“WE WON, YOU LOST, SO *?#@ OFF’. This sentiment is not unique to our politics but is very much in evidence today, writes Rev Sydney Maitland. But then much of our national life is fractured, with divisions between left and right, north and south, town and country, as well as between different nations in the United Kingdom; different races and levels of education, especially in our cities; different occupations and of course between different sports teams.
There seems to be something deliberately confrontational in all this, as if the confrontation is itself desirable and to be sought out. But this is not and can never be a recipe for reconciliation. If anything, it is designed to humiliate and abuse the losers of any contest, as if the prize for winning was never going to be enough. The loser must be seen to lose.
In this sense we need another model. Within the church we certainly have our divisions, and that over same-sex marriage was the most recent, but there have been others which still disturb the unity and coherence of the Body of Christ. While those who have won in any dispute may look vainglorious, those who always seem to lose are easily alienated.
There are two aspects of reconciliation that we should however think about. The first is the initiative for reconciliation lies with God for God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5: 19) The second is that the model of the church that Paul gives us is that of a body, and not of an organization or institution. 1 Corinthians 12 is especially instructive.
First of all, reconciliation is never cheap or trivial. For God to reconcile the world to Himself took the death of Jesus Christ in the most humiliating and excruciating manner that could then be contrived. To demand that the injured party in any issue should forgive the perpetrator without a genuine desire from the perpetrator for that forgiveness is demeaning and insulting, suggesting that whatever the offence the person causing it should be automatically restored to favour without any corresponding change of heart. The hurt itself is trivialised and demeaned. This is why as Christians personal conviction and commitment is so important and is the essential response of faith to the Gospel message. There is nothing automatic here and it is deeply personal.
The second point is how we relate to one another in the Body of Christ, and Paul’s teaching is central. We belong to one another because we belong to Jesus Christ and it is His communion and fellowship that underpins and cements ours. We find one another because we have found – or been found by – Jesus Christ. While some members of the church may be more prominent than others, that is not to say that they are more important, and in any event when one suffers then all suffer; when one rejoices then all rejoice. This is quite different to the hierarchical structures of organizations in which some issue instructions and others carry them out, and if those instructions turn out to be wrong then it is those who issued them who are (0r should be) responsible.
In this sense Christian leadership is always about Christian service – and not ordering other people around. Jesus was clear about this. (Matthew 18: 1 – 5) Here there is no winning or losing, and if it comes about then it is an alien concept. Sadly, the history of the church is also a history of contending for the authenticity of the gospel as it is received and put into practice.
There is however a further lens for seeing reconciliation, and this is repentance. When something is done amiss then it is always open to the offending party to accept that this is so and to seek to reverse the hurt and to make amends. In the public square it is also open to the drivers of mis-directed initiatives to admit that this is so and to seek their reversal.
If the issue of division in the church or in society or in the nation were simple matters to recognise and to resolve, then there would be no need for me to write about it. I can only refer back to Jesus’ words about a tree and its fruit: ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ Matthew 7: 15 – 17, 20.
Some of our national debates do not necessarily demand a Christian response and in this case then it will be our duty to stand for Jesus Christ and Him crucified above and before other considerations. As a church we also need to be agents of reconciliation without compromising the essential gospel message.
Every blessing,
Sydney Maitland
