Historically, missionary work and humanitarian aid have topped the socio-economic priority list of the Church. It wasn’t until the 1950′s that politics established a presence in American churches, brought on by Billy Graham’s message that America’s greatest weapon to defend against the threat of Communism was the Gospel. The unity of faith and patriotism set the stage the marriage that was to follow.

Two decades later, A common enemy made the Church and the Republican party unlikely bedfellows, namely, abortion. Church leaders Francis Schaeffer, James Dobson, and others saw the political platform as a powerful way to spread the pro-life message and hopefully, overturn Roe vs. Wade, while politicians recognized an opportunity to leverage a massive demographic, conservative Christians.

Today, the Church’s political agenda and the values of the Republican Party are mirror images. Social and moral issues rooted in Christian doctrine as a high on the Republican priority list as cutting taxes and small government. Visit a politically active church and you’re more likely to be invited to an anti-abortion rally than asked to volunteer at a soup kitchen.

To be fair, it’s easy to see why the abortion issue is important to the Church. The Judeo-Christian world view, together with a conservative reading of Scripture, make it plain that man was created in God’s image, life is sacred, and murder is a sin (Genesis 1:27; Exodus 20:13, 21:22-25; Psalm 11:3; Proverbs 24:11-12; Matthew 5:21-22; James 2:5-9). The Pslams offer a few subtle hints that a fetus may be a human being. Together, a cohesive doctrine emerges: to abort a fetus is to take the life of another human being, which is a sin.

Biblically speaking, however, the crux of the issue is not the age of the person being killed, but the fact that a human life is being taken. Given this, one would expect to see the Church flex as much political muscle protect the lives of children and adults as it does the unborn. Focusing a little political energy pushing Congress to enact legislation that offers socio-economic support, but, as we’ll see later, reduce the number of abortions by providing much needed economic assistance.

Unfortunately, the Bible’s compassion and humanitarianism don’t jive well with the Republican Party’s stance on small government and trickle down economics. Politically, it’s difficult to obey Scripture’s commands feed the poor and care for the needy while simultaneously cutting welfare benefits and battling affordable healthcare legislation (Matthew 19:21, 25:35; Luke 12:33, 14:13, 20:46-47; Galatians 2:10; James 1:27, 2:2-6). The internal conflict, coupled with decades of political rhetoric, have often caused the Church to ignore pressing social issues in favor of combating abortion.

Ironically, such a strategy may have done more harm than good.

The 2005 Abortion Surveillance Report, published by the Center for Disease Control, found that number of abortions per year has been decreasing steadily. Between 1990 and 2000 the abortion rate fell 18-21%, that’s 300,000 fewer abortions. Surprisingly, 1990′s saw little change in legal restrictions on abortion.

To account for the decline, Catholics in Alliance conducted a study entitled, Reducing Abortion in America: The Socioeconomic Factors. They reported that changes in welfare policy were the primary factors contributing to the decrease in the abortion rate. Increasing economic assistance to lower income families and higher male employment was found to lower the annual number of abortions by as much as 205,000, a 20% decrease.

The study also found that poverty contributed to the abortion rate. Lower poverty rates were found to account for an increase of as much as 10%. The rate of abortion among women living below the poverty line is four times that of wealthy women. A 17% increase has been observed as female unemployment has risen.

What does all this mean? It seems that providing economic assistance to the poor is the most effective way to reduce the abortion rate in America.

What does this say about the Church’s Republican voting record to reduce welfare and social services? Some justify the position by arguing that abortion is akin to murder and simply reducing the abortion rate isn’t good enough. They argue that it must be fought directly, with a view to overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Politically speaking, the Church needs to review its strategy. Thirty years of protests, punching ballots, and political endorsements, have done little to further the cause. Evidence suggests that the real enemy in the war on abortion may not be Roe vs. Wade, but poverty. Maybe it’s time to consider a new strategy and the socio-economic plans of a different political party.

There comes a time when you have to reconsider your goal. If the goal of the Church is purely political, there is no reason to change now. It can continue spinning its wheels on the abortion issue while helping conservative candidates win elections, but if it wants to save lives, it has some serious thinking to do. If the Church continues to make perfect the enemy of good, opting for the all or nothing approach, the church will continue to yield little fruit for all their effort. On the other hand, if the goal is to save lives, it’s time to consider a new strategy, one that may not change the law of the land, but one that has demonstrated it’s ability to save the lives of children, adults, and even the unborn.

Maybe the best way to support the pro-life movement, is to vote for the pro-choice candidate.

In the previous article, we examined pragmatic arguments for and against torture. Now, we’ll take a look at the moral side of the issue.

On April 29, 2009, the Pew Research Center published their analysis of a survey that aimed to explore the correlation between political partisanship, religion, and one’s opinion about torture. Surprisingly, 62% of white evangelical protestants and 48% of white mainline protestants agreed that torture is sometimes justified.

How can we explain these results? Does the Bible justify the use of torture?

The Bible states that God has given the nations of the world the sword (Romans 13:1-7). Traditionally, this has been understood to mean that God gives every nation the right to exercise capital punishment. Does this right translate into a right to torture a prisoner of war? To make that claim would be a stretch. The interrogation of a POW for information he may or may not have is not the same as dealing citizen who has tried and found guilty of a crime. The Bible does not address specific conventions of war or the responsibilities of government.

A pragmatic argument could also be made based on the Biblical command to love and care for others (Matthew 9:19). If forced to choose between torturing a detainee and risking the lives of people, we should choose the lesser of the two evils and protect the lives of the innocent.

At his 100th Day Press Conference, President Obama gave a counter argument to this position with an appeal to national integrity. The President cited Winston Churchill’s decision not to torture German POW’s during World War II, even as Britain was being bombed. He went on to say that torture, “corrodes the character of our country,” and “In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.”

In an article entitled 5 Reasons Torture is Always Wrong, David P. Gushee, professor of moral philosophy at Union University wrote that humans were created in God’s image and therefore,  “human dignity, value, and worth come as a permanent and eradicable endowments of the Creator to every person.” He went on to say that when it comes to justice, Scripture favors the vulnerable. In the case of an interrogation, the detainee is more vulnerable party and should be protected.

In the end, its difficult to reconcile any Biblical justification for torture with the majority of Scripture. Its hard to argue with the commands in the New Testament to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, and never repay evil with evil (Matthew 5:39, Romans 12:17-19, 1 Thessalonians 5:15).

So if the Bible doesn’t torture, why do so many Christians? In the article, The Torture Debate: A Closer Look, the Pew Research Center reported that one’s political party and ideology had was more closely correlated to one’s opinion of torture than any other demographic, including religion. It seems that for much of the evangelical Church, the Bible is not the sole moral authority. This shouldn’t be surprising given the ever-growing ties between the Church and the Republican party.

Before we delve into moral and ethical arguments about torture, we must ask the simple question, “Does it work?”

Pragmatism, as a moral philosophy, places emphasis on practical consequences. Something is deemed good if it produces the desired results. While it may appear utilitarian on the surface, pragmatism is not void of ethical standards. When engages in pragmatic reasoning it is from within a social or governmental construct. In the United States, the Constitution serves as that construct. A politician may be pragmatic in his public policy, but those policy choices must fall within the boundaries set by the Constitution.

The Church has long viewed pragmatism as a flawed moral philosophy. Its focus on practicality smacks of moral relativism, posing a problem for Christians who look to the Bible as their sole moral authority. But, when push comes to shove, decisions still have to be made based on what will work. For the Church, the Bible serves as the construct that reigns in pragmatism and sets moral boundaries.

The difficulty arises when the Church rubs up against an issue that pits morality and practicality against one another. Should the Church denounce the use of harsh interrogation techniques for the sake of loving one’s enemies? What if it could produce information that saves lives? Is it the moral choice to love our enemy while leaving others to die in the process?

Before dealing with such questions, we must first ask, “Does it work?” After all, arguments in support of harsh interrogations are only relevant if they produce practical results.

What follows is a brief overview of the pragmatic arguments for and against the use of the Bush administration’s advanced interrogation techniques. After reading, share your thoughts and discuss and discuss.

Arguments for Harsh Interrogation

A number of individuals have argued for the efficacy of enhanced interrogation techniques, including Former Vice President Dick Cheney and former director of the CIA Michael Hayden. They argue that these techniques have produced valuable information and banning them would weaken America in the fight against terror.

Are they right? Well, there’s little question that these techniques have worked in the past. After being waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah gave information that lead to the capture of Kahlid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who later divulged information that lead to the arrest of Al-Quaeda’s Southeast Asia leader, Hambali, and warned of a potential attack in Los Angelas.

Another common argument is an appeal to the ticking time bomb scenario. It is argued that traditional methods of interrogation take time. Its a long process of developing rapport with a prisoner and slowly drawing out information. If ever there was an imminent threat to American lives, harsh interrogation techniques would be the fastest way to quickly extract information from a detainee.

Maybe the question to ask is not whether or not harsh interrogation techniques work at all, but whether or not they work best.

Arguments Against Harsh Interrogation

President Barack Obama, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Senator John McCain, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have all argued publicly that severe interrogation techniques are not as effective as traditional methods.

One of the most vocal opponents of the use of questionable interrogation techniques is Ali Soufon, an FBI agent and active member of the Joint Terrorist Task Force, On May 13, 2009, Soufon gave testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about his experience as an interrogator working with several terrorism suspects, including Abu Zubaydah.

Soufon testified that the harsh techniques authorized by the Bush administration are “from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat Al-Qaeda.” Rather than leveraging the intelligence available on a detainee, Soufon argued that harsh techniques employ a “force continuum” in which interrogations become progressively more severe until the will of a detainee is broken. He stated that such an approach is ineffective for several reasons:

• Al-Quaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture that is far more severe than the US Government is willing to authorize.
• Terrorists are trained to expect torture when caught. When a detainee finds himself in a situation similar to that which he has been trained for, the detainee is given “a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist.”
• Harsh interrogations often lead to false information.
• A harsh interrogation is designed to work over a period of time, often taking much longer than traditional methods.
• Those who conduct harsh interrogations are private contractors that do not necessarily have experience in intelligence operations, terrorism, or Al Quaeda.

Should Christians support torture? The is the first in a series of articles discussing the controversy surrounding the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation techniques, President Obama’s decision to ban their use, and how the Christian Church should respond.

Since the 2008 election, partisanship has dominated the political landscape. Complex issues are reduced to meaningless talking points in an effort to cultivate partisan loyalty. Rumors and misinformation pepper much of our conversation. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the issue of torture and interrogation techniques. For the average American, giving thoughtful consideration to the issue is not easy when being bombarded by rhetoric and commentary from the media.

The evangelical wing of the Christian Church stands in a unique position when it comes to moral issues, straddling line between politics and faith. With the establishment of the Christian Right in the 1970′s, Church leaders such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Francis Schaeffer succeeded in tying traditional interpretations of the Bible to the policies of the Republican party. For many evangelical Christians today, to be a believer is to vote Republican. This has been augmented in recent months with a growing partisan sentiment that leaves no room for any grey areas: “You are for me or you are against me.”

However, one cannot serve two masters. Despite its political ties, the Church is commanded to have a greater loyalty to the teaching of the Bible. Sometimes, Christians have t make a choice between their doctrine or their politics.

So when it comes to torture (or advanced interrogation techniques) what does the Christian find when he or she turns to the Bible? On the surface, it appears that the issue should be rather cut and dry. Didn’t Jesus say that Christians are to love their enemies and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-48)? But then again, Paul wrote in Romans that God has appointed world leaders and that they do not “bear the sword in vain” (13:1-7). Maybe that means that a govern has a God-given right to “bear the sword” in its use of harsh interrogation techniques. When we add partisan politics, the political lobbying of Church leaders, and touch questions about ethics and morality to the mix, the issue gets even more complicated.

Ultimately, one’s opinion on the issue is a matter of personal faith. At the end of the day, Christians have to sit down and decide for themselves how their faith applies to the situation. They have to decide what they believe is right.

The goal is to help Christians do just that. In the articles that follow, you’ll find quotations from memos released by the government, testimony from Congressional hearings, arguments from both sides of the issue, and a variety of discussion questions. As you read each article, share your thoughts in the comments, discuss the issues, and let let iron sharpen iron. For now, consider the following questions:

• How would you define torture?
• Is it ever appropriate to use interrogation techniques that could be considered torture? If so, when?
• What should the Church’s position be on the issue?