In Christianity, reconciliation is undoubtedly a core issue. After a long period of disappearance, it is back again on the agenda of the churches, at least in Europe. Theologically speaking, it is a very difficult theme. However, when I think of the many un-reconciled peoples and societies opposing each other in the world, I believe that it is worth thinking and rethinking about. For example, take into consideration the wars and fighting in Israel/Palestine; in Indonesia on the Moluccan islands; in several places in Africa; in Sri Lanka and so on. In many of these wars, religion plays an important role and is very often misused. Also, within churches and within families, in more individualistic settings, there are many situations where reconciliation is far away.
When one listens to the discussions held in church on the theme of reconciliation, one does not often think immediately that the discussion was about a peace or restoration of broken relations, etc. Most often, the opinions held by people in the church on reconciliation differ enormously.
Reconciliation in Christianity has to do with the relationship between humankind and God, and on an inter-personal level between one human being and the other. These are both established through Jesus Christ. In this paper, I will briefly outline reconciliation in the biblical sense. I will then also give three Christian views on reconciliation, as the Swedish Lutheran Bishop G. Aulén wrote them down schematically (1931). They are still useful today.1
Reconciliation presupposes a disturbed relationship. Parties once living together in harmony are now having trouble. Reconciliation restores the relationship. In the Bible, one often reads about a disturbed relationship between God and man asking for reconciliation. People break this covenant with God through deliberate sin and negligence, by letting evil happen. The Bible tells stories about people, who do wrong, and to whom evil happens. At the same time, we read about God who is angered by the ongoing human failing, but who never forgets his once-made promises. God shows two sides of himself, he is angry about what people do, and his love keeps forgiving them. What can we say from a New Testament (i.e. Christian) point of view about this complicated relationship?
Maybe no one but Jesus has witnessed how strong God's love is for all human beings. In his way of treating outcasts and all kinds of sinful people, he pictured an image of this love. His followers therefore saw in him the Messiah, the one that accomplishes reconciliation between God and his people. They saw in Jesus the image of God and called him therefore, God's Son.
Strangely enough, the life of this Messiah ended on the cross, an ambiguous event. By nailing him on the cross, the sinfulness of humankind became as clear as ever. However, at the same time, when one looks at Jesus only, could this death also be seen as an act of extreme obedience? Jesus loved as far as one could go. Who loves more than one who gives his life for his people (John13, 1; 15,13)? Moreover, how does God enter this story?
Since Jesus, who was called "God's son", was killed by the people, one would expect that God's anger would strike them. But hadn't Jesus, although he spoke about God's rigour, always preached the precedence of God's love? This is the way his followers eventually saw his death. It was the result of his enormous love for his people. The people did not acknowledge this love but they could not put an end to it. And through the resurrection of Christ, God showed this love. In the end, love and life are stronger than evil and death. The astonishing event of Jesus' death acquired a new meaning. In his death, human sinfulness and godly love were pushed to extremes. In the end, God's love triumphed. Jesus' death was seen as such an overwhelming sign of love, that human sinfulness seemed to be overcome by it. And even more, people began to believe that at the cross human sinfulness was vanquished and redeemed. Just when human evil seemed to have reached its peak, reconciliation between humankind and God was established.
This paradoxical event has been described in several ways and images. To give words to it, the writers from the New Testament books (especially Paul in his letters) used different pictures. Sometimes they used the image of the cultic sacrifice (Rom 3,25), while other places used images from the antique slave market: people were slaves of sin, but by Jesus "bought" and "paid" (1 Cor. 6,20) them free. And again at other places, images are used from the courthouse: Jesus paid the punishment deserved by the people (Phil 2,7). The images differ. Later, Christian theologians tried to make an unambiguous theory out of this, which was not so easy.
Out of all the different views on reconciliation, there are three main types distinguished by G. Aulén. The first one could be called the 'classical' type. In this perception of reconciliation, Christ has gained victory over the demonic powers at the cross. Humanity is forever saved. This is also why, according to the church father Irenaeus of Lyon (second century A.D.), Christ had to be both human and God at the same time. He had to be God because only a godly power could break the chains of human attachment to sin and evil. He had to be human because only a human being could fight this battle for humanity as a whole. This type of thinking is still predominant in the Eastern Orthodox churches. There are many problems with this way of thinking among people today. Words like hell and devil hardly mean anything anymore to modem thinking people, and this particularly in the West. Secondly, Christ’s battle with the demonic powers is something that happens high above people somewhere, far away from this world. Don't these images and words belong to a mythical way of thinking that we have left behind? Thirdly, the idea that Christ conquered the demonic powers in this world for everyone once and for all is difficult to imagine, and this particularly in a pluralistic context.
Gustaf Aulén identifies the second type of reconciliation as the 'Latin' understanding. I would prefer to call it the 'juridical' type. According to this type of thinking, the death of Jesus is seen as reconciliation in terms of a satisfaction for the sins of humanity. Comparing with the classical type, the cosmic aspect of reconciliation by Christ and his battle with demonic powers is considered much more important than here. The juridical type of thinking wants to be a little bit more objective. This model of thinking is mainly worked out by Anselmus of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his book "Cur Deus homo" (Why God became human). Human disobedience to God's legal order is an affront to God. This insult had to be satisfied. A sacrifice was needed as compensation. But who would be able to bring this sacrifice? It needed to be a satisfaction so big that only God himself could bring it and yet it had to be done by a human being. And so Christ, both man and God, was the only one who would be able to do it. In this type of thinking, the obedience of Christ and disobedience of humanity are weighed out against each other, and human guilt and penance become central.
There are clear differences between the first two types of thinking about reconciliation. In the first type, it's about a cosmic battle and liberation from eternal death. In the second type, it is about guilt and satisfaction and a juridical procedure. It is only at one point that these two types of thinking come together: Christ, both human and divine, establishes reconciliation for humanity, but humankind is not taking part. Since the Enlightenment, this has raised many questions. How is it possible to derive validity for the whole world from the death of Jesus? How could the death of one man forever pay (satisfy) the debts of humanity towards God? A third type of thinking emerged.
In this third type of thinking, reconciliation is seen as a way of living for people today. The most striking thing in this way of thinking is the humanitarian tendency. Human responsibility becomes an important part. The view is not only on the cross and the saving blood of Christ. A reconciling way of living becomes important. The death of Jesus is seen in the perspective of his whole life through his preaching, his faith and his obedience. This model is often called the 'subjective' way of thinking. How Jesus lived during his life asks for a reaction in the life of his followers. Reconciliation here is not only and primarily connected to his death as a sacrifice, but to his life as a whole. But even this third way of Christian thinking on reconciliation has its difficulties. Is it not too subjective or too optimistic? There is a danger that reconciliation becomes something purely human, something that can be reached if we just follow Jesus' example radically enough. Another difficulty appears when the whole presupposition is denied: the broken relationship between humankind and God.
I have tried to outline some (Christian) theological views and thoughts on reconciliation in a very simplified way. In my opinion, and particularly given the pluralistic context, reconciliation is a theme that needs renewed thinking. My question(s) would be: how do other religions think of reconciliation? In which way does the concept of reconciliation play a part in the different traditions? Are there, like in Christianity, theologies of reconciliation? Moreover, if so, how can we make them useful in situations of conflicts between people?
NOTES
Literature:
Henk Leegte is a Mennonite pastor in Amsterdam.