Societal Reconciliation

One of the courses that I teach is Conflict Resolution. As students and I discuss the goals of conflict resolution, one common goal is that of restoring friendly relationships between parties – reconciliation. Students recognize that this goal applies to more than reconciliation between individuals, such as a wife and husband, or two friends. The goal of restoring friendly relationships applies equally to larger parties, such as between portions of a congregation or between segments of society. Reconciliation becomes particularly difficult when the parties have been engaged in a heated or prolonged conflict. Yet, it is also at this time that reconciliation becomes even more important.

One historically recent approach to encouraging reconciliation between larger segments of a society is the development of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. These commissions work to reveal past wrongdoing by governments or other parties in a conflict, in hopes of resolving the conflict, and encouraging friendlier relationships between the parties. Although the Argentine National Commission for Forced Disappearances is regarded as one of the first commissions, likely the best known commission is the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established after the end of apartheid by President Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Commissions have existed or currently operate in approximately 12% of the countries of the world (see Wikipedia’s “Truth and Reconciliation Commissions” for a listing).

            

The general title of these commissions, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, provides a perspective on reconciliation. Reconciliation is founded upon or begins with truth – the recognition that one or more parties in a conflict have injured other parties, in essence, that one or more parties have engaged in unjust actions - sinned - against another. If one party has not sinned against another, then there is no need for reconciliation. Two friends may disagree over an issue, even a contentious issue, and may or may not successfully resolve their disagreement (they may agree to disagree). However, disagreement is not sin – it is only when one friend goes a step further to sin against or injure the other (for example, by judging the other friend), that their relationship is damaged. Similarly, segments of society may disagree over a contentious issue (e.g., political freedoms or land reform); disagreement between segments of society is characteristic of any society. However, it is when one segment goes a step further to sin against or injure another segment (e.g., violently, by political repression, or by denial of particular freedoms), that their relationship (and the society as a whole) is damaged.

Reconciliation is often viewed as a spiritual issue, where we have sinned against and been forgiven by God (e.g., 2 Corinthians 5:11-21, Colossians 1:20-22). Reconciliation is also often viewed as a personal issue, where one individual is sinned against and forgives another (e.g., Matthew 5:23-26, Matthew 18:15-17). However, reconciliation is a social issue as well. To the degree that one segment of society injures another, either intentionally or through institutional biases (e.g., institutional sexism), members of the injured segment suffer disproportionately, and the fabric of that whole society is damaged. In Jesus’ claim that Christians are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14), he noted that, “a city on a hill cannot be hidden.” Cities are neither individuals nor spirits, they are (and contain) segments of a society. Jesus’ claim about a city on a hill is as much a claim about Christians as a group – as a segment of society - as it is about individual Christians. Christians have a calling to be peacemakers, not just with God or with individuals, but within society.
__________________________________

Steven Hayduk
Former Officer,  Canada and Bermuda

Professor of Psychology

Southern Wesleyan University

shayduk@swu.edu