First Unitarian Universalist Church of New Orleans
Sunday, September 25, 2011
This morning, we tackle a difficult subject – how to rebuild trust after a betrayal. However difficult a subject, this is an appropriate time of year for such reflection, since the Jewish High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah, or the Jewish New Year, is on September 28, and Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, falls on October 7. According to Jewish tradition, an angel of God keeps a book of the misdeeds of all human beings, for which they will be judged at the end of time. Offenses can be erased from the book, but only when there has been a change of heart and an attempt made to correct the situation. For centuries, it has been the practice for devout Jews to make amends to those they’ve offended as the new year and Yom Kippur approaches.
While all human misdeeds cause harm of one kind or another, betrayals of trust feel the worst. Whatever the situation, what all betrayals have in common is that the fabric mutual trust and love is torn by an act of either commission or omission of one of the parties. By this act, the trust necessary for maintaining the on-going intimacy of the connection is threatened if not des-troyed. Generally speaking for all such betrayals, several important steps must be intentionally taken by the offending party before reconciliation and the restoration of trust can take place.
This is not an easy subject to think about. There is not a person in this room who has not either suffered the betrayal of a loved one, or else acted as betrayer of someone who loved us. Most of us have probably experienced both at one time or an other, and it would be hard to say which end of that stick is the most painful. And as all of us know only too well from hard-won ex-perience, simply saying, “I’m sorry” just doesn’t cut it. As poet Ntozake Shange so strongly put it in her long play-poem that recently was made into a movie, apologies “dont open doors/or bring the sun back.” Apologies without action are mere words, sound and fury signifying nothing.
In the Jewish tradition, as we have heard in this morning’s reading, God’s forgiveness for offenses against God is sure and certain, with even the slightest attempt towards change for the better – an idea about the nature of God that influenced our Universalist ancestors – but not even God can forgive an offense against another human being. Only the offended person can extend forgiveness for the wrong done to them, and then only after an attempt to make things right again.
Religious ethicist Marie Fortune has written extensively on the subject of reconciliation, from such perspectives as survivors of domestic violence and church congregations harmed by the betrayal of trust of their ordained clergy. She has developed what she calls the “5 R’s of Atonement:”
Reconciliation = Recognition + Responsibility + Restitution + Repentance
Recognition comes first, and that’s appropriate. The very first step towards rebuilding trust after a betrayal has to be for the offending person to realize and acknowledge the wrong. For someone to keep insisting that “it was no big deal” or that “you’re just over-sensitive” is no way to restart a wounded relationship; indeed, this lack of recognition simply serves to make the situ-ation worse. Before any movement towards reconciliation can happen, therefore, it is necessary for the person who committed the offense to recognize and openly acknowledge that harm has been done.
After recognition comes Responsibility, for it is obviously not enough just to realize that one’s actions have caused a break in an important relationship, one must also accept responsibility for one’s behavior. Over the years of doing pastoral care, I have heard a creative variety of excuses for the failure to take responsibility. “It’s not my fault!” folks cry, “I was drunk-upset-angry-out of my head. I didn’t know what I was doing.” Folks really skilled at avoiding responsibility have a knack for turning the offended person into the responsible party; batterers often tell their victims, “You MADE me hit you.” But it doesn’t have to be offenses as large as physical violence; there are those who say, “You made me say that-quit my job-lose my temper-crash the car.”
The third R in Fortune's equation is Restitution. The wrong must be made right; what was broken must be made whole. If something was stolen, it must be returned or replaced. If there has been injury, it must be healed somehow. If it is impossible to repair the actual damage, then some other equitable way of restoring the offended person must be worked out, such as monetary compensation or substitution. This is an extremely important part of the equation, for without some kind of restitution, we are back to just words. If the U.S. Government had merely apologized to Japanese-Americans for their unjust internment during World War II without the accompanying restitution payments -- however inadequate -- the gesture would have been seen as an empty farce.
Finally, there is Repentance, a word that may be difficult for Unitarian Universalists, because of its association with more orthodox religious practice. Perhaps we should use the Talmudic term teshuvah, meaning “return,” instead. Before true reconciliation can take place, there must be a return to right relationship, a change of heart that leads to a change of ways. Someone who is not determined to change will surely repeat the offense; one cannot trust a person who is not willing to alter their future behavior.
Rebuilding trust after a betrayal in an intimate relationship is never easy – and it’s not always possible or even desirable. But in those situations where both the offended and offending parties desire that the relationship be repaired so that the former level of intimacy can be reached, the 4 steps of recognition, responsibility, restitution, and repentance must take place for authentic reconciliation to occur. (Of course, there are many cases in which one or both par-ties is either unwilling or unable to go through the full restoration process. A relationship of some sort may go on in such cases, but since trust cannot be restored, the prior level of intimacy and mutuality is forever lost.)
None of us likes to consider the possibility that someone we care deeply about will betray our trust, but there is no escape. Letting ourselves love means letting ourselves be open and vulnerable. Being in an intimate relationship with another person means there is the possibility that they will hurt us or that we will hurt them – in fact, it’s not just a possibility, it’s a certainty. We’re all human; we all make mistakes; we all act selfishly or thoughtlessly at times. But when such situations arise, the important thing is NOT to say, “I’m human, so shoot me” but instead to act in ways that restores the torn fabric of our relationships and rebuilds the trust that was broken.
This sermon is entitled “Rebuilding Trust” for a good reason; it has not been about “how to avoid having your trust broken” because that would be a weird sermon about how not to love other people. All of us have been in this situation and we will again, as long as we’re alive and in connection with others. Trust can always be rebuilt after a betrayal, but only as long as there is willingness to try on both sides, and only as long as the offending person recognizes the wrong, accepts responsibility, offers restitution, and returns to right ways of behavior. To extend trust without these conditions is to ensure future betrayals; to expect trust without these 4 Rs is to demand a relationship one has not earned. And intimate relationships, whether personal or in community, need trust in order to be authentic.
Reconciliation = Recognition + Responsibility + Restitution + Repentance
This is a formula for real relationships in the real world. So might this be! AMEN – ASHE – SHALOM – SALAAM – NAMASTE – BLESSED BE!
