GLIMPSES OF GRACE

Rev. Dr. Michael J Nel

2022

 

Vivid glimpses of grace were seen in the lives of the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the late President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. For them God’s grace was not simply a theological concept but an integral part of the way they lived in relationships and how it informed their decision making. In the language of Bowen theory, Tutu and Mandela were living principled lives which are an essential characteristic of the solid self. Their lives were shaped and informed by the need for reconciliation even with those who had oppressed them. It was God’s grace that informed their decision to have the South African parliament enact legislation that established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

 

In his book No Future without Forgiveness Tutu notes that not everyone appreciated or accepted the grace that informed and shaped the Commission. There were those who did not welcome the idea that they needed to give up the desire for revenge and forgive their oppressors. He was aware of their difficulty but Tutu was convinced that to appropriate a future of freedom, forgiveness was a necessary prerequisite.  There were others who critiqued the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for focusing on reconciliation while failing to address the great need for reparations. This group wanted the Commission to deal with systemic discrimination in employment, education, health concerns and especially with the need to oversee the implementation of the many land claims.

 

These two processes, reconciliation and reparation, even though very different, are both valid and important. Both provide glimpses of grace but they employ very different processes for achieving their different and specific goals.  The process by which reconciliation is achieved is forgiveness. Forgiveness is a relational process that requires the appreciation and appropriation of grace if friendship and harmony is to be restored. The Webster New Collegiate Dictionary defines reconciliation as,

 

To restore to friendship, harmony or communion (reconcile the factions) 

b: adjust settle differences

 

In 1997 my wife and I spent two days attending the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings in Pietermaritzburg. The hearings were held in the Pietermaritzburg city hall which seated about 1600 people. The hall was packed with black South Africans with only about 30 whites in attendance. These whites were either lawyers representing their police clients or staff and faculty of the School of Theology. What was surprising was that we were met with grace by those present for the hearing. Since the hearings were being conducted in Zulu those seated around us made sure that we had headphones so that we could hear the simultaneous translation into English. It was impressive and also very humbling to note how those present were very attentive to what was being said and silent. It must have been painful for the people to hear the testimony of a white policeman who was serving a gaol sentence for murdering a black person while on duty. The commissioners asked him if this was the only person he had killed. He confessed that there were many killed. There was not a murmur from the crowd and no expression of anger. It was clear that this young policeman was deeply depressed and probably suicidal. What amazed me was the response of the commissioners and the people who expressed concern for his mental health. Following his confession their response was to offer him support and care. It became abundantly clear to me that the reconciliation process was founded on the need for forgiveness so that there may be the restoration of harmony in relationships. The response of the people made it clear to me that forgiveness was the appropriate foundational principle of the Commission. Both Tutu and Mandela were convinced that there could be no reconciliation without forgiveness. Furthermore, they made it clear that without forgiveness there would be no true freedom. Without forgiveness the future of the nation and the citizens would remain captive to the horrors of the past.

 

While reconciliation seeks harmony through forgiveness, the goal of restoration is justice and equity. Restoration seeks to right the wrongs of the past. For a majority of the South African population as well as for the First Nations in Canada, reconciliation was an essential component of the process but reparations and the pursuit of justice are equally important. Reparation means that education, ownership of land etc is not only for the whites and the wealthy. All people irrespective of their colour, race or ethnicity are entitled to the ownership of land, employment, a house, electricity, clean water, health care, education and just treatment in the law. Unfortunately for the former colonial powers as well as those in positions of power the temptation is to bypass reconciliation and the need for confession and forgiveness and go straight to restoration.  For those who have had the privileges of power and authority whether colonial powers, apartheid government or members of societies, restoration is the lesser of the two “evils” and therefore the preferred response.  It is far easier to give money than apologize and ask for forgiveness. A focus on reparations that avoids reconciliation dodges the difficult and painful process of self examination and confession to those who had been oppressed and exploited. The people of Namibia have been frustrated by the willingness of the German government to give money rather than apologize and seek forgiveness for the genocide they committed. It is therefore important that these two processes, reconciliation and restoration not be blended. When restoration is implemented with integrity and justice then it too provides glimpses of grace.

 

Glimpses of grace can be witnessed throughout nature. One can get glimpses of grace when elephants assist dying members of the herd by gathering around and supporting the dying member physically so that they can remain standing. Glimpses of grace can be seen when elephants comfort a cow elephant whose calf has died by stroking her with their trunks. Glimpses of grace can be experienced in the beauty of nature as reflected in the majesty of mountains and trees and the brilliant colours of flowers.

 

Reconciliation is a relational process that seeks the restoration or healing of broken relationships through forgiveness. It is in the healing of relationships that there are glimpses of grace. The difficulty is that the seeking or offering of forgiveness is not an easy or effortless process. To offer or seek forgiveness requires courage. What makes both of these a painful process is that they are seen as a threat to the self since both are experienced as a loss.

 

Unfortunately relationships are all too often severed and the outcome is alienation. In order to restore broken relationships a healing processes such as confession and forgiveness is required.  For the Christian this alienation or broken relationships is referred to as sin.  The underlying theological premise is that all human alienation is at its core an expression of humankind’s alienation from God. Martin Luther was keenly aware of this and it was this concept that influenced his explanation of the 10 Commandments in the Small Catechism. In his explanation of the First Commandment he states that humankind is to “fear, love and trust God above everything else.” He then extends this explanation to the understanding of the other nine commandments. It is the failure of humankind to fear, love and trust God above everything else that underlies the alienation from God and in all other relationships. The consequence of this failure is expressed in the commandments as killing, stealing etc.   

 

For there to be reconciliation and forgiveness there needs to be an honest, and often a painful, examination of the self. This self-examination process requires taking full responsibility for self in relationship with God and the neighbour: for one’s thoughts, feelings and behaviour. Since confession is a relational process it may be personal but is not a private process. This means that confession and forgiveness is always understood to be a dynamic process that is an expression of life in community. No human lives as an isolated individual. Living in relationship means that one’s actions affects others. Unfortunately the philosophy of individualism that is so dominant in Western societies reinforces the idea of the individual as being self contained, self reliant and independent. This affects relationships negatively since it provides an excuse to avoid the need for true confession. There is no short cut to reconciliation.  In order to avoid taking responsibility for self in relationships humankind focuses on the other rather than self. This focus on the other is to blame them for one’s own short comings and behaviour. Confession is then not about self but about the other. For reconciliation to transpire and be effective both confession and forgiveness have to be authentic. Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote:

 

True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the pain, the degradation, the truth.  It could sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end dealing with the real situation helps to bring real healing. Spurious reconciliation can bring only spurious healing. (p.271)

 

Authentic confession is an expression of the principles of the solid self. Its focus is on defining one’s self and not the other. Much of what is referred to as an apology is no apology at all since it does not speak about self but about the other. The problem with such a confession is that it defines the other without having to define the self. Such a process avoids responsibility for self. An example of this is the apology that apologizes that the other may have been hurt or offended by what was said or done. This is what Tutu refers to as being a “spurious” confession which is an expression of the pseudo self, the pretend self. True confession is an expression of the solid self and is informed by solid core principles that thoughtfully inform the process of self examination. This process includes the willingness to seek reconciliation.

Reconciliation occurs when an authentic confession is responded to by authentic forgiveness. Only when reconciliation elicits an authentic response to a true confession is true freedom to be found. This is the relational process that brings about healing and freedom not just for individuals who confess and forgive but for the community as well. Nelson Mandela stated that “Forgiveness liberates the soul, it removes fear. That’s why it’s such a powerful weapon.” He was aware even while in prison that freedom is not the possession simply of the individual but it means freedom for the community as well. He wrote “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” Tutu commented that “Forgiveness means abandoning your right to pay back the perpetrator in his own coin, but it is a loss that liberates the victim.” (p.272) In the process of forgiveness there are numerous glimpses of grace that are evident where ever and whenever there is true or authentic confession and forgiveness.

Authentic confession or forgiveness is not always the norm in society. Not everyone has the courage to or the willingness to do the necessary self examination in order for their to be an authentic confession. What is the offended person to do in such a situation? The opposite also occurs when there is an authentic confession but the injured party is unwilling to forgive. Is there then no possibility for grace or for freedom?

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission who had to deal with those who did not want to confess and as well as those who were not willing to forgive. Both forgiveness and confession are difficult processes that require intense self examination and courage. There are losses for both those who confess and those who forgive. Those who forgive must also be willing to suffer loss of self which after the losses they have already suffered was just too great a sacrifice to make. Tutu writes about those who were injured, hurt, humiliated, discriminated against and who suffered injustice and preferred to seek retribution and revenge for what they had suffered.

The victim, we hope, would be moved to respond to an apology by forgiving the culprit. As I have already tried to show, we were constantly amazed in the commission at the extraordinary magnanimity that so many of the victims exhibited. Of course there were those who said they could not forgive. That demonstrated for me the important point that forgiveness could not be taken for granted; it was neither cheap nor easy. (p.271)

 

The inability to let go of the past and forgive was understandable but this inability to forgive has significant and vital implications. When one is unwilling to forgive even to an authentic and heartfelt confession then one unwittingly ties oneself emotionally to the other. In such a response there is no experience of grace and therefore no possibility of freedom. The true freedom of forgiveness is the release of the self emotionally from the other and is not dependent on whether the other confesses or not. Freedom of forgiveness is a relational concept but is essentially about the self and not dependent on what the other does, wants or says. Freedom both as the experience of forgiveness and confession is always first and foremost about the self and not about the other. Similarly if the other refuses to forgive it does not imply that the one making an authentic confession cannot experience freedom. The clearest example of forgiveness given without a confession is evident at the cross of Jesus the Christ. Jesus pronounces forgiveness even though no one has confessed to the injustice, humiliation and torture he experiences. At the cross we experience not just a glimpse of grace but of the fullness of grace. Nelson Mandela refers to the need to forgive in order to be free not just physically from imprisonment but emotionally as well. He received no confession from the apartheid government or the guards who had humiliated him in prison when he wrote,

“As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison.”

The question of forgiveness in relationships is a complex one fraught with many difficulties. The goal of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was limited to reconciliation even though there were occasions when it addressed the question of reparations. The focus was on the perpetrators of the injustice, both organizational such as churches, governmental and individuals to make an honest, responsible and authentic confession. The victims of injustice were encouraged to forgive the perpetrators of the injustice and suffering. This goal may be simple to state but was extremely difficult to achieve since it was loaded with intense emotion suffering, pain and hurt. Reconciliation was a complex and difficult goal for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to achieve and was only partially successful. It was hopefully the start of a process and not simply an event. Even though the process of the Commission was limited yet it revealed glimpses of grace. Tutu wrote:

Reconciliation is liable to be a long-drawn-out process with ups and downs, not something accomplished overnight and certainly not by a commission, however effective. (p.274)

Reflections

Archbishop Desmond Tutu clearly understood the importance of the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission but he was not naïve about the difficulties involved. It was his faith in Jesus the Christ that gave him courage to proceed and provided the insight into the process of reconciliation.

 

True reconciliation is not cheap. It cost God the death of His only begotten Son. (p.270)

He found his understanding of the reconciliation process being shaped by the cross. At the cross he heard the words of forgiveness as words of grace and freedom. It was at the cross that he understood forgiveness as the definition of the self of Jesus when Jesus pronounced forgiveness before there was any confession. Jesus prayed for those who persecuted him, “Father forgive them.” It was at the cross that he came to realize that forgiveness was not about sentimentality but a concrete and painful process of liberation in which the victim who forgives has to accept loss so that the perpetrator may be liberated. Above all the cross of Jesus the Christ informed his thinking about the process of reconciliation, confession and forgiveness and the way to true freedom. At the cross he discovered that the process of reconciliation about discovering an openness to a new future, a future of grace and hope. The promise of the cross was a new future with new possibility in life not only the victim but also the perpetrator that is free from the atrocities and pain of the past. For him the reconciliation process was rooted in the experience of grace.

In the act of forgiveness we are declaring our faith in the future of relationship and in the capacity of the wrongdoer to make a new beginning on a course that will be different from the one that caused us the wrong. We are saying here is a chance to make a new beginning. It is an act of faith that the wrongdoer can change. According to Jeesus,⁶  we Should be ready to do this not just once, not just seven times, but seventy times seven, without limit – provided, it seems Jesus says, your brother or sister who has wronged you is ready to come and confess the wrong they have committed yet again. (p.273)

Forgiveness is a gift from God. It is a powerful relational process for the healing of human relationships that are fraught with difficulties and brokenness. Reconciliation with God and our neighbour is the essential witness of Christianity. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and President Nelson Mandela not only understood this but lived it. By living the process of reconciliation they made it possible for a new South Africa to experience freedom. But as both have so ably stated, reconciliation is not an event but an ongoing process that needs to be continued into the future. But what of Canada and its relationship with the First Nations?

Historically the Church incorporated this process of reconciliation into its worship. Confession and Absolution recognizes that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and that all sin is first and foremost against God but this does not exclude how this sin affects the neighbour. Confession and absolution in worship is not about a legalistic requirement but an expression of grace and freedom. Unfortunately confession and absolution can become rather mechanical and legalistic. When this happens forgiveness is made conditional on confession and the self is made subordinate to the process. As mentioned earlier confession and forgiveness is the rooted in the definition of the self. The way of Jesus on the cross reminds us that forgiveness is already declared from the cross even before anyone confesses.

Confession and absolution is God’s gift to humankind. This is a gift provides a process for healing and reconciliation not just of individuals but also for communities and nations. It is the central process that allows the Church and communities to function as communities. What I find problematic is that Confession and Absolution is gradually being replaced by a liturgy of Thanksgiving for Baptism. If the premise that reconciliation is a process of confession and forgiveness is an important gift from God for healing of relationships to self, community and between nations, how can it be allowed to have a diminishing role in the life of the church? Thanksgiving for Baptism, as important as that may be, focuses on thanksgiving for an event in the past. The future, according to Luther, is the understanding of baptism as a process. According to him one needed to be baptized daily: a daily experience of grace. Serious questions are raised when Confession and Absolution is incrementally removed and replaced by the Thanksgiving for Baptism. One such question is whether one can expect members who are no longer expected to confess to one another confess to God?

To lose the process of reconciliation is to consign relationships to legalistic processes. In such relationships no one takes responsibility for self. Self examination is avoided and confession of one’s brokenness is eluded. Self examination is the responsibility of all since all people experience alienation in relationships whether as the victim or the perpetrator. Without true self examination there is only spurious confessions and forgiveness and everyone lives out of a pretend self with the result that the future is a closed book and hope is relegated to wishful thinking. Ignoring the process of reconciliation as a process of grace means that relationships are governed by legalisms with a focus on revenge and vindication. No one experiences freedom in such relationships. When the gift of reconciliation is denied then it becomes increasingly difficult to get glimpses of grace.

 

 

Bibliography

 

Tutu, Desmond. (1997). No Future Without Forgiveness. New  York: Doubleday, New York

 

Barber, Katherine. (Editor) (1998). The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Ontario: Oxford University Press.