Fomenting Repentance

Image courtesy of takomabibelot at via Wikimedia Commons

Christianity has manifold resources for individuals who feel mired in sin who seek to repent and live a new life. But what about societies that are mired in sin, which as mass entities are unable to feel as individuals feel? And what about individuals within an unjust system who perpetuate it and benefit from the injustice, even though they did not create the system and by themselves are powerless to stop it? Is the language of sin and repentance effective for transforming societal sins? The works of Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King, Jr. suggest to me that it is not effective to indict large groups of people for sins they may perpetuate, but did not engender.

In Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr states that

Individuals are never as immoral as the social situation in which they are involved and which they symbolize. If opposition to a system leads to personal insults of its representatives, it is always felt as an unjust accusation…An impartial teacher of morals would be compelled to insist on the principle of personal responsibility for social guilt. But it is morally and politically wise for an opponent not to do so. (p. 248-49)

To support this assertion, he points to William Lloyd Garrison, whose fierce criticism of the evil of slaveowning merely “solidified the south in support of slavery” (p. 248).

Martin Luther King, Jr, seemed to follow Niebuhr’s advice (with both men drawing also on the work of Gandhi). In “Give Us the Ballot,” he stresses that “our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man…We must respond to every [court] decision with… an appreciation of the difficult adjustments that the court orders pose for them.” Rather than calling on white moderates to lament their role in a racist system, he prays for them to have the courage to be strong leaders. The distinction is perhaps subtle, because strong leadership is the ultimate goal of repentance. The difference is that King focused on rallying to the correct way rather than criticizing the incorrect way.

The priests in Nehemiah 8 also take this strategy in orchestrating mass repentance:

“This day is holy to the Lord your God: you must not mourn or weep,” for all the people were weeping as they listened to the words of the Teaching. He further said to them, “Go, eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks…Do not be sad, for your rejoicing in the Lord is the source of your strength.”’

In Nehemiah, discovering the right way to live was not cause for contrition, but for celebration and action.

Fomenting transformation on a wide scale means calling people to their highest values, rather than excoriating their sins. Excoriating sins tends to alienate folk, and alienation does not create political will. Movements that build political will are not humble and contrite; they are strong because they are joyous. They are, in Heschel’s words, “spiritually audacious and morally grandiose.”

An expanded version of this post will be on in the near future.

Tagged , , , , , ,

5 thoughts on “Fomenting Repentance

  1. Maggie Nancarrow says:

    And on the topic of Heschel… I found this statement that he made (on page 212) to be especially potent for me, at least, in response to the issue of societal repentance:
    “The mountain of history is over our heads again. Shall we renew the covenant with God?”

  2. bobcornwallB says:

    I’m reading Jennifer McBride’s The Church for the World: A Theology of Public Witness (Oxford 2011), which uses Bonhoeffer as a foundation for developing a public witness. The focus of Bonhoeffer’s view of public witness, according to McBride, is the call to repentance — not just for those outside the church, but those inside the church. Our public witness must be rooted in repentance, lest we engage the public sphere with a sense of triumphalism — both left and right.

  3. Kathryn Ray says:

    Obviously, triumphalism has a pejorative connotation, and so the term is adopted by few, but I think a certain degree of “Our side is the right one” is absolutely necessary in public movements. I think of an unarmed Desmond Tutu’s offer to the soldiers that surrounded him with machine guns to “Come and join the winning side,” or Martin Luther King’s “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” Even Niebuhr, who if he had a sole purpose in theology it was to dismantle people’s hubris, recognized that a certain degree of this posturing was necessary in order to oppose the powers of injustice that be. Social movements on a whole are allowed more hubris than the individual, because societal privilege does not surrender to the meek.

    • Bob Cornwall says:

      Kathryn, I agree that there is a need for confidence in one’s message and purpose, but hubris usually leads beyond this. Desmond Tutu, Gandhi, Martin Luther King all understood that the effectiveness of their movement depended on their recognizing the difference between the righteousness of their cause and their own place in it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: