjugation of women, anti-Semitism / pogroms, and yes, even torture (Inquisition, witch trials).

In fact, some very inventive and unique methods for, and tools of, torture were invented by Christians. So we shouldn't be surprised by their attitude, or when Christians "stray" from the preferred dictates of their religious icon.

I believe this says a great deal about the malleability of Christian values. A great many Christians think whatever they are told to think. If Robertson, Dobson and the rest took a strong and consistent stand against torture the numbers would be very different. If there was no 24 on TV justifying torture with fabricated scenarios, not a single one of which can be shown to be a real situation, the numbers would be far different. If the republican party opposed all forms of torture with the same moral zeal applied to abortion, evangelicals would also condemn it.

In the 80s I met Richard Wurmbrandt, who wrote the book tortured for Christ. Every step he took was painful because his jailers beat his feet with a baton. At that time Americans felt that torture was evidence of a lawless and undemocratic government, the province of tyrants, and criminals, Stalin Nero the Inquisition and Hitler.

Our constitution forbids torture and there is plenty of Supreme court rulings to clarify and reinforce that position. One of the reasons for the American revolution was to free people from the arbitrary violence of the state and to require a speedy trial using due process with a jury of peers. We must not give up our constitutional rights to the whims of presidents of either party. History and wisdom both teach us that corrupt means are a poison that infects everyone and everything it touches.

big guy
Jesus said be harmless as doves, treat others as you would be treated, he taught us to love our enemies and , and refused to take up the sword. None of those teachings allow for torture.

psychorrhagia said: "I don't have an opinion one way or another on torture... I'll leave that between the rulers and the God that put them in place. However, it seems like "Do unto others" may be out of context if applied to governments."

Are you saying God put Stalin and Idi Amin, and Adolf Hitler, and all the murderous thugs of history in power? And you worship this God?
God never told anyone to form an army and invade and steal land that is not theirs. Jesus denied this history and the Jewish notion of law, saying you have heard it said by them of old an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to love your enemies and do good to those who mistreat you, for then shall you be called he Children of God....
The teachings of Jesus are a choice between the teachings of them of old and his good news of a direct relationship with a god of love and mercy.

Most Christians refuse the teachings of Jesus and adopt the teachings of Paul the Pharisee. The Pharisees believed that god worked through raising up kings and kingdoms to do his will. It was the only way they could explain the the historic denial of the Abrahamic covenant and the subjugation of Israel to one empire after another. It is a false doctrine and led Paul to say that God appointed rulers to support the good and punish the just. A patently ridiculous and morally repugnant lie. All through history rulers have been motivated largely by self interest and have frequently opposed and murdered the innocent or those who called for justice. Jesus death was not the least exceptional in this regard. The Romans often lined the streets of the lands they occupied with the crucified bodies of those who resisted them. They then imposed merciless taxes and took the land of the poor or politically weak. They did not bring justice, they brought injustice and oppression.

Jesus was dangerous because he opposed all hierarchies and taught people to serve each other. He said the kingdom was not somewhere else or somewhere in the future, but here now, as available to children as to the learned, more easy for the poor to find than the rich. He brought a healing love that freed people from religious and political rulers and gave them a way to live by sharing their food and the healing power of love, mercy, truth, freedom and joy.

It is true that the early church opposed abortion. They also opposed military service.

"He affirms the commandment prohibiting murder. No commandment exists regarding torture, so a utilitarian argument does exist for its use." KevinS

Well put Kevin S. I knew somebody would pick up on that nuance. Now do you think that you could write a short email to Palin explaining to her what the Bush Doctrine is. No need to explain theology to her-- she's got that one pretty well tied down.

"To date, this has been the problem with the debate regarding torture in America. The goal is not to generate consensus around what interrogation techniques are morally acceptable, but rather to paint a political opponent as a peacenik or a torture-lover." Kevin S

Yeah I have heard you try to sound so intellectual in the past asking whether waterboarding was really torture. Then when I asked you if you would volunteer for a waterboarding experiment on yourself to determine whether it was torture, you declined. How is one to further the dialog unless you would be willing to take the ultimate sacrificial step to build that consensus of which you so articulately speak?

"Now do you think that you could write a short email to Palin explaining to her what the Bush Doctrine is. "

Considering the the fellow who coined the phrase cannot even do so, I'm pretty sure I would fail at it.

"Yeah I have heard you try to sound so intellectual in the past asking whether waterboarding was really torture."

I have contended with a variety of methods, ranging from waterboarding to dogs barking. My point is that we should have a real discussion about what is or is not acceptable, draw a line in the sand, and move from there.

"Then when I asked you if you would volunteer for a waterboarding experiment on yourself to determine whether it was torture, you declined."

Did I? I thought I said it was a moot point. If there was an opportunity to volunteer, I'd probably take it on. It would make for an interesting blog post.

"How is one to further the dialog unless you would be willing to take the ultimate sacrificial step to build that consensus of which you so articulately speak?"

This logic doesn't make sense. I advocate life sentences for murderers. I am not inclined to volunteer to experience a lifetime in prison for the purposes of defending my position.

Thanks for this thoughtful post on the torture poll. Having worked on it myself, I was surprised and saddened by some of the results, but encouraged by others. Part of bearing each other's burdens is helping each other get past wrong beliefs (torture is okay) and wrong dispositions (cruelty), so we must go beyond rueing the reality of support for torture and get busy helping our misguided brothers and sisters. Fortunately, the poll's finding that appeals to the golden rule changed minds is a blueprint for how to get started.

Do you deny that the Old Testament has any relevance to modern Christianity?Posted by: psychorrhagia |

Absolutely not. It is just that the way that you apply it that lacks relevance to modern Christianity.

psychorrhagia: "I believe Jesus and the Father are one in the same, so there must be some way to reconcile the two commands."

Psycho, you might want to check out Pastor Greg Boyd's blog. He has been wrestling with this issue in a number of entries over the past few months. I believe that he plans to write a book on the topic.

I've found most of Boyd's books to be very interesting and stimulating, even if I don't always agree with every jot and tittle.

Psycho asked:
Do you deny that the Old Testament has any relevance to modern Christianity?

As someone that has spent a lot of time in the old testament and really in love with the prophets, the old testament is valuable for principles but not for actual application of the law. Since we are not Israelites it makes no sense for us to follow the law of Moses. We either have to follow all of it or live by the words of Christ.

The old testament is good for a lot and it is the foundation of the living Christ. He grew from that tradition but the idea that we need to be as nationalistic and genocidal as ancient Israel is ridiculous. There are plenty of instances where God shows mercy to Israel's enemies ranging from Elijah's blinding of the Aramean army in 2Kings 6:18 to God saving Nineveh in Jonah.

God holds the same standards in mercy for nations as he does individuals. There is no separate standard as he makes clear in Amos and a host of other prophetic books.

p

The Bible is "Living Scriptures." Cursory readings will validate anything you want them to validate. Finding what you need to know the Mind of God is tougher.

I'm stunned that anyone can find in Christ or His teachings the justification for anything that takes life, unless maybe you cut the entire Sermon on the Mount from the gospel of Matthew.

It's mindless to fasten on one particular Scripture, like "Thou shalt not kill", and then limit its applications to a list of circumstances under which it does and doesn't apply.

What's the fun in reading posts on a blog based on commitment to Christian peace and justice, and then complain about those who live from that perspective? Peter -- you really use these blogs to condemn the entire Christian faith? Are the things you offer from your beliefs and commitments the kinds of things that are likely to strengthen holy qualities in anyone? And if you don't believe in the faith of God the trinity, why read what's said only to insult the posters?

And saying that one's posts don't get posted or get attention, it's because the handlers "can't handle the truth," speaks volumes about the writer's uncertainty and anger rather than conviction and strength.

Heck, nobody pays attention to what I post, and I'll probably keep doing it.

I'm among the sixteen percent who believe that torture could be justified in rare circumstances, and I believe that the "golden rule" does not rule out its use.

Please allow me to explain: Suppose you are a member of a terror cell with a weapon of mass destruction. Under extreme duress and pain, you reveal the location of the weapon. The weapon is captured, and your plan to kill thousands of innocents is thwarted.

Now, the pain was real and degrading -- which is why I can respect those who take a more absolutist position against torture, and why I believe the situations where it actually can be justified are quite rare. But there is a plus side to being tortured in this instance: the deaths of thousands of innocents are off of your head. A grievous evil (Can we agree that mass murder is worse than torture?) has been averted, an evil that you would otherwise be accountable for at the last judgment.

Now all this is assuming that one actually is a terrorist with useful information, and that torture will get one to talk. Unless both are true than the use of torture does neither you nor the interrogator any good. But this is more a practical objection than an ethical one -- the ticking time bomb scenario may not happen very often but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Which is why I say "rarely", not "always".

Taking the eternal view, I would have to say that if I were to fall in with a terror cell, it would be better for me if the cell were to fail than if it were to succeed, and the best thing that a Christian could do for me would be to discover and neutralize my plans. Even if it hurt.

LV

I don't claim to be a theologian, but I do strive to understand God's perspective. I just enjoy a little friendly banter with brothers and sisters in Christ!

Posted by: psychorrhagia | September 13, 2008 2:07 PM

Amen, sibling! Sorry if I come off harsh. As Don has pointed out, this is an imperfect medium.

My understanding from the Gospel of John is that Jesus came especially to reveal the heart of the Father. If the Father had been completely understood then there would be no need for Jesus to correct so many misconceptions when He was on earth.

Pastor Jeff