I read an academic paper the other day about the need for forgiveness in safety. It was laced with theological concepts and metaphors about what to do with ‘wrongdoers’. The paper also used extensive theological language (from a non-theologian) about: atonement, grace, justice, morality, repentance and confession. Yet, there was no discussion of: fallibility, moral orientation, mortality, personhood, ethical position, mutuality, methodology or reconciliation. How convenient.

In the end, forgiveness was given a mechanical status that one ‘choregraphs’ as performance within a system. No surprises there.

Any discussion of forgiveness in situations where harm has been experienced must be framed from the foundation of fallibility. One of the worst positions to take in any such discussion, is one of arrogance, superiority and distance. Understanding forgiveness doesn’t start with ‘foregoing of vindictive resentment towards the wrongdoer’. This definition doesn’t come from the heart of humility, fallibility and what is known in Pauline theology as koinonia, the foundation of community. If we approach an understanding of forgiveness from an understanding of i-thou (Buber), an ethic of freedom (Ellul) and, what it is to be a fallible person, then the theology of accountability is understood differently.

In the typical organisation, the language of ‘community’ is tokenistic. Generally, it means little more than the notion of ‘a group’. If one wants to talk about a ‘moral community’ this needs to be defined within the scope of mutuality-in-fallibility. It’s hard to offer forgiveness unless one knows the experience of being forgiven. Without a discussion of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/), forgiveness surfaces as little more than a behavioural component in a system. Moreso, without a discussion of fallibility, there is no reason why one would be motivated to forgive.

In this paper, altruism is assumed but not discussed. Error was equated to ‘undesirable behaviours’ and forgiveness as an ‘organisational ritual’. The real questions that should be asked is: why should we forgive? and who is forgiveness for?

None of what was discussed in this paper scratched the edge of the meaning of forgiveness. Well done, Safety.

Why is it that Safety never wants to discuss fallibility, mortality, personhood and imperfection? We should know why. Why is the focus of Safety on systems rather than the ecology of relational living?

The key to understanding forgiveness is not about error but rather distance. Metering out retribution is easy when empathy-in-fallibility is not present. The greater the lack of mutuality-in-community, the easier it is to sit back and give advice on atonement and repentance.

Discussing theological concepts like these, without declaring a theological position on fallibility, is the same as using the word ‘ethic’ in safety and not declaring a philosophical position. Unfortunately, this is what Safety does. It hides its undeclared theology and methodology under the guise that everyone agrees on what is ‘moral’. Then proceeds to use theology to explain what it doesn’t understand from a base of ignorance.

If a study of theology and risk is of interest then you can register for the workshops on Theology and Risk starting on 28 November with Dr Long. Simply email: robertlong2@mac.com to register.