REC Home*** Theological Forum Theological Forum Issue Vol. XVIII, No. 2, April 1990 JUSTICE, RECONCILIATION AND PEACE
Reconciliation, confrontation, justice, peace, cheap grace, conflict, revolution - these are the terms that appear and reappear in recent literature, especially in that which deals with conflict where churches and Christian agencies are involved.
"The main problem in the world today is conflict, and the greatest need is for reconciliation in these conflicts." These words of Dr Tom Houston, writing in Together a publication of World Vision, says it succinctly. Conflicts are many and they are of many kinds. Much of human society seems continuously to be set on edge. And there are many reasons given why conflicts arise and many remedies offered on how they can be resolved.
Sometimes it has been said that the two main models for resolving social conflict are reconciliation and confrontation and that therefore a person should choose for the one or for the other. The "reconciliationists" stress negotiation, say they are for peace, and stress personal change. The "confrontationists" want to expose the evil that has caused the conflict and are willing to prolong the conflict until the cause has been removed. They stress structural change. The reconciliationists charge that the others only want to prolong the conflict or even make it worse. The reply from the confrontationists is that the others only paper over the differences and defend the status quo in which the cause of the trouble nestles. They say that the call for reconciliation is a cry for cheap grace. The efforts toward reconciliation seem only to add a new dimension to the conflict.
The description of the current dynamics in resolution conflict as a contrast between reconciliation and confrontation has not been particularly helpful. One reason is that reconciliation and confrontation are not equal but interrelate as end and means. Reconciliation is a goal; actually it is the ministry of the people of God (2 Cor 5: 1920). Confrontation is a means, for some the chief means, to end the strife. Actually it is only one of many possible means. Others would be a confession of wrongdoing, the elimination of the cause, either in the social structure or the persons involved, or negotiation.
Another reason why the reconciliation/confrontation contrast has not been very helpful is that it does not sufficiently highlight certain essential components in the resolution of conflicts. We refer to removal of the underlying cause of the conflict, the demand for social justice, the willingness to repent, the readiness to be reconciled. Only when all of these are brought into the discussion can there be a proper understanding of reconciliation. This number of the Theological Forum seeks to put the various elements into focus.
Adrio König analyzes the elements of conflict in the South African situation. He convincingly shows that true reconciliation rests on justice and that only on justice can peace ensue and endure. Only when the cause of the conflict has been removed and a reconciliation mentality is operative will there be true peace.
David Bosch submits 12 theses on reconciliation. These were presented at a conference of the National Initiative for Reconciliation in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa in September 1985. They are taken from Together.
It is fitting that both writers live in South Africa, a land that has had more than its share of conflict, a land that is now moving away from open confrontation to negotiation. Let us fervently hope that the end of the confrontation and negotiation will be the removal of the causes of estrangement and lasting peace with social justice.
Paul G. Schrotenboer, Editor