I have written elsewhere about the encounter of Jesus with ‘the woman caught in adultery’ (Jn. 8:2-11) as how he handled the situation (set-up) is intriguing. Like many biblical stories we are challenged as to how we read it. There is the obvious patriarchal bias in the Pharisees – the woman is brought, but the man?… and that bias continues in so much of the Christian faith – the woman is to blame for the sin committed; the man has to be restored.
In what I wrote I suggested that Jesus does not reply immediately as he buys time by writing in the dust. He did not come to each and every situation with a ready made encyclopedia full of the right answers. As one of us he had to dig deep; as one different to us he did not quickly respond with the right (‘religious’ nor even ‘biblical’) answer. Jesus leaned on God and was always the Great Teacher because he was the Great Learner. Buying time and connecting. Connecting with our humanity for we came from the dust and are but dust of the earth. Connecting with the realities of life, our humanity and also the presence of ‘the serpent’ who crawls on its belly on the dust of the ground. Jesus bridged as always the gap between the divine and the human. If we are to come with a ‘God response’ we have to touch, and be touched by, humanity. And if we are to touch humanity we have to be connected to the divine. Then an answer can come that is deeper than the right answer, but is the redemptive solution so that an empowerment, that is both a release from condemnation and a breaking free of enslavement, results.
And yet there is more. I owe this further observation to a post I read yesterday by Conrad Gempf:
(https://gempf.com/wp/2026/05/29/a-non-supernatural-miracle-john-82-11/). (My take – read his post for a fuller observation.)
Conrad draws out that in Jesus’ response he provokes the accusers to find their own humanity. They come as a collective and the result would have been that they (‘the crowd’) would have stoned the woman. Jesus responded to the crowd / mob but addressed each one as an individual – ‘Let anyone (lit: the one) among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’
Don’t hide behind the crowd, don’t go with the crowd. He pushes them to their own (fallen but ever so human) humanity.
Personal responsibility; the mob no longer is a cover, no longer an excuse. They came as a crowd but left as individuals: ‘When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.’
The story began with the woman ‘standing before them’ and ends with the ‘them’ having gone (one by one) and she is standing before Jesus. Two different places to stand. Standing before a patriarchal crowd strengthened by religious ‘rightness’. And finally standing before true humanity. The ‘one by one’ crowd that was ever so right have gone when they face their fallenness. She remains.

Fault Without Forest (n.)
The reduction of a life to a single broken branch.
A way of seeing that mistakes the twig for the tree and the tree for the forest.
Jesus repeatedly interrupts Fault Without Forest. He returns people to the wider ecology of being human: history, relationship, embodiment, frailty, dignity, desire, power, mercy, and responsibility. He neither denies the broken branch nor allows it to become the whole story.
The crowd inspects the twig.
Jesus reveals the forest.
Perhaps one of the challenges of the future is to become forest-dwelling people once again.
People capable of holding complexity without losing compassion. People who can see the branch and the tree, the tree and the forest. People who resist the seduction of reduction, refusing to mistake a moment for a life or a fault for a person.
The crowd asks for a verdict.
The forest asks for understanding.
What I particularly like is that “forest-dwelling people” perhaps quietly echoes a lot of your other work.
Not silo people.
Not platform people.
Not crowd people.
Not people living from accusation and reduction.
But people who can remain inside a living ecology long enough to perceive relationship.
It feels related to real field language.
Related to Ubuntu…how we see self as reflections multiple directional !
Related to your insistence that healing needs the whole.
Related to your resistance to isolating ‘survivors’ from the worlds that shaped them.