Others here in the Corner and elsewhere on NRO have written thoughtfully about the ethical and political aspects of the debate on interrogation tactics. One recurring element of the discussions has been dissatisfaction with the loose use of the term "torture." Many public figures have carelessly used the word without clearly defining what they mean by it, a practice that has contributed to the confusion of the debate.

I first became aware of the dogged refusal to precisely define the term "torture" a few years ago and mentioned it in passing in a 2007 Books and Culture article critiquing the "Evangelical Declaration Against Torture." In a response to my article, David Gushee, the primary author of the declaration, attempted to justify his decision not to define the term "torture" with any specificity. In fact, Gushee suggested that even asking for a more precise definition was an indication that one is "up to no good." For seeking greater clarity Gushee has reportedly accused me of "quibbling." When academic theologians and "ethicists" refuse to define their terms - and even question the propriety of doing so - we should not be surprised to find the public confused on a serious moral issue.

Reporters have also sometimes muddied the waters, either through careless writing or because of an unwillingness or inability to do the hard work of understanding and explaining the moral questions involved. Take for instance this story on torture and Christian ethics published this week by the Religion News Service. Using as its hook a recent Pew poll, the RNS report goes on to quote several commentators, including me. In the process, my views were grossly mischaracterized:

Two conservative Christian scholars insisted waterboarding is not torture, and can be morally defensible for Christians.

"Evangelicals, like everyone else, do not support any immoral use of force for any reason by anyone," said Daniel Heimbach, professor of ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. "And evangelicals, like everyone else, also believe that coercive methods of interrogation can be used within strict moral boundaries. There is, in fact, no moral disagreement on this."

Keith Pavlischek of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center agrees with Gushee and others that Christians are not properly informed about the torture issue. But he insists if they were, they would understand that torture is not inherently evil according to Christian principles, "classic natural law" and just-war theory.

Labeling certain techniques as torture without doing the hard work of applying consistent moral principles distorts the debate, said Pavlischek, a former Marine lieutenant in Iraq and now director of EPPC's Program to Protect America's Freedom.

Simple slogans don't help, either, he said, because the debate itself is not simple.

"If your first question is ‘What would Jesus do?' you get a mess," said Pavlischek. "The reason evangelicals are confused (on torture) is because evangelical leaders are confused."

I can speak only for myself and not the other commentators quoted in the article, but the paraphrases that I marked above in bold completely misstate my views. I spent nearly an hour on the phone with the RNS reporter and certainly did not claim that "torture is not inherently evil according to Christian principles." Because the term "torture" carries a normative connotation - namely, the immoral and illegal infliction of pain - the reporter's paraphrase suggests that I hold the preposterous position that immoral acts are not immoral and can actually be justified on the basis of Christian principles, natural law theory, and just war theory.

In fact, I carefully explained to the reporter that there are forms of pain-infliction that are necessarily torture and are intrinsically immoral, such as forced sodomy, bodily mutilation, and electrical shocking.

I also took special care to explain that not all forms of pain-infliction are necessarily torture and intrinsically evil. If they were, then actions such as spanking, handcuffing, and riot control would be intrinsically evil.

I also did not "insist[ that] waterboarding is not torture." On the specific question of waterboarding, I told the reporter that I believe that it is a "close call," and that reasonable people of good will can disagree about its morality.

More broadly, in discussing the moral permissibility of "enhanced interrogation techniques," I told the reporter that any Christian argument for such techniques had to be non-consequentialist. In other words, a Christian's moral judgment of the acts cannot depend on the hoped-for outcome; it must be based on the morality of the actions themselves - because Christians don't "do evil so that good may come."

I'm completely confident that this reporter, who has apologized to me, did not set out to so badly mischaracterize my views. He had to synthesize and summarize the views of a half-dozen scholars and on a tight deadline and had only 1,000 words or so to tell the story. (That haste is also no doubt why he misidentifies me as "a former Marine lieutenant in Iraq," even though I retired in 2007 as a colonel. He got the "Marine" and the "Iraq" part right, but I haven't been a lieutenant since 1983.) And I am happy to report that Kevin Eckstrom, the editor of RNS, responded to my request for a correction. The corrected version of the story will now say:

Two conservative Christian scholars said waterboarding could be justified in some instances, and Christians can come to different conclusions about whether the practice constitutes "torture."...

Keith Pavlischek of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center agrees with Gushee and others that Christians are not properly informed about the torture issue. But he insists if they were, they would understand that while torture itself is inherently evil, not all methods that inflict pain constitute torture.

All's well that ends well, and RNS should be applauded for quickly correcting the record. Journalistic errors of this sort are not always so promptly and responsibly corrected and too often they serve to confuse this heated debate. The seriousness of the subject deserves better.

Keith Pavlischek is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and director of EPPC's Program to Protect America's Freedom.