Justice, Forgiveness, and Trauma

IMG_1128

I spent the last week having conversations around the ideas of justice, forgiveness, and trauma. It was extremely enlightening and exhausting, and so I’m here trying to make some sense of it.

A theme I saw repeated many times, both in the context of Brandt Jean (Botham Jean’s younger brother) forgiving his brother’s murderer this week and in conversations related to people’s private trauma, was the repetition of the idea that justice has to do with punishment and retribution for the offender, and that forgiveness is exoneration for the offender. As though justice and forgiveness are ideas which stand in opposition, and I don’t believe they are.

However, I understand why they are seen this way because of the way that forgiveness has been weaponized as a tool of oppression against many that have suffered various types of trauma.

I would like to posit that in order for forgiveness to be possible, understanding it in a framework of justice is the only way to move forward. God’s justice is considerably different than many of us have been led to believe–as is God’s forgiveness. Understanding this is key to our mutual liberation.

The idea that God’s forgiveness can include both accusation and condemnation isn’t one that you normally hear preached on Sunday. The idea that justice is good news for the oppressed and the oppressor isn’t something we normally want to chew on.

But if we are to reclaim these vital concepts and apply them with mercy to our broken world and our broken lives, we need to understand the origins.

And the origins are rooted in shalom. As Lisa Sharon Harper says, “Shalom is the stuff of the Kingdom. It’s what the Kingdom of God looks like in context. It’s what citizenship in the Kingdom of God requires and what the Kingdom promises to those who choose God and God’s ways to peace.” (The Very Good Gospel, p. 13). And Shalom is good news. It’s the promise of what is to come when God makes all things new, and it’s a reality we can live into even as we work with our own trauma and the brokenness of the world around us.

So if we understand that justice and forgiveness has to be rooted in the thriving of everyone, then we can see how the misuse of forgiveness in particular has been weaponized in a way that is antithetical to the kingdom of God. When abused women are told to forgive and stay with their abuser, when black people are expected to forgive white aggression even as the white people walk away from trials with minimal to no sentences in response to taking of black lives, when we go to our priests and pastors with our trauma and told simply that we must forgive without an understanding that forgiveness in itself contains an accusation and a condemnation, then forgiveness has been turned into a weapon of oppression. Doing this can cut off the survivor of trauma from the freedom that real forgiveness can give to them, a freedom that involves a cry for justice all wrapped up in this concept referred to as forgiveness. (Cf. Miraslov Volf, Free of Charge, 2005).

Forgiveness is not exoneration, and justice is not retribution.

A person can be forgiven and still serve their jail sentences. In fact, I would argue in our moment, if Amber Guyger appeals her sentence, she was not actually repenting of her sin against Botham Jean. Repentance involves facing–even welcoming–the consequences of your actions as the road to redemption.

Forgiveness is not reconciliation. There are two parts to this story.

One can extend the accusation that is forgiveness, the condemnation of the act that wounded you, the recognition of the impact of the actions that abused you, and in the same moment can walk away from the people who are committing wrong against you if that is possible. I’m thinking more of personal relationships in this instance, people who are traumatized by systemic racism for example cannot get away from the systems that are causing that trauma.

Forgiveness is also a path to freedom for the survivor of trauma. However, with no repentance and no consequences for the one who did the wrong, there is no requirement for reconciliation. In fact, reconciliation without repentance not only does no favors for the survivor nor the perpetrator, it actually removes the accusation and condemnation and thereby removes the requirement for repentance on the part of the perpetrator. Not only does this do no favors, it is actually wrong. And for the church or any organization or institution with power to say that forgiveness requires forgetting, or that forgiveness requires reconciliation without repentance and without consequences, is an abuse in itself. This falls into the category of spiritual abuse: an abuse that often is tied up in the traumas of so many because it served to compound and exacerbate situations that were already beyond bearing for so many.

Jesus promises that his “yoke is easy and his burden is light” and all too often the church forgets this and piles so much weight onto already broken and abused people when it should be coming alongside them and taking on the weight of their trauma and making it easier to bear. This is so opposite the actions of the wounded Savior they claim to worship that I can hardly comprehend it, and yet the first is all too often the response of those who claim the name of Christ.

Forgiveness and supremacy culture

In their new book Activist Theology, Robyn Henderson-Espinoza talks about divesting ourselves of our privileges “and from practices that support supremacy culture” and calls us to “chart a different path–one that is animated by the radical act of bridging radical differences” (p. 28). Reading this in the context of thinking about justice and forgiveness, I see a call to all of us to divest whatever privilege we have–and some of us have much more than others–and to come together to promote shalom–that mutual thriving of everyone, regardless of that person’s original “status” in society.

And in light of forgiveness first being an accusation and a condemnation, we can forgive those who participate in systemic wrongs even as we call for justice and an end to the systems of supremacy and oppression.

Justice for the oppressed and the oppressor

In his book on eschatology (or the theology of “what comes next”), Jurgen Moltmann talks about God’s creative justice at the end of all things. This justice “brings the victims justice and puts the perpetrators right.” The perpetrators “will be saved through the crucified Christ, who comes to them together with their victims” (emphasis mine). He goes on, “As the coming judge of victims and perpetrators, the risen Christ will do away with the suffering one and the burden of the other, and will bring both out of the dominion of evil into the community of God’s righteousness and justice” (p. 143).

Now I have to admit, when I first read this, it made me mad. Justice for the oppressed and the oppressor. And then it hit me, this is fabulous news because I am both oppressed, and oppressor, I am victim, and perpetrator, and there will be justice for the wrongs I have suffered and a path to repentance for the wrongs I have committed. That path, that justice, is offered through repentance and if I take it, I have the opportunity for reconciliation.

Moltmann goes on to say that the purpose of God’s judgement “is not reward or punishment, but the victory of the divine creative righteousness and justice, and this victory does not lead to heaven or hell but to God’s great day of reconciliation on this earth” (p. 143).

Justice for the oppressed and the oppressor is an amazing gift! One that should give all of us hope even in the here and now.

But we must be careful to note that this ultimate judgement and justice and the reconciliation made possible by it is mediated by God through God’s judgement, and the reconciliation offered to the oppressors is only offered in the context of facing what they did. It’s not just “between them and God,” it’s between them, God, and their victims.

God’s forgiveness is a path to freedom for all of us, but reconciliation may have to wait until God makes all things new. Even then, it is predicated on the response of the oppressor.

I for one hope I will walk into the forgiveness that I need for the wrongs I have committed, and I want to start that path now–on this side of God’s great day of judgement. And in that light, I also commit to the process of releasing those who have wronged me. I hope that they also begin their own paths towards being forgiven and towards reconciliation. But there is some reconciliation that is only possible on the other side of God’s great day of judgement when God sits as mediator and advocate.

Note: If you read this when it first went live, I revised two sections after feedback. I did not mean to imply that victims had power over their oppressors salvation, but it read that way, and I apologize. That’s the opposite of the overall thrust of this piece, and it was poorly worded. Also, when I said that we could walk away from some of the ongoing impact of trauma, I meant that we could leave toxic relationships that were continuing to perpetuate that trauma. For some of us, trauma–especially childhood trauma–has changed our brains and impacted our bodies in such a way that we live with chronic illness and there’s no walking away from that. Also victims of systemic oppression such as systemic racism cannot walk away from the systems as they encompas everything. 

Communion and Shalom

IMG_1122

CW: Brief discussion of the #MeToo movement.

I wrote a piece reframing the conversation about communion and baptism within a conversation about shalom and the total well-being and thriving of our neighbor.

“Just as a friend or even a stranger can be invited to a family dinner should they turn up at mealtime, so the unbaptized may turn up at the rail, hungry for something they don’t yet even know exists. If the manner in which we eat the Lord’s supper is faith (BCP Article 28), and faith is itself a work of the Spirit in the heart, then the budding and unrecognized faith of many may bring them to the rail for reasons they cannot yet articulate, as the Spirit draws them to God.

Does this diminish from the sacredness of communion or the need to prepare one’s heart before receiving? I would argue it does not, for the desire of that person may be much purer than those who — though baptized — are receiving from habit or rote, and not letting the act of communing with Jesus each week have any discernible impact on their day-to-day life. In fact, the latter model for receiving communion should be considered dangerous. After all, communion is a recommittal to our union with Christ, and is, as Carole Bailey Stoneking put it, “…deadly work because it forms us into people ready to die for what we believe.” This holds perfectly with admonishment in the prayer book that “The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith … yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing” (BCP Article 29). In other words, I think it would do many of us in the church a great good to consider our own manner of receiving and let God sort out what’s happening when, on occasion, an unbaptized person is drawn to the table.”

Read the rest here.

Love thy Neighbor

IMG_0351

The longer I do this thing of trying to walk through life calling myself a Christian and trying to figure out what that means in a world where everything feels increasingly urgent and conversations and relationships have become increasingly fraught, I find myself wondering what is the minimum essential belief. Is there a basic statement we can boil down this thing called following Jesus to that all of us who claim to be trying to do that can agree on–or dare I say, should agree on.

And I’m not one for pulling verses out to support my position because I feel like it’s too easy to do that and miss how those words connect into the grand stories that span the whole of the Bible and can’t be understood without connection to the other, but there is this one statement, this one instance, where it seems stunningly clear.

Don’t get me wrong, the context is still very important, as is the way that Jesus answers this particular question. The question comes in a series of questions. Two different religious groups wanted to trick him into saying something illegal or blasphemous so they would have grounds to get rid of him. They had realized he was talking about them in his parables and they “wanted to arrest him” (Matthew 21: 46). And the very next parable Jesus tells had to be rubbing salt in the proverbial wound talking about how all the people they called unclean, and undesirable, sinners and righteous alike, and brought them to the wedding banquet instead of the original invitees. Now if we zoom back out on this story for a second, and look at all the times God tried to invite humans to God’s party and they mistreated God’s messengers, you see why they end up missing out on the party altogether. But only because they refused to come. Folks, there’s a whole other post in there, but I’m trying to set the stage for this one statement so I’m going to move on.

Fast-forwarding here there were several other trick questions about taxes and the resurrection, and finally they come out with the one they think will really stump Jesus. Now if you go through these stories in Matthew 22 you’ll see Jesus frequently returns questions with questions and in a broader context of the gospels, returns questions with stories.

So I believe it is very significant here that Jesus returns this question with a concise and brief statement. One of the religious leaders, who was also a lawyer, asks Jesus,

“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”

And Jesus answers him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandmant. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

I mean, this is huge. This is about as clear as it can be. The Hebrew Scriptures are called the Tanakh which is an acronym for the law (Torah), the prophets (Nevi’im), and the writings (Ketuvim). So saying “on this hangs all the law and the prophets” is short-hand for saying, “All scripture hangs on this.” And since Jesus is standing there in the flesh, pre-writing of the rest of what we Christians recognize as Scripture, I think it’s safe to assume all of what we call scripture hangs on these two commandments, which are so intertwined, that even though this lawyer asked him for the most important commandment, Jesus gave him two.

So I’m breaking down all my theology and beliefs and re-analyzing all of it. Is it based on love of God and in the same breath, love of my neighbor?

Because when we are radically committed to love of our neighbor, it changes how we preach, how we vote, how we interact with people we disagree with, it changes everything. It requires we put the well-being and thriving of our neighbor over and above any other goals and forbids us from supporting things that prevent human flourishing in any sector of this planet. I could get specific with examples, but I think any issue in the church or in the world can be measured with this, and if people are really trying to come up with solutions that hold the love of your neighbor in first place, then we would be implementing a whole bunch of things differently. Does that belief love your neighbor as yourself, does that policy put the flourishing of your neighbor above all else, does that movement put the safety and peace of your neighbor in first place?

What would you change if you put love of neighbor first?

One last thought and then I may come back to this in other posts, but if you’re wondering who your neighbor is, Jesus has a story about that for you too. And just for kicks if you haven’t done it, look at what the people he was telling the story to thought of Samaritans and vice-versa. Jesus loved to get in there with stories that would have been considered transgressive to the religious leaders of his day.

And one more extension of this who is my neighbor. If this tied up with love of God is the most important thing to believe and act on, then Jesus showed us what that means very literally in the cross. And he died for the whole world, meaning if we are to walk in his footsteps, then the whole world is our neighbor.

Okay last, LAST, caveat. I’m thinking on a broad scale right now, and trying to hold up both theological and political beliefs to this light. In no way does this apply to you staying in toxic relationships that are sucking the life out of you, or are otherwise abusive. Staying in those relationships enables abuse and doesn’t help anyone. Removing yourself from those loops and calling out the toxic person or abuser when necessary and safe to do so can also be an act of loving your neighbor as well as yourself. But most importantly, if you can’t care for yourself, you can’t care for your neighbor. Taking steps to promote all human flourishing means that you and I get to flourish as well.