The Theology of "Due Process"
“There is no recovery for someone falsely accused — life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?”
-The 45th President of the United States
As the movement gathered momentum, some, including President Trump, questioned the appropriate level of "Due Process," apparently now a proper noun worthy of first-letter capitalization. The President's above-quoted tweet attempted to respond to the fall of Rob Porter, a man who held the keys to the West Wing as well as the ear of the leader of the free world, despite documented and verified evidence of him repeatedly harassing and battering his now ex-wives.
So were these accused men, many if not all of them harassers and abusers, afforded their rights as guaranteed under the United States Constitution? And has justice been served in the #MeToo movement? A theological perspective adds to this discourse, reminding us of the inherent difference between constitutional law and justice, or to put it another way, between what is legal and what is right. Theological reflection contributes to #MeToo by reminding us of the historical and religious precedents that have silenced women, ignored their witness, and prevented justice from happening in due time.
A theological response to #MeToo would examine the issue from the perspectives of the victims and the accused, weighing the Constitutional obligation of legal due process against the the ethical imperative for justice. Such a response could also include religious history, and how the voices and witnesses of women have been unduly silenced by those in power. The resurrection scene in Mark's Gospel, which will be read in many Protestant churches this coming Easter, illustrates the obstacles to the witness and testimony of women.
Given the President's preference for the recently fabricated constitutional originalism, we should interpret this clause as he would, and take the amendment to mean nothing more than what it states: that the government will not take away your life, your freedom, or your physical property (ie, land and house), without proper legal proceedings. Interpreted via an originalist lens, as President Trump would have it, the clause says nothing about employment status or leadership within power structures. The 14th Amendment protects you from state-sanctioned killing, enslavement, and land acquisition. It has no bearing on one's access to an office, to salary, or to fringe benefits amidst substantiated and corroborated allegations of abuse.
We might argue that justice for the #MeToo movement includes both accountability for the accused, along with a commitment to listen objectively to victims' accounts. The legal system is one possible forum for this act of balancing, but the legal system is hamstrung by statutes of limitations, to say nothing of implicit and overt gender biases. The legal system guarantees due process, but it does not always afford an opportunity for the victim to be heard. Consequently, the justice system is sparingly a conduit for truly restorative justice.
The President is correct that due process must be the legal standard in the courtroom. But justice for #MeToo will by necessity not be confined to the courtroom. Justice for the victim inevitably means accountability for the accused. Part of that accountability includes the ability to hold on to offices and powers. Even if one dismisses the question of justice, is it safe, reasonable, or prudent to grant national security clearance and the ear of the President of the United States to a confirmed batterer of women? And how will future victims of abuse feel about coming forward with their experience, knowing that such blatant abusers control the highest offices in the nation? The President misappropriates "Due Process" to job security. Those who have been credibly accused deserve their day in court, but they do not deserve to hold power over the only systems through which victims can pursue legal justice, to maintain control over institutions that might shield them from their just reckoning.
This verse is subject to many interpretations. Somehow, the word about Christ's resurrection reaches the disciples. In my view, it is very likely that the two Marys shortly overcame their fear and shared this news with the disciples. But their initial fear and silence suggest that even the command of God struggles to overcome systematic silencing of women's voices. For thousands of years, injustice has led to silence, and silence has perpetuated injustice. The words of the #MeToo movement give voice to Mary and Mary at the empty tomb, and strike at the edifice of power and abuse. They are words that can no longer remain unspoken.
Ryan Panzer is a theological thinker, coffee drinker, corporate trainer, and Badger football fan. Comments, questions, criticisms, and rants can be sent via Twitter to @ryanpanzer.
Interesting thought! If the women are the witnesses, do we believe the women?
ReplyDelete