|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Justice precedes reconciliation
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Agree or disagree?
We can talk about loving our enemies and building relationships. But let's use South Africa as an example: Apartheid had to end before blacks and whites could heal their relationship. In the United States, segregation had to end before reconciliation occur.
In terms of crime and justice, restorative justice begins when the offender is caught and held accountable. If the offender is free and continuing his reign of terror, restorative justice is impossible.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
A cycle never begins or ends. Reconciliation is possible after justice, which is possible after transgression, which is possible after law, which is possible after reconciliation.
The teachings of Jesus break the cycle at every point with love.
Ezekiel 34:11-23 feeds into this.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If we wait for justice, to be reconciled to the unjust, hell will freeze over.
That was realised in Northern Ireland.
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I suspect, usually at least one party, and probably both, has to be willing either to submit to justice voluntarily rather than as loser, or to forgo justice - or probably both
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
There was a Slacktivist post from about a year ago dealing with this topic. A couple excerpts:
quote:
She goes on to discuss the scandalous wideness of God’s mercy — that grace extends, radically, to all the outcasts, ultimately extending to include the oppressor as well as to the oppressed. But while grace may ultimately include even the oppressor, grace does not begin with the oppressor.
The first word to Pharaoh is not “All will be well and all will be well,” but rather, “Let my people go.”
quote:
That bridge too far extends, I think, from Lyubansky’s asking the wrong question. “Should we have ‘empathy and compassion for the oppressor’?” is the wrong question in precisely the same way as “What about grace for Hugo/this abuser?” is the wrong question.
It is the wrong question, in part, because other questions must come first.
The matter of “empathy and compassion for the oppressor” should not be introduced until we have first addressed, answered and satisfied the matter of empathy and compassion for the oppressed. And empathy for the oppressed means a refusal to settle for anything less than justice for the oppressed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I think I can have compassion with someone while still stridently disagreeing with them. Compassion, sure. But that doesn't stop me from asking or perhaps demanding justice. And if I truly care for them, I like to think I wouldn't settle for a false reconciliation and leave them living in a lie.
Then again, "justice" is a word that IME means different things to different people.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Crœsos - I don't see Jesus doing that. Perhaps never.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
If justice is defined as regress for past transgression, It's possible for reconciliation to precede or even happen in the absence of justice.
If justice is defined as an end to ongoing transgression, that's going to have to happen before reconciliation.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Or ever ... exactly Palimpsest.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Justice - I get what I deserve
Mercy - I don't get what I deserve
Grace - I get what I don't deserve
ISTM that God calls us to reach out beyond justice to mercy, and then to reach out beyond mercy to grace.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I was thinking specifically about justice in terms of the political realm, not justice in terms of Christian soteriology.
Maybe it is because I'm in Jerusalem, but my mind is on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. IMHO, it is good to support reconciliation between the two peoples, but that reconciliation must occur with justice, as in the legitimate grievances must be addressed.
If that does not occur, reconciliation ends up endorsing oppression.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Anglican_Brat quote:
my mind is on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. IMHO, it is good to support reconciliation between the two peoples, but that reconciliation must occur with justice, as in the legitimate grievances must be addressed.
What would constitute justice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The return to the Palestinians of the lands and homes that were taken and continue to be taken away from them? Whether such a restoration would make reconciliation possible, I doubt. Indeed, it might preclude it.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
I think it all depends on what you mean by justice. True and full justice would involve the arrest, trial and effective punishment of every individual guilty of causing harm to others, alongside the complete overhaul and reform of the unjust situations and systems to make them just. Many times, this is just not possible. What happens when an entire community, society, or an entire country is guilty? What happens even when both sides have committed atrocities against the other for so many years it's impossible to decide who is more guilty than the other?
In both SA and the US, almost all of the the guilty parties of apartheid and slavery/segregation got off scott free. The systems were gradually reformed through civil rights laws but individual justice was never possible, and in most cases, wasn't even attempted. What happened to all the klansmen who beat up the Freedom Riders in Birmingham, what happened to Bull Connor for instance who was responsible for allowing and arranging the beatings, alongside years of violence, brutal assualts and mass arrests of peaceful demonstrators? He and many, many others just as guilty often remained in positions of power and authority. Bull Connor remained an elected official until only a year before his death. Yet reconciliation has still been possible, with startling success.
What does justice look like in these cases? And what must happen to preclude reconciliation and healing?
[ 27. June 2013, 14:22: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What would constitute justice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The return to the Palestinians of the lands and homes that were taken and continue to be taken away from them? Whether such a restoration would make reconciliation possible, I doubt. Indeed, it might preclude it.
Restoration of what has been lost, in it's entirety, isn't realistically possible at this stage.
<pipe dream>
Ceasing further "settlements" is, however - and until Israel does this, permanently, I doubt much progress can be made in anything else.
There are no "good guys" in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, only actors who all have blood on their hands to one degree or another, who have all done wrong to their neighbor, who have all been involved in the killing of innocent people. They all need to stop, to ask each other for forgiveness, and to try to see what they can build together.
</pipe dream>
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
bjojn quote:
There are no "good guys" in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, only actors who all have blood on their hands to one degree or another, who have all done wrong to their neighbor, who have all been involved in the killing of innocent people.
Exactly where does this sort of remark take us? The danger of this approach is to suggest it’s a question of “six of one and half a dozen of the other”. That is manifestly not the case. The fact is that Israel is a settler state that has divested the inhabitants of their homes and lands.
Hawk quote:
What does justice look like in these cases? And what must happen to preclude reconciliation and healing?
My point about justice precluding reconciliation is that if the Palestinians were to receive justice it would cause such a disruption to the state of Israel, if not its effective demise, that the last thing the Jews would experience would be reconciliation and healing, rather bitterness and a desire for revenge.
Truly, we are not reconciled by law but by grace in the secular as well as the religious sphere.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I would have thought that justice is usually the last thing you want for reconciliation. Parties to a dispute will generally have different ideas about what a just resolution would entail. If those differences are sharp, as in the case Anglican Brat is referring to, justice as perceived by one side is only likely to be achieved if it is imposed on the other side.
Reconciliation will only be possible if people choose to prioritise it over justice. I wish that more people were willing to do so.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Perhaps I was too harsh:
Can we say that reconciliation should include redressing legitimate grievances?
I really don't think reconciliation can occur if one side tells the other side to ignore their suffering and injustice, in order to "love the other."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I was thinking of negotiation rather than sides telling each other what to do. Negotiation involves parties seeing what they can do to address each other's concerns. It also involves parties being prepared to compromise in order to reach agreement. That's what I meant by prioritising reconciliation over justice.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
It depends I suppose on what part of justice you're thinking of. Insisting on retributive justice is often a serious obstacle. Insisting on restorative justice is less of an obstacle.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Dafyd quote:
Insisting on restorative justice is less of an obstacle.
Surely that is not the case in relation to what we have been discussing. How can that possibly relate to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and the consequences of apartheid in South Africa? Reconciliation requires an exceptional act of grace by the injured party that sets aside the requirements of justice.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Anglican-Brat.
That's exactly what Jesus did and therefore calls us to follow.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Not quite, Martin. He tells us to put aside the injustice and hurt done to us, in order to reconcile us to them, whether or not they are willing to reconcile to us.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well JJ, we'll just have to differ on agreeing. Jesus was on both sides.
[ 27. June 2013, 22:08: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Well JJ, we'll just have to differ on agreeing. Jesus was on both sides.
About rhat , I do agree with you. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Dafyd quote:
Insisting on restorative justice is less of an obstacle.
Surely that is not the case in relation to what we have been discussing. How can that possibly relate to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and the consequences of apartheid in South Africa? Reconciliation requires an exceptional act of grace by the injured party that sets aside the requirements of justice.
Restorative justice is probably inexact. The absolute requirement is that both sides, but especially the side with the upper hand, stop any wrongdoing. Reconciliation in South Africa required as a minimum the abolition of apartheid.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Perhaps I was too harsh:
Can we say that reconciliation should include redressing legitimate grievances?
I really don't think reconciliation can occur if one side tells the other side to ignore their suffering and injustice, in order to "love the other."
Well no, that's not reconciliation. That's just one side continuing their oppression.
Reconciliation often needs a neautral mediator as both sides in a conflict find it difficult to step back and see things neutrally. In situations of inequality and injustice, both sides often seek just to get on the right end of the whip. It's very hard to get out of that mindset. And the main difficulty is that the oppressor is terrified that if they ever put down the whip, the other will snatch it up. The other main difficult is that the oppressor is often right to be terrifed.
Reconciliation needs to start by removing the whip altogether.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
JJ, you are too kind. I hadn't made it clear. Logically you were perfectly correct. I was 'just' rhetorically short-circuiting - i.e. bein' bleedin' lazy.
Anglican Brat had said 'I really don't think reconciliation can occur if one side tells the other side to ignore their suffering and injustice, in order to "love the other."'.
What I meant, in my incoherence, was Jesus told Himself to ignore His suffering and injustice [being meted upon Him], in order to "love the other.".
While we were yet sinners.
That - moonlitdoor! - shows us the way.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
A wise PP of my acquaintance said the following:
Are there things in life that are unforgivable? YES.
Should one try to forgive people for wrongs done to one? YES.
Even if we find it in ourselves to forgive should that mean that the "sinner" should always be taken back into the fold? NO.
The reason being that, even if we forgive the perpetrator for their evil act it can be that the act was so outrageous/appalling that there is a natural repugnance for it/the doer that still stays after forgiveness.
Similarly, in the case of family/group disputes, even if one (or several) members of a family forgive the act, they cannot force that willingness to forgive onto others; and even if they are prepared to resume friendly relations with the sinner, they cannot force the rest of the group/family to do that either.
So, if my brother does something heinous (especially if it involves a third party) I may be able to forgive him but that doesn't mean he has blanket forgiveness or that he can expect to resume the original relationship.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The absolute requirement is that both sides, but especially the side with the upper hand, stop any wrongdoing. Reconciliation in South Africa required as a minimum the abolition of apartheid.
I think you set the bar too high. Reconciliation requires that both sides put aside dreams of "final solutions", put aside the myth of their own innocence, put aside notions of righting past wrongs, in order to focus on negotiating with another group of human beIngs that they're going to have to live alongside for the foreseeable future. To trade for what they want most by conceding what the others want most, to gain it not by right or by force but by agreement.
Which may mean letting go of the romance of intangible wants like "freedom" or "equality" or "independence" or "a united Ruritania" in favour of specific measures that can feasibly be granted at not too great a cost to others, that will feel like a step towards whatever was attractive about the intangibles.
If you're going to talk about an absolute minimum, it starts with the idea that negotiation for what you want from the other side is legitimate; they're people to be talked to not vermin or demons or scum.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The trouble is where the purists are coming from, me, Russ, moonlitdoor, Jolly Jape and others, is that it can probably be said that we haven't suffered enough.
Despite all we've suffered.
I obviously haven't. Because I believe what I say, but beliefs are two a penny. Ask me when I've suffered grievous loss at the hands of power. I am yet to be tested. And I would be found wanting.
L'organist, your parish priest was indeed very wise, but wise in the ways of the world. I still believe - price one ha'penny - that we are called to be outrageously, foolishly, extravagantly gracious.
A ha'penny's worth not because it's not true, but because it's not gold refined by fire.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
That post certainly made my day, Martin! Just a perfect post. Just...perfect.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... I was thinking specifically about justice in terms of the political realm, not justice in terms of Christian soteriology. ...
How totally separate are these realms? How tenable is the notion that they can be?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Enoch quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... I was thinking specifically about justice in terms of the political realm, not justice in terms of Christian soteriology. ...
Enoch: How totally separate are these realms? How tenable is the notion that they can be?
Enoch, that was exactly my reaction to Anglican_Brat’s statement! I suspect that our attitudes towards the interaction between the requirements of justice and reconciliation in the political and religious spheres are interwoven because the questions they raise have much in common: What are the preconditions for reconciliation (atonement)? Do the requirements of justice (the law) have to be met before humans can be reconciled to their fellows and/or God? Or does an act of grace rather than the satisfaction of justice trigger the possibility of reconciliation? In what ways are justice and reconciliation linked? Which comes first, justice or reconciliation? Is reconciliation possible without a fulfilment of the law? What do we understand by “condemned by the law but saved by grace”?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
The example that leaps to mind, maybe because I've just been talking to a lady from Northern Ireland, is that of the province itself. The Good Friday Agreement didn't deliver justice, in that people were set free or served abbreviated sentences, but did deliver reconciliation of a kind and they seem to be cautiously moving ahead. Theological concepts of justice and reconciliation may inform decision-making, but I'm not sure they have a place in the wider world.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
DouglasTheOtter quote:
Theological concepts of justice and reconciliation may inform decision-making, but I'm not sure they have a place in the wider world.
Sorry to be a bit dense, but your meaning is not clear to me. Would you mind developing your point?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
