a few thoughts on Christians and torture...

In a recent blog entry, my pastor pointed to a recent study which found that Evangelical Christians are more likely, than the public at large, to accept torture as valid in certain circumstances. He then makes a couple of suggestions as to why this might be the case (Christians have historically supported justified wars/God sometimes told Israel to wipe out their enemies/Sometimes violence must be allowed to prevent worse violence).

While I agree that these hint at the connection, I want to suggest that the real reason for the polling results goes far deeper, to the very core of the Christian faith - and that the decision of any Christian to advocate any legitimation of torture is actually the symptom of an even greater, devilish, lie that must be rooted out, bit by bit, in order for the Kingdom of God to be made evident.

Why do I make such a bold claim? Consider the definition of torture. I am not going to refer here to the expansive definition given by the UN Convention against Torture, but to the more basic definition found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1(a): anguish of body or mind; agony (b): something that causes agony or pain.
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.

Now, what image(s) does this definition bring to mind? Torture is anguish, agony, pain, punishment... in a word: Hell.

Yes, that's right. The Old Testament genocides are just the beginning. Christians, particularly today's Evangelicals, are slow to unequivocally condemn torture because we have, as a primary tenet of our faith, an eschatological precedent: Our God tortures. And not only does God torture those who are his enemies eternally, God tortures them beyond any punishment we can muster (see Matt. 25:46, 1 Thess. 1:8, Rev. 20:15).

So, if God will torture those who reject Christ, surely a bit of torture to protect ourselves isn't so wrong? After all, Christians use the threat of hell as a means to save souls all the time.

What does the second part of Merriam-Webster's entry say? It defines torture as the infliction of pain in an effort to coerce. Think about this: Christians torture every time they use the threat of hell to coerce someone into accepting Christ. We, as Evangelicals, have grown up in an environment where torture is not only advocated, it is encouraged! To place the fear of eternal damnation in someone's psyche as a means to encourage their decision... what is that besides torture?

I can hear the responses coming: "But it's for their own good! They need salvation!" Exactly. And so, we are obligated to sometimes torture, as good Christians, to bring about the good. At this point it may sound like I'm actually building a Christian case FOR torture -- what about my claim that all this is a devilish lie?

That will be in the next post. :-)

Kierkegaard on the sickness of despair...

"Is despair a merit or a defect? Purely dialectically it is both. If one were to think of despair only in the abstract, without reference to some particular despairer, one would have to say that it is an enormous merit. The possibility of this sickness is [humanity's] advantage over the beast, and it is an advantage which characterizes him quite otherwise than the upright posture, for it bespeaks the infinite... loftiness of [the] being spirit...

And yet not only is it the greatest misfortune and misery actually to be in despair; no, it is ruin. Generally the relation between possibility and actuality is not like this; if the ability to be 'such and such' is meritorious, then it is an even greater merit actually to be it. That is to say, in relation to being able, being is an ascent. In the case of despair, however, in relation to being able to be, actually being is one of descent... so what amounts to an ascent in the case of despair is not being in it...

Despair is the imbalance in a relation of synthesis, in a relation which relates to itself."

more from Marion's "God Without Being"...

"... the proposition "God is a being" itself appears as an idol, because it only returns the aim that, in advance, decides that every possible 'God', present or absent, in one way or another, has to be... But is it self-evident that God should have to be, hence to be as a being (supreme, plural - however one wants) in order to give himself as God?

But what indeed can permit and promise the attempt at a thinking of God without and outside of ontological difference? Indeed, to think outside of ontological difference eventually condemns one to be no longer able to think at all. But precisely, to be no longer able to think, when it is a question of God, indicates neither absurdity nor impropriety... By definition and decision, God, if he must be thought, can meet no theoretical space to his measure, because his measure exerts itself in our eyes as an excessiveness. Ontological difference itself, and hence also Being, become too limited..."

thoughts?

Marion on the idolatry of "God"...

It's been a while since I've posted anything that is theologically/philosophically abstract, so here's a bit from Marion's "God Without Being," which I'm currently reading...

"When a philosophical thought expresses a concept of what it then names 'God,' this concept functions exactly as an idol... because it apprehends the divine on the basis of Dasein [Being], it measures the divine as a function of it; the limits of the divine experience of Dasein provoke a reflection that... allows it to freeze the divine in a concept... Notably, the 'death of God' presupposes a determination of God that formulates him in a precise concept; it implies then... a grasp of the divine that is limited and for that reason intelligible." (Jean-Luc Marion)

For the record...

I'd just like to say that neither Miss California nor "Joe the Plumber" speak for me, as a Christian (or in any other capacity). There are plenty of gifted followers of Christ who might serve as examples of my/our faith, perhaps someday the mainstream media will discover them. Until then, don't believe the hype - or the anti-hype. Oh, and, Christianity Today... what were you thinking?! End transmission.

addendum to previous post...

Another great artist worth checking out, just heard about her: Brooke Waggoner. Wow. Acoustic piano-based indie pop. Beautiful. Really amazing.

cool new music...

So, here are a few of the newest releases that I've been enjoying:

Mastodon - Crack the Skye: If the name and title didn't give it away, this is metal. Probably some of the best metal I've heard in years. Sounds like a cross between Metallica and Pink Floyd. I'm not kidding. Heavy as [insert metaphor here]. Excellent music, no matter how you slice it. I'm sure there are much more 'metal' adjectives to use for this album, but I'll leave that to the fanboys.

Bat For Lashes - Two Suns: I'm a sucker for melancholy modern electronic pop sung by quirky girls. This has it all - great vocals, enigmatic (yet decipherable) lyrics, progressive song structures that still have insanely memorable hooks, and - of course - a girl with a halo holding two shining orbs on the cover. haha. Fans of Bjork, Tori Amos, Delirium, My Brightest Diamond, etc should check it out. Very well executed. (Wait, now that sounds metal...!)

Fever Ray - Fever Ray: I wasn't familiar with The Knife, the Swedish electronic duo who apparently is all the rage with the indie kids, but I listened to this CD and was drawn in. And the good thing is that it actually gets better with repeated listens. Sort of a minimalistic electronic sound with a female singer (she is one-half of The Knife) who at times seems to channel an African-chant vibe. Unique, and great as a soundscape background, but the songs still retain enough of a structure that you can sing along with the words. Not for everyone, I would say, but if you enjoy mellow computerized music that is a bit dark, I'd recommend it.

Coming soon: brand new releases from Mewithoutyou and Isis! 2009 is looking good so far!