Reintegrative Peacemaking

A few weeks ago in class, our guest speaker briefly mentioned the theory of reintegrative shame. It is a working theory developed by Jonathan Braithwaite in which he distinguishes between stigmatizing shame and reintegrative shame. Stigmatizing shame, Braithwaite argues, is shame that seeks to ruin the ties between the offender and community and most likely will ruin the offender's life. It is non-redemptive and seeks to disallow justice and healing to both the victim and offender. Howard Zehr explains, "Reintegrative shame seeks to denounce the offenses but not the offender, and opportunities are provided for the shame to be removed and transformed” (Restorative Practices: "Reintegrative Shaming" Central Virginia Restorative Justice Newsletter, Fall 2007, pg. 1).

The working theory is that the offender may be transformed and is given the opportunity to create something positive out of his remorse. He takes responsibility for his actions and takes steps to repair the harm he has done. Braithwaite argues that the manner in which an offender is affected by reintegrative shame depends on how much they value their relationship with the persons reprimanding them. In other words, relationships matter when it comes to reintegrative shame.

When I heard about reintegrative shame I started to do more research. My research is still in process but what I have learned is the word 'shame' carries with it an emotional charge. Being the hip 33-year-old I am, I posted some thoughts on Facebook and Twitter regarding reintegrative shame and I watched as five out of the seven responders had an emotional charge to their response. Fortunately for a couple there was room for dialogue, for others it was "Never use the word shame again. Ever" and that was it, end of discussion. I would venture to guess if you are reading this you too may be having a negative emotional reaction to the phrase “reintegrative shame”.

For those I was in a conversation with, it was the word shame that was the problem. The word carried with it a meaning which could not, or would not, allow them to view the word differently. For them shame meant "I'm a bad guy" while guilt meant "I've done a bad thing." For me, the definition of the two as stated is not transformative. I may be made to feel a sense of guilt about what I have done but the question I ask is: is it transformative? What about guilt is going to cause me to change not only my behavior but how I interact, contribute, and participate in the community? Will it only make me behave differently in front of others? How does it reintegrate me back into the community? How does it call to me to repent? How does it call to me to practice righteousness?

In his book Just Peacemaking: Transformative Initiatives for Justice and Peace, Glen Stassen defines righteous, specifically the blessing, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness," to mean community restoration and wholeness. One who seeks righteousness seeks to restore the broken community. He alludes to the blessing as one about restorative justice for the community. In his writings, Stassen exegetes the Sermon on the Mount to be interpreted as a triad. He writes, "Jesus is not commanding the people not to be angry or not to call someone a fool or not look at someone with lust. He describes being angry and looking lustfully as involving us in a vicious cycle that leads to prison, judgment, and adultery” (Stassen, 43).

Pinchas Lapide writes, "Love of one's enemies, as Jesus understood it, means far more than covering things up with a smile by tolerating enemies or holding them at a distance with politeness; it entails an honest effort, a campaigning and struggling with them, so that they change, give up their hate, and become reconciled. In short--a theopolitics of little loving steps aimed at making the enemy cease to be an enemy” (Lapide, The Sermon on the Mount, pg. 97-98).

As I come to understand reintegrative shame, in its exploratory stage, it helps to place the phrase in the context of just peacemaking. By doing so, I believe, we see a clearer picture of the transformative work done when we confront with love and honesty the one who has harmed us. When we seek to make peace we are seeking to be children of God. Seeking peace leads to restoration and reconciliation which I believe is the theme of the Sermon.

It is hard to hear the phrase reintegrative shame and not react emotionally. Especially if you have ever been shamed by others publically. I understand and I offer an alternative: Reintegrative Peacemaking

In the teaching of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Amos, a creditor who lends to someone who is needy and takes the coat as collateral must give the coat back before the sun goes down because it may be the only coat or garment for warmth the debtor may have. Some creditors would get around the command by suing the debtor for their shirt instead because it would be impractical for the creditor to sue for the coat since he has to return it every evening.  In his book, Stassen expounds the command "Give up your coat" with this humorous anecdote:

“It means you are standing there naked in front of the one suing you, in law court. In Jewish culture, this is a huge embarrassment for the creditor and everyone else. It confronts the creditor with his or her greed and his or her unjust violation of the spirit of the law, if not the letter. And Jesus’ Jewish audience would have laughed at the audacity, the embarrassment, and the disclosure of the creditor’s greed, exposed for all to see, just as naked as your naked body. Thus you, the poor person, seemingly without power, seize the initiative and confront the injustice, putting great pressure on the creditor to repent and be transformed. It is no strategy of passivity. It is a transforming initiative.” (Stassen, 65-66)

It is in the commands to give up our coat, go the second mile, to give to the one who begs, and to turn the other cheek that we see Jesus providing a restorative practice that leads to reintegrative peacemaking. It is a confrontation of the wrong doing with the goal being restoration of the community and the offender.

I believe what makes this practice transformative is the confrontation through nonviolent means that forces the offender to deal with the harm that has been done. We do not live in a perfect world and we know not everyone responds the same way but, it appears Jesus believed the commands of the Sermon were practical enough to be transformative and reconciling. I believe God's justice to be redemptive only when reconciliation has taken place.

The purpose of reintegrative peacemaking is not only to make peace but to reconcile, to bring back into community, those who have harmed us. It is way to interpret the Sermon not as invitation to high ideals to strive for but commands to be practiced in practical everyday ways such as providing a hot lunch for a fatherless child or standing in the rain holding an umbrella for the drifter at the corner.

The question it raises for me as I continue to work through this is: How do we preach, teach, and sustain this within the local congregation?