Torture & Allegiance: Part 3, A Christian Response?

It is a noteworthy fact that torture is at the heart of the Christian story. And it centers on issues of sovereignty. By refusing to renounce his claim of kingship, an act of both blasphemy and treason, Jesus of Nazareth was tortured and executed by the religious and political powers. Further, the followers of Jesus willingly submit to torture and execution to live and die by their claim that their ultimate allegiance is not to any earthly king, prince, kingdom or nation.

My interest in Kahn's analysis in Sacred Violence rests on his notion that torture exists in the space of sovereignty. As noted in Part 1, liberals contest this location, claiming that torture is illegal, that its proper location is in the space of law. Since liberals and conservatives cannot agree upon the location of torture the political discussions are stymied. The fundamental assumptions are disjointed.

But what struck me about Kahn's analysis is that where the politicians and pundits might be stymied the thoughtful Christian has some wiggle room. Specifically, a part of the problem with the political debates about torture (e.g., Cheney vs. Obama) is that each party claims the same sovereign. Both have given their highest allegiance to the United States of America.

If Kahn is correct that torture is best located in the space of sovereignty it strikes me that Christians don't have to argue in the categories deployed by liberals and conservatives. That is, the categories of the Enlightenment need not apply to Christian discourse. Liberals and conservatives may disagree on the location of torture but they don't disagree about their sovereign allegiances. This makes the conversation difficult for them. Christians, by contrast, can sidestep this entire debate. That is, for the Christian the location of torture is largely irrelevant because the Christian doesn't hold the Untied States to be the ultimate sovereign. Jesus was tortured about just this issue: A refusal to recognize Caesar as king. (If he had done so with Pilate he would have gone free. John 18-19.)

The point, for me at least, is that I don't think liberal Christians are best served by arguing that torture is illegal (although it may well be). Further, I don't think that liberal Christians are best served by arguing that torture is immoral. At least if that argument is governed by Enlightenment warrants for morality. Because I think Kahn is correct: Those arguments tend to lead to an impasse. I think the Christian response to torture is best argued by an appeal to allegiances.

And, surprisingly, this analysis reveals something of the power of the Christian worldview. That is, I don't think atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris can contribute much to the torture debates beyond what is currently being said. Enlightenment categories are a bit impotent here. Just watch TV. But the Christian appeal to the cross breaks the debate open in a fresh and novel way.

In short, the debate about torture is fundamentally, if Kahn is to be believed, a religious debate. It's not a legal or moral debate.

I entitled these posts Torture & Allegiance because I think Kahn is correct, torture exists in the space of sovereignty. Thus, arguments about illegality or morality tend to get stuck when people share the same allegiances. But Christians don't share those same allegiances. So the conversation is more fluid for them. Christians are playing a different game than the one the pundits are playing. That is, I don't think Christians should side with Limbaugh or Olbermann on this. A Christian response should be cutting across the debates on TV and on the political blogs. This is not to say that a Christian can't put on the hat of a citizen and wade into these waters. It is just to say that a distinctly Christian response to torture begins and ends in a very different place. It will begin and end with the torture of Jesus.