Is Torture a Sin? Or, "Who Would Jesus Torture?"

As we approach Easter Sunday, we commemorate and celebrate the resurrection of Christ. However, Easter Sunday only comes after we solemnly observe Good Friday, the day when Christ was tortured and executed at the hands of sinful humanity. At the beginning of this Holy Week, I am thinking about the current conversation that is happening in our culture about the Bush administration and the use of torture as a means of getting information for our "security." I am also thinking about our entertainment - how a highly rated show like "24" stirs the blood as it asks what is justifiable treatment of "enemies" so that a community might be made secure?

Thoughtful Christians have been dialoging about issues related to life and the last election, particularly abortion. Most Christians I know are incredibly concerned about what impact the Obama administration will have on the reality of abortion in our country. Or if not incredibly concerned, then at least aware and paying attention (and wondering what they might do). And this is as it should be. As followers of the God who gives life, this conversation is more than important.

However, life is more than what happens in the womb, though it is certainly that, too. Can Christians ever justify torturing someone made in the image of God, especially when the one we worship as God refused to defend himself or countenance violence for his own security? As the justice department continues to investigate the way in which the last administration circumvented the law to extract information, I am wondering about whether Christians will eventually express the same kind of outrage that is normative in discussion about abortion. If not, why not? And make no mistake, the United States tortured. A recently leaked report from the Red Cross is clear about that.

Part of what prompts this is an article I read this morning by Steve Waldman, the editor-in-chief of beliefnet. The article is titled, "Why Didn't Ashcroft - the Christian - Stop The Torture?" Please take some time to read Waldman's article. Then, if you are inclined, please share how you believe Christians should be responding to this. Did Ashcroft, as the Attorney-General and also a devout Christian, have a responsibility to protest this administration's policies in the same way that he has been committed to the advocating for life for unborn fetuses?

Please do not misunderstand me here: I am not setting abortion against torture or vice-versa. I am proposing that both are issues that Christ-followers should be aware of and concerned about and even engaged with as an outflow of discipleship. What that looks like is uncertain, and I am not here to propose something at this time. I am inviting discussion about a discrepancy. Thoughtful and active Christians are rightly concerned about Obama administration policy related to the abortion of fetuses. Are thoughtful and active Christians also equally concerned about Bush administration policy related to the torture of living human beings?

I expect, as always, civil conversation and dialogue on this issue. I will be an equal opportunity deleter of comments that I deem to be out-of-bounds in spirit or content.

Comments

[jud]

Is it Idolatrous to assume that God is a one dimensional hippie?

Yes, He is a God of Love but the scriptures make it very clear that God is much more than we like to carve Him up to be. Ananias and Sephirah come to mind from the New Testament. He snuffed them out for their deceit. The Old Testament is loaded with representations of Him wiping out towns for heatheness and ordering the people of Israel to slaughter an entire people group and destroy their livestock and belongings. What about Revelation? His Son isn't coming back as a soft spoken philosopher... He's coming back as a warrior.

This isn't an argument in favor of torture, though I think it's much more dimensional than it has been presented from both sides. Also, I think it's not reasonable to consider this nation a "Christian" nation in any sense. We might be the most idolatrous people to have lived on the planet, and that bleeds into the church to be certain.

I also don't believe you can compare the torture of a few people caught training in terrorist camps, done with the intention of sparing countless lives from terrorist acts, to the brutal infanticide of 50 million innocent lives.

No country in human history has come close to what the Left in America has wrought on the womb in just the last 40 years.

Well, thats my two coppers.

[suhr]

Tim,

I'll see abortion and torture and raise you the death penalty. It seems to me that any discussion of what it means to value life (and more, to value it in the way that Christ did) must include not only the issues where we "feel" the injustice involved, but also all instances in which it is not so easy to follow Christ's example.

Abortion is an awful reality that is most often symptomatic of a deeper societal illness, and I doubt that you'll find much disagreement with that sentiment on the political Left or the Right. But it is much easier morally to defend the position of the unborn than it is to defend the rights of a convicted murderer on death row or an alleged terrorist at Abu Ghraib; and yet, I think an intellectually honest and Christlike position on all of these issues must err on the side of life, as difficult and unpalatable as that position may be. Life is life, whether in the form of an unborn child, an angry Iraqi teen with a bomb, or a hardened convict. When we say "choose life," we should mean it in every sense of the word.

[vanessa p]

My overall thoughts: Empathy, compassion and love

For unborn children, absolutely. But also, just as importantly for the women who have made this choice and then must continue to live. For the prisoner who is tortured, but also for the soldier whose orders are to perform the act. For the person about to die for the cruel things he or she did, but also for the prison guard witness to the execution. Isn't our job as Christians (and therefore John Ashcroft's, too) to empathize, to have compassion, to put ourselves in the shoes of other people, and then do what we can to live Christ's way instead of of the world's way? To love people who have made bad choices, whatever they may be? I know I need that kind of love...

[Adam]

How about the question of punishment? Do humans have the right to punish other humans when they do something wrong? What is the difference between righting a wrong and punishing the wrong-doer?

I really do believe that our legal system is less about fixing things that are broken and more about vengeance on the breaker.

[Gerard]

This is a fascinating complex issue, at least when we view it from a "secular" perspective. As followers of Christ I believe we are called to be witnesses to the new reality that has been revealed by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And that life was one that refused the power of violence to overcome the systemic power of evil.

As one who tries to take seriously the teachings of Jesus, I cannot ignore words like: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," "Turn the other cheek," and, "Blessed are the peace-makers." For this reason, I try in every which way to live a non-violent life (easier said than done, I must confess). I believe to do this I must protest my government's use of force as a way to make peace--a strategy which paradoxically says whoever is the most violent can live in peace--and urge my government to cease the use of violence no matter what. Yes, no matter what.

This last phrase is ridiculous when approached from a non-Christian perspective. That's what makes it so difficult to be a Christian in a government office because it will ultimately make a Christian lousy at things like "stopping" terrorism and "protecting" the country and ultimately doing their civic job. It is no doubt in my mind that Ashcroft (implicitly) decided to ignore God and honor his country when it should have been the other way around. Ashcroft had just as much of a responsibility to protest the war and the use of torture as he did in advocating for the unborn life. While I am not in the position of Attorney General, I pray that I do not take that responsibility lightly in my life as a follower of Christ.

[Leesa T]

Is the consequence of sin torture enough?
God has set a time for judgment... and eternal life or death... Jesus Christ himself bore our life sentence in his own body.
Humans are in a hurry... for justice... for vindication for everything.
Maybe we should pipe down...and listen.
God is probably speaking for Himself...
And it probably doesn't sound like the majority of people who are speaking on His behalf.

[Andrew]

Good post, Tim. I think the crux of what you were getting at is this:

"Are thoughtful and active Christians also equally concerned about Bush administration policy related to the torture of living human beings?"

As you mentioned, that the Bush Administration suspended the Rule of Law and authorized torture, as well as illegal detainment, is now well-established fact. I think it needs mentioning that some of the detainees were captured and held illegally, because it helps us to acknowledge that not all of them were/are terrorists. Some of the men who were captured, tortured, and killed by our government were innocent men who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And yet, we group them all together as "terrorists", which allows Americans to feel better about detaining and torturing them. It is amazing how the label "terrorist" has now enabled us to dehumanize them. But whether the detainees are terrorists or not, they still remain, as you said, living human beings.

As a nation, we have been wrapped up in a story of vengeance for the past several years. But as Christians, do we believe God desires vengeance? If so, how do we reconcile that with a belief in a God that also desires love and wholeness? Does an understanding of God as vengeful inform our view of "the other" as worthy of destruction? Can we reconcile an understanding of God as LOVE with a view of "the other" as worthy of destruction? Can we rightfully destroy a being who was created in the image of God?

So the short answer to your question above is: YES! There are those of us who, motivated by our faith in Christ, would like to know what our government has been up to these last eight years and then deal appropriately with the persons responsible for any illegal actions, in accordance with our Constitution and our laws, so that we can move beyond torture and closer toward Christ's call to love our enemies.

[Don]

Torture is a gruesome thing and should not be done without proper cause. The CIA's or their counterparts of the world aren't fully discussing their actions in regards to torture. America isn't a Christian nation anymore. We Christians are to be about the Father's work, which is the harvest. Discipling and teaching the sheep should be our focus. Praying for our leaders is something that we are suppose to do. However, polictical ranting over actions that were done for our protection, even if flawed, isn't the best use of our corporate time.

[T]

In a business law class at a Christian university, I would often raise ethical issues like this and others from the angle of "whatever you do, do it in the name of the Lord Jesus" or even from the standpoint of whether God feels entitled to be obeyed by gov't officials even in their official capacity. Either of those angles makes torture very difficult to justify.

Fantastic question. Who indeed would Jesus torture and why?

One fundamental I don't see enough of in these conversations among Christians about how to deal with people who threaten others with physical harm is what it really means to trust the resurrection of the dead and how that translates into Jesus' command to not fear those who can only kill the body. Many in the church, and rightly so, get very concerned when some begin question Jesus' physical resurrection. But where is the deep trust of the resurrection when it comes to not fearing those who can only kill the body? Where is this central doctrine when the rubber meets the road? Conservatives need to start putting their money where their mouth is on the resurrection, and that can only happen in these physical threat issues, not in doctrinal debates. The reason, in very significant part, that Jesus did not and would not torture (even when facing torture) is that he refuses to fear those who can only kill the body, nor would he recommend that path to anyone. He trusted and now is living in the resurrection of the dead. If we trusted it, where would torture fit in? Why would we ever advise it?

[billy v]

It seems Obama and Ashcroft are more similar than most would like to admit. Both have initiated policy that seemingly has gone against their Christian priniciples (as defined by others; Obama on abortion, Ashcroft on torture). Never thought you'd find common ground between those two, huh?

[thoughtful]

I just want to make a quick comment. I do not live in KC and am not a member of Jacob's Well, but many of my friends are. While I know this is not a "church" website, it treads dangerously close to a religious group/church being involved in political endorsements. Tim's blog was clearly negatively referencing the "Bush Administration" and though he posed a question regarding the current administration, the tone was not nearly as prosecutorial.

As someone involved in the judicial system, I think too many people who have commented are quick to judge and seem "righteous" regarding humans' authority to punish. I am not advocating torture, nor am I condoning it, but it is a reality in the world in which we live. To try and equate the punishment or torture of potential terrorists to the the killing of unborn children is ludicrous. They are entirely different issues. An unborn baby has made no choices, has not been given a chance. The same cannot be said for those being punished.

To be a Christian as an individual is much simpler than asking a government to do the same. If everyone abided by Christian morals, there would be no need for the death penalty, detainment, or any kind of punishment. But we don't. People kill, torture, and plan terrorist attacks. Government officials take an oath to protect this country. It is their responsibility to reconcile those jobs with their personal beliefs.

This is an important debate, but it is too easy to sound holier-than-thou and judge people who have made decisions defending our country. Let us debate the issues and not judge the person.

[Katie]

I'm late to this discussion, but here's my $0.02.

I've thought a lot about self-defense, in the past as a young woman commuting alone, and now as a mother charged with protecting two little ones. I've given serious, specific thought to what I will do, if I am ever in a situation that is dangerous to me or my children, or to any other innocents nearby. And I don't see any contradiction between protecting the innocent from irreparable harm and Jesus' command to turn the other cheek.

Terrorists are made in the image of God, just like the rest of us sinners, and to cause pain to one of God's children is a terrible thing, a sin. But to stand aside and allow a terrorist to murder hundreds or thousands of people is a sin as well. The thing that sucks about the real world is that sometimes there is no right answer, there is no good choice. There are only shades of darkness, and faith that somehow God is going to redeem all the brokenness. I think Ashcroft did the right thing, choosing the sin of complicity with torture of a few evil men over the sin of abdicating his responsibility to protect Americans. I'm reminded of my dad, who helped put a few people on death row during his time as an assistant D.A. One of those men was executed recently, and my dad believes that although the blood of that man is on his hands, that God forgives him, and that the sacrifice was worth it to protect those who would have been victims.

Tim, you asked "Did Ashcroft, as the Attorney-General and also a devout Christian, have a responsibility to protest this administration's policies in the same way that he has been committed to the advocating for life for unborn fetuses?" My answer is no, not in the same way. His responsibility, and ours, towards the lives of men who plan for years to kill as many Americans at one time as they can, is not the same as his and our responsibility towards the lives of unborn children.

@ T: I'm intrigued by your comments about the resurrection of the body. I do trust in the resurrection, and on my better days, I don't fear death (not too much anyway). But that doesn't mean that this life in my body now is worthless, or that it should never be protected. Also, I don't think I agree that Jesus' attitude towards his own life at the crucifixion is the one we should all adopt towards our (physical) lives. He was there specifically to be a sacrifice, to die, that's why He didn't resist. But I am a *living* sacrifice, offering up my life daily to God. If He calls me home, so be it, and glory. But the greater challenge is to keep living the way He wants me to. I think He wants us to prevent our own deaths, and mass murder, when in good conscience we can. The good conscience is the key, right? If I have to knife a would-be rapist, or torture a terrorist, I can do that with a good conscience.

[Brett]

Lately, I've really been grappling with Romans 13 and these sort of issues. I think it may be too simplistic to say that Jesus wouldn't bring pain into a sinners life in order to protect other sinners and innocents. The reference concerning Ananias and Sephirah should give us pause. These two were struck down to protect the early church and no one seems to apologize for God's effort.

You might say, "Well, that's God's prerogative," but Romans 13 says " he (the government official) is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."

I don't know many who are pacifist who frame this verse for their office.

John Ashcroft might have. He might should have...

Some Christ-followers want to acknowledge the need for judges, jailors, and government protectors who may use force or violence. They just don't think Christians should be a part of such things...

Doesn't this reek of moral cowardice?

In effect, let's leave the hard moral choices to those who don't follow Christ. Let's force them to stop terrorist from killing thousands of innocents in LA. Let's hand over the justice system to the pagans so that they can live with the hard choices of sending a murderer to jail or risking the life of an innocent by offering him mercy and freedom. In this way we can be protected from violence and the innocents can sleep in peace without Christians having to get their hands messy in the hard work of governance and democracy.

Are we to hold the position that only non-believers are to be "God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer?"

This isn't about vengeance, it's about justice; not a justice that any individual Christian would demand for himself, but a corporate justice that God surely does desire and is necessary for an ordered society. In a democracy, we the people, are responsible for seeking such justice on God's behalf in a whole range of situations. From the small child who is bullied to the woman who is raped, Christ surely calls us to defend the rights and dignity of the unempowered.

I don't think it is ethical for Christians to abdicate that responsibility and expect God to only use non-believers to keep order and peace in the world.

I would have hated for God to have put me in the position of having to choose between waterboarding Khalid Mohammed or allowing him to carry out his plan to kill 10,000s of innocents, Christians and, more painfully, non-Christ followers in LA. Maybe there was a third way that wouldn't have required violence to stop this violence. Those in positions of leadership didn't seem to see it.

[Chad]

"The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

I read this headline tonight and thought about the findings in a recent study/book:

http://www.unchristian.com/book.asp

Concerned?

[TJ]

Tim, thanks for opening up this discussion.

(Not all of my comments are directed to you, but some to those who have responded.)

Christians who want to lump these issues all together and argue the morality of the death penalty, or of a nation taking up arms, are rarely consistent in their thinking.

Does a society have the right to use force to defend itself against predators within (the death penalty) or without (the military)?

I think the Bible would support the notion that it does.

Those who disagree should be prepared to argue that policemen have no right to use deadly force to protect the community as well.

When John the Baptist was asked by Roman soldiers 'what should we do?' , his answer was not 'you shouldn't be a soldier'.

Neither did Christ rebuke the military men with whom He interacted, instead He commended one for having great faith.

The simplistic 'life is life' and 'the death penalty is as evil as abortion' arguments just don't wash. At least not if you take the Bible seriously.

Jesus made a whip of cords and drove men from the Temple. Was that torture?

The Red Cross report cited: "uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning"

Aside from having ample reason to doubt the veracity of terrorist detainees giving 'their side' to the RC, I don't think most of these things rise to the level of 'torture' in the sense that most Americans use it.

Sleep deprivation? Really? And for how long?

Extreme temperatures? Really? How extreme?

Waterboarding/simulated drowning? Yes, I know that Teddy Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) has spoken out against this, but some of our own intelligence and military personnell have experienced waterboarding as part of their training. I don't think any permanent damage is done by this technique. Sure it's scary. It's supposed to be.

Were there some mistakes and poor judgement used during the prosecution of the war in Iraq? Undoubtedly.

This happens in all wars. Or in any other circumstance where you get two or more humans together.

But let's have a sense of proportion, balance and context here. Please.

Cutesy phrases like 'Who would Jesus Torture?' do little to advance serious dialogue, but instead promote one-dimensional arguments on things like whether Jesus would've been a soldier in the US military.

It misses the point entirely.

I know you issued the disclaimer:

"Please do not misunderstand me here: I am not setting abortion against torture or vice-versa."

But you really are.

[Natasha]

out of all the things i read in tims post and the comments...this quote is the only one my heart can really feel at peace about

"The thing that sucks about the real world is that sometimes there is no right answer, there is no good choice. There are only shades of darkness, and faith that somehow God is going to redeem all the brokenness."

these discussions can go on for days...but really when you boil it down... this is it to me... GOD is the redeemer... and i will never be 100% sure about anything other than this...the other issues... i have to take with humility, grace and pray for discernment through His spirit.

that's my little bit... its thought provoking and something that humanity needs to dialogue about but we need to give each other grace in the process.

[TJ]

Natasha,

Scripturally, I simply cannot accept that there is 'no right answer, no good choice'.

I believe God's promise that He has a right path for each person to follow.

[abmo]

"Who Would Jesus Torture?

"People who spam" is my answer :)