New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
 
Opinion: A Christian's lament over the Pew torture poll Print E-mail
By David Gushee   
Tuesday, May 05, 2009

(ABP) -- Dear Jesus,

Everyone seems to be talking about the poll put out last week by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. They found that 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants believe “the use of torture against suspected terrorists to gain important information” to be often or sometimes justified. Only 16 percent of this group -- a community that by self-definition is very, very serious about following you -- believes torture is never justified. That number was lower than any other group polled.

I think that what really got people’s attention with this poll, Lord, is that both evangelical identity and church attendance were positively correlated with support for torture. Thirteen percent more evangelicals said torture was often or sometimes justified than in the general population. In other words: The more often people go to church, the more they support torture. So those of your followers who go to church every week support torture at 54 percent, while those who seldom or never go support it at 42 percent.

These results have bounced around the country all week, reinforcing the opinion here that Christianity -- the faith that purports to be related to loyalty to you, Jesus -- leads people to support torture. It would be easy for casual news-watchers to conclude that if you want to end torture in this country, the best thing to do would be to empty out the churches. What a negation of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20)! We could call it the Great De-Commissioning!

But, Jesus, can it be that the problem is that the churches are already empty? Can it be that the institution that you founded to advance your mission in the world is already empty of any understanding of what it might really mean to follow you? Is it already empty of people who take your teachings and example so seriously that they might have the capacity to resist seductive and dangerous ideas floating around our culture -- like the idea that if torture “works” to “protect national security,” and thus is something that followers of Jesus Christ ought to support as good loyal Americans?

Is your church already empty of courageous leaders who are willing to lose their jobs in order to say a resounding NO to a heretical idea like that? Is it already empty of people who understand that if you are a Christian, you cannot serve two masters, like, for example, Jesus and National Security? Is it already empty of people who understand that because all human beings are made in your image, there are some things that we just can’t do to anyone, no matter who they are?

What is this thing called “Christianity” in this country, Lord Jesus? Does it have anything to do with you? It seems a strangely Americanized thing, a disastrously domesticated faith toward which people can nod their heads in loyalty as long as it doesn’t conflict with their full participation in whatever this country feels like it wants to do.

You founded an international, countercultural movement filled with followers who did everything you taught them to do to advance the peaceable and just reign of your Father in this rebellious world. We American Christians have turned it into a culture-religion that has nothing to say even about, say, waterboarding, slamming people repeatedly into walls, forced nudity, prolonged shackling, 11 days of sleep deprivation, psychological terror, sexual humiliation, religious desecration, and so much more! Or that even supports all of this to protect ... America!

O Jesus, what have you to do with a religion like this? “I spit you out of my mouth” -- these words of yours somehow come to mind (Rev. 3:16)!

Lord, you taught us much about resisting temptation. You talked about not giving the Devil a space in which to operate, and about cutting off the sources of temptation at the root (Mark 10:43-48). It seems like on this torture issue, Jesus, our nation got tempted by its fear and anger and grief to go down a road we had repudiated since our founding! When what we were doing first surfaced (Abu Ghraib, 2004), we all purported to be shocked, shocked. Now at least half of your people say it’s fine to do worse than what we did there! Where’s your Holy Spirit, leading us into righteousness and convicting us of our sins? Or, better, where is the responsiveness of your people to your Holy Spirit, the One who speaks truth to your people if we will but listen?

O Lord, you know that some of us have been fighting this torture thing for several years. We thought that America would come to its senses eventually. We thought that a transition to an anti-torture president would make a difference. Well, the policies may be changing right now, but support for torture among even your own self-identified followers remains sufficiently strong that it looks like, under a different president, we would go right back to doing it, and Christians would go right back to supporting it or just remaining acquiescent! The more torture memos that get released, the more we argue about whether torture is okay! Can nothing end this cancerous debate?

Jesus, this doesn’t look like a problem that can be solved through garden-variety activism. Another press conference, another media alert, another academic meeting, another document or article -- none of this seems to make any difference.

Lord, it seems that the problem runs deeper than what such activism can solve. Clearly, your church in this land has been deeply corrupted. I’m still trying to figure out all the sources of that corruption, but it looks like some combination of an inadequate understanding of what the Bible really teaches, an inadequate grasp of who you really are, an inadequate commitment to your Lordship over all of life and thus our obligation to follow your teachings in all things, inadequate disciple-formation processes in our churches, inadequate leadership from the pulpit, inadequate social ethics (especially the lack of any firm commitment to human dignity and human rights), and inadequate understanding of the distinction between the church and the nation. I’m sure there’s more.

There are times when a church so badly misunderstands what it means to be church that it must be repudiated as fundamentally ungodly, fundamentally a negation of true Christianity. This has sometimes been called a status confessionis moment -- a situation where the basic integrity of the gospel and the core witness of the church are at stake. Jesus, I believe this is one such moment.

Any church -- congregation, parachurch organization, denomination, or group of individual Christians -- that supports torture has violated its confessed allegiance to you and can no longer be considered part of your true church. Let them be anathema.

Jesus, I pray with all my heart for the survival of a remnant of faithful Christianity in this country. It goes far beyond torture. It has to do with whether we are really your people or are liars and hypocrites, just deluding ourselves on the way to Judgment Day.

-30-

David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University. 

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (26)Add Comment
Hardly a new problem
written by JeffF, May 05, 2009
I'm sure most U.S. Christians at the time thought it was fine to remove Japanese Americans from their homes, jobs and family and place them in internment camps for the duration of world war II. Many had nothing upon their release because their land had been appropriated by others. Was that torture?
What do you think most Christians at the time thought about the forcible removal and relocation of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans in the 19th century? Forcing the Cherokees on the trail of tears and relocating the Apaches from AZ to some swampland in Florida- was that torture? Both of these issues were justified at the time in the name of fear and security.
I'm not saying that David is wrong but rather my response I suppose is do you really believe this is new? As American Christians we must be vigilant against injustice to others in times of insecurity - a time when we seem to be most susceptible. We have struggled with it before, it would seem we have stumbled upon it again.
...
written by SoulPilgrim, May 05, 2009



David,

Why should Christian evangelicals NOT support torture? Do they not believe that a sadistic God had his son Jesus tortured to death in public to redeem the world? The doctrine of blood redemption, so beloved by evangelicals, sends a message that state terrorism in general, and torture in particular, can be redemptive.
If torturing Jesus to death can redeem the world, why should not evangelicals believe that the state torturing Muslims can redeem them as well?
The problem is the doctrine of blood redemption, or blood atonement. It makes God into a psychopath who uses torture to redeem, and in so doing promotes the sadism on the part of God as the standard by which all other behavior is to be measured.
Evangelicals have accepted a brutal lie, one that has to some extent the ability to traumatize, and therefore the ability to create a trauma bond between believers. That bond, based on the belief that cruelty can redeem, is used to promote torture, war and exploitation.
A new Christianity must overcome the morbid fascination with the manner and meaning of Jesus' death and focus on his life and teachings. In doing away with the patriarchal idea of blood atonement, it will become once again a minority religion for the first time since Constantine, but one that promotes life against the death of the state.

SoulPilgrim

Response
written by Dr. J, May 05, 2009
Gushee's article is rubbish. First, the US did no soft body tissue damage to anyone. There was no torture. Yes, most of us support dunking murderous terrorists or making them spend some sleepless nights if it protects our families.
SoulPilgrim your comment is also rubbish. I am sorry I wasted good time reading it.
Gushee's at it again
written by tenor1, May 05, 2009
Rubbish is right. Rather than place the torture thing in the context of the now dimly remembered post 9/11 world, let's make it personal. Suppose, David, your teen-age daughter (if you have one) has been kidnapped and is being repeated raped, brutalized, and is about to be murdered by a gang of thugs. Yet, you have managed to capture and bind one of them who knows where they have taken her. He refuses to tell, and sits there bound head and foot with a sneering smile. You have only 30 minutes or your daughter will be dead. How would you force this man to tell you? Would you force this man to tell you? Now suppose you have several thousand or million daughters. Real decisions had to be made, and I honor those decisions.
Father, forgive us. World, forgive us. Christ, transform us. Spirit, guide us.
written by Karl Kroger, May 06, 2009
Dr. Gushee,
Thank you so much for your public witness of following the crucified and risen Lord. What we have done under the banner of supposed American and Christian values is sickening. I think you are accurate in saying that the church has been corrupted. In addition to what you suggested as the sources of the corruption, I think Soul Pilgrim might be onto something with his critique concerning how we view the death of Christ. I believe in atonement and I believe that Christ had something to do with it, but if we believe that God orchestrated the death of Christ to enable God's ability to forgive humanity, then we are likely to believe that God also orchestrated the mass killings of people in the Old Testament and that God's grace is limited by retributive justice. If this is our image of God, then we will also act to purge evil from the land at any cost and we will give up radical love of neighbor when our security is threatened. The problem of Christian support of torture is grounded in theology and hermeneutics.

P.S. I just finished up a course at Candler with Dr. Jenny McBride. I believe she is working on getting her dissertation into book format. I think it's called Confession and Repentance: A Theology of Public Witness. This semester we studied Barth, Bonhoeffer, King, Huntsinger, and others. I think you are right that we are at a "status confessionis" moment.

P.S.S. Have you heard about the new Patriot's Bible yet?

Peace,
Karl Kroger
(Candler School of Theology Student)

Comment
written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , May 06, 2009
P.S.S.S. (If there is such a thing) The problem isn't the blood, but how we interpret the blood.
...
written by Broadman, May 06, 2009
Is'nt hell torture?

Just wondering.
Response to Karl
written by Dr. J, May 06, 2009
Hi Karl:
I disagree with your assessment of torture. Whenever I read articles similar to Gushee's and your comments, I always wonder- Where is your outrage of the torture and murder of millions of unborn babies? Since you seem to have no outrage, then I surmise you are simply a Bush hater. Otherwise, how can you justify condemnation of those who believe aggressive interrogations are necessary yet those who advocate abortions are not held to similar standards?
By the way, Gushee's article- prayer- strikes my as very similar to a pharisee's prayer. "Oh Lord, I am so much more enlightened than those uneducated, conservative, ignorant peons who attend church but are unable to assimilate the real truth of the Gospel". Disgusting elitism plain and simple.
Response to Dr. J
written by MarkD, May 06, 2009
Hi Doc,

I take exception with the position you hold on this issue. Karl and by extension, Gushee seem to be taking a more literal approach to the application of Christian ethics. In this post 9/11/01 world it seems to be easier and easier for Christian's to justify compromise in the principles the Master so ardently stood and died for. The suffering of Christ, was in fact torture, to address the concerns of a previous respondee. It was plain and simple torture; not imposed by God, the Father, but by us the creation. Time and again humankind, left to their own devices has proven we are incapable of making the ethically appropriate choice(s). For Karl to address the wickedness of this set of choices is in no way an endorsement of abortion or any other sinful action. It seems to this observer you are the short-sighted elitist in this situation.
response to MarkD
written by Dr. J, May 06, 2009
Hi MarkD:
I hope to not be elitist or short-sighted. I just don't see the comparison of Jesus' suffering and torture to dunking murderers' heads in water or making terrorists miss a few nights sleep. So, I respectfully disagree with your premise. I agree that humankind, me included, often make the wrong choices. To me, aggressive interrogation is not wicked. It is sensible. By the way, thank you for your respectful dialogue.
Well said, Dr. Gushee
written by Common Loon, May 06, 2009
I agree with MarkD. Christians cannot ultimately serve both God and Country. The question of torture is prime example of these competing loyalties. Our first allegiance must always be to a Kingdom not of this world.

Which is exactly the problem with the culture wars: Everyone gets categorized into two flawed packages of worldly political divisions (left vs. right) and we assume that the "other" side cannot possibly have it right on anything. We've confused Christian ethics with partisan ethics.

Then we proceed to deflect every criticism along the lines of "Well, the other side clearly has it wrong on (abortion, torture etc.) so why should we listen to what they have to say about (abortion, torture etc.)?"

Has anyone considered the possibility that both torture and abortion are wrong on largely the same grounds (inherent dignity of human life created in God's image)?

Cue responses from conservatives defending the practice of torture and liberals defending the practice of abortion...
Consistent Life Ethic
written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , May 06, 2009
Broadman, your question about hell is a good one. Many Christians struggle with the idea that God would create a place for eternal torment and condemnation. If there is a hell, I suspect it's more of our own doing and hopefully temporary.

Dr. J and others who are concerned about the millions of babies aborted. Dr. Gushee and many others advocate what is know as the "Consistent Life Ethic" or the "Consistent Ethic of Life." You can read more about this concept of valuing life as sacred from the womb to the tomb in this speech given by Gushee in 2000

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/032/The Consistent Ethic of Life By David Gushee_032_3_.htm

Also I don't think Gushee is out to demonize the Bush administration. If anything he is calling out everyone responsible for the torture that has occurred. His harshest criticism of the Church. Thus he is repentant and calling others to repentance.

Christ calls us to love our neighbor. To love our friends or family at the expense of harming our enemies is not in keeping with Christ's commandment for all persons are our neighbor. Furthermore, when we use torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques against terrorists (the least of these) we do so to Christ.
...
written by jim2703, May 07, 2009
Response to Dr. J,

Would you defend the Japanese intelligence officials who waterboarded American airmen who were bombing civilians in Japanese cities. They were tried by us and some of them were executed for the crime of torture. At that time we certainly did not see the procedure as dunking heads in water. There is no way to get around the fact that our government broke our laws against torture.

Above all, as Christians we need to be mindful of Jesus' words, "as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it unto me."
...
written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , May 07, 2009
David,

Whether or not I agree with your definition of torture and its use is one issue that other comments have chosen to address. I wish to take issue with you on another subject. To say that someone that disagrees with you should be "anathema" is about as loving as fundamentalists who want to say you are going to hell if you do not accept the virgin birth, use the KJV or that the homosexual community is all bound for eternal damnation. Lets work out our theology and ethics with fear and trembling without condemning those with another view to be cut off from fellowship with their God. Maybe you need to add a P.S. to your open letter to Jesus asking forgiveness for your dogmatgism.
torture acquisence and "suffering for righteousness' sake" - NOT!
written by jpcarson, May 07, 2009
Dear Dave,

You have to have a tough skin, to deal with some of these comments in any kind of productive way - ignoring them is probably best.

Is not a reluctance to "suffer for righteousness' sake" correlated to supporting torture - since its purpose appears to be to reduce the chance that one might have to "suffer for righteousness' sake"?

I can think of a way to empty many churches - give a sermon series on "suffering for righteousness' sake" with first, person, contemoorary examples in our institutionalized, interconnected, society.

While Jesus advocated giving money/giving time/giving effort in works of mercy anonymously, there is no such limitation of "suffering for righteousness' sake" - I suggest it should be done more openly, as a public witness against frequently institutional malfeasance - Paul's epistles do not much gloss his suffering.

Your book on ethics does not much address "suffering for righteousness' sake" in contemporary society. The existence of moral and natural evil is an obstacle to belief by many. Part of the response to it is "suffering for righteousness' sake," openly, as a witness as well as protagonist - Christ was not only a witness, he was a protagonist, he expects same of us. But, in modern culture, to American evangelicals, that suffering would mostly involved risk to economic well-being in their vocations - and that is a topic "off the table" in church.

So here we are, again, Dave. The failure of any church, para-church, Christian leader, to openly criticize the established, final, repeated, record of lawbreaking by my employer against me for doing my positive professional duty by putting public health and safety before my economic well-being - i.e. "suffering for righteousness' sake" - makes an unmistakenably loud and clear statement about priorities - just like the Pew survey on torture. I do not think one can be changed without the other, because it's all risk avoidance to one's economic well-being - antithetical to "suffering for righteousness' sake."
...
written by SoulPilgrim, May 07, 2009




For a time we were a torturing society. There were three kinds of torture. One was "extraordinary redendition," in which the US sent people to other countries to be tortured. Then there were the secret prisons, or "black sites," were detainees were water-boarded. Then there was the mass abuse practiced at Abu Ghraib and Bagram airbase against prisoners. This abuse usually didn't accompany anything you could call interrogation, and apparently wasn't aimed at getting any kind of actionable intelligence.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the vast majority of prisoners at Abu Ghraib weren't terrorists, or even political dissenters, but simply people with chronic mental illness, or developmentally delayed, or petty criminals. Circumstantial evidence suggests that Donald Rumsfeld, who was in direct and almost daily contact with military people at Abu Ghraib, was interested in finding a religion-specific form of torture.

The abuse against prisoners at Abu Ghraib must have been criminal, because several low-level military personnel were incarcerated for it. If credible testimony arises that demonstrate that Rumsfeld gave the orders to do it, he too must be indicted. You cannot punish low-level grunts for prisoner abuse without punishing the person in charge who gave the order for the abuse.

According to exhaustive reports by the New York Times and the International Committee of the Red Cross, abuses at Abu Ghraib included rape of women and men (some of which was filmed), sodomy with objects, beating arms and legs that had already been broken, pouring acid into wounds, and forcing female inmates to strip in order to film them. At least one Iraqi died under torture, an Iraqi General who had given himself up and was smothered to death by an American soldier for no reason whatsoever.

Two men were beaten to death at Bagram airbase just down the hall from the commander. The commander has never been charged or even reprimanded.

When you refer to detainees as terrorists, are you not saying that they were terrorists, at least in your mind, and therefore deserving of punishment, because they were Muslims?


Maybe if MOST Christians didn't preach HATE......
written by corey, May 08, 2009
Maybe if MOST Christians didn't preach HATE, many wouldn't have to "lament over the Pew torture poll"!
practical
written by Dr. J, May 11, 2009
I suspect you are all much better Christians than me. In fact, I have little doubt. Personally and practically, I vote to protect my family from terrorists and murderers at all costs- even my life. So, I completely and enthusiastically condone and advocate conducting aggressive interrogations that cause no soft tissue damage if it will save one innocent life. Sue me.
...
written by mike55, May 11, 2009
Dr. J,

You wrote:

"I suspect you are all much better Christians than me. In fact, I have little doubt. Personally and practically, I vote to protect my family from terrorists and murderers at all costs- even my life. So, I completely and enthusiastically condone and advocate conducting aggressive interrogations that cause no soft tissue damage if it will save one innocent life. Sue me."

Would you give up your soul as well?
Response to Mike55
written by Dr. J, May 13, 2009
Hi Mike55:
I have no worry about my soul. This subject of so-called 'torture, is of no consequence on the important items of life. In my opinion, the debate and Gushee's committee are wastes of time. I prefer to deal with things that are important like- the US torturing to death 1.5 million unborn babies annually. I can't speak for the Lord, but I believe He is more concerned over abortion than He is about dunking murderers/terrorists in water.
...
written by JaneR, May 15, 2009
Dear Dr. Gushee,

Perhaps the problem is that God seems to no longer care what his followers do. In the Bible, those that did not do his will were often smited by him, for even the smallest of infractions. Now, no one knows who God approves of since there is no punishment that people can see. Now, supposedly, all smiting is done after one is dead and gone, convenient for those who would still wish to keep worshipping a deity that seems to do nothing.

Are you the true Christian or are those who approve of torture the true Christians? Does someone like Fred Phelps represent what God "really" wants or do universalists who don't think God will send anyone to hell? Are people like this "Dr.J" who claim that they "know" that God isn't "concerned" with torturing people the real Christians or are people like Mike55 who seems to actually know his bible the right ones?

Now, perhaps you understand more why non-believers find that you all have created your own versions of Christianity to suit yourselves and there is no deity behind them at all. Good people use the religion to support their personal values and sadists do the same.
Dr. J,
written by tmarsh0307, May 15, 2009
I have skimmed through several of your comments in response to editorials, and I see a clear failure of connecting your "political" values to scripture, particularly the teachings of Jesus.

When I read Jesus, I understand something like: Prioritize the kingdom of God and the appropriate response of love regardless of the cost, and let God worry about security and provision.

When I read you, I hear: God has provided for the soul, but navigating the rough waters of life with regards to protection and provision are MY responsibility.

Ethics that says "I am responsible for the intended result" are never Christian Ethics. That is consequential ethics, which I thought the religious right forbade. It is wrong to inflict fear, pain, and harm upon a defenseless person regardless of the intended result. It does not matter whether you are democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, or whatever.

It is no wonder people like JaneR believe that Christians are contradictory and use religion for their own gain.
Furthermore, Dr. J,
written by tmarsh0307, May 15, 2009
I agree with your comments about abortion (at least without comparing it to torture). Just so you know that I am not masking a political agenda under the guise of scripture.
oil and water don't mix
written by robber, May 16, 2009
This article is a prime example of why we shouldn't mix politics and religion. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Let the country, or government, do what it feels like it needs to do to protect us. Then let us treat other people the way we want to. There is no contradiction, unless you have a political axe to grind. Let Caesar be Caesar, so we can be people. Personally, I appreciate my country doing whatever it can do for me so my children and grandchildren can have the possibility of a better life than we have made for ourselves.

I pray for peace in the world, and for our leaders to make the right decisions based on His will. But I don't pretend to care about individual terrorists who would kill me and my family if they had the chance. To hell with them. Since when is self-protection a crime, or even a sin? If you are implicit in a crime against me or my country, I/we have the right to poke your freaking eyes out if it saves lives. Enough of this worthless diatribe from weak-minded fools that care more about ideology then what happens to our children and grandchildren. But it's OK I guess to destroy an innocent human life as long as it's still in the embryo. No really, that makes perfect sense. It's no wonder the world laughs at us.
response to tmarsh
written by Dr. J, May 17, 2009
Hi tmarsh:
I understand and appreciate your comments. I'm just not one to step aside and let someone harm my family. Its too fatalistic for me. I think the Lord expects me to protect my family with the abilities He's given me. The Lord has provided for beyond my wildest expectations. My sould is safe and I have a wonderful life because of the Lord's provisions. I'm not using Scripture to justify an irrational position and I am not hypocritical- in my view. As I said, you all are better Christians than me- and I mean it. I must admit, given a choice between Christians like you protecting the US or people like me, I'll take people me Christians and non-christians.
No One is Better than Anyone Else
written by tmarsh0307, May 19, 2009
Dr. J,

I appreciate your response. What you wrote about your family is a sentiment I share. I am not a pacifist, though not a just warrior either. I don't think that Dr. Gushee is either. At least one who wrote an ethics textbook with Gushee, Glen Stassen, is not. He has tried to develop a "just peacemaking" theory that engages culture where it is, reluctantly using violence with out dubbung it "just war." I consider my sentiments somewhat similar.

However, I don't think that Gushee is out to make a political statement (I don't know for sure). I think that he is pointing out the inconsistency of this position of Christians supporting torture.

We are all called to consider our ethics. We are all to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I rest certain and assured that, though I realize how painful that it might be, that God will preserve my innocent family through the greatest horrors this life may offer on to eternal life. Too, I believe in Divine Vengence. I believe first and foremost in Luke 12:22-34 and Romans 8:28-39. And, I leave it to God to work it out.

I feel safe, because the Father of Jesus Christ, not the terrorists, not Kim Jong-Il, not the Taliban, is in control.

For whatever that is worth...

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.