Just actions and social structures enhance beauty of experience, while unjust actions and social structures deface beauty of experience and limit personal possibilities. Accordingly, we can assert that God is on the side of beauty and justice and seeks relationships and institutions that promote creative, intense, meaningful, and beautiful experiences".Following up on this topic, Bruce looks at the question of punishment -- whether God's justice requires punishment and what that might look like. I think you'll find Bruce's ponderings thought provoking!
"
"
PROCESS AND PUNISHMENTBRUCE G. EPPERLY
Following the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama proclaimed that justice was done. While I recognized the necessity of this action (or the punishment and trial of bin Laden) and approved of it, the President's words open the door for reflections on the nature of justice as punishment or retributive justice, especially from a process perspective. Does God punish offenders? Should we use punishment as a deterrent or primary motive for relational justice-making? What role does punishment play in a universe aiming at beauty of experience?
I will briefly ponder the following: 1) the role of God in punishment, 2) the "punishing" actions of nature, and 3) punishment in the justice system. I will no doubt raise more questions than answers, some of which I may return to after my hiatus of lectures and retreats.
Many people claim God punishes us for immorality and misbehavior. They base their position on selected bible stories - Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptian plagues, the Great Flood. Typically they see God acting through natural causes to bring misfortune upon evil doers - Katrina and New Orleans and the Haitian earthquake, for example. God punishes sin, period! You get what you deserve, maybe even better than you deserve, at the hands of a righteous God.After all, God is the potter and we are the clay, this position asserts. God owes us nothing and is completely justified in destroying a misshapen pot.
Process theology would oppose the identification of God's will with natural disasters. While we may limit the nature of God's presence and the effectiveness of God's actions in our lives by our actions and values, God still seeks the "best [possibility] for that impasse." Our turning away from God has consequences in terms of personal and community life, and this may feel like divine punishment (or absence), but God's intent is always wholeness and beauty at every level of life. Here, punishment may be seen as "self-punishment." We have, in some way, brought unhappiness, disease, and even weather changes upon ourselves by our habitual actions. However, even our self-punishment is limited; 1) God still seeks our well being and 2) our quality of experience is determined by many factors, not just the impact of our actions.
Process theology recognizes that there is a type of justice-making in a nature. This is the law of consequences. Katrina's devastation of New Orleans was not the result of divine wrath, but a variety of factors, including natural causes such as the severity of the hurricane. Yet, the severity of hurricanes has been identified with changing weather patterns, partly the result of human actions. Further, the destruction of New Orleans is also related to our nation's failure to maintain the infrastructure of levees. We are partly responsible for this disaster in the chain of cause and effect. Neither God nor humankind intended Katrina as punishment but the hurricane's devastation emerged from human as well as non-human causes.
The question of punishment in the justice system is more complicated. Process theology tends to oppose retributive justice simply for the sake of catharsis or to punish evil doers. Acts have consequences and this may lead to the restriction of certain freedoms: 1) to protect others and 2) to teach a lesson. But punishment for its own sake goes against the global quest for beauty. Somehow retribution must be shaped by reformation. Incarceration apart from a commitment to nurture growth in skills and personal responsibility serves neither the inmate nor the wider community. It also betrays a failure in imagination and care. While incarceration severely limits a person's possibilities, it may also be the catalyst for new possibilities for personal and vocational growth. In the spirit of positive parenting, and here the justice system is serving as a type of parent, "time outs" can be sources of education in terms of acts-consequences. But, their goal in both cases is to encourage behaviors appropriate to the social context.
Incarceration may still be a necessity in certain crimes, especially those which involve violence and destruction. Here limitation of freedoms serves the greater good of protecting innocent citizens. We may forgive the offender, but we still must act on behalf of potential victims in the future. Dependable security and appropriate (and flexible) order is necessary for the flourishing of both persons and society.
Punishment is never the goal. Even the punishing God of certain biblical passages is willing to change course, if behavior changes, and often regrets the severity of punishment and the pain inflicted. Still, even from a process point of view, there are times in which freedom must be restrained among adults to achieve personal growth and social well being.
"Bruce Epperly is a theologian, spiritual guide, healing companion, retreat leader and lecturer, and author of nineteen books, including "Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living;" God's Touch: Faith, Wholeness, and the Healing Miracles of Jesus; and "Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry". He has taught at Georgetown University, Wesley Theological Seminary, Claremont School of Theology, and Lancaster Theological Seminary. He is currently theologian in residence at St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His most recent book is "Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed". He can be reached for lectures, seminars, and retreats at bruceepperly@gmail.com"
