6. What Is Punishment For?
Punishment is supposed to teach Empathy.
That is how I understand its purpose within Christian Essentialism.
When someone harms another person, consequences should help them recognize what they have done, understand the suffering they caused, and become willing to stop causing it.
Punishment should not exist merely to satisfy the anger of those who have been harmed.
Nor should it become a means of demonstrating power over someone who has already been defeated.
Its purpose is to confront harmful behavior and make change possible.
That distinction matters because Greed can influence both the person who causes harm and the person administering punishment.
In Essentialism, Greed is the desire to take more than needed for status or domination while refusing responsibility for the pain that causes.
Someone may exploit another person because they want money, status, influence, approval, or control.
When confronted, they may minimize the harm.
They may shift blame.
They may insist that their intentions matter more than the consequences.
Or they may become angry that someone has challenged their right to keep what they gained.
The fear of losing those benefits can make accountability difficult.
But punishment can also become greedy.
A person or institution may begin demanding more suffering than is necessary to stop the harm.
They may insist that the offender remain humiliated, powerless, or permanently excluded, even after reasonable accountability has occurred.
They may become invested in punishment as a source of status or control.
And they may call that justice.
Greed breeds cruelty—even when cruelty is presented as punishment.
That is why the Lens must guide accountability.
Truth requires us to establish what happened.
Empathy requires us to recognize the harm.
Kindness guides us toward responses that preserve dignity without excusing wrongdoing.
Anti-Greed prevents accountability from becoming another form of exploitation.
And Joy reminds us that the goal is a life in which people can flourish without continuing to harm one another.
The Bible contains examples of accountability that include restitution.
Exodus 22:1–4 describes repayment for theft.
Numbers 5:6–7 addresses confession and restitution.
And in Luke 19:1–10, Zacchaeus responds to his encounter with Jesus by committing to repay those he has wronged.
These examples are important because accountability is not presented merely as suffering.
It involves recognizing wrongdoing and taking meaningful action to address it.
Within Essentialism, I see three related responsibilities.
First, expose the harm.
We must be truthful about what happened and who was affected.
Second, repair what can reasonably be repaired.
That may involve restitution, apology, changed behavior, resources, or other forms of assistance.
Third, prevent the harm from continuing.
That may require boundaries, restrictions, supervision, separation, or other safeguards.
None of these responsibilities requires us to enjoy another person’s suffering.
And none requires us to pretend that every relationship can be restored.
Someone may complete the necessary work of accountability without regaining the trust of the person they harmed.
A community may end a punishment while maintaining protective boundaries.
Forgiveness, reconciliation, restored access, and the end of punishment are not identical events.
We should not confuse them.
I also believe we must be careful about demanding visible suffering as proof that punishment is working.
People experience pain differently.
One person may express remorse openly.
Another may become quiet.
Someone may be suffering profoundly without showing the signs another person expects.
If we demand a particular performance of suffering, we risk turning accountability into theater.
Worse, we may continue inflicting pain because we are not satisfied with how the person displays it.
That does not teach Empathy.
It teaches people that those with power can decide how much suffering is enough.
And that is precisely the kind of cruelty the Lens is meant to resist.
There must be room for recovery.
When the harmful behavior has stopped, reasonable accountability has occurred, and appropriate safeguards are in place, people need time, space, and resources to build a different life.
This is where Jubilee becomes important.
Jubilee is the ending of punishment.
It recognizes that debts can be canceled, people can be freed, and what has been taken can be returned.
It does not erase history.
It does not require victims to surrender their boundaries.
And it does not eliminate every consequence.
It creates the possibility of moving forward without continuing to manufacture suffering.
This is true internally as well.
Some people continue punishing themselves long after they have acknowledged their mistakes and done what they reasonably can to repair them.
They replay their failures.
They deny themselves pleasure.
They refuse opportunities for peace because they believe suffering proves that they are sorry.
But endless self-punishment is not the same thing as responsibility.
Once we have learned what we need to learn and made the repairs available to us, continuing to suffer does not necessarily help anyone.
Sometimes the responsible thing is to begin living differently.
Punishment teaches Empathy. Accountability stops harm. Restoration makes Joy possible.
That is the purpose we should remember whenever we consider consequences.
Justice must be concerned with the people who were harmed.
It must protect those who remain vulnerable.
And it must create conditions in which cruelty is less likely to happen again.
Punishment should serve that work.
It should never become the work itself.
Return to Ask an Essentialist Theologian
Go to Essentialism Question Seven: What Does Restoration Look Like?