Is Torture Biblical?

Jack Bauer and Jesus

Most anyone who knows us at all, knows that Mary and I have been faithful viewers of the TV show, "24" for the past few years- it's about the only TV show we watch with any regularity thank God, but after this week's finale, we'll be on hiatus for some time. We have followed and been riveted by the exploits of secret-agent man Jack Bauer, who tortues bad-guy terrorists and wars against evil by the minute literally 24 hours a day (when does that man go to the bathroom or consume a beverage of any kind, for goddness sake?).

In lieu of the recent controversy over the CIA tapes of America's "enhanced interrogations" of suspected terrorists in the 'war on terror' that escalted more than a notch after 9-11, I have begun to wonder what God thinks and what the Bible has to say about such things as "waterboarding" (simulated drowning of suspected terrorists in interrogation). I know what the aforementioned Mr. Bauer would do (waterboarding is a day at the beach for him). But more importantly what would Jesus, a victim of 'torture' Himself ( read Isa. 53, the gospels and see the Passion) would do or say about it today? First, what are Christians saying about it?

For starters, white evangelicals are more sympathetic to torture. The poll data from a survey of American adults released April 29 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 62 % of white evangelical Protestants said torture of a suspected terrorist could be often or sometimes justified to obtain important information. By contrast, 51 % of white non-Hispanic Catholics, 46 % of white mainline Protestants (mostly liberal) and 40 % of the religiously unaffiliated held that position. Moreover, those who attend religious services at least once a week were more likely than those who rarely or never attend to say torture is sometimes or often justified in that scenario - 54 to 42 %. What is torture anyway? Torture can be defined as “the infliction of intense pain to punish, to coerce, or to derive sadistic pleasure.” Of course, sadism is never appropriate or just, but what about punishment or coercion? Is there ever a time when inflicting pain is justified in order to punish wrongdoing or to obtain a confession? What if that confession would lead to information that could save thousands of lives( this is the Jack Bauer defense)?

Pro-Family leader Gary Bauer said the answer is "It depends. I think if we believe the person we have can give us information to stop thousands of Americans from being killed, it would be morally suspect to not use harsh tactics to get that information." Many other evangelicals and conservatives disagree, including Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who revealed this month that he thinks waterboarding is torture and never justified. He said part of his conclusion is based on his belief that it's "...very likely to cause permanent psychological damage. It seems to me once you accept the 'end justifies the means' argument, then you have taken a step onto a very steep and slippery slope to a dark and dangerous place."

What now? Last fall, a university study on morals and ethics found that 44 % of white Southern evangelicals rely on life experience and common sense to form opinions on torture. By contrast, 28 % said they relied on Christian teachings or beliefs. Doh- red flag! Not good family- we need a biblical world-view, not a life-experience one in order to answer tough questions. So what does the Bible say?The Bible acknowledges the existence of torture. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a servant who was “turned . . . over to the jailers to be tortured” (Matthew 18:34). Such an allusion seems to indicate that the use of torture was common in the prisons of the day. The Bible also records the stories of many victims of torture other than Jesus (e.g. Paul and Silas -Acts 16), the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:2; 38:6), and other unnamed saints (Hebrews 11:35). In every case, we see that the godly are the victims of torture, never the perpetrators of torture. After all we are all (that means evil terrorists included) made in God's image and guess what- worthy of redemption right? It should go without saying that as individuals, we are not to seek revenge. Vengeance belongs only to the Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19).

Here's another question then, what about from the govermental view? We know that God has appointed civil governments and charged them with maintaining justice in this world (Romans 13:1-5). “For [the ruler] is God's servant to do you good . . . an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (verse 4). Elsewhere, God calls judges and magistrates to provide justice, which comes from God Himself (Psalm 82:1-4). If they fail in their duty, they will themselves be judged by the Lord, the Judge of all (verses 7-8). So government bears the responsibility to protect the good and punish the evil (Jack likes that part). What methods may it employ in carrying out that responsibility? Beyond the endorsement of capital punishment (Romans 13:4; Genesis 9:6), the Bible does not say. The Bible neither condemns nor condones a government’s use of torture. Many more questions can and should be asked: What specific techniques should be considered “torture”? Where do we draw the line? Is the infliction of any kind of pain inherently wrong? What if there are no permanent physical effects? Is sleep deprivation torture? What about a forced change in diet? Should yelling at a prisoner be considered psychological torture? Though there are practical considerations there, but it is scripture and the prompting of the Spirit that should dictate our view.

These are all questions not addressed explicitly in the Bible and are beyond the scope of this pastor at the moment, but they do highlight the need for us to dig deeper (see today's Dig Deeper from the blog- to pray “for kings and all those in authority”, 1 Timothy 2:2). May our President and other policy makers have the wisdom to distinguish good from evil and to provide true justice considering that all people are created in the image of God.

Mother's Day Madness!

As I feared and expected, some of you ladies were a bit ruffled after our Sunday morning Mother's Day message on the "Gift of Order", which concluded our series on The Body (the church). Although I might have come off a bit chauvinistic to some of you in expositing or explaining Paul's text from 1 Corinthians 14:33-40, I prayerfully hope that I did not needlessly offend with my words and that this blog will clarify where time on Sunday at CCC could not.

I understand this is a provocative and to some, a controversial passage of scripture, in that it steps on the toes of modern coventional wisdom, American culture, political correctness and assuredly, feminism as we know it. The issues are predominately two-fold: can women speak in church and can they or should they serve as preachers and pastors in the biblical and evangelical church? Well, rather than skip Paul's teaching there in dealing with the excesses and disturbances occuring in the Corinthian church (including tongues and prophesying) as he concluded his doctrine on the behavior of the local 'body' of Christ, we attempted to deal with the issues head on as scripture does.

To summarize, when Paul spoke to the order of the church, as God is a God of order and authority (1 Corinthians 14:40), the text tells us that women are to "keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak;...(14:34)." As I mentioned Sunday, one of the challenges we face in interpreting, explaining and preaching the Bible, is that we are somewhat handcuffed when translating the original, more nuanced and elaborate, original languages of scripture (Greek in this case) to English. Literally, 'something gets lost in the translation,' and this text is an example of that. The word "speak" here literally means to proclaim, or to speak forth, as in prophecy (heralding truth, not the predictive type) or preaching. Therefore, a better translation or understanding might be that 'they (women) are not to preach.' Again, that would be in the gender-integrated context of the local church gathering. This admonition again would not preclude a woman from speaking or questioning in a church gathering in so far, as it would not disrupt the service or usurp the pastoral authority of the preacher as was the case in Corinth with regard to revelations and tongues. Nor, would that admonition preclude a woman from exercising her prophecy and teaching gifts in discipleship and among other groups publically.

With regard to this issue and tying it into the question of woman pastors, we noted that Paul elaborated in depth as to the why of this doctrine, in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Therein contains the timeless principle of church leadership and preaching for all times and all peoples. Refer to the message on-line or an outline we can provide for details. At the end of the day, we have to accept that not only has God given men and woman spiritual equality at the cross and from creation, but He has also given us diversity, from which should spring unity (The Body, Pt. 1) .

Ladies and gentlemen, God created us in His image, "male and female" (Gen. 1:27) with equal value and dignity. The Prophet Joel and Peter in Acts 2:17, remind us that God poured out His Holy Spirit with gifts on His "sons and daughters." Let's not forget that. Ms. Susan Hunt, a conference speaker from the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood offers five principles from the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) that offer an exhortation and encouragement to our women who want to exercise their gifts for His glory and kingdom:

1) In submission, women must follow the ecclesiastical leadership that God has given them. The women’s ministry must be submitted to the male leadership for approval, but so must every other discipleship ministry. We also see the qualifications for male headship in that women are called to submit to godly leaders not tyrants. This should be seen as a security for women, not a hindrance.
2) A vibrant women’s ministry can come alongside the diaconal ministries of the church because they are compassionate.
3) When a women’s ministry is characterized by community we see what it means to truly be the family of God. The widows in the New Testament were credentialed by a life of the ordinary stuff that makes covenant community life extraordinary.
4) Gender specific discipleship, as seen in Titus 2:3-5, is so important because we would never on our own come to an understanding of what it means to be a life-giver. Gender specific disicipleship that focuses on principles about what God says about our womanhood must be taught because women are hearing something in the culture and what they are hearing is not God’s way.
5) In 2 Timothy 3:2-17 we see that Timothy’s mother and grandmother taught him the Scriptures from infancy. Here we see the principles of the foundation and sufficiency of Scripture.

If there are core biblical principles, women’s ministry can be the church's greatest delight for men and women. If not, then it will be our worst nightmare. We'll fit this and all of us together in our new series, Basic Training, which begins Sunday.

More Marks of a Godly Mother and Priestly Problems

More Mother's Day Grades....

Earlier this week, we began our Mother's Day preparations by noting from the Proverbs 31 woman and Hannah's example in 1 Samuel, that a biblical, God-fearing and loving woman in that role, is valuable and trustworthy or loyal (Proverbs 31:10-11). She is wholly devoted to her God, husband, home and children. You may know a mom like that or unfortunately you may not.

Thinking about Sunday and studying Hannah and other biblical matriarchs, I find that their value and devotion is reflected by their parenting and the hunger for holiness in home and children. Christian researcher George Barna in his book on families, found three types of Parenting to illustrate that idea: Parenting by default, is what Barna termed "the path of least resistance." In this approach, parents do whatever comes naturally to the parent, as influenced by cultural norms and traditions. The objective is to keep everyone - parent, child, and others - as happy as possible. Being the buddy of our kids is paramount to this parenting style. Sound familiar to anyone? Trial-and-error parenting is a common alternative. This approach is based on the notion that every parent is an amateur at raising children, there are no absolute guidelines to follow, and that the best that parents can do is to experiment, observe outcomes, and improve based upon their successes and failures in child rearing.

Nice try mom, this is a plea to ignorance. Barna found that revolutionary parenting was the least common approach (which of course makes it the most biblical). Such nurturing requires the parent to take God’s words on life and family at face value, and to apply those words faithfully and consistently. That sounds like an "A" grade from God for the type of motherhood that Hannah seems to have displayed. How about we pray for a revival in revolutionary parenting? Finally, you put all that together and you find a biblical mother "to be praised" (Proverbs 12:4; 31:23, 28-31). It's like the teacher who asked a boy this question: "suppose your mother baked a pie and there were seven of you-your parents and five children. What part of the pie would you get"? "A sixth," replied the boy. "I'm afraid you don't know your fractions," said the teacher. 'Remember, there are seven of you.' "Yes, teacher, said the boy, "but you don't know my mother. Mother would say she didn't want any pie."

A Priestly Problem

In lieu of the Father Cutie scandal (not "cutey" I suppose), one might ask, what's worse, the sin of fornication or 'fall from grace' of a celebrity priest or a single, "burning" (1 Corinthians 7) clergyman, or the unbiblical, ridiculous and scandalous policy of an apostate religion, that forces celibacy on such men? According to the Sun-Sentinel report, "Archbishop John C. Favalora suspended Cutié from the pulpit at St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church on Tuesday," coming after a Mexican magazine published 25 photos of "Father Alberto," as he is called, in the throes of rapture more carnal than spiritual. Cutié wrote an e-mail apology, asking forgiveness from "those who may be hurt or saddened by my actions. ... The commitment that I made to serve God will remain intact."

The answer to the question posed above of course, is a both/and. While one cannot excuse nor defend the fornication of a minister or shepherd leading a flock, one must also go to the source and ask while Roman Catholic dogma demands celibacy from it's clergy when it's alleged founder of sorts- the apostle Peter as the first pope (a long, discredited notion), was as Al Bundy once was, "married with children." Celibacy had been a church practice since at least the third century, largely for ascetic and spiritual reasons (e.g. monks). But it wasn't until a century later that a certain Pope insisted on celibacy for priests and deacons. Even then, priests often married until the 11th century, until Gregory VII banned clerical marriage -- and it took another century for the practice to spread churchwide.

Why the change? "Show me the money." Historians note that the Roman church was losing too many assets (like land) and the opportunity to control such, by the inheritance of wives and families of deceased priests and the papacy couldn't have that. How convienent. Cutie once said of his celebrity, priestly status in a Hispanic magazine, "I'm not the priest for the regular Catholic crowd. I made that decision a long time ago. I'm the priest for the lost sheep. Which is why I do the media thing and the press thing and the book thing." Lost sheep? Perhaps the Vatican should begin looking for the lost sheep within it's very midst.

Marks of a Godly Mother

Mother's Day Grades

As I think of this Sunday's upcoming Mother's Day, I remember someone once saying, “God could not be everywhere and therefore he made mothers." There’s just something special about moms isn’t there? Mothers are teachers. Mothers are disciplinarians. Mothers are cleaning ladies (my mom excelled there) and some mothers are gardeners and mowers of lawns (unfortunately guys). Mothers are also nurses, doctors, psychologists, chauffeurs and coaches. Mothers are developers of our personalities and shapers of our attitudes. Little wonder why sports figures salute their mothers first and foremost on those sideline closeups.

That's why no one deserves a special day all to themselves more than today's Mom. A cartoon showed a psychologist talking to his patient: "Let's see," he said, "You spend 50 percent of your energy on your job, 50 percent on your husband and 50 percent on your children. I think I see your problem."Maybe that’s why all women were not cut out or will be, nor should be mothers. Not that motherhood doesn’t bring great reward. Psa. 127:3, Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.

Though 1 Corinthians 7 tells us that singleness is a gift and many of you ladies have it (e.g. Miriam and Deborah), 1 Peter 3 reminds us that motherhood is a high calling for women. So for a woman who wants to be all God wants her to be as a mother- young or old, where do they go for advice in the scriptures? Not Genesis necessarily, where we read about Eve’s inauspicous debut, Sarah and her lack of faith and trust in providing the child of promise, or even Rebekah who played favorites with Jacob over Esau. This was not motherhood 101.

However, if you look at Proverbs 31, and you look at great godly women like Hannah (1 Samuel 1-2), you'll find out. This often-cited proverb is one to be memorized, as each of the final 22 verses begin with each succeeding letter of the Hebrew alphabet, making it an acrostic, serving as a great learning and memorization device. Therefore, this week we'll look at four marks of a godly mother from Proverbs 31 in anticipation of Mother's Day. 31:10 tells us the godly mother is costly- in the sense that she is quite valuable, "An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels." We can take that verse literally, as I think about the sacrifices to ego and self-gratitifcation that my mother and wife have made like so many, to stay home and manage a household of children and business. How valuable is a stay-at-home mom today? According to research from Salary.com, “if the typical stay-at-home mother in the U.S. were paid for her work as a housekeeper, cook and psychologist among other roles, she would earn $138,095 a year.” That by the way(BTW), is based on a 92 hour work-week, 40 at base pay, and 52 of overtime.

Second, Pro. 31:11 tells us this great, godly mother is trustworthy, "The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain." John Maxwell, the best-selling author on leadership suggests that “If you can’t trust someone, you can’t count on them….trust makes leadership possible.” He added in his book on the 17 Laws of Teamwork, “The greatest compliment you can receive is being counted on.” Therefore, being trustworthy means being someone you can count on. Hannah the mother of Israel's first prophet Samuel, was trustworthy and was rewarded, primarily becuase she was devoted to her God and to her husband (1 Sam. 1:4-8, 28-2:2).

What does that kind of devotion look like? Susannah Wesley, spent one hour each day praying for her 17 children. In addition, she took each child aside for a full hour every week to discuss spiritual matters. No wonder two of her sons, Charles and John, were used of God to bring blessing to all of England and much of America. Next time, we'll look at how a godly mother is to be holy and to be praised.