The idea of atonement is a deeply theological idea and is linked to the practice of forgiveness. There are many theologies of atonement in a number of religions. There is not one view. Similarly, with theories of forgiveness and learning.

Yet, we see recently, Dekker drifting into the theological sphere as if there is one view of atonement, forgiveness and learning. In Christian theology alone there are at least seven theologies of atonement/forgiveness.

The idea that forgiveness is ‘the foregoing of vindictive resentment toward a wrongdoer’ is a view, not the view. When it comes to theologies of forgiveness and justice, there are many views, not one view. Similarly, with an understanding of accountability and restoration.

Similarly, with theories of ethics. There are many schools of ethics and moral philosophy, not one (undeclared deontological) view.

Yet when we read about HOP, it seems there is one view of learning (https://safetyrisk.net/what-theory-of-learning-is-embedded-in-your-investigation-methodology/) and one (undeclared) view of moral meaning. Why declare an ethic, when 5 slogans will do?

Underneath these 5 slogans sits an undeclared ethic, that if articulated, would demonstrate a particular theory of personhood. However, it seems in safety, that philosophy or a discussion on personhood, is of little interest. It’s obviously much better to not declare assumptions about all of these matters. It’s much better to let the ‘blind lead the blind’. ‘Blame fixes nothing’

When we open up discussion on any wicked problem (eg. Theology, Ethics) we need a Transdisciplinary approach (https://safetyrisk.net/transdisciplinary-thinking-in-risk-and-safety/ ), not just the Safety view. When one acknowledges the reality of wicked problems and the nature of Transdisciplinarity, things become grey, not black and white.

We might love back and white, but in this messy world, it’s not real nor helpful.

We might like to think that right and wrong is ‘common sense’ and straight forward, but it’s not. Forgiveness is not just about ‘our willingness to abandon our right to resentment, negative judgment . . . toward one who unjustly injures us, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity’. There are other theologies that have a very different view of what it means to forgive. Similarly, with theologies of suffering.

If you are in safety, and you want to take an excursion into Theology or Ethics, perhaps start by NOT using assumptions of safety as a foundation for understanding personhood, error and forgiveness. Perhaps don’t use Safety as a lens for looking at culture.

I’m reminded of Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran Pastor, who was part of the plot to kill Hitler. Bonhoeffer wrote books on Ethics and The Cost of Discipleship and had a very different view of forgiveness and atonement. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hanged by the SS on 9 April 1945, a month before the US liberation of Germany.

I’m also reminded of another theologian, Jacques Ellul, who served in the French resistance against the Nazis and wrote a wonderful book: The Ethics of Freedom. Ellul has a very different (neo-Marxist) theology of atonement, forgiveness and restoration.

There are no rules for forgiveness. There is no formula for atonement. There is no economy of faith in Theology (Kierkegaard). There is no map for fallibility.

Applying an (undeclared) theology of atonement to the wicked problem of risk, is not served well by a binary construct of right and wrong. Setting up a binary construct to try and understand error and fallibility, is only something Safety would try and do.

Setting up conditions for atonement and forgiveness, simply takes one down the pathway of an undeclared set of assumptions. But there’s a deeper question to be asked: why is Safety venturing down the path of theology and religion, to try and tackle the challenges of risk? What is going on? Who is this for?