CRC Consultation on Restorative Justice Summary
February 25 and 26, 2005
FRIDAY AFTERNOON SESSION, Feb 25, 2005
Opening Devotions: Rev. John de Vries, Jr., II Corinthians 5:16
Synodical Restorative Justice Committee member Clay Libolt took the group through a
Power Point presentation of the five sections of the report and the participants responded
with critique, comment, and suggestions. These were captured on newsprint and, with
some condensing and editing to avoid duplication, are reproduced below:
[Note: In almost all cases, respondents prefaced their comments and critiques with a
strongly positive overall evaluation of the report. The comments and critiques are not the
last word on RJ from the CRC, but illustrate the diversity and of participant response and
the complexity of the issues. There was strong appreciation for the scope and depth this
effort and a sense that this was a seminal step on a kingdom journey that we hope is long
and productive.]
Report Sections I and II
1. Should we be more radical? Can the present CJ system really coexist with a RJ
approach having integrity?
2. Forgiveness should be one of the goals of RJ. Present system encourages victims to
seek retribution – a “closure” that does not restore or heal.
3. The report needs to be more prophetic. We have a major crisis and the Church
SHOULD, or MUST do thus or such…
4. Emphasize the fact that it is our brother or sister that is in prison.
5. On page 8, be careful not to blame prisons (exclusively) for fostering recidivism or
reinforcing delinquent behavior. Also, prison education and treatment options have NOT
diminished in recent years…
6. The critique of prisons contained on page 6 needs to be supported with some evidence.
The statistic on native-American offenders in the federal system is also misleading as that
is usually their sole jurisdictional option (unlike whites or other ethnic groups).
7. Could emphasize more the immense “cost of opportunity” when the CJ system takes
huge percentages of state and local budgets.
8. Incarceration is NOT the most common sentencing outcome – probation is – and this
may be an important portal for cooperation between the existing CJ system and RJ
projects.
9. Specialization of roles within the CJ system is NOT necessarily all bad for victims.
The diminishment of the role and importance of the victim in the justice process was an
unintended consequence of this process.
10. Could use more examples of how RJ can be used for more serious offenses.
11. De-emphasize the either/or nature of restorative justice and present criminal justice
practices.
12. Missing in depth discussion on how RJ might serve us outside the CJ system, i.e. in
our churches, homes, schools.
13. The report could benefit from many more specific examples of restorative justice.
14. We note the high rates of US incarceration but should also note the extremely high
youth incarceration rates for Canada…
Report Section III – Theology
[Note: All speakers without exception stated this section was extremely strong. The
comments below should be taken in this context of strong support – even admiration – for
the work of the committee -- in this section particularly.]
1. Forgiveness needs more prominence. An encounter between victim, offender, and
community is a start but NOT enough…
2. Although forgiveness is important it does not replace “paying the bill.” A system that
seeks only forgiveness isn’t a system of justice.
3. Could use more discussion on the PRIESTLY role of believer and the church, i.e.
bearing each others’ burdens, walking in Grace with each other, and so on…
4. There could be more on the “seamlessness” of justice – shalom: For instance,
distributive, retributive, restorative – they all come from God and are cut from the same
cloth (or partake of the same “deep grammar”)
5. More historical context on OT commands and practices – such as “an eye for an
eye…”
6. Section could use more stories and illustrations of the theological principles as well as
more reference to the Psalms of comfort and lament.
7. Make clear that sin and crime arises from both individual and societal causes.
8. Justice is a creation norm.
9. Find an alternative term to “deep grammar” as this may raise red flags for some.
10. Do we need to re-articulate and re-educate ourselves on the proper, balanced view of
Christ’s atonement since distortions of this act may underlay distortions in our view of
punishment and retribution?
11. Strategically, RJ should be prescribed as an OPTION WITHIN rather than a
REPLACEMENT OF the present CJ system.
12. The RJ experience CAN be much tougher for the offender and for the victim than the
normal CJ model.
13. Need to spend some more effort on describing and defining RJ so that we know
when RJ has been served – particularly in cases of personal violence and violation.
14. But isn’t RJ more than just an OPTION for the church? Isn’t it a new norm, a new
command, a new law in the kingdom of Christ?
Report Sections IV and V Recommendations and Conclusions
1. Invest dollars for treatment not for incarceration – particularly where addictions are
present.
2. How do we put “teeth” in these recommendations to the churches? Ask for periodic
reports?
3. Use emphatic language in the recommendations: MUST rather than CAN or
SHOULD …
4. The CRC should mandate RJ practices for its institutions – particularly schools with
which it has influence.
5. There is tension between the victim and offender driven approaches to RJ. Let’s opt
for the victim driven approach.
6. Does healing come before restoration or vice versa?
7. Don’t forget that the community in many locations is ALREADY involved in RJ
projects.
8. In projects of restoration and reintegration we should specifically include those
wrongfully imprisoned.
9. What kind of training do we need to do RJ and what, therefore, should we
recommend?
10. Let’s recommend that each classis establish an RJ ministry that includes funding…
11. Contradict the perception that para-church organizations have prison ministries well
covered … we need church here…
12. What about denominational credentialing for those who minister to victims and
offenders?
13. Shouldn’t we recommend a CRC statement of conscience (moral judgment) on the
US and Canadian criminal justice system?
GENERAL COMMENTS




FINE WORK! (Followed by applause)
Need stories, pictures, names, faces…
Should print this report in pamphlet form…
This report could be useful to groups outside the CRC…
FRIDAY EVENING SESSION
[The presenter for the evening was Dr. Howard Zehr of Eastern Mennonite University, a
practitioner, writer, lecturer and teacher in the field of criminal justice. He is considered
one of the founders of the contemporary restorative justice movement and his groundbreaking book, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice, is widely regarded
as a standard in the field. The following is a summary of his presentation.]
Dr. Zehr opened by saying that he’s pleased to be part of a discussion that’s already
ongoing, where we don’t have to do “RJ 101.” He also opened with several vignettes of
restorative justice in action.
The Restorative Justice trickle has turned into a river in a short time (notes many
different places, ways RJ is being used). However, in the United States, RJ is still pretty
marginal. It is a punitive culture, and RJ is poorly funded and usually seen as an extra.
Canada is ahead of the US (birthplace of the movement) and discussion and
implementation is far more extensive than in US, but not all is rosy. There is inevitable
co-opting, bureaucratization, underfunding, marginalization, etc.
All interventions have unintended consequences, and that includes the Christian church.
We as advocates must balance enthusiasm with realism – we must tell the “bullfrog
stories” as well as “butterfly stories”; we can learn as much from failure as success.
Examples of some critical RJ issues: Who shapes the field? (gender, ethnicity), the role of
victims, offender needs and perspectives, how to safeguard the process; role of
government in this, etc.
RJ as value system offers a vision of the good, of how we want to live together, a positive
value system. It is based on an assumption that we are interconnected (reflected in
shalom, salaam, etc. The importance of values as well as principles: respect, humility,
wonder.
We’re on a journey, and still very early in it. If we can do justice with respect, if we can
do this with humility about what we think we know, if we can open ourselves to listening
to others’ realities and needs then we can pursue justice, not on the cutting edge, but on
the healing edge.
Dr. Zehr spent some time responding specifically to the synodical report.
He applauds this initiative, the report itself, the Biblical analysis – with the caution: “we
need to do much more in RJ about role/meaning of apology, forgiveness, and need to do
more biblical work on this”
He highlights:
 the emphasis on problem of prison and racial disparity (thankful for this)
 might be strengthened by addressing some of the other “latent” motives and
motors driving punitive system: economic and political
 Appreciated historical section: another important dimension is the interplay of
developing law and theology, and the distortions that resulted: the development of
a “culture of punishment” and its influence on how we understand our religious
tradition
 Glad to see RJ beyond programs – an approach or worldview
 One red flag: RJ as “broadening of CJ system”. Ongoing concerns about
“widening and strengthening the net” w/o addressing underpinnings
 Largest concern: is it victim-oriented or victim-friendly enough; e.g. the
statement of the problem says little about victims. Have you gotten feedback
from victim advocates? Have you gone deep enough into the victim perspective?
Discussion: where do we go from here - strategies/issues for the church
 Importance of church in promoting and also in running programs....
 Rethink some existing initiatives (e.g. prison ministries)
 undertake some missing ones in light of RJ (e.g. victim services)
 operate some RJ programs for the community, including especially
conferencing/circle programs (practical peacemaking)
 Apply it to ourselves – not only personal life but disciplinary issues, conflicts
 The framework
 role of justice in conflicts (the questions)
 Use of circle processes
 Take the lead in using it to address legacy of past wrongs, especially: native
peoples, slavery
As said, church has become more the tail-light than the headlight – but we’re still early
on the learning curve, and there is much that we can do.
SATURDAY MORNING SESSION, Feb 26, 2005
We began with a devotion by Gail Rice: Romans 5:6-11, and Romans 12:14-21
We heard stories and examples of four organizations presently working in or around
restorative justice programs.
Marty Dekkenga – Heartland Center for Restorative Justice
Training people in Northwest Iowa to be mediators
Told the story of the Sioux Center library, burned down by some inebriated young men
and ill-placed firecrackers. About $2 million in damage! The court sent them to an RJ
mediation session. The offenders met with the library staff, and heard the staff members
tell their stories and feelings. An 85 yr. old woman who worked at the library part time
broke through to them: “You took my life away.” But the men were forgiven, and
welcomed back into the community. In fact, one offender now works for the city.
Mark Vander Vennen – Salem Christian Mental Health Association
New Youth Criminal Justice Act – Provinces must implement the law, so each province
can look different in dealing with young offenders.
Spoke of churches acting as “hosts” in the RJ process. Providing a building, coffee,
even sitting in on the process if it’s okay with the participants. An interesting way for
churches to become deeply involved in RJ.
Jan Gockerman – Restorative Justice Coalition of West Michigan
Ecumenical group – a program of the Grand Rapids Area Center for Ecumenism
(GRACE)
They’ve created an extensive RJ resource library, have an education program/project at
Grand Valley State University, they do series at churches, created a local video, bring
together key stakeholders for education and discussion.
Jim VanderSchaaf – Criminal Justice Chaplaincy
Founded by Church of the Servant CRC and other West MI churches
Programs have a lot of focus on the women and children left behind – another set of
victims.
Programs include child visitation, horticultural therapy, pastoral care, mentor groups and
more.
www.cjcministry.org
We then went into a work session to come up with ideas of what the CRC could do next
to grow the work of RJ in our communities, congregations, classes, institutions, and
denomination.
A. We agreed on a draft vision statement to focus our morning’s work:
“Because of our faith commitment, we work toward a future in which the CRC – in
home, school, and church – practices RJ principles in its own affairs, participates in,
serves, and helps lead a community based RJ movement in collaboration with other
groups of like mind.”
B. Using brief, structured conversations at our five tables, we enumerated the following
major barriers to that vision:









There is a general apathy, ignorance and/or unawareness of the criminal justice
system and of the alternatives provided by RJ.
When RJ is recognized as an alternative or additional way of dealing with victims
and offenders, there is often grave misunderstanding of what RJ is and how it
operates.
We live in a culture and a religious environment that seems more comfortable
with punishment and retribution than with correction and restoration. There are
also perceived and actual differences between us concerning philosophies of
justice i.e., retribution versus restoration.
We have a fear of crime, criminals, victims and victimization as well as the depth
of encounters with ourselves and others required by RJ.
The church does not see itself as involved in criminal justice – much less in
restorative justice for the victim and offender -- and is isolated from the
movement itself.
The church has allocated very few resources to RJ activities and does not seem
likely to raise the priority of RJ any time soon.
Criminal justice professionals who are members of the Church have not seen the
connection between Church, criminal justice, and RJ.
There is a great inertia in the church and little desire to coordinate fledgling RJ
programs.
We have not adequately publicized nor internalized the stories of victory and
restoration that concern victims, offenders, churches, and communities resulting
from RJ practices
C. Brainstorming action and follow-through ideas
Following the work on the vision statement and a brief listing of barriers to the CRC’s
becoming involved deeply in the RJ movement, the group “brainstormed” possible action
steps. We used a methodology that allowed us to categorize, name, and prioritize action
items. The chart on the following page depicts our results
Brainstorm Exercise Results
COMMUNICATE EDUCATE
DO A PROJECT
Build a broad curriculum 4*
Train RJ
facilitators 6
Train pastors 4
Minority
involvement 4
Make a tool kit 3
Coordinate reentry
resources 4
Be a “host church”
(for RJ actions) 2
Appoint denom. &
classical contacts
2
Communicate RJ information
to members/leaders 2
(continue)Theological
grounding 2
BUILD A
RELATIONSHIP
Each classis adopt a prison
5
MAKE IT
PERSONAL
Victims, offenders,
families I TELL
STORIES 7
COLLABORATE
Identify prisoners with
disabilities for RJ services
4
Identify victims and
offenders in
congregs. 3
Mentors for those in
& coming out 3
Publicize stories and
paradigms 2
Mentor group circles
in congs. 1
Support existing efforts
3
Identify current resources 1
Urge Calvin and Sem to do RJ
education 1
RJ web site 1
Encourage RJ themes in higher
ed/CCDA
RJ week
Present report to the CRC
Worship resource list
Materials to learn from victims
*Indicates the number of prioritizing votes assigned to this item by the group
Listen and learn from
victims
Network! 6
Join or start a local RJ
coalition 3
Host ecumenical
community gatherings 3
Fund and join local RJ
practice groups 1
LIVE IT IN THE
CRC
Implement RJ
practices at cong.,
classis, and denom.
Levels 5
Financial support
Some Observations and Conclusions on Next Steps
Without straining the validity of the prioritizing process, we think the following direction
can be gained from the results of the brainstorming session:
First, since top priorities are rather evenly distributed among the categories, we think a
broad range of next steps will be required rather than a narrow set of one or two.
Second, the largest category was “Education and Communication” – not surprising – and
if we combine like ideas we find a strong suggestion that we need a solid curriculum or
tool kit to serve as a core for educational activity in the CRC. If we scan modifying
priorities we note that this curriculum should especially be directed at leaders or future
leaders (pastors), that it should continue and develop strong theological underpinnings,
that it should draw directly from the experiences of victims and offenders, and that it
should NOT duplicate but rather draw from existing resources.
Third, the group wants action in the form of “hands-on” RJ activities being hosted,
facilitated, or in some way done by local churches.
Fourth, we place a premium on action and education that involves specific relationships
with real people and real stories.
Fifth, we appear to be comfortable with defining RJ activities broadly, including
mentoring programs, reentry projects, and the like.
Sixth, there is a clear bias expressed by this group for collaboration, networking, and
joining existing community and ecumenical efforts whether they be educational or action
oriented activities.
Seventh, we want the CRC to practice what it preaches by instituting restorative practices
in its churches, institutions, and agencies.
In addition to these broad characteristics of a CRC response, the specific ideas of
working with disabled offenders and of each classis adopting a prison were presented.
Commitment of Time and Gifts
We ended the consultation by asking those present to indicate the gifts they might bring
to a denominational RJ program, the time they may have to give, and some indication of
the specific action or project for which they may have an interest or passion. We have
received and collated those.
-END-