Analysis of Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness (Ch. 9-11 & Postscript)
This article was part of an assignment for the class THEO 551-Forgiveness and Reconciliation and was submitted on January 25, 2021.
Introduction
In these sections of his autobiographical memoir, No Future Without Forgiveness, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as a chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), provides a personal account of his institutional failure due to a lapse in judgment and ignorance but also displays his extraordinary courage to stand up for what is right, willingness to take a political hit amid the ongoing reconciliation process, and great pastoral sensitivity toward the victims and their families as well as members of the TRC committee. He is also very critical of white South African Christians for their complicity in blatantly ignoring the atrocities against the black South Africans. For him, all humans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status, are children of God, of one family held together by moral laws. He summarizes what it means to be human:
[W]hile we are bound together by bonds of a caring humanity, a universal sense of Ubuntu… Then we experience fleetingly that we are made for togetherness, for friendship, for community, for family, that we are created to live in a delicate network of interdependence… None is an outsider, all are insiders, all belong. There are no aliens; all belong in the one family, God’s family, the human family… We are different so that we can know our need of one another, for no one is ultimately self-sufficient. The completely self-sufficient person would be subhuman (Tutu, 264-65).
In this paper, we will briefly discuss three main ideas of Tutu: understanding the notion of all human beings as the ‘children of God’ as the locus of restoring full humanity to the victim and wrongdoer and socio-politically conditioning a people, and the importance of restorative justice as the key to breaking the cyclical violence against humanity.
All Human Beings as the Children of God
Tutu can easily be misunderstood when he calls all humans “children of God.” From the Reformed doctrinal perspective, he seems to have overlooked the scriptural references that specify not all people are called the “children of God.” An archbishop calling all humanity the children of God will certainly invite some criticism. In the worst-case scenario, people might charge Tutu as a Universalist. But I doubt that was the case with him. His vision of children of God should be assumed in the context of apartheid. As he mentioned in the previous chapters, his committee consists of people of different faiths. Reserving the term strictly only for Christians will automatically censure those outside the Christian faith.
Next, applying the Christian soteriological definition of “children of God” to the believers only would be inconsistent with their attempts to restore humanity to already dehumanized people. Despite differences in one’s religious convictions and societal relations, calling the victim and the perpetrator the children of God will accommodate both as members of the family. This approach will assign equal value and worth to both parties without diminishing either.
Socially Conditioned to Choices
When the dark truth of prolonged dehumanization and the atrocious cruelties perpetrated against the black people came to light, the white Christians and the perpetrators simply brushed off their collective responsibility, saying, “We did not know.” The strategy of displacing responsibility was effectively used as a defense mechanism to shift their collective guilt as oppressors. Tutu recounts that apartheid harmed both black and white South Africans and robbed them of their humanity and personhood. The privileged white minority made themselves less human in the process of eroding the humanity of other fellow human beings through partaking in the systemic abuse of the “children of God” (Tutu, 196). It became only possible because the government-sanctioned policies were socially conditioned to favor the Afrikans over the majority.
This shows that dehumanization does not happen overnight. It requires crafty planning from the ruling party to promulgate the ideology and prepare a desired political atmosphere for a favorable outcome. The Africans and their churches, government institutions, private sectors, businesses, etc. were not exempted from being socially conditioned or “programmed” to think and act a certain way toward the majority. [T]he [white] churches spoke against apartheid, but they did not refrain from reaping the benefits of the brutal and inhumane oppressive system (Tutu, 223). Tutu himself acknowledged from his personal experience that all South Africans were socially conditioned to believe in the superiority of white men.
Restorative Justice—Pricey but Worth It
Tutu presents the atonement of Jesus as the prime example of true reconciliation. In these words:
[T]rue reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the pain, the degradation, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end dealing with the real situation helps to bring real healing. Spurious reconciliation can bring only spurious healing (Tutu, 270-71).
Tutu presents himself more pastorally here. He goes to great lengths to discuss the need for acknowledgment of wrongdoing and seeking forgiveness and reconciliation with the victim. I agree with his assessment that retributive justice is not the best way to end the conflict. He rightly identifies the need for forgiveness and highlights the issues of holding grudges, seeking retributive justice, or pursuing a vendetta against those who have caused harm. Rwanda’s massacre of Hutus at the hands of Tutsi is the outcome of bloodthirsty hearts filled with hatred seeking retributive justice. The yearning for revenge will not die unless there is restorative justice. It not only forgives the perpetrators but also facilitates rehabilitating them in society. It is commendable that Tutu and his committee got the desired results in South Africa. But I’m doubtful that their model will work in conflicts where other factors, like religion, are key.
TRC is a political attempt at reconciliation that is mostly devoid of human interpersonal forgiveness. The State is offering a “blanket amnesty” to criminals who committed crimes against humanity. The State forgave. People might not have forgiven. It raises the question of whether restorative justice is always possible or virtuous when serious human rights are violated, such as in the Holocaust. How can the State unilaterally forgive anyone without the consent or active participation of the victims or their families in the process?
Forgiveness and Reconciliation as Risky Business
Tutu emphasizes that there is no future without forgiveness if we are to move forward. Dwelling on the past hurt will not resolve the issue either. He explains the reasons why and how one should forgive:
[F]orgiveness does not mean condoning what has been done. It means taking what happened seriously and not minimizing it; drawing out the sting in the memory that threatens to poison our entire existence. It involves trying to understand the perpetrators and so have empathy, or try to stand in their shoes and appreciate the sort of pressures and influences that might have conditioned them (Tutu, 271).
Tutu does not pretend that forgiving is easy. He admits that the reconciliation they sought in South Africa was not cheap either. They concluded that restorative justice was the best path to genuine reconciliation and long-term stability for the country. The families of victims forgave the perpetrators of their loved ones. They could have chosen reprisal in the aftermath of learning the fate of their loved ones, but they chose to forgive and reconcile. Thus, forgiving is not forgetting but neutralizing the very “sting in the memory” that haunts the person for seeking retribution.
We are called to forgive our debtors and persecutors and love our enemies. The very reason we need to forgive is to protect ourselves from poisoning our souls with bitterness, resentment, and vengeance. Living with a heart full of bitterness, hatred, and anger can lead to emotional and physical repercussions, which may manifest as callousness in our unforgiving hearts. It is detrimental to our spiritual and physical well-being. We are hurt, but when we try to understand another broken person, we will empathize with the perpetrator and see the world from their perspective. Forgiving means we voluntarily choose to liberate ourselves from the past. In other words, we forgive for our benefit so that we can be free from the grip of the phantom power of our perpetrators.
Conclusion
Drawing from his experience, Tutu concludes that forgiveness and reconciliation are the only ways for us to restore humanity. God’s forgiveness has cost the death of His Son. He does not, in any way, assume that forgiving our wrongdoer is or will be easy. It also costs us twice when we choose to forgive—once when we were harmed and again when we freely give up the desire to avenge. We also work to reconcile as God creates us, one in humanity, made to bond with one another.
