What Is Justice?

 “The clear meaning of “justice” is “what is right” or “what is normal” — the way things are supposed to be. The fairness of laws coupled with fair and equal treatment under the law are common biblical concerns. Throughout scripture, God is the defender and protector of the poor, the alien, the debtor, the widow, and the orphan. Justice can also mean “deliverance,” “victory,” “vindication,” or “prosperity” — but for all, not just a few. Justice is part of God’s purpose in redemption.

One of the clearest and most holistic words for justice is the Hebrew shalom, which means both “justice” and “peace.” Shalom includes “wholeness,” or everything that makes for people’s well being, security, and, in particular, the restoration of relationships that have been broken. Justice, therefore, is about repairing broken relationships both with other people and to structures — of courts and punishments, money and economics, land and resources, and kings and rulers.” 

Quote from Wallis,  How the Bible Understands Justice ( https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2014/06/06/how-the-bible-understands-justice/32339 )

Are You a Lonely Dad on Father's Day?

I am posting this on Father's Day of 2013, and in recognition and appreciation for the role that fathers play in the care and development of their children (of all ages).  All over the USA today, we celebrate fathers.  Special visits will be paid, handmade little gifts will be given, special meals will be served, and phone calls will be made to thank, shower affection upon, and generally to show appreciation of our fathers.

Fambul Tok: Building Peace in Sierra Leone

Between 1991 and 2001, a brutal civil war in the central African nation of Sierra Leone resulted in the deaths of about 50,000 people. Rape and maiming were deliberately used by soldiers as weapons to spread intimidation and fear. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced from their homes and many became refugees in Guinea and Liberia. No one was unaffected. Neighbors were pitted against neighbors. Entire communities were disrupted.


Following overthrow of the military dictatorship, how could communities so damaged restore a sense of peace? To answer this question requires asking questions like, "What is justice?"

On Loving One's Enemies

[W]e know it is possible to love our enemies. Otherwise why would Christ in the Sermon on the Mount ask that we so love? . . . Are we to make Christ a liar? If we do not think it possible to love our enemies, then we should plainly say Jesus is not the Messiah.

 (Quote from Stanley Hauerwas)

Karoly Ferenczy, Sermon on the Mountain (1896)

The Link Between Forgiveness and Peace

It is said that holding a grudge is like eating poison and then expecting the other person to die. As we all know from experience, it’s very easy to hold grudges. Yet, we know there are very damaging consequences to our entire being when we fail to forgive. There are mental consequences, emotional consequences, and physical consequences. 

Justice Sonya Sotomayor Rules On Sesame Street!

For a great example of judicial problem solving, check out this video of Justice Sotomayor resolving a dispute between Goldilocks and Little Bear.

 

 

This meeting has a nice casual, win-win feel to it.  The parties can even have a little snack while they talk, so it's a lot like mediation.  But there are a few key differences.

For one thing, neither side has a lawyer running the show, getting in the middle and telling them what to do.   Both are feeling like they get a chance to tell their story, without the lawyers interrupting and telling them to stop.   In a real, live courtroom situation, things are not run this way.  Evidence is tightly controlled.   While “your” side is intent on telling your side of the case, the “other” side is intent on keeping out any evidence that doesn’t meet strict standards for admissibility.  In some cases, this can make parties feel as if their entire story has not been heard, even after they have their full day in court. 

If a party really wants the other side to hear what they have to say, mediation is more likely to be the forum in which the issues can be fully aired without being limited by what the lawyers view as being “relevant” and “admissible”. 

Next, Justice Sotomayor demonstrates a key difference between a judicial decision and mediation.  Namely, she makes a decision (in law, called a “ruling”), imposing a “judgment” in the case, in which she tells the parties what to do.   This is very unlike mediation, because a mediator doesn’t impose a solution from the outside in.  In sharp contrast to a judicial “ruling,” a mediator would have kept asking questions and facilitating discussion until the parties came up with their own, voluntary solution. 

It’s possible that a solution agreed upon by the parties would have involved fixing or replacing the chair, but there is a broader range of possibilities that they could have considered and agreed upon.   Perhaps little bear had outgrown his chair, or would have preferred a hammock?  The parties could have discussed that.   Remedies in mediation are not limited to what a court could order.  The parties are free to agree on anything they both feel is fair. 

I note also that the solution imposed by Justice Sotomayor, to fix the chair, was one that is unlikely to be ordered by a U.S. Court.  To order a party to do something in particular, such as to fix an object, is called “specific performance.”  While specific performance is in the range of possible options, there are challenges with imposing this as a matter of law.  Who decides if the chair is fixed well enough?  What if it costs more to fix the chair than the chair is worth?  Because of these and other issues, as a practical matter a court of law is more likely to award money damages:   A court is more likely to order Goldilocks to pay Bear a set amount of money, perhaps the amount of money it would cost to replace the chair, or the amount of money Bear could have sold it for as used furniture.  To allow Goldilocks to repair the chair is a “restorative justice” approach less likely to be ordered by an American court than monetary damages. 

When the parties come up with their own ideas and own solutions, there is also more “buy in” and therefore more likelihood for two things:  (1) that both parties will be happy in the end, and (2) that both parties will follow through with what they agreed to do.   It is faster for a judge to jump to a conclusion and order the parties to do something.  But it’s possible that what is so obvious to everyone else may not be obvious to one of the parties.  Perhaps they need time and space to mull things over, to think through the possibilities, and to consider all options before they would arrive at exactly the same conclusion.  Having the parties think through and take responsibility for their own decisions results in problem solving that is deeper and more authentic, and thus more likely to be accepted by all involved on a deeper, emotional level. 

Perhaps Sesame Street would like to invite a mediator to demonstrate in a similar case? How about “The Three Little Pigs?”   Goldilocks is an EASY case!  Three Little Pigs is a bit more challenging, but it can be done!  (Every case, no matter how intractable it may seem at the outset, has potential to benefit from conflict transformation if only the parties will listen and try to find ways to work things out. )

 

 

Technorati Tags: mediation,restorative,conflict transformation,sotomayor

The Baby and the Bathwater

The picture you see was taken from a blog post about a coal mine explosion that occurred on April 6, 2010.  It’s alleged that Massey Energy, owner of the mine, concealed records of safety defects from government regulators. 

Crash! The sound of blasted rock and screams echoed through the cavern. The miners and I, we ran to the sound. Rubble, and debris filled the room, as black dust burnt our eyes. The foul stench of methane numbed my senses, as the taste of iron filled my mouth. Suddenly, a thick wave of heat overwhelmed me.

To see how this story ends, click HERE.

But the story, really, is only just beginning.  The rest of the story is about what happens next.   Who will win, the coal miners, or the company?  Will we continue to have noxious government regulations controlling every aspect of the coal mine and making it impossible to make a profit?  Will we throw out the regulations and, instead, look the other way when mine explosions cost lives? 

So, yeah, this post is about the very boring subject of government regulations. 

What role should government take in our lives, and what is the role of the people in that decision?   There is a serious political agenda of de-regulating all sorts of matters that were previously controlled by government.  Is this a good idea? 

Beginning with Reagan’s deregulation of the banking and airline industries, and continuing on through today’s Tea Party and Libertarian demands to dismantle government and get government out of people’s lives.  When people advocated getting rid of “government programs,” do they realize what they really mean by that?

I recently heard of someone complaining about “government programs,” only to find out that he was complaining about the existence of taxes from a local government sewer authority.  Now, do we really want to eliminate public sewer services in cities?  Doesn’t it seem that these are offered for a reason? 

I believe that today people are forgetting that the reason behind those damn government regulations, is that the alternative can be worse. 

If you recall the plague that decimated the population of Athens, Greece, as described by Thucydides, I’m sure you’ll remember that it was spread by the nasty things that were flowing through the open sewers.

Photograph of Athenian sewer, which was open to the air like a canal.  Photo is from a web page, HERE

Is this what we want for our culture, or no sewers at all?

Of course, they say that people who don’t know their history, are bound to repeat it.  

 

This is a painting which depicts the plague of Naples, source is HERE

 

I don’t know about you, but I want good government, not gutted government.  

I’d prefer not to die from Plague, or cholera, or other nasty things we humans catch when we live around each other with no sanitation.  And I don’t want men to die in unsafe coal mines, either, even if imposing safety regulations would cause the coal mine to shut down.  Do you? 

There’s a reason for “government”. There’s a reason for safety regulations in coal mines, just as there is a reason for OSHA regulations, or for the FDA, or for the USDA.   My view is that we need to make the regulations better, make government better, not just throw the baby out with the bathwater.    However, this requires a bit more sophisticated analysis than just "yes" or "no", "black" or "white". 

It also means we must engage in conversation with the “other side”.  We need to listen to each other, balance interests, and find a middle way.   

Too bad that today’s partisan politics is the opposite of what we need.  Today’s political climate is built on the adrenaline of the news environment.  Every story must be shocking.  Every public policy argument must be a drama. 

To satisfy the demand for political discourse that is as easy to understand as a soap opera, cartoonishly drawn arguments, caricatures of any reality,  are pitted against one another, with a winner triumphing over a loser in a take-no-prisoners battle over policy.  And of course then the loser gets back in power by proving that the other side’s policy is a failure.  How?  By sabotaging it.  

How can America get back to democracy?  How do we get back to values of decency and fair play?  How do we get back to reasonable public policy, policy that puts regulations in place that protect workers’ lives and then enforces those regulations, without placing unreasonable burdens on business? 

This will be a major challenge, not only if we are to survive as a nation but if humans are to survive as a thriving presence on our planet. 

At one time, when there were fewer people, problems in one area didn’t necessarily spill over to affect problems in another.  We all had plenty of land and the oceans were large to absorb our wars and pollution.  But no longer. 

War refugees flow across international borders to destabilize governments on either side, pollution crosses international boundaries and destroys ecosystems of entire oceans. 

There is no longer room in the earth for cowboys.  We all live in a crowded neighborhood. 

So now, let’s figure out how to get along. 

Restorative Justice Part IV

Restorative Justice involves healing tears in the fabric of community.  The theory of restorative justice is not to be “soft on crime” but rather to hold the offender accountable in a way that has the possibility of transforming the offender’s outlook.  In the USA, some of the possible outcomes of a restorative approach to justice include apology, restitution, community service, and referrals to therapy.  In other countries, the range of possibilities can be larger, including doing whatever it takes to make the victim as whole as possible again. 

The justice methods to implement restorative justice, or practices to implement it, are called (drum roll) Restorative Practices.  Restorative Practices include such things as Restorative Circles and Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.   I was excited to learn that Prison Fellowship runs a Restorative Circle process through its Sycamore Tree project. 

Unfortunately, as I attempted to find information about the Sycamore Tree Project in the USA, I learned that in the USA, Restorative Practices are hampered by victim offender laws that prohibit practices that enable contact between victims and offenders.  In other words, while other countries in the world are running full throttle toward implementation of these types of programs, the USA is handicapped from implementing cutting edge justice practices on account of our own laws.  Still, some innovative programs are able to work around these barriers.   In one such program, HERE, the case is referred into a restorative process before it ever enters the “justice system”.  Restorative Justice also is hampered by a lack of understanding about what it is.  In the article I just cited, for example, no judge has ever made a referral into the program.

When we say “justice,” we could mean any number of things.  I urge people to think for yourself, what do you mean when you think of the concept of “justice”?  Do you think it means purely revenge, or does it mean something more?  If you were a victim, wouldn’t it be more satisfying to have the offender apologize, repent, and rebuild your house? 

Just think about it. 

Be An Extremist For Love

Today, as we celebrate in the USA the national day of remembrance of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I reflect upon his words, as penned in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail: 

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label.

 

Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

 

Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream."

 

Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus."

 

Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God."

 

And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience."

 

And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free."

 

And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ."

 

So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?

 

In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment.

 

The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

How will you choose, today? 

Where There is Hatred … Let Me Sow Love

Between the bridge and the river
he falls through
a huge portion of night;
it is not as if falling
is something new. Over and over
...he slipped into the gulf
between what he knew and how
he was known. What others wanted
opened like an abyss:the laughing
stock-clerks at the grocery, women
at the luncheonette amused by his gestures.
What could he do, live
with one hand tied
behind his back? So he began to fall
into the star-faced section
of night between the trestle
and the water because he could not meet
a little town's demands,
and his earrings shone and his wrists
were as limp as they were.
I imagine he took the insults in
and made of them a place to live;
we learn to use the names
because they are there,
familiar furniture; faggot
was the bed he slept in, hard
and white, but simple somehow,
queer something sharp
but finally useful, a tool,
all the jokes a chair,
stiff-backed to keep the spine straight,
a table, a lamp. And because
he's fallen for twenty-three years,
despite whatever awkwardness
his flailing arms and legs assume
he is beautiful
and like any good diver
has only an edge of fear
he transforms into grace.
Or else he is not afraid,
and in this way climbs back
up the ladder of his fall,
out of the river into the arms
of the three teenage boys
who hurled him from the edge-
really boys now, afraid,
their fathers' cars shivering behind them,
headlights on- and tells them
it's all right, that he knows
they didn't believe him
when he said he couldn't swim,
and blesses his killers
in the way that only the dead
can afford to forgive.

By Mark Doty

When Does a Peacemaker Become a Terrorist?

According to the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Holder vs. Human Rights Project, the U.S. Patriot Act provides that:

The quiet diplomacy with IRA and loyalist paramilitaries which helped bring about the Good Friday agreement - meetings, training seminars and facilitated dialogues - would now be deemed a terrorist offence.

Those who engaged with the Sunni Awakening Councils in Iraq may, it turns out, have been breaking the law.

And those who are currently supporting the Afghan or Somali governments' policies of engagement with their sworn enemies could be at risk of prosecution.

This clarification of a law first adopted in 1996 and adjusted in the 2001 Patriot Act, is a big setback for American organisations well known for their work in mediation, such as the Carter Center, the American Friends Service Committee or the Conflict Management Group.

The long arm of US justice means that it extends to all of its residents and citizens (including those living abroad, like myself) and those organisations that receive US government funding.

Click HERE for full article in BBC News, which conludes that,  in other words, “Peacebuilding work, already dangerous to do and difficult to fund just got harder.”

Two Wolves: A Cherokee Parable

A wise Cherokee chief was teaching his grandson about life...

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.
"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.

"One is evil. 

“He is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego.

"The other is good. 

“He is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.

"This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather,

"Which wolf will win?"

The old chief simply replied,

"The one you feed."

 

(Author unknown)

Technorati Tags: mediation,peacemaking,affirmation,peace,cherokee

Do You Believe In Social Justice?

If your answer is "yes," then we're in agreement about at least one thing.  I go so far as to hold the belief that without justice, there can be no peace.  In other words, I view justice and peace as so closely linked as to be inextricable. 
I take some of the following passages deeply to heart:

• "But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!"  Amos 5:24
• "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."  Micah 6:8
• "Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other."  Psalm 85:10

An integral part of my own spiritual journey is to examine what is essential for these ideals to happen.  It's almost as if my Bible is a treasure map, and I must seek out the clues to find out, just what is justice, and how is it achieved?  Because as I've learned from talking with many people, justice means different things to different people.  As I've stated before in this blog, it's important to know where we're aiming before we can begin to take steps to get there. 
WHAT IS JUSTICE?  WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?   HOW CAN WE LEARN MORE ABOUT IT?   --- these are the types of questions I ask as I read my Bible, searching for the truth it contains. 
How do we discern ideas about justice from the Bible? 
Just a few nights ago, I taught a high school class at my church which was designed to teach young people how to discern the truth in the Bible.  This is not always easy.  The Bible has certain rules, and then there are also overlying principles.  Sometimes the rules may seem to clash with the principles.  The particular passage we read, Mark Chapter 7 verses 1-8, was intended to illustrate this:

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)  So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

In other words, the Pharisees were focused on the rules, but were ignoring the heart of the principles.  Our high school lesson then went on to spend an hour in ways to help the youth learn how to discern principles and follow rules.  Well, where justice is concerned, what are the principles and what are the rules?! 
Some key principles in the Bible are forgiveness and reconciliation, as well as mercy upon and kindness to those who are less fortunate, the weak and the powerless.  Though widely denounced in the USA as contrary to Capitalism (which I suppose is the actual national religion of the USA), Liberation Theology clearly ties justice to economic responsibility and restoring equality in the balance of power among peoples.  While some may bristle at this thought, the fact is that Capitalism, to the extent it is a value system, is not a value system that has any basis in morality.  Efficiency:  yes.  Morality: no.  If there is a starving widow who cannot pay for food, and a rich glutton who can pay a higher price, capitalism says we should give the food to the glutton.  As Jesus points out in Luke 16:13, "You cannot serve both God and Money." 

 

I guess Glenn Beck doesn't understand this fundamental principle in the Bible. 
He has urged listeners of his TV show to leave churches that preach social justice and report those churches to the "church authorities".  (For link to article and audio, click HERE.)  At one point in the show, Beck held up cards with a hammer and sickle on one and a swastika on the other. He said communism and Nazis both have the same philosophy.  In America, he proclaimed, “social justice” is the code word for both.  Wow.  Did he just throw down the gauntlet to people who are concerned with justice, in the Biblical sense?  (Is McCarthy smiling from his grave somewhere?) 

The organization Sojourners, whose mission includes, "to articulate the biblical call to social justice," has called on Christians to stand up for social justice.  Sojourners is mobilizing a campaign entitled "Tell Glenn Beck I'm a Social Justice Christian".  I think if you've read my previous blog posts about Restorative Justice, or if you've read any of the three posts I've written so far about principles of Christian reconciliation, you will know where I stand.  I've already signed my letter to Mr. Beck.  If you'd like to participate in this campaign with me, click HERE for the link.

_____________________

To learn more about social justice, check out the following book:

The Little Book of Biblical Justice: A Fresh Approach to the Bible's Teaching on Justice (The Little Books of Justice and Peacebuilding Series)


Additionally, Wallis has written:  Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street

Micah 6:8

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
       And what does the LORD require of you?
       To act justly and to love mercy
       and to walk humbly with your God.

 

I guess Glenn Beck forgot about this one. 

Can Justice Itself Become Criminal?

It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who wrote, "Justice without mercy is not justice."  Case in point: A California man has been sentenced to up to eight years in prison for stealing a $3.99 bag of shredded cheese.  Not only "where is the justice" in that; where is the sanity in that? 

The California penal system is bankrupt, spending 10 Billion per year on prisons at the expense of virtually every other social investment such as roads or schools.  Yet, this crippling level of spending hasn't been enough to save the penal system from being so overcrowded and dangerous to inmates that federal courts have ruled it to be cruel and unusual punishment. 

In a twist of irony, the federal courts' forcing of California to abandon simplistic slogans like "Three Strikes, You're Out" may drive meaningful re-evaluation and a retailoring of the penal system to fit the goals of the criminal justice system.  Further discussion of this issue can be found HERE.

Three Blog Posts on Restorative Justice

Here is a summary of the recent posts in this blog on Restorative Justice:

Post #1:  What Is Restorative Justice

Post #2:  How Restorative Justice Works

Post #3:  Restorative Justice as Applied Through Restorative Circles

 

Restorative Justice As Applied Through Restorative Circles

This post is about restoration -- restoration of community and peace after a period of brokenness. 

In the story Alice In Wonderland, the Cheshire Cat at one point tells Alice, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there."   It's an interesting thought, and holds true in many ways.  If we want to end up in a particular place, we'd better figure out where that place is located before we strike out on the road to get there.  Here's how this thought relates to restoration:  What exactly do we hope for in our communities?  When bad things happen, what do we propose as appropriate ways to deal with that?  The reason the question about the end is important is that our goal affects the means used to get there. 

For example.  Suppose two people decide to get divorced.  They have some children, and they also have some extended family.  In addition to children and future grandchildren who will be affected by the divorce, there are grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins who will all be affected not only by the divorce itself, but whose relationships will be redefined by the termination of the marriage. 

A typical, traditional, response to a decision to divorce is to engage in a legal process which is conceived along the same lines as a battle:  the parties "lawyer up" and battle it out for rights over property division, support, custody.  This model of divorce comes from the litigation paradigm in which there is a moral battle in which one side is "right" and the other side is "wrong" and in which one party will "win" and the other party will "lose".  Each party engages a lawyer whose job is to ensure that the party wins against the adversary in this battle. 

Under this view, relatives are also expected to take sides and proclaim loyalty to one (former) spouse or the other.  Often, children are also placed in the middle, used either as pawns in a power play or as sources of information.  The spectacles on our noses through which we view the battle scene are tinted with hues designed to paint the other party as bad and as someone who must be battled against. 

But let's challenge the paradigm a bit.  Isn't it a bit inconsistent with this viewpoint that only a few years ago, the person on the other side of the battle was one's partner in a wedding?   If this person across the divorce negotiating table is painted as purely evil, how then do we manage to work out parenting responsibilities for many years forward, how do we arrange seating at our children's high school graduation or wedding?  What if we even end up sharing the same nursing home with that person, as our children place us in the same home?  Is portraying that person as the personification of evil really the best way?  When all is said and done, when all the divorce battles have been fought and all the "losing" players are dead on the battlefield, do we really want those dead people on the battlefield to consist of people whom we have loved, who are the parents of our children, or who were until recently our in-laws and cousins?  It's not a pleasant scene, and I'm not the only one who has noticed. 

Divorce is but one example of how our "battlefield" type paradigms around the concept of "justice" have failed us. 

Even more extreme examples of brokenness are those that come from violations of the criminal code.  Murder, assault, robbery.  If anything, the way we deal with these crimes is even more counterproductive.  Suffice it to say that the system is incredibly expensive, the USA has the highest incarceration rate of almost any country in the history of the world, and we still live in fear of crime. 

But maybe brokenness in our everyday life is more mundane than this.  So, let's add some lesser insults.  Like purse snatching, verbal abuse, fist fights.  What about aggressive drivers, employees who gossip, students on the playground who bully or who make fun of our clothing?  What about a neighbor who mows his lawn at 6 AM on a Saturday morning, just outside our bedroom window?  

Is there possibly a new paradigm that would enable us to deal with these issues -- with the whole range of human conflict -- in ways that heal rather than protract, in ways that address root causes and provide solutions rather than applying plaster over an open wound? 

What's the common theme? 

All of these examples represent areas of our lives where community has been lost.  All around the world, communities are suffering from brokenness, lack of relationship or negative relationships, and pain.  The pain that comes from separation and from not being in right and peaceful relationships, no matter how that is defined.  So, where is "Justice," in relation to these things?  Can a new way of doing and achieving "Justice" restore peace?  

Justice means different things to different people.  Here is where my Alice in Wonderland idea comes into play.  I suggest that in order to determine how to respond to each of these situations, we should first calculate where we want to end up.  What is justice?  Do we want a system of justice that leaves our spouse wounded on a legal battlefield?  Do we want a system that primarily just locks people away?  Do we want a system where all "right" and "wrong" is measured solely in terms of money damages, rather than doing actions or making apologies that might make amends in other ways?   It has always struck me as a bit odd that 18th century England dealt with debtors by putting them in prison.  If anything, it would seem that debtors would need to work in order to work off their debt.  But that was the paradigm within which that system operated.  What is our paradigm today?  Should it be reexamined? 

The primary paradigm of our present system is punitive, of retribution.  This is called Retributive Justice.  It's the principle of punishment, and a system of fines and imprisonment.  Rehabilitation is not a goal.  Of course, locking people away can serve an important purpose, in that it prevents them from doing the act again.  For awhile at least, until they are released again.  The problems are that incarceration is costly and it doesn't address the root causes that caused the negative behavior in the first place.  If a man was a drug addict before he was incarcerated, he's likely to return to being a drug addict after he's released, and that he'll also return to crime.  If he was a member of a gang before incarceration, nothing magic is going to make him no longer a gang member when he gets out.  Locking someone up and throwing away the key is possible, and it has immediate beneficial consequences, but only at tremendous cost to society. 

There are other rationale supporting imprisonment of offenders.  I'm not really wanting to debate or enumerate all those rationale.  My goal is to point out that if our goal is x, we should be thinking in terms of how to reach that goal and whether what we are doing is effective or not.  Is it really our goal to lock up every offender and take away the key, or is our goal actually the hope of a safer society? 

Think about it.  Is our goal as a society to make sure a prisoner never sees the sun again, or is it actually our goal to have a safer society?  In other words, what do we hope to achieve by locking him up?  Is it our goal as a society simply to make him feel pain and remorse, or do we actually desire for him to acquire some deeper moral understanding of what he did to the victim?   

If safety and peace could be achieved some other way, would we choose to do that?  If we could create a moral sense in a defendant through some other means in which the victim would actually receive the satisfaction of a sincere apology, would we? 

In other words, is our present system set up so that it actually achieves our goals, or should we be open to new ideas?  Is our present system about as effective at achieving present day goals as the old debtors prisons were at eliminating the problem of debt?  Is it time to rethink?  I would argue, vehemently, "yes"! 

No system of justice does everything that we would hope.  But some are more effective than others.  I'm going to compress an entire doctoral dissertation into one line as follows:  "What we are doing doesn't work very well."  We need to rethink.  And, we need to rethink in more than glib sound bites, we need to engage in serious discussion about policy.  Lawsuits and court actions of every kind leave road kill.  Former business associates no longer speak to one another, divorced spouses can't agree on which day to swap kids at Christmas.  An 18 year old gets locked away for 20 years, due to be released certainly as a hardened criminal with no education and no resources.  So, what are some alternatives? 

One alternative is called Restorative Justice, and it's a model that is being rapidly adopted around the world, including in schools, communities, juvenile prisons, adult prisons.  (This is actually my third blog post about Restorative Justice.  Post #1 "What Is Restorative Justice" is HERE and Post #2 "How Restorative Justice Works" is HERE.)   Restorative Justice (making amends, asking forgiveness and being restored to community) is a model of justice that can be held up in contrast to Retributive Justice (getting even, punishing). 

The following video is an interview with Dominic Barter, who has implemented a particular methodology to apply Restorative Justice in Brazil, in a program called Restorative Circles.  Barter's model is now being copied throughout the world.  His ideas are groundbreaking, practical, and represent the cutting edge in many areas of conflict resolution and criminal justice theory.  Hear what he has to say in this 16 minute film: 

 

Interview with Dominic Barter from Restorative Circles on Vimeo.

 

Technorati Tags: restorative justice,restorative circles,jurisprudence,philosophy of law

Trauma Healing: The Snail Model

Talking about forgiveness ....

My blog post a few days ago was about the intellectual concept of forgiveness.  But there's much more to forgiveness than merely what we "think" about or "decide" to do.  When bad things happen to us, our whole being, including our body, is affected.  This, in turn, affects how we relate to ourselves and to each other.  It's not my goal to beat people over the head and be judgmental about telling people they should "forgive" or "just move on".  That is not helpful.  My goal is to help people reach an authentic state of peace.  For a person who has been the victim of trauma, this can be challenging. 

Cutting edge research shows that people who are victimized by violence need treatment for more than their physical wounds.  They need help in rewriting the story of their lives in a way that gives coherence and meaning.   

The following video illustrates the "Snail Model" of trauma healing.  This is basically a roadmap for people who have experienced painful events in their lives to see a process by which they may be healed, not just physically but mentally and spiritually.  A printable illustration by Olga Botcharova can be found HERE. 

If you are suffering from the effects of violence, or if you know someone who is, I encourage you to print this and share it with the person who is affected. 

Sometimes even just seeing a model like this will result in an "aha" moment.  The person will see where they are on the cycle and gain insight that will help them heal.  Not everyone needs (or has the luxury of engaging in) therapy with a caring and trusted counselor.  But regardless of whether the mental and spiritual wounds from trauma is small or large, it can help a person just to know that what they are experiencing is normal, that they are not alone. 

Panic, anger, sleeplessness, fantasies of revenge -- these are not signs of insanity, they are normal.  And there IS a path to healing.  It may be slow, it may be challenging.  But a person who has been victimized by crime, by war, by a terrible auto accident, can walk that path to healing.  No matter what the physical wounds, a person who has experienced trauma can can achieve spiritual and mental peace so that they can sleep at night and feel right with the world.   

No matter what your circumstances, I want to assure you, there IS HOPE for peace. 

This is a particular issue not just with veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also for anyone who has been affected by crime or violence.  Even, perhaps, in our own families.   Whether this model may apply to you, or to someone you know, please be aware of it and be ready to share the hope, and the help, when the time comes.     

I hope you find this video helpful.  If you do, please leave a comment to share how it helped you. 

Righteous Indignation, The Christian Believer, and Mediation

 

For Christians who are experiencing conflict with each other, mediation doesn't just offer hope for a settlement.  It can do more, offering a chance at authentic reconciliation. 

"The problem with that idea is," I was once told by an experienced lawyer, "when people are mad enough to sue each other, they just ain't feelin' very Christian!" 

Well, that's right.  The process of Bible-based, Christian reconciliation is pretty strong stuff.  Most likely, if you are in a dispute -- especially if you have been sued or are thinking of suing someone -- you ain't feeling very Christian right now.  This is not a blog post for the ordinary person.  It is only for a committed Believer.  If you don't fall in that category, why should you want to even consider Christian conciliation?  On the other hand, if you are a committed Believer, my question to you is, are you willing to try the Biblical way? 

For the Christian Believer, the first step in Christian reconciliation -- your first decision -- is to investigate the concept of Christian reconciliation and what makes it different from other forms of conflict resolution.  You are reading this.  That's a big step. Thanks for being here!  Now for the hard part ... the spiritual part.

The offer of hope for reconciliation doesn't mean that parties to a conflict are expected just act like nothing every happened.  Acting like everything is okay, when it's not really, is to "fake peace" rather than "make peace".  I'm afraid this is the sin I personally am most prone to. 

When I was a young child growing up, Sunday School was a place for hats and white gloves.  The appearance on Sunday morning was that everything was perfect: in order, perfectly coiffed, unruffled.  In real life, Christianity where the tire meets the road is a bit more messy than this.  In real life, there are days when one's hair is ruffled.  Indeed, in real life there are days when one's friend commits suicide, when one's spouse is diagnosed with a terminal illness, when one's boss gives a pink slip, when the bill collector is calling and there is no way to pay the bill.  So, nothing is perfect.  It's only when we acknowledge that -- when we acknowledge our own brokenness or the brokenness of our relationship with another person -- that we can begin to take positive steps to address the causes of that brokenness and to heal it.  

So, the first step is to acknowledge that things are not really okay. 

There's another, important part of our requirement to acknowledge when things are not okay.  We must be on the alert to whether we have done something that causes another person to not be okay:  Our natural inclination is to be "on the lookout" for times when someone has wronged us.  It's less natural, but just as important, for us to be aware of (and be sensitive to) ways in which we have offended others. 

The second step is to do our part.  If I have offended someone, it is my duty to make restitution.  These are subjects for a different day.

What I want to write about today is actually the part that comes next:  If I am the one who has been offended, the Bible commands me to forgive. 

This is something I've personally struggled with.  What does it mean to forgive?  What if it seems impossible?  What if the other person has not even acknowledged that they've done something wrong?  What if they haven't even acknowledged that they need forgiveness?  So, I'd like to dwell on this a bit. 

Authentic reconciliation requires more than just "saying sorry" and then acting as if nothing ever happened.  Nor does it mean that there are no consequences.  We can't change the past, we can only change the future.  I suggest that when a person seems focused on the past, it means they are not quite ready to move forward to forgiveness.  Do you find yourself focusing mentally on wrongs from the past, on how evil someone was?  Are you having trouble "letting bygones be bygones"?    

What reconciliation means, is that we are offered an opportunity to change that path.  We can't change the past, but we can deliberately change the shape of the way we move forward in the future.  Changing this path, adopting the path of reconciliation, is not easy.  But if we seize the opportunity for reconciliation, what we are seizing is an opportunity to move beyond the brokenness of a wounded world, to give and to experience forgiveness.  If we address conflict at its emotional root, by giving and accepting redemption and reconciliation, then the wound can heal.  This frees us to move on emotionally from a conflict.  When we move on emotionally, we are then freed to experience genuine peace.  

Imagine the experience of peace!   Breathe deeply, sigh, let go of tension.  Imagine a peace that passes all understanding.  Imagine the restfulness of that.  Does it sound too good to be true?  That's the vision. 

Perhaps all this "forgiveness" stuff sounds complicated and theoretical.  How do we put it into action?  What steps do we take to get there?  How can we capture that vision and make it reality?

I suggest that the first step is to pray.  Begin by praying about your conflict. 

Prayer opens doors to new ways of perceiving conflict

Read scripture.  Think on what it really means to "forgive ... as we have been forgiven".  (Matt 6:12)  Indeed, the entire possibility of reconciliation of one with another begins with God's ultimate gift to us of redemption and reconciliation with HIMSELF.  Jesus provides the model of what to do in response to sin. 

Wow, that's a tough one.  The Bible doesn't say for us to forgive if the other side meets us halfway.  Nope.  It's pretty straightforward: 

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Jesus had done nothing wrong, yet he just stood there and took it.  He was a man who, though blameless, willingly gave his life in order to reconcile God with Man.   We in turn -- who have been forgiven so much -- have an obligation to extend that same, sacrificial level of forgiveness to others.  As I said, this is a difficult thing to wrap our minds around.  It's not only hard to read about and to understand on an intellectual level.  It's even harder to apply in our own lives.  Nevertheless, through reading and understanding the principles, we can begin to believe in the possibility of forgiveness.  Now time for more prayer.  Take time to plow deep furrows in the field of our own willingness to be changed. 

Jesus as a model for how to respond to a wrong?  The guy allowed himself to be crucified for a crime he didn't commit!  Does this mean I have to be a martyr?!! 

Step three is simply this:  to give it time.  For right now, the idea of forgiveness may seem to be an impossible fantasy.  I think it's perfectly natural to feel as if a wrong is so evil that it can't be forgiven.  The easiest case to visualize is those few-and-far-between cases where a parent forgives the person on death row who murdered their child. 

Prayer invites the Holy Spirit to work miracles

"How," we ask, "could a parent actually forgive the person who murdered their child?"  It is only through a miraculous act of Grace.  And moreover, it is not my place to judge you for what you can or cannot forgive.  Who could judge someone if they feel they could not forgive their child's murderer?  I surely will not cast the first stone on that one!  All I can say is, the teachings of the Bible say what they say, and there is nothing easy about them.  If we are able to forgive, surely it is through the miraculous workings of God's grace.  So, that's why I say the first step is prayer.  And the second step is prayer.  And prayerful reading of scripture.  At least, that's the way it is with me. 

In terms of pursuing the activity of mediation, there's also the issue of, what if the other person is not willing to even talk or consider a mediation?  I recently was reading a statistic that of every ten cases referred to mediation, only five people are interested in mediating.  The other five just want to proceed to a lawsuit.  And then, of those five cases where the person is interested, only about 20% of the time is the other party also willing to mediate.  What does it take to bring the other side to the table?  Well, that is a discussion for another day.   The key for discussion here, today, is whether I have a duty to "go it alone" on this forgiveness thing even if the other side won't even come to the table.  And also, what exactly does that mean?  How can I forgive something if the other side doesn't even acknowledge he's done something wrong? 

I don't have the answers.  All I can say is that, one can have great faith, even in the face of grave doubt.  If you have doubt, you are also in good company.  One man who doubted, spoke candidly to Jesus about his doubt.  The man had approached Jesus and asked him to heal his son.  But he didn't say it just that way. Instead, what the man said to Jesus was put this way:  please heal my child "if you [Jesus] can". 

Jesus exclaimed to him, "If you can!?"   I can almost hear the outrage in his voice.  Jesus doesn't seem to have much patience for this man's doubt.  But he answered the man, "Everything is possible for him who believes!" 

The man replied, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" (Mark 9:23-24) 

Prayer opens doors to possibility

When we have doubt, the next step on the journey is to pray for God to help us overcoming our unbelief.  Perhaps, with God's help, forgiveness might be possible. 

Over time, with God helping our unbelief, we may find ourselves beginning to imagine a world where forgiveness might be possible not just in theory, somewhere else, but in this case.  Here.  Now. Me. 

How to pray about this? 

Well, first look at this picture, then put it aside and read on.  This is an exercise and I'll come back to the picture after "talking" some more: 

“Forgiveness is the final form of love.” Reinhold Niebuhr

 

 

Prayer enables us to imagine a better future

In your prayer journey, be imaginative.  Imagine what a world would look like, and feel like, in which you have forgiven.  Imagine a world in which you have peace, individually, whether or not the other person does.  Imagine a world where your children were free to be friends with the children of the person who had wronged you -- a world where even the kernel of bitterness was gone.  Is that a nice thought?  Perhaps it would take a miracle.  Imagine that miraculous grace. 

Now, suppose the person who wronged you is willing to talk.  If you are preparing for a mediation, ask yourself, "What exactly would it take for me to be open to the idea of forgiving this person?  What do I need to hear from this person -- or see them do -- that would remove obstacles to my forgiving them?"  Sometimes, it will be impossible to come to terms with another person.  But it sure makes forgiving easier when the other person meets us halfway.  Or maybe even all the way.  Gee, in my own life, sometimes even a baby step is a help. 

This is where the mediator can play a role.  The mediator can discuss issues with each person, together, separately, and can literally be a "go between" when things are just too hard to talk about.  The mediator can also provide some feedback, assessment, and other tools that just might shake the tree enough to help parties get beyond entrenched positions.  (See for example, Breaking Impasse in Mediation, HERE .) 

Bear in mind also, that this process -- discussion, communication, forgiveness -- does not mean either party is expected to become buddy buddy or to just kiss and make up and act as if there has never been a grievance.  Sometimes there are consequences of actions that cannot be undone. 

The mediator's role is to help parties reach a peace, a place where they feel right with each other and with God.  A place where the party can pray, honestly, "Forgive me my many debts, Lord, in the same manner as I have also forgiven the one who owes me."  What that means is a matter between the parties and God. 

On our own, this type of forgiveness might seem impossible.  But it is something God asks us to do, and therefore, it is not impossible.  As Christians we walk by faith and not by sight.  No matter who we are, or what we have done, or what may have been done to us, there is a path to forgiveness.  It may not be easy, but with time and prayer we can find it. 

Prayer illuminates the steps on the path to peace

It's also a path that goes two ways, back and forth.  In our prayer journey, each of us needs to also ask ourselves, "What do I need to ask this person to forgive me for?"  The path to peace involves not only bestowing forgiveness, but also acceptance of and appreciation of the gracious act of being forgiven.  Sorry, but it's a Biblical mandate:  "Confess your faults to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed."  (James 5:16).  Rarely is hurt purely one sided. 

Prayer heals wounds

Life wounds us.  We need healing.  Failure to forgive results in bitterness.  Bitterness festers.  It's as if a knife remained embedded in the wound.  No matter how many bandages we put on the wound, the wound will not heal until the knife of unforgiveness and bitterness has been removed.   Unfortunately, I'm afraid, many of us know people who have lived their lives this way.  Bitterness eats at them like a cancer and robs their days of joy. 

Luke 17:3-4 says, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.  And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." 

This requirement of forgiveness prohibits us from holding grudges; it prohibits us from even having bad feelings toward our fellows.  Matthew 5:21-24 says:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Our society also seems to put great weight on the principle of "righteous indignation".  Sorry, but there's no such thing. Romans 3:10 says, "There is no one righteous, no, not one."  This cuts both ways.  It reinforces that your feelings are normal.  None of us are perfect.  As we also know from Romans 3:23, all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.  Yet also, this passages reminds us that there is no such thing as "righteous indignation".  We are all under an active obligation to forgive, as we have been forgiven. 

Prayer reminds us to have compassion

Still got indignation?  Pray about it.  If you're having trouble letting go of a wrong that someone has done to you, I suggest that over a period of time, you meditate for a few minutes per day over the following story, and how it might be applied in your own life: 

Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'  But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

As this passage shows, what's really at stake is our reconciliation with God.  We are given a commandment to forgive "as" we forgive others.  This is incredibly difficult.  But ultimately, it also holds out the promise that we can achieve an authentic peace not just with each other, but with God. 

This brings me back to the picture I included above.  This is a famous drawing designed to illustrate the concept of "gestalt".  When we see it for the first time, we only see a group of random dots.  Over time, however, the picture changes.  Our mind brings order to the dots and we see a scene of something else.  This is similar to what I am suggesting prayer can do.  Applied over time, using scripture as a reference, prayer can actually change us in miraculous ways.  We begin to see things in ways we never would have thought possible.  We become able to do things we perhaps never would have thought possible.  We may even be able to relate to another person in a way that ... previously we never would have thought possible.  Perhaps, miraculously, we become able to forgive. 

I conclude with Colossians 3:12-17:

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Peace to you!

Biblical passages relating to Restorative Justice

Galatians 6:1-2 provides,

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

 

What does “restoring gently” mean?  Martin Luther interpreted thusly: 

If you see a brother despondent over a sin he has committed, run up to him, reach out your hand to him, comfort him with the Gospel and embrace him like a mother. When . . .  [a person] has been overtaken by a sin and is sorry . . . [h]e must be dealt with in the spirit of meekness and not in the spirit of severity. A repentant sinner is not to be given gall and vinegar to drink.

Luther also writes: 

The Law of Christ is the Law of love. Christ gave us no other law than this law of mutual love: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another." To love means to bear another's burdens. Christians must have strong shoulders to bear the burdens of their fellow Christians. . . . [W]e ought to overlook the shortcomings of others in accordance with the words, "Bear ye one another's burdens."  Those who fail to do so expose their lack of understanding of the law of Christ. Love, according to Paul, "believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."