Restorative justice as a public theology imperative

Public theology in empire

The contextual backdrop of exilic status for Jeremiah’s community resulted from hegemonic rulers and public defection from moral obedience to Mosaic law. The problem of hegemony has theoethical significance for present considerations of theological and ideological tensions in America’s social fabric. I situate Jeremiah’s role as a public theologian through a lens of Christian womanist sensibilities in African American lived experiences that affirm God’s anointing of faith, wisdom, and divinely inspired activism in male and female ancestors who did not possess post-graduate degrees as requisite for an identity claim of theologian. ¹ They, like Jeremiah, sacrificed life and limb to witness publicly against oppressive and deceptive forces of systemic societal evils. Furthermore, I connect Jeremiah’s role in the prophetic tradition to a radically prophetic Jesus the rabbi, derived from anointed roles in the public square without beholden favors to political factions. Both were fully aware of God’s liberative call despite an existential backdrop of life amid the hegemonic and oppressive power of Empire. Here, I use Empire as a motif symbolizing dangerous manifestations of imperialism and privileged abuses of power fueled by hegemonic exceptionalism in the social fabric of Judah and in America. Today’s social critics and liberative ethicists recognize the term Empire to encompass symbolically the hegemonic immoral presence of compromisingly unethical societal conditions and agendas. The yoke of entrenched systems and structures sustains benefits for a select few. Within this recognition, I also contrast public theology as an action response to God’s divinely directed charge to seek after the welfare of others. The charge thereby invokes a dilemma for people of faith to reflect on theoethical commitments to a divinely embodied justice ethos of speaking truth to power.

Historical manifestations of Empire invoked an ideology of exceptionalism to establish an elitist envisioned absolutist state, perhaps as an apologetic of enlightened necessity that some still defend with stances affirming global benefits of imperialistic protections. ² Still, the ancient imperialist aims of Babylon, Rome, as well as European occupations (variously England, Spain, France, Germany, and Belgium) are distinguishable from the present concepts of Empire in an American manifest destiny ethos. Womanist ethicist Kelly Brown Douglas expounds on the religio-political roots of America’s formation to posit that supremacist exceptionalism has been interwoven into the social and sacred fabric of an Anglo-Saxon myth. ³ Furthermore, historians Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri assert that America as Empire has a privileged position as a social force without boundaries, undergirded by a religiously rooted justification from inception that becomes the ontological basis for exceptionalism as the new Empire: “In Empire, ethics, morality, and justice are cast into new dimensions.” ⁴

My womanist theoethical investigation of public theology in Empire begins with a liberative stance connecting communal survival of blacks and other peoples still oppressed in this Diaspora to ‘what sayeth the Lord’ as the empowering force that led Jeremiah, my elders, and moves me into the public square. Womanist ethicist Keri Day aptly articulates pertinent tenets of a liberative ethic in this context as human dignity, social justice, and intragroup equality that I find embodied in protest platforms of Black Lives Matter times. ⁵ As womanist scholar and practical theologian, I also resonate with Miguel De La Torre’s liberative ethic construct as a counternarrative to Empire: “Liberative ethics is a spiritual response to unexamined normative and legitimized social structures responsible for privileging a powerful minority at the expense of the disenfranchised majority. It is an ethics deeply concerned with fostering and enriching life, as opposed to the ethics of the dominant culture, which remains complicit with social structures that cause marginalization.” ⁶

Public theology can be understood as a pragmatic praxis component of practical theology. Practical theology concerns itself with faith in praxis that cannot be isolated from addressing matters in society at large. Practical theologian Dale Andrews describes praxis as “a reflexive ecology” or meaning-making pursuit to enact the embodied values, theory, beliefs, and religious practices also informed by our lived experiences and historical context. ⁷ Esteemed ethicist Victor Anderson further explicates public theology as a lived theology: “We need a public theology that is always cognizant of the limits of human moral actions in a world framed by finitude, while, at the same time, always anticipating the signs of grace in a world framed by transcendence.” ⁸ As such, public theology is not politics, but by necessity speaks and acts with full awareness of political dynamics that rend chasms in the human landscape rather than forging equitable bonds of unity. An overarching aim of public theology, therefore, is to assess theoethical implications of Empire with public relevance for all humanity.

Returning to the Hebraic prophetic text, we see Jeremiah repeatedly warned that Judah’s own vestiges of Empire presaged disastrous consequences that ultimately would bring an extended period of exile with an outcry of the people for divinely-led intervention (Jer 29:10–12). We also see that the Babylonian occupation was a cataclysmic manifestation of Empire consequential to the division and power struggles between divided Hebraic kingdoms. After Israel fell, Judah’s rulers were warned about their own power transgressions as Empire that exacerbated adverse lived experiences for the marginalized within its borders. Still, Judah’s rulers surrounded themselves with priests and prophets who served falsely in the eyes of a just God, because power had blinded them to speak only what rulers wanted to hear. Perhaps, Judah’s exilic fate was a consequence of rulers and priests of Jeremiah’s time who disregarded public welfare with lax adherence to the moral precepts of Mosaic law. Perhaps a reflective warning today directs us to ask: is America on the brink of irreparable division in the cataclysmic pursuit of the imperial inclinations of an über-wealthy class of politicians and the religious factions that support them?

A dangerous sign of Empire ideology pervasive in our public governance today is the persistent view that privileged stances are justified. Moreover, public critic and legal analyst John Powell surmises that privilege operational in the rhetoric of white innocence or colorblindness functions to ignore racialized bias despite daily evidenced actions of racial subordination and classism perpetuated by stereotyped and preconceived fears of non-white bodies as ‘other.’ ⁹ On a national stage, the 2016 presidential campaign was fraught with accusations between public leaders concerning responsibility to seek the welfare of our cities. Instead, the focus on promises to return privileged power and nationalism under the guise of making America great again swayed electoral votes. Self-identified Christian stances abetted GOP civic stances, and were complicit in appropriating conservative evangelical faith doctrine as a ruse to instill self-serving agendas of racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia, as well as controlling access rights of the proletariat with religious and publican edict. As one example, stealthily legislated shifts to state regulatory controls increased voter disparity risks and targeted sexual difference as “deviant,” with limited recourse of appeal for justice to the highest court of the land. In the racialized context of Black Lives Matter times, a chasm of disparities grows as fast as the wealth accumulation held by one percent of the nation’s citizenry.

Postcolonial critics and liberative ethicists gather data to substantiate worldview perspectives about America repeating the errors of Jeremiah’s time, when witnessed in the insistent resurgence of neo-liberalism bound to racial supremacy that threatens to overshadow moral concern for proletariat needs or commonweal benefits. ¹⁰ Injustices accrue that are not limited to racism as an ongoing tension; rather, appointments of political ideologues for the upcoming Trump administration in 2017 continue the agendas of Empire to target marginalized undocumented immigrant workers, restrict female choices, rescind embattled LGBTQ citizenry rights, and limit interreligious freedoms afforded to Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, and other religious traditions viewed as heretical by self-identified conservatives. As Jeremiah warned, already marginalized citizenry in America’s borders are most impacted by skewed imperial values. They are wary of public policies, and live in fear if public protections are further compromised to reject compassionate justice as a strategic process for peace.

Millennial generation protesters in these Black Lives Matter times lead the outcry to civic and faith leaders who they deem complicit in silence or blindness to unjust targeting of already marginalized groups. Multiethnic and multi-gendered millennial leaders protesting civic dynamics endangering black and brown bodies synergized grass-roots resistance. Growing numbers, already suspect of organized religion, call the collective Church universal to task in light of its relative silence and passivity rather than being faith allies in the public square. A plethora of public issues at the center of debate include heightened violence and killings by state-sanctioned militarized police, growth of a privatized pipeline-to-prison industry fed by the legislated ‘three strikes’ judicial system, and restricted job access tied to substandard education and skills training. Community activists charge that urban churches are largely absent as public moral and spiritual arbiters of justice in Black Lives Matter protests and strategy development, except for a few prophetic clergy leaders.

Do prophetic clergy hear a divine call to serve as public theologians and spiritual change agents? Who, then, will use a faith lens to voice injustices in the present exilic condition of living in a land that lacks cohesive unity or cultural affinity? In truth, a small but vocal remnant of prophetic clergy are currently active in the public square, committed to God’s prophetic charge as a gospel-inspired ministry, and urging others into expanded alliances with secular and interreligious justice seekers. As examples, Michael McBride is a PICO Network leader and pastor of a growing faith community of millennials; he constantly travels to speak nationally in Ferguson and other major cities for prophetic justice work. In addition, William Barber leads a spiritually anointed charge to seek the welfare of our nation with Traci Blackmon, James Forbes, and Simone Campbell, to name a few, with messages not unlike the restorative mandate of Jeremiah. As a result, the Higher Ground Moral Declaration, signed by hundreds of religious leaders and community activists, directs a passionate theoethical critique against the systematic dismantling of nationally legislated justice protections such as voter rights, affordable healthcare access, and other human rights hard fought in prior eras of Civil Rights efforts. The Higher Ground Moral Declaration reads:

We declare that the deepest public concerns of our nation and faith traditions are how our society treats the poor, those on the margins, the least of these, women, children, workers, immigrants and the sick; equality and representation under the law; and the desire for peace, love and harmony within and among nations. Together, we lift up and defend the most sacred moral principles of our faith and constitutional values, which are: the economic liberation of all people; ensuring every child receives access to quality education; healthcare access for all; criminal justice reform; and ensuring historically marginalized communities have equal protection under the law. Our moral traditions have a firm foundation upon which to stand against the divide-and-conquer strategies of extremists. We believe in a moral agenda that stands against systemic racism, classism, poverty, xenophobia, and any attempt to promote hate towards any members of the human family. We claim a higher ground in partisan debate by returning public discourse to our deepest moral and constitutional values. ¹¹

Although I align with prophetic stances calling civic and faith leaders to accountability for social reforms needed in these urgent Black Lives Matter times, I wrestle with my concern for the contentious state of religious consciousness. I am troubled by conservative evangelicals holding to beliefs condemning others for what they refer to as carnal sins with the self-righteous vigor of the Pharisee in Luke 18:10, while Jesus points out the justified man as one humbled by personal faults to make right with God. Pietistic blindness abets inequitable hierarchies. Still, some moderate evangelicals and many progressives hold to a belief that God created and loves us all, but we struggle in turn to find capacity in our hearts to engage fellow clergy actions of racism, sexism, homophobia, and the allure of prosperity privilege. We keep silent. If God calls us proactively to seek the welfare of the city, can we reconcile mixed perceptions of justice to discuss what is at risk, and what is the way forward to stem further denigration of freedom? God-given freedom is tantamount to dignity of personhood. Divisions mount as a wide spectrum of doctrinal identities reveal polar differences in what I call a Christian dilemma, including the following. Is ideology a foe of theology? What are appropriate and effective action responses to our public-square dynamics? How do people of faith address schisms of identity in ideology labeled as conservative, evangelical, apostolic, pietistic, or prophetic that influence faith communities’ actions? How do we decide which conflicting courses of action, including silence, are construed as just and correct? Can we find a common path to forge ahead toward restorative justice?

Restorative justice as public-square ethos: Repairing the breach

In light of the restorative charge from the Lord God to seek the welfare of the city, I urge that people of faith seek to identify common aims of justice that transcend doctrinal divisions along spectrums of self-identity. I invite readers instead to self-reflect critically on how a restorative theoethics might be embodied in our present landscape of Empire. Restorative justice is a conceptual framework rooted in an ethical construct of mutually reflective engagement and interactive accountability, as initially applied in criminal justice adjudication and educational conflict resolution processes. Howard Zehr conceptualized restorative application to criminal justice contexts, yet acknowledged that principles of restorative justice ethics were adapted from tribal indigenous roots of Native American culture and other ancient cultures emphasizing communal values of harmony and relational solidarity, as found in Hebrew shalom or African Ubuntu, to teach that injustice to one damages relationships as an affront to the community. ¹² In theory, restorative justice is rooted in a mutuality of righting wrongs as an ethical alternative to punitive blame that simplistically disregards more complex underlying factors of wrongdoing for each party involved.

A restorative ethos primarily is victim-oriented to focus on the experiences of those harmed by unjust action that rob dignity, although the interactive process to strengthen interrelationship does not ignore the humanity of the one accused. The causative factors of the offense, such as circumstances of concern, perceptions, and lived injustices, also must be heard. Significantly, a restorative justice process involves direct engagement that is neither mediation nor intended to promise that full reconciliation is attainable. In practice, addressing disputes or crimes requires a level of mutual acknowledgment of wrongdoing. In reality, the involved parties might not agree on issues of fault or the level of harm; a reflective ethical process therefore applies restorative principles to establish mutually at least the obligation to dialogical opportunities for remedy. Repair strategies require negotiation and compromise to formulate settlement or restitution. The gist of restorative approaches is conceived to re-envision a traditional legalized court paradigm of offender and victim—terms that actually might not be invoked in public contextual uses (but which I retain here for clarity). Essentially, restorative approaches give victims agency to articulate injustices and desired reforms. A restorative justice framework reveals ethical values or principles useful in praxis models involving public encounters between victims and offenders to focus mutually on repair with intent to change unjust issues and reduce repetitive infractions. ¹³

As stated, the traditional judicial system is a punitive model constructed for moral or legal adjudication of wrongful acts punishable by fine or imprisonment with limited concern for underlying individual complexities or root causes of the behavior. In frequent cases of person(s) victimized or wronged, a perpetrator or offender typically had little or no personal engagement with victims for reflective connection to the ramifications of wrongful acts. To an extent, anonymity increases likelihood of repeat offenses over time as offenders become inured or harshly conditioned to internalized justification for repetitive crimes. Restorative models in criminal justice are widely used in the US, Canada, and internationally; comparative studies have shown that if offenders had little or no personalized interaction with those victimized, including family members or community stakeholders who also suffer loss, there was greater probability that the lack of subjectivity was a factor resulting in recidivism and callous denial of the impact on either party’s humanity. ¹⁴ According to social justice attorney Michelle Alexander, traditional justice paradigms of rehabilitation were politically undermined by encroachment of legislated agendas since Presidents Nixon and Reagan’s era of law and order, including a three strikes law and a privatized prison industry complex that disproportionately targeted and criminalized poor citizens of color as immoral and dangerous black or brown bodies. ¹⁵

In contrast, restorative justice principles center on interpersonal engagement with recognition of relational circumstances impacting the personhood of victim and offender. Although consequential outcomes still might include compensatory damages as some form of restitution, the aim of restorative justice is not forgiveness primarily, but to establish and implement reforms. Accordingly, I frame the ethical aims of a restorative justice paradigm as a composite of relational principles conceptualized by Zehr and other proponents:

Applying a womanist theoethical lens, I propose to re-envision restorative justice as a public practice ethos with practical application for public community forums as circle tables of justice beyond the present context of adjudicated mediation. In other words, I urge centering the use of public tribunals or communal circles through which diverse stakeholders have a place at the table and a voice in the justice outcomes. I offer the table image as a spiritualized trope and reminder of the Lord’s Table to which we all come as offenders of sin obliged to encounter the Lord who suffered as the sacrificial victim of our offense. Through partaking in consecrated elements of bread and cup we gain the opportunity to participate by confessing or acknowledging our wrongdoing, making amends through repentance, and humbly agreeing to conciliation of changed ways with the expectation that we have another chance to reintegrate anew in right relationship with our triune God, who loves us and seeks justice for us all. As a public-square ethos, restorative justice encourages all parties to pursue spiritual changes as well as legalistic process changes. Essentially, interpersonal engagement must be underscored to accomplish the principle practices of direct encounter, active listening, and making amends.

Secular and religious leaders complicit in unjust public offenses should participate at a public-square table of accountability to disenfranchised victims in a restorative justice process. Despite restorative concepts of willing encounter and volunteer engagement, I contend that officials, elected or hired by virtue of their public duties, should not be allowed to refuse or be exempt from transparently participating in a restorative justice process. Moreover, religious leaders, by virtue of confirmed responsibility to ordained service and willingness to hold such positions on behalf of constituencies, are bound ethically as a constituted agreement to engage and dutifully encounter all sisters and brothers in community. Those whom society marginalizes as outcasts still have a public right to expect civic or religious leaders to engage. Moreover, community activists and prophetic public theologians as peace-loving justice-seekers should uphold this human right in order to challenge any who do not seek the welfare of the city in a public process of social and spiritual restoration.

Restorative justice processes must be contextualized to address community-level injustices in the public square and to enact certain practices: (i) inclusion—the opportunity for the inclusive presence of all affected parties is crucial, particularly when constructing a dialogical public-square model of inclusivity; (ii) direct encounter—willingness to encounter differences in perspective and contextual placement is crucial for interaction. For agency, encounters must be mutually agreeable, rather than coerced or forced; (iii) participatory listening—problem-solving is a participatory process of interaction purposefully to listen and mutually to articulate narratives intended to identify, personalize, and emote the issues and effects on the parties involved; (iv) acknowledgment—for authentic problem-solving, acknowledgment expressly recognizes the issues mutually identified by all parties affected, although not necessarily to reach accord on the negative impact, but, instead, to understand the harm or injury to individuals, families, and/or the greater community; (v) making amends—to amend wrongs requires not only vulnerability to admit wrongdoing and apology, but involves informed consent on issues with sincere construction of methods to shift power, change behavior, and cooperatively work toward repair of the breach; (vi) conciliation—mutual negotiation of agreeable outcomes ideally involves a transparent conciliatory process to restore harmony and justice to the victim(s), as evidenced by cooperative restructuring of provisions of codified policy changes, restitution of correctional measures (fines, revised services, or practices), and conscientious behavior modification; and (vii) reintegration—creation of a fair and diverse process to sustain community healing, equity, or parity involves access to reenact systems of support and ongoing participation.

Best practices attend to fostering mutual respect and reducing or avoiding stigma for either party, i.e., victim(s) or offender(s). Community systems of support might include trained faith communities, families, or group support, as well as ongoing counseling. To connect theologically to public restorative justice aims, I invite readers to consider how restorative justice principles and practices might be adapted as public ministry with an expanded public-square ethos. For example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa was created in 1995 under the then President Nelson Mandela and chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Mandela’s theoethical warrant for restorative process might be understood in his oft-quoted observation: “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” ¹⁶ The multi-located public hearing process addressed many structural injustice offenses of the apartheid-controlled government of Afrikaners of European descent. Testimony of marginalized victims and tribal stakeholder groups also revealed violations exacted by liberation groups. However, at such a large public scale, the political expediency of self-interest encroached on the effort. Notably, Tutu acknowledged that the public process was transparent, but not perfect: “A key weakness of the commission was that it did not focus sufficiently on the policies or political economy of apartheid. The failure to examine the effect and impact of apartheid’s policies resulted in the need for the perpetrators, or the ‘trigger-pullers,’ to bear the collective shame of the nation and let those who benefitted from apartheid to escape responsibility. The link between racialized power and racialized privilege became obscured.” ¹⁷

Even at a localized community level, in God’s judgment public wrongs are criminal offenses of power-hungry rulers, civic officials, privileged elites, and religious leaders. People disenfranchised and oppressed by social disparities are the victims for whom God intervened. With a womanist theoethical lens, I ground a communitarian ethos and engage a liberative lens to decenter the injustices of systemic disparities controlled by a privileged few as normative. Instead, the aim of a communitarian ethos prefers commonweal needs over neoliberalist agendas for individualized privileges. I align a womanist communitarian theoethics with Jeremiah’s prophetic critique of public leaders and systems that abet unjust societal structures. A womanist theoethics also centers diverse intersectional experiences in which racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism are human conditions involving victimization and injustices. This and other liberative theoethical approaches to restorative justice extend a public-square ethos of reintegrating harmony, wholeness, and equity in community. On one hand, community involvement has the commonweal benefit of contextualizing key priorities for a workable restorative justice process at the proverbial public-square table of proceedings. On the other hand, can we as people of faith dare to afford passive ‘wait and see’ complacency while post-campaign agendas of conservative elites and alt-right supremacists continue to fuel the nationalism of American Empire?

Prophetic parallels for restorative justice principles

A closer scan of the Jeremiah text reveals that God’s mandate requires more than pietistic virtue ethics; it requires, rather, an authentically liberative ethic in a public theology of justice. For prophetic spiritual change agents active in the public square, closer examination of mandates from the Lord God reveal prophetic parallels to restorative justice principles. I highlight in four Jeremiah excerpts the restorative principles underscoring a liberative ethic pertaining to offenses, responsibility, community engagement, and agency.

Principle 1: Offenses are crimes of wrongdoing. In Jer 22:13–19, the Lord God speaks against King Jehoiakim, son of King Josiah of Judah: “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice; who makes his neighbors work for nothing, and does not give them their wages; who says, “I will build myself a spacious house … Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy … But your eyes and heart are only on your dishonest gain, for shedding innocent blood, and for practicing oppression and violence.”

Principle 2: Responsibility in community produces the obligation of accountability. In Jer 23:1–2, 11–12, the Lord God holds priests and prophets accountable: “‘Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!’ says the Lord. Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who shepherd my people: It is you who have scattered my flock, and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. So I will attend to you for your evil doings, says the LORD … Both prophet and priest are ungodly; even in my house I have found their wickedness, says the LORD. Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery paths in the darkness, into which they shall be driven and fall; for I will bring disaster upon them in the year of their punishment, says the LORD.”

Principle 3: Participation in dialogue and listening is crucial for community engagement. In Jer 26:12, 16–18, Jeremiah speaks with participants at a public tribunal: “Then Jeremiah spoke to all the officials and all the people saying, ‘It is the LORD who sent me to prophesy against this house and this city all the words you have heard’ … Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, ‘This man does not deserve the sentence of death, for he has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God.’ And some of the elders of the land arose and said to all the assembled people, ‘Michah of Moresheth who prophesied during King Hezekiah of Judah, said to all the people of Judah: “Thus says the LORD of hosts, Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins” … ’.”

Principle 4: Agency to articulate decisions for change rests with those most harmed by injustices. In Jer 38:7–13, Ebed-melech, an Ethiopian servant and eunuch, exercised justice agency: “Ebed-melech … heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern … so Ebed-melech left the king’s house and spoke to the king, ‘My lord king, these men have acted wickedly in all they did to the prophet Jeremiah by throwing him into the cistern to die there of hunger, for there is no bread left in the city.’ The king commanded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, ‘Take three men with you from here, and pull the prophet Jeremiah up’ … and they pulled him out of the cistern.” Jeremiah 39:15–17 records the outcome of the episode. “The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah … ‘Go and tell Ebed-melech the Ethiopian: Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel … you shall not be handed over to those whom you dread … You shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have trusted in me, says the LORD’.”

Today, urgent healing is needed block-by-block, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, city-by-city. Prophetic texts offer restorative justice principles to apply in our study and discourse. A review of texts for shared discourse in interreligious and Christian faith circles could include study of respective traditions better to understand concerns and to sustain unity for restorative justice as a public-square ethos. Today, people exiled in Empire need committed secular and spiritual change-agent leaders to voice offenses and attest to justice needs by joining with the already marginalized who exhibit inspired courage authentically to challenge unjust public power, as did Ebed-melech the African eunuch servant. For example, I find alignment with restorative principles in four excerpts of key public reform demands that follow, from “A Vision for Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom & Justice,” a collective of fifty organizations comprising The Movement for Black Lives, with study resources available online: ¹⁸

We demand an end to the war against Black people … an immediate end to the criminalization and dehumanization of Black youth across all areas of society including, but not limited to our nation’s justice and education systems, social service agencies, and media and pop culture. This includes an end to zero-tolerance school policies and arrests of students, the removal of police from schools, and the reallocation of funds from police and punitive school discipline practices to restorative services … An end to the use of past criminal history to determine eligibility for housing, education, licenses, voting, loans, employment, and other services and needs. (Naming the offenses)

… We believe in elevating the experiences and leadership of the most marginalized Black people, including but not limited to those who are women, queer, trans, femmes, gender nonconforming, Muslim, formerly and currently incarcerated, cash poor and working class, differently-abled, undocumented, and immigrant … There can be no liberation for all Black people if we do not center and fight for those who have been marginalized. It is our hope that by working together to create and amplify a shared agenda, we can continue to move towards a world in which the full humanity and dignity of all people is recognized. (Call of responsibility / accountability)

… We stand in solidarity with our international family against the ravages of global capitalism and anti-Black racism, human-made climate change, war, and exploitation. We also stand with descendants of African people all over the world in an ongoing call and struggle for reparations for the historic and continuing harms of colonialism and slavery. We also recognize and honor the rights and struggle of our Indigenous family for land and self-determination. (Community engagement)

… We have created this platform to articulate and support the ambitions and work of Black people. We also seek to intervene in the current political climate and assert a clear vision, particularly for those who claim to be our allies, of the world we want them to help us create. We reject false solutions and believe we can achieve a complete transformation of the current systems, which place profit over people and make it impossible for many of us to breathe. (Agency)

In my view, the above-mentioned justice platform excerpts represent a re-envisioned restorative justice practice model of engagement that will require ongoing deliberation concerning ways to seek the welfare of our cities and neighborhoods. Hopefully, future justice work will engage millennial activists with diverse parties to achieve the fifth restorative principle: repair strategy and plans for implementation of structural and reparation remedies.

Contextualizing restorative justice as a public theology imperative

Finally, I bring us full circle to a most difficult theoethical reflection: what can or should be done, if anything, to call religious colleagues to account when faith leaders at different sides of the proverbial table accuse the other of complicity or misappropriating a biblical text? In my view, peace and harmony are hardest to attain or retain in a polarized American landscape. As stated earlier, factions in the 2016 election revealed marked division in stances on the issues of females in leadership, right to life or abortion choices, sexuality and same-sex civil action, non-Christian religious freedoms, and deportation vs immigration rights. Each of the varied sides has proponents to defend stances and vehemently point fingers at opposing views, while dissonance and disharmony thwart efforts to find common ground regarding the larger repressive issues of Empire. Sadly, we must contend with a societal landscape not only infused with political questions of the recent 2016 election, but with a hate-spewing crisis of resurgent white supremacy underscored by resurfaced racialized physical and verbal hostilities no longer dismissible or disguised by politically correct subtleties. A public theology imperative preempts the aforementioned theoethical dilemmas when realities confront cities such as Chicago, with epic social challenges and over 750 violent deaths in 2016 that impact demoralized residents living amid structural injustices. ¹⁹ Catholic activist Father Michael Phleger marched with Rev. Jesse Jackson, with other faith leaders, and community members who had lost loved ones; the assembled were reminded that although violence most often is experienced in poorer neighborhoods, the privileged and the officials need to be accountable for change and reminded that violence is not solely a “south side problem,” but Chicago’s problem. In freezing cold, many turned out to carry a cross marked with the name of someone killed in 2016. ²⁰

To prepare our spirits to meet this public theology imperative, I humbly urge that we look to what the radical rabbi and divine Son of Man stated in response to questions about the greatest commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt 22:36–40). Despite God’s command to love, what I observe too often is that our biblical text is used expressly and unjustly to castigate deeply faithful people who nevertheless are targeted, stigmatized, and told that God rejects them. As the church, we witness members, gifted leaders, and servants in the church driven out and families torn apart when we ostracize LGBTQ sexuality as though it were an arbitrary identity rather than the essentially personal and private nature of their personhood. We denigrate and report working, taxpaying families as undocumented immigrants rather than aiding their quest for a better life protected from injustice, much like Joseph and Mary sought when they fled to Egypt. We block females from pulpits. We attack any non-Christian rather than recognizing that religious freedom was ostensibly the mustard seed of America’s birth. Sadly, we still ignore the rights and indigenous heritage of Native Americans who are marginalized along with other peoples of color. No matter which of the derogatory labels used, the destruction of dignity with words and acts is an affront to a Holy and just God. What do we preach and teach in our religious institutions that actually contradicts God’s divine edict to look after the victimized and to seek the welfare of the city?

The ecclesial diversity of Christians, as Protestant, Catholic, or apostolic churches, signifies that doctrinal differences do not excuse us from working inclusively with those deemed ‘other’ or ‘least’ because we are to embrace one another as one family in God’s created order of freedom and justice. A theoethical lens of communal justice also invites cross-sectional interaction of wealthy, largely white, urbanite congregations, urban immigrant churches, and Hispanic / Latino congregations whose members also are targeted as ‘other’ with cultural and economic disparities. Hispanic communities are targeted with immigration stereotypes, and Muslim communities with presumptive terrorist labels. The vitriol of hate is a fearful attempt to retain supremacist myths of privilege that rationalize deleterious actions or policies beyond the fear of black bodies. In truth, ethically conscious voices across religious or color lines can speak in faith communities about affirming the diversity of rights among besieged groups and take concrete actions to promote sustainable personal transformation and self-realization.

Conclusion: Where do we go from here?

I centered my remarks on present dilemmas of societal dynamics that I term as Black Lives Matter times; the theological and ethical debates about faith roles in public-square discourse of racial and class disparities, however, are not new and periodically resurface in milestone eras of human rights crisis. During these eras, theological stances were not entirely polarized, but evidence revealed collectively few ecclesial voices in the public square. Today, justice efforts require public mobilization. Using a womanist theoethical lens, I sought to provide a prophetic construct for restorative justice. Particularly, I invited readers theoethically to ponder the following. How can we ignore God’s call to seek the welfare of the city and those exiled there? Whether or not colleagues in the public square are professed followers of a living God as Creator of all peoples, or part of diverse non-Christian traditions, I retain my belief in an incarnate and radically prophetic Christ from whom we have an onus to obey the Gospel commandment to love, not just Christians but all people. As a womanist and practical theologian with a passion for liberative social ethics in public theology, I commit to forge justice alliances, to work for restorative justice, and to develop contextual models throughout our cities. Where do we go from here? We go courageously forward.

The crisis of today’s urban landscape prompts an urgent call to interreligious leaders and ecumenical clergy particularly serving in urban churches to reflect on the need to be proactive change agents. In a present societal stew of what I call Black Lives Matter times, young people protest against ultra-conservative politics and economic elitism, and continue to mount volatile rejection of systemic marginalization of black and brown bodies. A lack of self-reflective dialogue on the tough issues weakens interreligious and ecclesial efforts, however. Public ideological clashes result over moral imperatives, identities, and dignity of personhood that still pose a conundrum of expectations of what is appropriate theoethical action. The civic and social tempest that sparked the protests in Black Lives Matter times is where increased visible presence and participation of change-agent clergy leaders and prepared congregants are crucial to support continual enactment of justice reforms that seek first the community’s welfare. Black urban churches more likely are located in what are now depleted remnants of a failed economic system abetted by a psychosis of supremacy. Urgency is apparent for self-identifying black urban churches to campaign with voice and presence against unjust racialized socioeconomic disparities in the urban neighborhoods and communities that congregant families are more likely to experience. However, no faith community is exempt from public theology. As religious leaders and congregants, we can engage in vital social reform activism as discipleship within neighborhoods throughout our urban landscape. I pray many more will join to seek divine justice in our restorative work for the welfare of the city.