I’m posting a response here to a post and series of comments on another blog.  Click here for that blog.  A friend asked me to comment, and there was so much there, I thought it easier to post my responses and ideas here.  I want to begin by responding to some of the comments made:

“G-W just said “reconciliation” as a goal in Iraq and as the result of immigration reform. It struck me how incredibly wrought with spiritual intonations that word has come to mean as a result of the circle of people I know who use that term regularly. And that spurred two other thoughts.”  – C.K.C.

I want to say first off that I’m not real hopeful right now for Iraq.  I see happening there, at least in the area of long term relations between sectarian groups, what has happened in the Balkans.  Do me a favor and Go to This Page.  Take a look at the two maps showing the ethnic makeup of Bosnia/Herzegovina before and after the war.  You’ll see that before the war, the area was very cosmopolitan and mixed.  Afterwards, when violence ceased, sectarian groups were more defined and settled into enclaves.  We see this happening now and if you think the Sunnis and Shias and all the tribal groups will get along once we leave (in whatever manner that occurs and whenever it occurs) you are probably mistaken.  It’s a farce to say that there are many who truly understand how to “reconcile” those groups, especially within our administration.

“Sometimes it involved a repayment of honor or respect, usually in the examples of the New Testament. Current law, and the justice system has negated the requirements for actual justice and repayment as it was intended to be, and so the “value” of the words reconciliation, restoration, and justice have all been watered down.”  – U.P.

The first century world was certainly one based on a limited goods system, and that included honor.  There was a constant give and take struggle for honor.  We still see some of this present in the middle east today, so it’s not so hard to imagine.  But reconciliation for them was very different than what we imagine.  For them, reconciliation meant a return to the normalcy of already assigned roles within a set system of honor.  If a slave disobeyed a master, he was only punished to retain the master’s honor, not necessarily to punish him or because the master thought this would “restore” him.  This is one of the reasons Jesus’ Kingdom message was so provocative…it broke down that understanding of caste and systems.  To be reconciled, in the Kingdom message of Jesus, was to see yourself as intrinsically valuable, regardless of status and to view and treat others likewise.

“reconciliation involves orientation…He seemed less concerned with “getting what is owed” (notice he didn’t stone the adultress) as he was with “getting back on track” (but he did tell her to sin no more). Reconciliation, since it’s an end separate from the means of redemption, can be sought in ways other than the traditionally veangeful concept of justice, seeking just relationships instead. And this doesn’t seem watered down, it seems more difficult. Nothing is easier than hating enemies or trying to pay others back. Forgiveness, making an effort to rebuild a relationship that has been broken, that takes real courage and strength.”  – C.K.C

Did we see the news the last couple weeks about the girl stoned to death in Iraq?  17 years old and stoned because she loved a boy not of her group.  I’m sorry, but was I the only one who knew this was exactly what the verse about the “adultress” is about.  We have a tendency to make the woman a cheater or a prositute to make it a real sin for us, but it was more likely a story like our current one…she expressed “sexuality” or intimacy in a way that was deemed inappropriate by her culture.  Either way, we see Jesus’ call to a “just relationship” as it was put above.  Our redemption, where we turn away from our sin (drop our stones) and turn towards a just relationship is pointless if it does not include reconciliation.  I think I’m beginning to articulate that about the Christian life I see so prominently in the U.S.  That we can be “redeemed” but never really have to seek reconciled relationships with those around us, or even with God, so long as we “been redeemed”, as Flannery puts it.

“Jesus did not take away the system of justice, He wants it to be based on scriptural precepts. I am sure many times Jesus said that the cost of sin is death. Most would accept that He was talking about a spiritual death and not a bodily death, however the wages of sin lead to bodily death as well. The spiritual health of an individual leads the bodily health of that individual.” -U.P.

I’m not sure what scriptural precepts Jesus would have focused his system of Justice on.  Certainly he was informed by the OT and was able to extract the essence of what God wanted his Kingdom to look like.  And that Kingdom was based on forgiveness, love, mercy and non-sectarian identity.  The only role a person plays in the reconciliation process is a continuous humbling of ourselves and an earnest desire for true relationship and intimacy with the “other”, whether that other is from a rival religious group, a criminal, or a cheating spouse.

I’m actually not sure that Jesus many times said the Wages of sin is death, that was Paul.  And I’m also not sure I would be able to follow that in to say that the wages of sin is bodily sickness and death.  Could it be?  Possibly.  I know a few people whose health have seriously declined when they are living in a way that hurts themselves and others.  But I also know many who live out the Kingdom vision who have been sick, and died.  The spiritual health of an individual does not always lead to the bodily health.

“From examples in the Bible, if repayment did not occur then consequences increased until repayment was achieved. The whole concept being to reconcile the robber to the victim.” -U.P.

I’m also very reluctant these days to attribute “payment” needed for reconciliation.  This very present theology we have of atonement turns God into a very malicious being indeed.  We need to remember that simply because we have adopted this one view of how reconciliation occurs between God and man, it is not the only view…nor the one most consistent with the image Jesus himself gives of his own work and relationship with God.  It is no wonder then that many Christians see violence as a good, and often necessary requirement to reconciliation.

All in all, reconciliation takes on very different terms in the different contexts in which it operates: international, national, sectarian, personal.  And it takes on those terms precisely because reconciliation is dependent upon those engaged in it.  There are different needs for the ethnic groups to reconcile in the Balkans than for me to reconcile with an estranged friend.  But both do require a willingness to NOT seek any form of repayment or anything that might be construed as punishment to the person I believe has wronged me…but rather that we would allow ourselves the freedom to be wronged and move forward anyway…towards a just and intimate relationship with that “other.”

I’d really, really recommend Miroslav Volf here.  “Exclusion and Embrace” and “The End of Memory” are two of the best books on these topics.