I haven’t commented on the Pew torture survey yet because I couldn’t figure out why Christians who attended church regularly were more likely to favor torture. My guess is that there probably isn’t one specific answer to that question (check out the debate on The Boar’s Head Tavern to see the range of Christian opinion on torture). Some Christians probably think it through in biblical terms (here’s another point of view) while others are probably reacting on an emotional basis (I think that’s true of any topic). There isn’t any theology that you can point to that would explain it since there is such a wide range of opinions on the subject.
But that doesn’t stop this former seminary president from taking a shot at it and missing the mark by a mile:
But I think it is possible, even likely, that this finding has a theological root. The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person…” White Evangelical theology bases its view of Christian salvation on the severe pain and suffering undergone by Jesus in his flogging and crucifixion by the Romans. This is called the “penal theory of the atonement”–that is, the way Jesus paid for our sins is by this extreme torture inflicted on him.
So, the motives of the Christian is based on the simple fact that because Jesus was tortured, we can torture others?
This shows a shocking ignorance of the uniqueness of the suffering of Christ. Why in the world would anyone think that Christians would equate the suffering of Christ with the suffering of a terrorist? We’re OK with inflicting pain on a terrorist who holds the key to stopping a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NY because Christ was inflicted with pain for us? How silly it that? Sorry, but when I think of the suffering of Christ on the cross for my sins, terrorism never comes to mind.
I was also struck by this:
The message … of a lot of conservative Christian theology, is that severe pain and suffering are not foreign to Christian faith, but central.
Of course, this is an interpretation of Jesus life, death and resurrection that I reject. It is also an interpretation that I believe has done a lot of harm through the centuries.
Um…I wonder what she does with this:
ESV Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned–every one–to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Or this:
ESV 1 Peter 2:23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
This has been the teaching of the church from the beginning and even beyond the beginning to the time of Israel:
ESV Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.
The New Testament is filled with references to not only the suffering of Christ but our own:
ESV Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,
It’s a pretty clear teaching of the Scriptures.
BTW, just a reminder, I’m one of the weekly church attenders who is against torture.
posted May 4, 2009 at 12:53 pm
This is probably the most cogent post I’ve read on the subject. Thanks for sharing your insights.
posted May 4, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I’m sure that St. Robert Bellarmine used that argument somewhere when he was chief inquisitor.
posted May 4, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Wonder what the Patriot Bible says?
posted May 4, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Being okay with torture because Christ was tortured makes no sense.
Accepting our own torture (for the sake of the Gospel) if need be makes more sense.
Politically, if one chooses to attempt to make the case, the most logical way to do it is to portray the act as protecting innocent lives – which is Biblical. It’s difficult to make a case for torture as a general rule, but if I had to make a case, that’s the way I would do it.
posted May 4, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for your interesting post. As usual you make a lot of sense. I wish people could explain things as well and effectively as you do.
posted May 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I genuinely appreciate Charles’s comments …
My opinion is views on torture are related to attitude towards authority. And folks who are “ok” with authority, maybe even trust authority, are more likely to attend church regularly and more likely to believe authority can do as it sees fit.
I liked the one at BHT about the parents of Madeleine McGann not calling for the torture of the original suspect who was later cleared. That torture presupposes guilt is also a worthy consideration.
to portray the act as protecting innocent lives
I first remember seeing MzEllen’s view argued in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. Tom Hanks’s character rationalizes that, for every man he’s lost in battle, he’s probably saved ten. It comes across to me as “things we tell ourselves” to soothe our conscience.
And I won’t even mention redemptive suffering, again.
posted May 5, 2009 at 6:48 am
First, from a military point of view, compared with machine guns, bullets, grenades, napalm, and poison gas, waterboarding is just another weapon, which can do damage, as do all of the above weapons. Some religious people are pacifists and against all of the above.
Those religious people who are not pacifists think of a weapon as a means to prevent greater torture and loss of life. Martin Luther wrote an essay defending capital punishment but said it should not be personal and vindictive but rather almost redemptive, serving as an example to others to save innocent lives in the future. The argument for the “just war” is basically the same as the above argument of Martin Luther. Church people, even some Synagogue or Mosque people, understand this.
posted May 7, 2009 at 7:12 pm
i suppose that the good news is that fewer people are attending church, so fewer people are in favor of torture.
but there may be less direct correlation between the two than indicated, just as there’s no true correlation between morality and the republican party.