Mainline Protestants: America's Moral Conscience

I don’t know why evangelicals favored water boarding more than other groups, but I thought your theological machinations over the issue were very questionable.

This may seem peculiar, but consider that we allow torture in this society for the sake of medical care. If a person is diagnosed with cancer we poison them and irradiate them, making them deathly ill with a fifty percent chance that they will overcome the condition. Why do we do this? Because some good, namely curing of the patient, may come out of this. We can extend this idea further. If a patient has failing kidneys, we allow another person to be tortured so that the person with the bad kidney may be cured. Terrible suffering occurs in these instances, but they are carried out because some good may come out of the pain.

I doubt very seriously whether evangelicals enjoy inflicting pain on other people because of their religious beliefs. I just don’t see that idea as plausible. If they do approve of techniques that some call torture, it may be for the same reason that people O.K. it for medical care; so that some good can come out of it and people will be saved.

1wq

"Moral conscience" is a redundancy. What other kind of conscience is there? But aside from that, I like the theological analysis, which sums up what I have been trying to put my finger on for a while. The other problem the mainline churches have, aside from dwindling congregations and occasionally dull services, is that fewer and fewer Americans--including many mainline Protestants themselve--understand the historical and doctrinal roots of those churches. How else explain the increasing proportion of Americans who, according to NORC, consider themselves Christian, and do not identify as Catholic or Orthodox, but also do not consider themselves Protestant? As Samuel Johnson puts it, "ignorance, ma'am, pure ignorance."

I think that the theological analysis is very interesting. I absolutely believe that how one conceptualizes the ultimate has a bearing on other parts of one's life. The idea of substitutionary atonement might, in fact, justify suffering for some people, creating negative situations. According to one study that focused on women who had been the victims of domestic violence, the phrase most commonly heard by police spoken by women was, "This is my cross to bear." These women seemed to justify their situation as suffering was so intertwined with their understanding of reality.

All that being said, I think we have to be careful pointing to theology alone as the reason certain types of Christians are more or less likely to support torture. Our identities are so complex and constantly negotiated. Our dispositions are formed by various factors in our lives. Perhaps we should be asking other questions about why those who support torture are (somewhat) more likely to identify as evangelical Christians. What does that signal? What does that say about other aspects of theirGOD lives?

Comment #1 sounded like a product of the al-Qaeda marketing department, not the thoughts of a follower of Jesus.

In rough strokes, I am laying out two theories of the atonement: substitutionary atonement and moral influence theory. The two theories have been contending for intellectual dominance in the Christian tradition since the high Middle Ages--with the substitution theory usually winning. Mainline Protestants have, in the last 100 years, moved back toward a Moral Influence theory of the cross--and I think that this shift has an impact--however overt or subtle--on their ethics. Anyway, I do think it is an interesting case of a real difference in theological traditions showing up in moral choices. BTW, a small number of evangelicals are moving toward moral/love theories of the atonement (away from substitution) and they are finding themselves in serious hot water for doing so.

Anyone who claims Jesus was not a political philosopher hasn't really read the gospels. In fact the Bible as a whole is very political. Also, Walter Wink, Rene Girard, and many other Christian thinkers support the idea that traditional theories of substitutionary atonement derive from and perpetuate a culture of violence, and are not true to the Jesus of the gospels (nor is any justification for violence for any reason). Our problem is the tendency to mix faith with nationalism (and even in the mix, nationalism often seems to prodominate). Congratulations to Ms. Bass for her article, and to mainline Protestants for their moral conscience.

As a member of an American Baptist congregation, a denomination almost always listed among the mainline protestants, I strongly disagree with the author's preposition that mainline Christians reject the concept of Jesus' death as a substitute for our sins.

Isaiah 53:5 could not be more clear: "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

My congregation and every other Baptist or Methodist denomination I have visited in my almost 50 years upholds this theology. From the literature I read, it is only liberal theologians and the most liberal denominations, who generally reject the Bible as the word of God, who would adhere to the theology ascribed to mainline denominations.

As to my views on torture, that is a difficult question. Would I support the torture of one terrorist if I knew it would save the lives of the 3000 innocent people killed on September 11, 2001? Yes. However life is not even close to that simple.

ATJ said-----"Christian thinkers support the idea that traditional theories of substitutionary atonement derive from and perpetuate a culture of violence, and are not true to the Jesus of the gospels (nor is any justification for violence for any reason).

Oh I see you mean "thinkers" as opposed to believers. I guess if you call these people thinkers then I can't argue with their assumptions.
They just removed the "GOOD NEWS" of salvation by grace alone but the progressives have been distorting the gospel for a long time now. Jesus doesn't show us a new way he is "The Way". It would be better to be either hot or cold but this luke warm "works righteousness" stuff is heresy.

ATJ let me know when you've transformed yourself so that God will accept you into heaven.

In response to 2oldstroke, by “Christian thinkers” I simply refer to scholars and theologians who have spent more time and effort on biblical scholarship than the average person, and so may have insight worth consideration. I was not making a distinction between “thinkers” and “believers.” Progressives have not removed salvation by grace alone from their theology, although interpretations of what that means may differ. The Bible is not theologically uniform , hence over 2000 years of quite varied interpretation (and dissent). As for who “distorts” the gospel, well, that seems to depend on one’s point of view. Jesus certainly is “the Way,” but there’s not much from Jesus himself to support the notion that this Way is accepting a set of doctrines about him (wouldn’t that be a “work”?). When asked how one finds eternal life, he said it’s found in loving God and loving others—that seems to be his Way. If you want to call that “works righteousness,” so be it. Finally, judgments about who is and is not accepted by God are best left to God, not any of us (remember the parable of wheat and weeds).

Whether or not a nation or culture is "Christian" should not be evaluated by the number of people who claim affiliation with Christian churches but by whether or not the behavior of the nation/culture as a whole is Christ-like.

In my opinion, any "theological" analysis of this difference between the evangelicals and the mainliners will probably miss the real point and come up short. Most directly, the issue's not theological but political. Evangelical churches have a general reputation for being politically "conservative," and mainline Protestant churches have a general reputation for being "centrist" to "liberal," as we often use those terms in this country. I'm inclined to think that politics often trumps real theology in both circles, and people are inclined to cluster into groups of politically like-minded people.

I've known a lot of people who've gone between mainline and evangelical churches, and those changes are quite often just as much political/ethical as theological, if not more directly so. So I'm not at all sure that this is a case of theology having "immediate social consequences," but it could just as likely be the reverse--social positions having ecclesial/theological consequences.

Add to that the fact that while I have a lot of ties to the politically conservative/evangelical subculture, I've never once heard anyone speaking of the torture of a suspected terrorist being "redemptive." This is something I've only ever heard outsiders suggest. For those I know on the inside, the reasoning is profoundly less theological: if you have to hurt a bad guy to save a lot of good guys, then it's probably the best thing to do. There's nothing really theological about it; non-evangelical supporters of the justifiability of torture use the same logic.

I'm a Deist who admires the great Jewish teacher called Jesus.
I find this debate troubling. The New Testament is very clear on this. If you support torture you are anti-Christ and it's as simple as that.

Panthera

I think you may be ascribing hatred to the wrong party.

On one side you have a group who’s stated purpose is to force their ideology on the world, and will kill all those who stand in their way. They viciously decapitate helpless men on camera in order to frighten the world to their cause. They purposely target civilian areas to cause the most harm an terror. They stone their wives and children for the appearance of misdeeds. They oppress the entire female population as an inferior section of society. The fire rockets from civilian areas in order to hide from repercussions.

On the other side a couple of guys had water poured on their face in such a way to simulate drowning.

In no way am I saying that our standard of righteousness is based on people. Just trying to bring perspective. We don't hate them....but they surely hate us.

Flaming Conservative and Jamie,
So, if I follow your arguments, because the Islamic terrorists, these sons of whores and dogs, torture and kill innocent people we, as Christians should stoop to their level.

Sorry, but that is not the arguments that Jesus used in my Bible.

Now, let's clear up one little misconception which has haunted me here at beliefnet for some time.

I am not a knee-jerk liberal in the traditional American sense of the word.

I volunteered two years of my life working with refugees of the terror in Northern Africa and Afghanistan through my church. The same church which recognizes my legal marriage here in my country and also which celebrated our marriage in the church.

Unless you have served in the Mid-East or have had direct contact to those people who have had their tongues cut out by the Islamic extremists - and I have - then I truly suggest you are basing your assumptions on the wrong premise.

Christ never, in any way shape or form, gave us permission to torture our enemies.

Are they our enemies? Yes. We are in complete agreement there.

Do we serve the Lord when we become the same pigs they are?

No.

I was directed to this post from Brian McLaren's blog. Thanks, Diana, for the post and the thoughts it represents. I suspect that you don't believe the link between theories of atonement and views on torture is the ONLY contributing factor in the Pew Survey results, but is one you haven't seen highlighted.

What about views on the role of government? I see a lot of inconsistency from both sides of the aisle on this issue. Some want the government to legislate Christian morality in one arena, some in another. I am confused when people whip out this "Christian nation" talk -- either harkening America back to some fairy tale glory days, or insisting that since most of the world sees America as "Christian" it is even possible for a self-described areligious government to reflect the subverted power dynamics of New Creation.

What about stances toward authority? Are leaders to be challenged or respected? Again, party lines seem to trump philosophical commitments on this question too.

Perhaps more importantly, what do you, Diana, see as a constructive way for Christians, whatever 'variety,' to decry the dehumanizing, inefficient, and wrong-headed use of torture in interrogation? I deeply respect the pro-life mobilization for crisis pregnancy centers, and think this is a proper direction of energies. What's the corollary?

" Not by power or by might sayest the Lord but by my Spirit." Letr us always remember that "God is Love"8839uz

Paul C.
I would be interested to hear your justification for torturing another human.

Or any animal, for that matter.

It doesn't fit in with my Christianity in any way, shape or form.

Maybe that is the difference between conservative American Christians and the rest of us?

Your Name on May 18, 2009 10:52 PM said:
It seems to me that Jesus, and later Paul, had no concern for the powers that be. He seemed to ignore them completely. And, yes, ultimately Rome fell.

Please explain to me why this should be an item on a Christian's agenda - pro or con - rather than the continuing proclamation of the kingdom which Jesus has ushered in.
end quote

Well, let's see. Why would Jesus want us to oppose torturing people? The fact that the question would even be asked by a Christian is disturbing.

Let's begin with your definition of Christianity - the sole function of which is to "save" people. OK, so how do I save someone's soul if I torture them into maddness or death?

I can't.

Thus, torture violates your prime directive.

There now - that was easy and I didn't even have to trouble you with all those pesky Sermon on the Mount Passages, Fruits of the Spirit, Paul's comments in Corinthians about Charity, etc.

In response to Your Name on May 18, 2009 10:52 PM, the kingdom Jesus proclaimed stands in opposition to the ways of empires like the Roman empire, hence one cannot proclaim that kingdom today without contrasting it to similar ways today—ways which include retributive justice and torture—and judging today’s empires by kingdom standards. And to suggest that just because Jesus did not spend a lot of time specifically mentioning Caesar, Rome, Herod, etc. means he wasn’t much concerned with them is like saying that just because he never specifically mentioned slavery or racism he isn’t much concerned with them either. In addition to its spiritual aspects, the kingdom represents a radical restructuring of political, social, and economic structures in this world. Recall in the book of Revelation, it’s not really much about us “getting to heaven” as it is heaven coming here, and in scripture as a whole salvation is more properly conceived as a communal event rather than simply individual (individuals are saved as part of the community). This is one reason why this whole thread about Bass’ article really is about differing theologies.