Truth-telling and Reconciliation

Haven't posted here in a while, but am processing my thought about a webinar I watched for work and may need to re-watch on personal time. The title of the webinar is Truth-Telling on Race Relations in the US Context organized by the Zehr Institute for Restorative Justice. A recording can be viewed here.

I went into the webinar thinking that it was going to be a discussion of historiography, but ended up learning about Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, a methodology that I had never heard of before. It is more common in the developing world--think countries emerging from dictatorial regimes or civil war. But as this webinar demonstrated, it could be beneficial to United States race relations if applied and modified to fit our context. (If you too had never heard of such a thing, wikipedia to the rescue!)

To summarize, a truth-telling commission is considered a first step with "the work" beginning after. The truth-telling aspect of the commission creates a space for all parties to tell their story without repercussions. It seeks to build clarity of understanding around history that can so often get murky. It spends time building relationships and making sure the historical context and personal stories connected are heard. It allows those in power to listen in a true and authentic way before sitting down to discuss policy and wrestling with deep systemic and often painful issues. Essentially ensuring that policymakers aren't jumping into action before all sides are heard and understood fully.

The reconciliation component can take many different forms depending on the context--ranging from restorative justice to retribution to education. For example, one aspect of the case study presented in the webinar included working with youth from both sides of the issue recognizing that "it takes a number of generations before we actually see a difference in our cultural, political, and social norms." This methodology allows for the slow, long-term work it takes to bring about lasting change. It acknowledges that there are no simple or instant solutions. The case study discussed has been in progress for a decade and is still ongoing.

I have been a student of history for many years, so the Truth & Reconciliation emphasis on bringing history into the conversation resonated with me. But it's not history for history's sake. It goes beyond acknowledging historic harm to recognizing that harm (maybe in a slightly different form) is still occurring. As the speaker succinctly said it is "not just a willingness to talk about history, but also a willingness to use history as a guide to start to think about changing polices in the contemporary moment."

To be honest the current outrage machine and constant "truth-telling" (especially on social media) without actionable steps for healing and change has bothered me. If it makes me want to withdraw rather than move into the fray, it probably does the same more many other potential allies. Like the host of the webinar said: "[It is] more than truth-telling...truth itself is not healing, it's what we do with the truth." Adding to the noise isn't enough. I appreciated the presenter's note that "reconciliation is as much about systemic change as it is about individual change." Change starts with you and me individually. What will we do with the truth?

P.S. This webinar was hosted by a Mennonite college and briefly discussed the role of faith and potential role of the capital C Church in truth-telling and reconciliation commissions. I found it very telling that there was no significant Church or Christian presence at all in the case study (only a Quaker-associated nonprofit was involved). The Christian host heartily felt the Church should step forward and into the discussion and pursue restoration and healing. I agree--the more we disengage, the more irrelevant we become.

"Seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." - Micah 6:8