Can I Get a Witness? (Part 1)

What does Job want?  Perhaps Job wants nothing more than simple acknowledgment from God.  In chapter twenty-three we can read Job’s passionate plea.  “Oh, that I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his dwelling!  I would lay my case before him, and fill my mouth with arguments” (Job 23:3-4).  Job wants his day in court with God in the defendant’s chair.  Job longs for the opportunity to present his case and simply to be heard.  Job hopes that God might give some explanation of his situation: “I would learn what he would answer me, and understand what he would say to me” (Job 23:5).  Job holds out hope that there might be some meaning or rationale for his terrible suffering and tragedy.

Even if there is no discernible meaning in what has happened to Job, at the very least God would acknowledge Job in his distress and despair.  “Would he [God] contend with me in the greatness of his power?” Job asks in verse six.  No, Job answers, that won’t happen.  It won’t be a fair fight.  Job knows that God holds the high ground—at least in terms of sheer power.  Nor does it seem that God will answer the specifications of Job’s lawsuit.  The word used here for “contend” is the verb form of the noun that describes a formal lawsuit in the ancient world.  Job doesn’t believe that God will answer Job’s summons to appear in court.

Job is willing to settle for something less.  The first thing Job wants is for God simply to show up and answer a few questions.  That would satisfy much of what Job needs.  Would God wrestle with Job the way God did with Jacob on the banks of the River Jabbok?  Apparently not, Job says, “But [God] would give heed to me.”  God would at least make an appearance and acknowledge that something significant, something life-changing has happened to Job.  Job wants to start with simple acknowledgment.

I am trained as a mediator under the laws of the state of Nebraska.  Recently, I have received further training in the area of “Victim/Offender Mediation,” especially as it applies to cases involving juvenile offenders.  This training has moved me further into reflections on the nature and dynamics of “restorative” justice.  The training reaffirmed for me and all the participants just how important and healing it can be for the victim of a crime to have face to face conversation with the offender—in a safe, facilitated and orderly setting.  In his training manual for “Victim Sensitive Victim Offender Training,” Mark Umbreit gives this description of this type of mediation.

“With the assistance of a trained mediator, the victim is able to let the offender know how the crime affected him or her, to receive answers to questions, and to be directly involved in developing a restitution plan for the offender to be accountable for the losses they causes.  The offenders are able to take direct responsibility for their behavior, to learn of the full impact of what they did, and to develop a plan for making amends to the person(s) they violated” (Victim Sensitive Victim offender Mediation Training Manual, page 5).

Crime victims want answers.  They want to know why this terrible thing happened to them.  They want to bring some meaning, order and control back to lives that have become terribly chaotic, unpredictable and uncertain.  They want to feel some sort of safety again.  More than that, victims of crimes and other tragedies want to know that they are still people who matter.  When someone injures me or steals from me and there is no acknowledgment, then the message is clear.  “You don’t count as a person.  You don’t really matter.  I can do to you whatever I please, and I don’t have to factor you into the equation.”  So acknowledgment is a critical part of the healing potential for victim/offender dialogues.  Let me quote from Umbreit once again.

“This dialogue addresses the emotional and informational needs of victims that are central both to their healing and to development of victim empathy in the offender, which can lead to less criminal behavior in the future.  Research has consistently found that the restitution agreement is less important to crime victims than the opportunity to talk directly to the offender about how they felt about the crime.  A restorative impact is strongly correlated to the creation of a safe place for dialogue between the crime victim and offender” (Victim Sensitive Victim offender Mediation Training Manual, page 6).

I think it is very questionable to suggest that the character of Job can be run through an imaginary time machine and placed in a victim/offender dialogue with God.  However, I do think that there is some insight here both for understanding Job’s questions and ours.  Even if Job can’t stand toe to toe with God in the divine court room, at least God could show up, listen to Job’s case, and acknowledge Job’s existence.  Even if Job can’t wrestle with God and win, at least God could “give heed” to him.  That sounds to me a great deal like the desire for acknowledgment.