Without repeating the entire sermon here...the thesis is this: the use of torture in any form is incompatible with the clear teaching of the scriptures, and Christians can never countenance the use of torture in our name as a means toward the end of attaining national security.
I offered a bit of reflection on utilitarian ethics as contrasted with Biblical ethics, and used as an illustration Ursula Le Guin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas".
The question at stake: for a Christian, is national security, or even happiness, the appropriate prime value that ought to govern our national conduct - and can we justify any act as a means toward achieving this end?
If we do, we will be able to countenance the torture of both the potentially guilty and the innocent. The logical extreme of this moral calculation is exemplified in that story - where the happiness of an entire society depends on the suffering of one child; it is the same logic with which we justified the torture and death of Jesus.
Caiaphas's word exemplify this secular ethical philosophy all too well. He says, "You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation be destroyed." (John 11:50) Of course, these contain a uniquely double Johannine meaning - we know what Caiaphas is thinking, but he does not know that what he is saying is fulfilling the divine purpose.
How is it possible that we find so many evangelical white Christians taking the same position as Caiaphas?
I left out of the sermon the point that even from a utilitarian standpoint, torture may not stand up. There are many (most notable among them John McCain) who claim that torture does not produce the desired result of good intelligence that prevents harm to the majority. More often than not, this intelligence is unreliable. A point one could argue, but the argument of the sermon doesn't hinge on it. Torture is wrong even if it produces good results.
What do you think? Is there any justification based on scripture with which we might be able to say that torture is right?
And lastly, for those who wish to exercise their conscience in expressing their thoughts to our elected leaders, or to find some good additional material to reflect upon, I would direct them to the National Religious Coalition Against Torture (NRCAT). Would also welcome others to share links of useful information.
Let's see if we can't break the record in number of responses!
In Christ,
Jeff Vamos
Posts
10 comments:
I'll link the sermon in a comment here once Joan has uploaded it.
I agree with everything that you said on Sunday, and here.
But you do want a discussion, so I'll push the envelope a bit (apparently, it's what I'm good at).
In 1949 Justice Robert H. Jackson (of the US Supreme Court) wrote in a free speech case that the "Constitution is not a suicide pact". In other words, the existence of the country was more important than the civil liberties of all, at least temporarily under extreme circumstances.
I believe that this makes sense for the country, as the preservation of the institution is what is important. I don't believe that it holds up under the biblical standard, because we as Christians are clearly called (in extreme circumstances) to lay down our lives for God. There are many examples of such action - starting with Jesus and continuing with several disciples.
An interesting corollary to this discussion is the effort to hide the use of torture, and the idea of transparency and honesty in institutions. How well does our treatment of each other stand up for our ethics if we feel the need to hide it?
THANK YOU for your message on Sunday. I have difficulty putting my own feelings about torture into words, and your interpretation of the issue was spot-on for me. I could see the discomfort on the faces of some in the congregation, but I think that's a good thing, because it means they were really thinking hard about the issue.
I couldn't help but think of a quote from Ben Franklin: "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." How appropriate for this discussion, especially after Mark brought up the Jackson decision (regarding free speech). Perhaps even more relevant might be Jackson's assertion, in a separate case (concerning the introduction of hearsay evidence) "The most odious of all oppressions are those which mask as justice."
Getting back to Mark's parting question, how often are we (as a society) guilty of that very offense?
Aside from the question of the use of torture against our nation's supposed enemies, what about our treatment of our fellow citizens? How often do we see our brothers and sisters in tortuous situations, jobs, etc, yet we do nothing?
Hi Jeff and PCOL friends-
This is David Rowe, a Presbyterian pastor down the road (PCA). I hope to hear the sermon soon so that I can get the full context of the arguments and the exegetical discussion. Since this is a subject that deeply concerns me as a Christian, and because white evangelicals (of which I am one, though I don't find the word evangelical all that meaningful anymore, but that's another discussion!) were cited as the specific offenders, I thought I would give this a crack.This is a notoriously difficult subject, even for Christians.
While you don't mention Bentham in the body of your post, I am assuming that your assertion is that those (evangelicals) who say that torture "can often be justified" would say it on the basis of a utilitarian argument. I guess the argument would go something like this: "This is the war on terror. This is a global threat. We must do what we have to do, and the ends will hopefully justify the means."
This evangelical would say that "the ends never justify the means." The means you use, will color the ends produced. I've always thought that, this side of Shakespeare, the older film "All the Kings Men" is a good illustration of this. We have to remember that Lenin felt that the ends justified the means. So if one is going to employ the limited use of torture, one certainly should not use the justification that the ends justify the means!
Now before I make my argument, I do want to comment on the Pew study which I, too, heard about last week, and over which I grieved. First, I would say that choosing evangelicals as the boogey man here – the media has extracted them as the offender in their stories – may not be the best capture of the data. Notice that 18% of white evangelicals say that torture is often justified and 15% of the white mainline are right behind them saying exactly the same thing! White Catholics are even higher! It would have been interesting, too, to compare these numbers to what Jews or Muslims would say. But second, where did evangelicals get this utilitarian, situational ethic? Most in my circles would point to the influence of Joseph Fletcher, a mainline American Episcopal priest. His famous book was Situation Ethics. And in this book he said that in the past, ethics had always been ruled by a standard – a cultural acceptance of God – but that in our modern, complex world we can no longer live like that. Now we must live according to the situation because moral decisions and the circumstances that provoke them are unique and unrepeatable; therefore, it is impossible to apply universal laws or principles.
Now what's interesting with Fletcher's view is that he still needs some standard to determine what to do in a certain situation. So Fletcher decides that the only universal ethical norm is love. These are his words: "There is no rule but Love." A love hermeneutic (and this is ironic, because Fletcher's "love" is a rule, and not a situation!). And secondly Fletcher said that this situationally-defined love is that which promotes the personal best of the most people involved. It's here that Fletcher is in complete agreement with Caiaphas AND secular ethical philosophy. Situationally-defined love can easily lead to, "You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation be destroyed." (John 11:50)
Of course, what Fletcher did was replace the commandments of God with a new law, love. As a humorous aside, a Lutheran pastor once debated Fletcher and his situational ethic, and understood where Fletchers view logically ends up: As long as you act in love, you don't have to be bound by ANY principles. None. You can do what you want. So the pastor began the debate by saying to the audience in his opening statement, "Professor Fletcher loves every member of this audience and he thinks that it's in the best interest of everyone here to accept his viewpoint and he says in his books that it is perfectly okay to lie to people as long as you do it in love for a proper purpose. Therefore you don't have to believe a single word he says tonight. Just treat him with love and tell him you believe it." That debate was over before it began.
Evangelicals, though, have followed this because it is the ethic that has won the day, and they are swimming in the same secular ethic that Fletcher swam in as a priest who wanted cultural acceptance over following the word of God.
Before I make my argument, humor me on one more issue that I would like to see discussed: Why is it that there is this hue and cry over torture when utilitarianism is the same ethic employed to support human embryo research? "These are not humans – these embryos. They are little blobs of cells, and we need to make them, to destroy them, so that we can learn and (this IS a good result) curb the effects of the fall (they don't use that terminology, but I'm Christianizing it for the unbeliever here.)" The ends, in other words, justify the means! Or in the abortion debate? We constantly "love" the mother over the unborn. If torture is evil, so is abortion.
Okay, this is getting lengthy! Better move on. What I think you have presented here, Jeff, is an unqualified absolutism: "the thesis is this: the use of torture in any form is incompatible with the clear teaching of the scriptures, and Christians can never countenance the use of torture in our name as a means toward the end of attaining national security." The bible though, does have examples of situations where choices are less than absolute. Think of Rahab. Rahab lied to the soldiers who looked for the Jewish spies (lying is a clear violation of the 9th Commandment – do not bear false witness) and yet she is commended for her faith in the Book of Hebrews (not to mention that she was the mother of Boaz and ancestress of Jesus)!
The bible does, therefore, allow for a lesser-of-two evils in certain circumstances, like war. In other words, the idea of false witness is not a blanket abstract statement devoid of explanation. The Scriptures says all kinds of things about how to conduct Holy War. There are also circumstances in which a person does not have the right to require the truth of you. “How much money is in your bank account?” A sales person has no business asking this, because this situation is not the same as a court testimony. Someone calls your home and says “Is Jeff there?” “He is not available” is better than “No” if he really is there. But they do not have a right to demand that of you. It's like the stealing of the ball in basketball – if you cannot steal the ball, you cannot play basketball as a Christian or otherwise! And yet in the situation, we allow people to steal within those four lines of the court. Some laws have a temporal nature. I can't get too technical, but people often choose life over truth. Just last week, the police lied to the terrorists in Manhattan who wanted to blow up a synagogue, and no one to my knowledge said, "the use of lying in any form is incompatible with the clear teaching of the scriptures, and Christians can never countenance the use of lying in our name as a means toward the end of attaining national security." But lying is incompatible (perhaps more clearly than torture!) and Christians of all stripes allow it!
So here is what I would say. Torture is evil. Complete agreement! "Torture is wrong even if it produces good results." But I can imagine it being a lesser of evils under certain conditions. So we all say, "Look, we are the United States of America, and we have a history of being a principled people who observe basic human rights, unlike our enemies." But given the events of last week, it is not far-fetched to imagine that someone could say that they had planted a bomb in the PCOL during the time when the school/church was filled with little children. So would it be okay to progressively use "enhanced techniques" (the term the administration prefers) on the admitting terrorist to find the bomb and save the children? And what will be the distinction between "coercive interrogation" and "torture?" Both may be repugnant, but repugnance does not make them into the same thing. If coercion and torture are on a moral continuum, at what point on the continuum does queasiness turn to revulsion?
Now, I am called to love my neighbor! And I am called to love my enemies!! And torture, I am eager to say is wrong. It *will* always be evil. But how bad, relative to the certain destruction of those children? Is it in ALL CASES worse than not engaging in it at all?
I am aware that the Geneva Convention unqualifiedly condemns torture. The European Convention does likewise – it cites the right to life and the dignity of the human person. So one could NEVER SAY that we were doing a good thing when carrying it out. But I might be able to argue, under certain VERY LIMITED conditions, that it was acceptable to do it. Cultures do this often: we say it's bad to shoot a gun at a person with the potential to kill them, but if that limited condition is that the person you're shooting has broken into your home to assault you, it might be forgiven.
So is this the same as Fletcher's situation ethics? It's complicated, but no (for more on my view, read John Frame's "The Doctrine of The Christian Life"). We live in a fallen, sinful world. It's no longer this tree (good) vs that tree (bad). Unhappily, all the "trees" are affected by the fall. This is where evangelicals (I can only speak for them/me) are weak. They/we have a hard time admitting this. They really think they can be right all the time, and regard themselves as holy in any and all circumstances! Luther and Calvin were far more realistic: They said sometimes we have to make the best choice in a depraved and fallen world, and divine standard will crash into divine standard. The reason this is not situation ethics is that situation ethics has no absolutes or principles at all!
So, torture is evil and wrong. I think there is evidence that even the terrorists know this – they want to bring us down to their level! But there are times when it may be on the table to stop a greater evil from coming about (a la Rahab). In 99.9% of the cases, there are other ways to get the information and this should only be countenanced in the most extreme situations. (And by the way, I am not saying that our government has made that case with *any* of the three individuals that were tortured under the last administration).
Finally, I found the reference to John 11 fascinating. My inference about this is that (WITHOUT having heard the sermon!) that "Jesus was a torture victim; Caiaphas was a law professor" might not be too helpful. Caiaphas was not trying to save anyone, but rather he suggests that executing one man was legitimate to secure an advantage for the nation, forgetting Proverbs 17:15. Quite different. All this to say, we must pray for wisdom for our civil magistrates. They have a terribly tough job, sometimes having to choose between evils. We should also pray that more, solid Christians would consider public service as a vocation.
David
Good stuff, all! I like the nuancing of the arguments by bringing in other legal issues, Mark - and Ben Franklin's wisdom, Miss S&S!
David, you have a keen mind and willing fingers, I must say - and you have laid before us all much of the subtlety that must be brought to bear - more than can be borne in a sermon (at least in the tradition at PCOL!)
Just to respond in summary to some of the comments, especially yours, David. I think it's helpful to point out the danger of holding forth moral absolutes in a fallen world. Christian ethics has focused on the idea that we often do need to weigh one evil against another in making a truly moral decision. Just war theory is such an example.
Perhaps the best way to defend the position I took in the sermon would be to distinguish between principles and absolutes. The principle held forth in our national policy - that it's OK to torture people if it gains us our security - is a principle that violates a core ethic of the Christian tradition. It is saying that the ends justify the means. David, we seem to be in rabid agreement on this point - that such ends/means argument violate the core of the gospel.
But that said, in elevating and clarifying this core principle - with attendant implications about how tending to the rights of the minority, as in the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc. is primary in the gospel's teaching - we do need to allow for the fact it there is some danger in creating a moral absolutes that in certain situations would not be appropriate or "right."
That said, even if you let a bit of a utilitarian argument creep in under that caveat (a terrorist bomb under our preschool, and a terrorist with the code in custody), much of what I've read and heard indicates that such hollywood scenarios really never materialize in the real world, and there's much evidence that supports the notion that the intel gained from such techniques is questionable. It's wrong on both counts - arguably....
Lastly - I hear you in your pain about fellow Christians (evangelicals) being painted with this brush, and that we need to nuance that, and not "beat up" on them. I said in my sermon that evangelical (tho its definition is indeed in dispute) is certainly a label I'd like to apply to myself...but some would argue whether I merit it!
But, to sum up, I think it's all about the principles that leaders and people hold forth to represent our communal ethic and values. Caiaphas, like those religio-politicians before and after, have very difficult jobs, especially when this position (whatever it takes to keep the nation safe!) plays well in Peoria - and certainly in Baghdad. But skilled leaders are also able to appeal to the better angel of our natures in claiming a higher ethic for public life.
Let's keep the discussion going!
This sermon really hit home for me as well. That Miss Sew and Sow is a smart woman :-).
I really appreciate being encouraged to look at an issue that is in the news so much from a biblical perspective.
I wanted to mention something that is perhaps a tangent. Before Jeff ever mentioned torture in the sermon, he told the story of Omelas. I admit that my first thought in relation to the story wasn't about torture -- it was about the people (mostly immigrants, legal and not) who toil in chicken processing plants, factories and similar places in awful conditions for little pay so that we can enjoy our middle class and upper class lifestyles at what is really minimal cost.
It seems to me that the way people who toil in places like that are treated -- and the way we react, or don't, to it -- reflects on us in a way that's not totally different from the way torture does.
Just a thought.
Amen, Michael!
Post a Comment