Why a Christian Cannot Approve Torture and Follow Jesus.

I was proud of the BBC Correspondent and Political Editor Laura Kussenberg when she questioned Theresa May and Donald Trump at the Press Conference in the White House. She asked such a direct question, and asked it so pointedly that despite the evasions and characteristic deflections, there was no hiding place for the British Prime Minister. President Trump doesn't know what a hiding place looks like, and if he saw one he would avoid it as interfering with his lust for showmanship. In her question Kussenberg included the issue of torture, and the US President's uncompromising approval of its efficacy and use, if that's what the Generals think will work. It was a pragmatic justification of brutality and dehumanising cruelty that lacked the slightest hint of moral seriousness or ethical awareness. And when he responded, he spoke with the matter of fact confidence of someone discussing a change in parking regulations, rather than giving notice to the world that America is ready to torture, to inflict cruel and inhumane treatment on suspects, in order to allow for enhanced interrogation techniques and so aid homeland security. Really? And is this what putting America first means? Is this what America voted for?

And yes, that first paragraph is combative, because torture has no place in a civilised society. It is for me a glaring and chilling example of why I am prepared to be outspoken about the US President now, and not prepared to be told to wait and judge his actions and achievements. Words are actions; words do things; speech has consequences; powerful people are listened to and their words borrow the authority of their office; out of the mouth comes what is within. That our own Prime Minister refused to condemn those green light words of President Trump brings shame on our nation, and is rooted in fear of offending the powerful and disregarding the powerless who will be the victims of such gratuitous callousness. 

Torture is indeed effective - in dehumanising perpetrator and victim; it is effective in mirroring back to (in this case) ISIS the moral nihilism of their cause; it is effective in brutalising a human being; and it is often used against suspects who have no recourse to a judicial system and who are denied human rights. Information may well be obtained by torture, but that renders use of such information illegal in this country, and therefore reversion to such procedures would make it illegal for this country to collaborate and co-oprate with intelligence agencies they know use torture. That however is a practical difficulty - my contention is that state sponsored torture is wrong, regardless of its effectiveness; it is evil, therefore its effectiveness is irrelevant.

As a Christian I abhor torture, oppose torture in principle and would resist it in practice. That comes from my commitment to the way of Jesus, to the teaching of Jesus, and to my calling as a minister of reconciliation, an ambassador for Christ, and one who actually believes it is the peacemakers who will be called the children of God. Christianss know about torture. It is embedded at the core and emblazoned on the surface of our faith.

The Romans were experts in torture, its psychology and pathology. Crucifixion was one of the most effective instruments of torture ever used to secure political power - it silences the dissenter, executes the terrorist, uses fear as a weapon and deterrent, and dehumanises both the torturer and those deemed disposable. The Passion Story is an account of state power unleashed on a victim, all within the legal framework, and approved by the religious authorities. That's enough for me - I can't follow Jesus and consent to torture in my name, in the name of freedom, or in the name of supposed security.

Comments

[Donna Minto]

Well said and I wholeheartedly agree. Everyone seems to think that we should give Donald Trump the chance to prove himself but there are certain edicts and opinions that must be checked immediately they are uttered i.e. those that are wrong and immoral. His stance on immigrants is also wrong and immoral not to mention unkind and apparently oblivious to the wider repercussions it will cause. In one week Donald Trump has shown his true colours pretty clearly.

[LJ]

I am so very sad and deeply disappointed that the evangelical wing of the church in America has supported Trump. It has made me uncomfortable to the point that many of the speakers or authors I follow have lost something for me. I don't want to read them; that's how strongly I feel. I cannot, just cannot equate being a follower of Jesus with supporting Trump.
And I and others are labelled with the term 'judging' if we even dare express such thoughts in front of American pro-Trump friends.
What are your thoughts on this? Am I being too harsh and judgmental in dropping the reading or podcast listening or is it just a shock response and over time I will forget that they spoke out for Trump?

[Jim Gordon]

Hello LJ - you are by no means alone in asking this question. How evangelical Christians have managed to accommodate to, and rationalise their support for Donald Trump, raises questions about the nature of evangelicalism itself. Of course American evangelicalism has a diversity, and an entanglement with politics that differentiates it from other streams of global evangelicalism.
When Wayne Grudem, Franklin Graham, John Piper and other leaders endorsed his candidacy, it raised profound questions for many of us about American evangelical integrity. These first days of the Presidency confirm many of my own fears for the liberties, generosity, values and international standing of America.
Many evangelicals I know in America don't support Trump,but they are a minority. It is inevitable that such a deep fault line will mean those preachers and writers who support Trump have, in my view, raised serious questions about their moral judgement, understanding of Scripture and commitment to the clear unambiguous teaching of Jesus about love, peace, forgiveness, mercy, compassion and so much else that is radically diffeent from the nationalistic selfishness Trump and his team are promoting.
As to being judgemental, we are required to be critical of policies that discriminate, treat people inhumanely, demand unswerrving allegiance to the State and its power brokers. That means for me, those whose writing and speaking purport to guide me in my faith, require to pass the test of integrity and discernment in what they see, support and believe to be right. I will not read a book about how to be a Christian, written by someone who endorses and will not critique a President who has no qualms about the use of torture, or writing an edict of exclusion based on race or faith commitment. Like you, I am saddened and troubled about the kind of world that is triump's vision; I see nothing of the biblical values of justice, peace, mercy and service. These lie at the heart of my faith for they arise from my faith in Jesus. Hope this helps - thank you again for your comment.

[Dave Summers]

Thank you Jim - this is all well said.
A couple of months ago or so, I made a comment on Patheos along similar lines to the start of your reply to LJ and someone replied that evangelicalism in the US is a political, and not a religious movement. Although there are clearly exceptions I found that helpful.
I read Wayne Grudem's endorsement of Donald Trump and although he made several different points, at the root of it I felt that the argument was "I'm a Republican, Donald Trump is a Republican, so I support him." His politics were overriding his moral judgment I think. Although not sharing his politics, I would say that normally it is fair when voting to put policy above personality, but Donald Trump fails disastrously on both.