John Mark Reynolds
Director of the Torrey Honors Institute, Biola University

John Mark Reynolds

Professor of philosophy for Biola, Reynolds blogs regularly at Scriptoriumdaily.com along with other faculty from the Torrey Honors Institute, a great books program.

 ALL POSTS

Caesar Tortures, Not Jesus

The UN Convention Against Torture states that torture should be abolished because it violates "human dignity." From your perspective, what is wrong with torture? Should perpetrators be prosecuted? What does your faith tradition have to say about torture?

A government decided to execute a prisoner who threatened its control of a region. It did not just kill the man, but selected, as usual, a means calculated to do the most pain and prolong the suffering. His torturous death is recorded in the Gospels and should give every Christian pause in supporting any form of torture. Torturing any man, even the most base, may not elevate the victim, as it did with the Son of God, but it almost certainly debases the torturer to the level of the Romans who killed Him.

Torture of any human being is incompatible with the Christian faith.

This should have been obvious, but like many hard and inconvenient moral lessons it was not. Christianity grew in cultures that used torture frequently and so had cultural assumptions inconsistent with their faith. Like most evil things, torture is justified by the good that can come of it. Most bad things are tempting because of alleged goods, but Christian experience shows that any gains from torture are not worth the cost to the souls of men and cultures.

Because there are times when torture seems like a good idea, Christians followed the practice of most ancient cultures and sometimes used it when they gained power. However, it was always a difficult decision for Christian civilizations to make and always had critics amongst Christian theologians and philosophers. The practice was modified and prisoners were given greater rights. The longer Christians thought about the practice and experienced the results, the broader the disdain and condemnation for it.

Eventually, a consensus developed in the traditional Churches that torture was a temptation to do evil, a snare of devils to corrupt souls, and a delusion that promised good, but only certainly did evil.

The condemnation of torture is part of the culture of life so central to the Faith. It is sad to see some Christians use arguments and lines of reasoning to justify torture that are similar to those used to justify abortion.

Traditional Christians disdain those who mutilate the corpses of enemies, because it dishonors the Image of God. How much worse is it to mutilate the living body or the immortal soul of a man?

Most Christians are not pacifists. They will honor the choices of a man who declares himself their enemy by fighting him in fair combat. Once he is a prisoner, they will honor his God-given free will by allowing him to preserve his conscience. Christian nations developed rules regarding interrogation that allowed prisoners to preserve their dignity and God-given choices. A Christian can kill a man who is asking for it, but he will not warp and twist his body and soul when the fight is done.

Sadly, Christian history reveals that the "good reasons" for torture tempted many Christian leaders to torture in order to do some hoped for good. We don't have to guess at the bad results or the later condemnation of history for our short-sighted pursuit of immediate gain over our deepest principles.

Men have always been tempted to torture to get information to "save the city." However, experience showed that saving the physical city by destroying its values was never a good bargain. At the very least, a nation that ordered torture had to turn some of its own sons into torturers. There has proven no way to compartmentalize such men after the alleged good they did was done.

A nation that turns its bravest and best into torturers instead of warriors has dishonored itself. There are worse things than losing a war and that is one of them.

A general condemnation of torture does not mean that we already know that what the Bush administration did was torture. Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what torture is and some believe that what the Bush administration ordered in prosecuting the War on Terror was not torture. They should be heard and not ignored, but so far the arguments advanced have not been persuasive.

Many of the practices used by the Bush administration have been widely condemned as torture prior to their use. However modified by the administration, in the laudable attempt to keep them from being torture, the actions ordered do not pass an immediate "smell test" as exemplified by the fact that they were condemned by the candidates of both political parties in the last election.

For those of us who are not experts, there is the practical "John McCain Test." Everyone agrees that Senator John McCain is a brave American hero for the way he endured torture at the hands of the Communists. When John McCain condemns our actions as torture, most of us should have a presumption that there is a serious problem with the actions.

Of course, there is no comparison regarding the degree of horror he experienced and the amount of suffering ordered against the terrorists. John McCain experienced far worse at the hands of the Communist government than anything that has been revealed so far about American interrogation techniques. However, John McCain looked at what was being done and saw too many similarities to what was done by our government to condone the actions.

If the United States did not torture prisoners, it gave a reasonable imitation of doing so. The fact that a torture is not horrific does not mean it is not bad.

On first review, it appears that what the Bush administration did to terrorists was torture and so morally wrong. If a calm and full disclosure of the facts sustains this judgment, then the Bush administration will have done permanent damage to its reputation. That such a wrong may have been done with the authority of an American President who professes an Evangelical faith would be shameful.

Of course, the men and women in government in both parties were sorely tempted after the events of 9/11. Fear and a desire to protect the innocent often drives good men to do very bad things. Congress was aware of the administration's policy and authorized it. No party has clean hands in this situation, but the President is ultimately responsible for pressing for authority to take the actions he took after 9/11.

If a bipartisan and judicious examination finds that men and women were ordered to torture, then those who gave the orders should be condemned, if not legally then in the court of public opinion. Torture is incompatible with a great nation and with the beliefs of the Christian majority of that nation.

We must act as the Prince of Peace would act and not as Caesar did.

By John Mark Reynolds  |  May 11, 2009; 2:19 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: The Wrong Question | Next: Torture is Wrong in So Many Ways

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



nacllcan

"...you and your family are in a jumbo at 30,000 feet and it is discovered that one of the passengers has secreted a bomb that can explode at any moment. Will you and a planeload of professional moralists hesitate to do the most unspeakable things to make that passenger spill his guts?"

What follows your contrived and self deceptive scenario?

When you have tortured him out of his mind, then you find you have the wrong guy...

When you have tortured him out of his mind, you find he lied to you just to get you to stop, so it did not help...

When you have tortured him out of his mind, and corrupted you own soul, and find the plane lands without incident, so it was just your panic that made you destroy an innocent fellow men?

The thing about people like you and Alan Dershowitz is that you suppose:

1. Torture works.
2. You have the right person.
3. Instant gratification will ensue, and your success will be assured by becoming less than human.
4. You will escape with your own soul intact.

In real life, it does not work that way.

Posted by: themoderate | May 25, 2009 10:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm confused. It sounds like Reynolds is trying to say torture is not compatible with the teachings of Christ on one hand and, on the other, apologizing for Bush. Or maybe he means to say torture is un-Christian unless Bush did it. I really don't know what Reynolds is trying to say. I hoped he had written something I could finally agree with but it's not clear.

Posted by: coloradodog | May 24, 2009 7:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

test, test, test

Posted by: JUSTACOMMENT | May 23, 2009 11:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

From my perspective, rationalizing torture evidences a profound lack of faith in God and ultimate justice. Torture supposes that the ends justifies the means. Torture supposes that evil, in the form of human indignity, is the righteous path to security.

I thank you for pointing out all of these notions are incompatible with Christian faith.

Torture is justified out of fear and cynicism. The truly faithful are neither fearful nor cynical.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 23, 2009 12:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Torture you say? Excerpt from the Irish Commission

One Brother kept watch while the other abused me ...(sexually)... then they changed over. Every time it ended with a severe beating. When I told the priest in Confession, he called me a liar. I never spoke about it again.

Here's your jesus

Posted by: elife1975 | May 22, 2009 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Meanwhile, Mr. Reynolds. I know you make your living claiming Christians are better than everyone else, whatever you do, but we're talking about *America* here.

We. Get. To. Be. America.

We're braver, we're stronger, and Gods help us, *nobler* than trying to do this crap and weasel around about it.


We win *our* way, or it isn't *us* that wins. If that even worked, what'd 'win' would be *them* with fancier guns and a Big Mac and a cross.

And that's no 'win' at all. Hardly makes sense to 'beat' them if you become the same damn thing.

Posted by: Paganplace | May 22, 2009 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I mean, I'm a pretty tough cookie about some stuff like this, Mr. Reynolds.

If Bush wouldn't let *us* or *any* observers *watch,* and you spent all those years making *excuses* when i wouldn't be *that* hard to find out for yourself what it's like...


Do it to *me.* Watch. Then see what the prevarications and relativisms of the people you've been supporting and covering for are worth.


Come on, tough guy. Let's see how 'grey' an area repeated near-drownings really *are.*

Posted by: Paganplace | May 22, 2009 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hrm. Looks like a rerun. :)

"Of course, there is no comparison regarding the degree of horror he experienced and the amount of suffering ordered against the terrorists."

*Alleged* terrorists.

You realize there's only like thirty guys left there, now?

I know you Christians love comparing the effects of what you do to your own Hell or anything to divert from what you may be justifying, but this isn't a matter for comparison.


" John McCain experienced far worse at the hands of the Communist government than anything that has been revealed so far about American interrogation techniques. However, John McCain looked at what was being done and saw too many similarities to what was done by our government to condone the actions."


Until John Hagee asked him to reverse his position, at which point he endorsed the same things.

People who've been extensively tortured have been known to do that, you know.


I have respect and sympathy for Sen. Mccain, applauded his stance, alone among Republican candidates, against torture, while Fundies were screaming how 'anti-Christian' he was, but I also think *reversing his position there as if he'd never said otherwise* was just evidence he got too-messed up by that very torture.

It's one thing to take a strong stand *against* it as someone who's actually been tortured, it's another to rewrite your image cause a Hell-monger told you to. Good man, at the heart, I think, but as a fellow PTSD sufferer, he lost his 'I went through this and am still not compromised to be commander in chief' privileges with the 'bomb Iran' song and notorious outbursts, never mind standing strongly and absolutely against torture as a moral issue, and then ...reversing on it.

He was never fit for office, I think, but still deserves our thanks. Even if he's not the hero he's been made out to be.

"If the United States did not torture prisoners, it gave a reasonable imitation of doing so. The fact that a torture is not horrific does not mean it is not bad."

Very likely. Whatever that's to mean.


"On first review, it appears that what the Bush administration did to terrorists was torture and so morally wrong. If a calm and full disclosure of the facts sustains this judgment, then the Bush administration will have done permanent damage to its reputation."

Trust me, whatever 'reputation' may be left, damage done. Some just don't know it yet.


If you're in doubt, why don't we set a date. All you *righteous* dudes can watch *me* be waterboarded and tell me how much doubt there is if it's torture.


I say, if there is doubt, there is no doubt.

Give us a break.

"That such a wrong may have been done with the authority of an American President who professes an Evangelical faith would be shameful."

I *tried* to fricking tell you, dude. And I wasn't alone.


Posted by: Paganplace | May 22, 2009 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Nacllcan,

You might fit nicely into the Nazi regime as it seems easy for you to justify vile actions to maintain or pursue your own life and values.

"Or consider, what is more wicked than burning dozens of cities to the ground with hundreds of thousands of innocents? Yet good men did it, to overcome the Nazi danger to the future of the world. And they were right."

Hundreds of thousands of innocents are certainly burning, right. Certainly right to you.

There is no doubt that there are times that civilization fights for it's survival, and "things are done". On the other hand, would you find America dropping nukes on a civilian city in this era? Would you find any of the civilized powers doing so?

"There are divine absolutes like good and evil and then there are the harsh realities of earthly compromise. We confuse the two at our peril."

I do not know that I agree with you here, at least not in the way that you put this forward. ARE there divine Absolutes? So far it seems that absolutes are hard to come by. Change is the absolute, nothing is unchanging. But we can choose what we do in this dualistic reality. We may need to compromise in many ways in life. We do not control all things. But we can choose what actions that we take, and how we perceive and interact with what comes before us.

Posted by: justillthen | May 5, 2009 8:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Nacllcan,
continued:

"Will you and a planeload of professional moralists hesitate to do the most unspeakable things to make that passenger spill his guts?"

Do you know that the term "spill his guts" is a literal expression of a form of torture? How appropriate that a supporter of torture would use that term. Torturers used to slowly slice open a victims abdomen and pull their guts out to get them to talk. Or just to give them unfathomable pain for it's own sake, or just as a way of killing. Certain American Indian tribes, having learned firsthand the practice from the incoming hordes of European land-thieves, adapted this vile form of torture with their own ingenuity. They took the lower part of the bowel out of the abdomen and tied it to a pole, and then chased the victim around the pole with a red hot firebrand until they ran out of running room. I will leave the specifics of that to your own imagination.

Torture is it's own dark road. Like any choice in life, one adds to another. The fist father is a result of his justification of physical discipline, and his expression of anger and the need to control at all costs. Invariably that mentality lets this choice grow to greater abuse. How not? A psyche more balanced toward 'higher' morality curbs behaviors toward justified violence and aims toward the 'good' side of "earthly compromise".

It is my belief that torture should never be legalized or allowed. Once 'small' torture is allowed it just opens the door to more and greater. We can see the results of torture as acceptable and commonplace in corroded governments past and present. It is never a sign of an ascending empire or advanced morality. It is a sign of corrosion.

Posted by: justillthen | May 5, 2009 8:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"John Mark Reynolds, you and your family are in a jumbo at 30,000 feet and it is discovered that one of the passengers has secreted a bomb that can explode at any moment. Will you and a planeload of professional moralists hesitate to do the most unspeakable things to make that passenger spill his guts?"

Well, I hate to mention technicalities, but generally even professional torture takes a certain amount of time to have its dubious effects. They *might* just confess to spoiling the village's milk, if you had that kind of time.

I mean, if you ever find yourself in that situation, by all means kick the crap out of him in hopes he's some looney just doing it for the attention, but in the case of governments and policies and supposedly-hardened terrorists (who probably wouldn't be on the plane claiming they had bombs if someone hadn't pre-messed with them to the point they did that in the first place) ...well, it hardly applies.

You're basically talking about a narcissistic fantasy, of the type those who hijack planes are themselves ....are kind of dwellers-in. Just a different brand name on the same idea...

That you can *hurt* people to make them agreeable to your idea of 'God.' To whatever end or degree.

Same bad idea and dwelling-place for a mind and soul as torture comes from.

What Mr. Reynolds doesn't understand, when he seemingly tries to push off the idea of 'torture' as 'What anyone but Christians does' ...is that how not-different the history of his 'Kingdom' has ever really been.


It's obvious, now.

Or should be, without people trying to say it's about religious authority.

We're Americans, now. Got a nice, almost shiny pluralistic Republic, right now. We will not torture. We will not *redefine* torture to say we're not doing it when we are. Even if someone scares us.

Cause we're just that Mother-Lovin cool right now.

And it's worth it.

Posted by: Paganplace | May 5, 2009 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John Mark Reynolds, you and your family are in a jumbo at 30,000 feet and it is discovered that one of the passengers has secreted a bomb that can explode at any moment. Will you and a planeload of professional moralists hesitate to do the most unspeakable things to make that passenger spill his guts?

Jesus distinguished between Caesar’s world and God’s. There are divine absolutes like good and evil and then there are the harsh realities of earthly compromise. We confuse the two at our peril. In God’s realm, lies, torture are absolute evils and proscribed. But not in Caesar’s. Mark Twain pointed that about lies in his story, Was it Heaven or Hell? Or consider, what is more wicked than burning dozens of cities to the ground with hundreds of thousands of innocents? Yet good men did it, to overcome the Nazi danger to the future of the world. And they were right. Torture too is not necessarily beyond the pale when it overcomes terrorists protecting the means to mass murder.

Posted by: nacllcan | May 4, 2009 3:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"And every political leader should be working together with every other political leader to stop and cease all fighting..Even if it is for just one month.Let peace spread..not war..Society can not take anymore .End it"

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment! I don't think Jesus, or God for that matter, needs to be involved.

This is a human thing and only humans can resolve it.

Here is the unfortunate part. When I posted a similar sentiment on another blog the answer I got from at least one reader was: "It's gonna happen when fish sing!"

I should have told him/her that whales sing, but the answer would have been whales aren't fish.

So I respectfully refrained.

Posted by: Gaby1 | May 4, 2009 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Look at all the effects war has had on our famlies.My dad was a korean war vet and back than all a man could do was drink to get away from the horrors of war .. it all polluted the family.My dad was a good man but no man can escape the horror of war.As a country we so need to look at ourselves on a individual basis..We so need to start loving ourselves again,and to work together as a country to help eachother from all the pain we all carry and hold onto.We all want happyness,health and to feel beauty and love in our lives..Money nor power will ever bring that happyness It will just seperate famlies even more.The family is such a beautiful gift to have we all so can take them for granted when thats the entire meaning of life..To have a loving family..What a beautiful thing to have..Our generation has fallen into the trap that entertainment brings happyness.Companies downsize putting more pressures on family members to work longer hours,salesmen calling homes at all hours interupting people,s famlies,insurance companies and medical practices that stress out famlies..
We have become so rude to eachother not respecting eachother ,not respecting other peoples feelings and wanting more and more .Look at the quality of the television shows we watch..Where did all the beauty go.We all find ways to get away from the pain in our lives and as a nation we are speeding out of control.Years of abuse from corperations greed to corruption in politicians and years of dealing with the aftermaths of war.. There is only one thing I think that will turn this country around and that is what Jesus meant when he said clean the inside of your own cup so the outside will be clean..We all need to start cleaning our own cups individually so as a people we can start helping eachother and overcome so much negativity around us.. Just think..If every nation took a month off from all war ,from all fighting and to reflect on where humanity is heading we might stop this vicious cycle of war and put our attention on Love and Hope instead of Fear and hate..We need to stop the cycle we are heading in now before it is to late.And every political leader should be working together with every other political leader to stop and cease all fighting..Even if it is for just one month.Let peace spread..not war..Society can not take anymore .End it

H.Miller

Posted by: renkent777 | May 4, 2009 12:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

WOW,

Professor Reynolds,

for once you have written and essay that I can heartily agrre with!

There is hope for you yet! LOL

Thanks!

Gaby

Posted by: Gaby1 | May 3, 2009 10:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what torture is and some believe that what the Bush administration ordered in prosecuting the War on Terror was not torture."

How convenient and how predictable from this guy.

Posted by: coloradodog | May 3, 2009 8:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

hello just,

salaam .

Posted by: mono1 | May 3, 2009 5:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Good to hear both logic and religion in an argument.

Posted by: Nosmanic | May 2, 2009 6:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello mono1,

It seems that "moralizing Caesar" is what most religions are about, really. Jesus, though not directly seeking to alter the morality of the Roman Empire, was speaking to those that would hear about adjusting our own perspectives, lives, moralities, priorities, etc. The effect was a slow change in the focus of the population. So, Caesar changed too, over generations.

But it is far too easy to fall into the potholes of sensate existence. The desire for comfort, security, ease, luxury in life drives greed, warfare, envy...

All of the Prophets and Sages and Sacred Texts speak to Ways to live life better.

We have not yet stopped the aggression of Caesar, and we may or may not do so. It may be always here the baser man to be in conflict with the greater man. It is clear, though, that how we choose to live our own life can make a difference in our life, and the lives of others.

Shalom and Salaam.

Posted by: justillthen | May 2, 2009 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks for the comment, John Mark.

Debate is good and airing differences, and essential to finding common ground I hear. I think it is as good to challenge ourselves as to throw down challenges to those we disagree with. I appreciate the opportunity.

Justin

Posted by: justillthen | May 2, 2009 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

moralizing and attitude adjusting caesr.

by all means,
jesus whether the god or the son of god or the god incarnate or the messenger of god is free from the ignorance and agreesion of caesr .

the big question is how to moralize caser and stop or elminate his/her agreession,

in a juchristiansecular society do you moralize caser by jesus or the right of the people by the people and for the people?

please study the history of the church and the state for the last 2000 years.

if caser or the romans or mankind can mange to kill his savior and god who can mange to manner caser or mankind??????????

Posted by: mono1 | May 2, 2009 1:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Just,

Thank you for the kind words and some things to think about!

It is nice to agree. I hope in the end we have a good, healthy community here where we air differences and all learn from each other.

John Mark

Posted by: johnmarkreynolds | May 1, 2009 8:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Mr. Reynolds,

I enjoyed your essay and agree with you almost wholly. You support in it a form of moral belief and conviction that is to me much closer to the Christianity that I believe in and the Way of Jesus that I love. Thank you for that.

I especially appreciate the kind of self reflection that was evidenced in inspection of the Bush policies. We will see what comes to light. It is my experience that most Evangelicals adhere most closely with Old Testament thinking than with New Testament thinking. Recent polls demonstrate that they are more firmly behind torture than your essay might indicate. That indeed is a shame, and to me a corruption of the Teaching of Jesus.

You said: "Most Christians are not pacifists. They will honor the choices of a man who declares himself their enemy by fighting him in fair combat."

It is an interesting way to word it. I agree that most are not pacifists, though Christ was. Curious and disturbing. Hard to trust what does not do what it says it honors above all else.

You also said: "A nation that turns its bravest and best into torturers instead of warriors has dishonored itself. There are worse things than losing a war and that is one of them."

Thank you for these opinions.

Posted by: justillthen | May 1, 2009 3:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company