"When all was over, torture and cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, scientific, Christian States had been able to deny themselves: and these were of doubtful utility." - Churchill commenting on World War I.
Hi Guys,
Well, if there is one thing that the OC does on a regular basis, it is to spur me to do further research I don't have time for. As I went to bed last night, I was racking my brain to see if I could remember any evangelical Christian authors who had attempted to make a defence of torture, and couldn't. So, I woke up early this morning and spent some time doing what research I could into find out what has been written by theologians on the subject of torture.
Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the only strong advocates of the "necessity" of torture that I found in the Christian community were liberal and neo-orthodox (to clarify neo-orthodoxy is not conservative nor orthodox) protestant theologians like Niebuhr who argued against strict moral boundaries founded on scripture and in favor of situational, pragmatic, or utilitarian ethics. In fact, for most theologians it simply wasn't addressed because it was a "no-brainer"; Christians were the people who historically are tortured for their faith, not the people conducting the torture - and that it is worthwhile to note that while the Inquisition may have been conducted in the name of "the church", many of those tortured were tortured in order to break their adherence to the biblical gospel.
Unlike just war theory, no coherent biblical argument can or has even attempted to be made in favor of torture. There is no biblical precedent for it. Even in the Herem (the conquest of Canaan) where the Lord commanded the capital punishment of those nations that had grossly transgressed His laws for centuries (including the common practice of infant sacrifice by fire) he never commanded or condoned torturing the inhabitants of those nations. Certainly we do not see any of the Lord's people in the Old or New Testaments torturing , and that is not because it wouldn't have been useful in ancient warfare. Arguably, in the time before reconaissance, radio intercepts, satellites, etc. torture would have been
more useful.
Anyway, here is an excellent summary statement and then finally a link to recent evangelical/conservative Catholic symposium on torture which used Charles Krauthammer's piece in favor of the use of torture as a jumping off point. As you will see, this is definitely a place where evangelical Christians and secular conservatives part ways because Christians are absolutely constrained
never to do something inherently evil that good might come of it.
Conclusion
While admittedly, the anti-torture stance argued for here may not satisfy the pragmatist, the Christian must remember that life on a fallen planet does not guarantee the kind of safety, security, and consequences Krauthammer is trying to use as motivation to justify torture. Nor does it become justifiable to break a command based on circumstances or an uncertain prediction of future events—even when the event appears likely. One does not always have to like the boundaries that commands give us to know they are best to be obeyed. Thus, the just warrior engages the enemy within principled boundaries if for no other reason than it is wrong to do so and breaking the boundaries makes him no different than the one he is combating. We worship God, not safety.
In making his case Krauthammer makes reference to George Bernard Shaw’s joke about the man who asks a woman if she’d sleep with him for a million dollars. When she says yes, he asks if she’d sleep with him for five dollars. Indignantly the woman then responds, “What do you think I am?” The answer given is: “We’re already established what you are, ma’am, now we’re just haggling over the price.” What strikes me as amazing about Krauthammer’s argument is that he so readily admits his is an ethic of prostituted principle. In his citation of Shaw, not only does he cavalierly toss aside the foundations of just-war principles at the price of speculative safety, like a profligate schoolboy he has the audacity to claim this is the only path to the moral manliness of his “rational moral calculus.”
One can’t help in the final analysis recall the words of Caiaphas as he argued that crucifying Jesus was the only way to save the way of life the Pharisees had come to love and cherish: “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” Caiaphas was right in the sense that his prediction did prove to be of great value for the many, but this does not justify the ethic under which he functioned. One would need to be perfectly omniscient in order to have proportionalism or utilitarianism be the guiding moral principle. For those of us who are not omniscient, commands and principles must lead the way and shape how a utilitarian calculus is employed. Certainly one could foresee that if employed Krauthammer’s Caiaphas ethic may indeed provide the results he argues for—but at what price? The argument may sound good, but we must be careful lest we forget that this “Caiaphas ethic” is far more dangerous than it appears. Indeed, it can even be used to justify the murder of God. - MArk Leiderbach - Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
The Truth About Torture? A Christian Ethics Symposium
