 |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
| |  |
||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Editorial:
Spring Fever Comment:
What is Reconciliation? From
the Director: Ireland is changing and so are we! The
Whole Gospel for the Whole World (and beyond...) Rwanda
Ten Years On Anglo-Irish
Relations The
Hard Gospel Interview
with Robin Eames: RECONCILIATION - A View from Armagh Interview
with Sean Brady: RECONCILIATION - A View from Armagh Church-based
Peacebuilding Evangelism
& Reconciliation - are they irreconcilable? Dogville
and the Drama of Redemption Blessed
are the Peacemakers? Review:
Bitter Fruit Review:
The Colour of Darkness Review:
The Lost Message of Jesus Review:
The Futures of Evangelicalism Review:
Evangelicals in Ireland: An Introduction |
|
 |
|
|
|
COMMENT: WHAT IS RECONCILIATION? BRAND MARKETING is currently championed as the new business strategy which, supported by subtle advertising, attempts to create ‘triggers’ designed to elicit planned responses from us, the market. Successful ‘triggers’ evoke predefined images and expectations which, in turn, cause us to respond and act in predictable ways. If this trend is something you haven’t been aware of until now that is probably because ‘triggers’ are most effective when they are either subliminal or indistinguishable from our normal environment and thinking. Contrary to any superior view we may have of our own rationality we are, in practice, all very easily manipulated – otherwise the marketing companies wouldn’t be so successful and so profitable. Is prejudice a triggered response? Think about a word or situation which immediately triggers images, attitudes or actions where a prejudgement is substituted for thinking. Could we regard instinct as a form of cultural prejudice? At times our instincts may be less to do with any inherent gifting than the consequence of repeated, practised responses. What about my Christian preferences, priorities and practices, are these considered and purposeful or are they too a response to spiritual triggers? Take the present high-profile term ‘reconciliation’, is this just such a spiritual trigger? Do we immediately buy into ‘reconciliation’ because it is a concept and aspiration which seems obviously Christian? Would we feel uncomfortable if we were instead seen to be intransigent or stubborn? Are we too quick to jump on this latest bandwagon? Our interest is drawn to those who propose ‘reconciliation’, and we support and endorse those who engage in it – but do we actually know what they mean by ‘reconciliation’? Can we articulate why we are, or should be, enthusiastic about it? Is ‘reconciliation’ actually good theology or just a commendable and practical way of dealing with dysfunctional people and bringing closure to uncomfortable situations? Did God actually give us the ministry and message of interpersonal reconciliation, or only reconciliation between mankind and God? [2 Cor 5:18-19] Why do we need ‘reconciliation’ anyway? Is ‘reconciliation’ good in all circumstances and how do we judge? What is the alternative? Are we sure that we actually want ‘reconciliation’? Do we properly understand what ‘reconciliation’ involves, or might require of us? Is ‘reconciliation’ no more than just understanding the other person’s position, without expecting change? Does it allow you to continue to be wrong if you wish, safe in the knowledge that I will not attempt to change you? If I am comfortable that we hold opposite views, is it a problem that I don’t appear to care that you are wrong? Is ‘reconciliation’ about liking or accepting each other even though we don’t agree? Is this dangerously superficial or just a cover-up, with little inherent merit? Does reconciliation require both of us to give up all, or part, of what we strongly believe or practise? Does it necessitate agreement, or accommodation, or compromise? Is it expected that everyone must move from their currently held position which has created the need for reconciliation in the first place? Is this a realistic thing to do if I am right and you are wrong? Is it ethical? Does ‘reconciliation’ eclipse the need for criticism or the importance of challenge, disagreement or standing against something? How do we reconcile difference of opinion and ‘reconciliation’? Is ‘reconciliation’ a process or an end in itself? Is it about attitudes, or relationships, or engagement or status? What are we attempting to reconcile? What outcome are we looking for? Perhaps I am just wrong, and need to agree with you? I suspect that only when we approach ‘reconciliation’ with the understanding of a clear biblical basis, and have a realistic appreciation of the process and outcome, can we be properly committed to it and recognise the outcomes as worthwhile. Teaching and leadership methods which rely on creating and using spiritual ‘triggers’ are too easy and too common, and inevitably have only short-term impact. And against this trend I have become increasingly aware of the use of questions in the discourses and challenges of the Old Testament prophets. Jesus also used questions extensively in both his teaching and in his discipling – questions which gave rise to clarity and understanding, and often had remarkable consequences. If I were willing to ask more questions in all areas of my life then, perhaps, I wouldn’t be so easily manipulated by the subtle triggers all around me. This must be even more important in the understanding and exercise of my faith, if I am to avoid being superficial and short-term in my enthusiasms. Therefore I am approaching this edition of lion&lamb somewhat cautiously, as I expect it will expose my lack of understanding. MICHAEL WHITLEY is an Architect and the new Chair of the Board for the Centre for Contemprary Christianity in Ireland. |
||||
 |
|
