Talk:Reconciliation
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Moved from article: To do: Put in something about: marriage counseling, inter-racial reconciliation, international reconciliation, and last-but-not-least, various religious views about reconciliation between God and man.
-- Jake 12:08, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
From old article Reconcilation[edit]
I deleted the whole entry:
Reconcilation - a change from enmity to friendship. It is mutual, i.e., it is a change wrought in both parties who have been at enmity.
(1.) In Col. 1:21, 22, the word there used refers to a change wrought in the personal character of the sinner who ceases to be an enemy to God by wicked works, and yields up to him his full confidence and love. In 2 Cor. 5:20 the apostle beseeches the Corinthians to be "reconciled to God", i.e., to lay aside their enmity.
(2.) Rom. 5:10 refers not to any change in our disposition toward God, but to God himself, as the party reconciled. Romans 5:11 teaches the same truth. From God we have received "the reconciliation" (R.V.), i.e., he has conferred on us the token of his friendship. So also 2 Cor. 5:18, 19 speaks of a reconciliation originating with God, and consisting in the removal of his merited wrath. In Eph. 2:16 it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the winning back of the sinner in love and loyalty to God, but to the restoration of God's forfeited favour. This is effected by his justice being satisfied, so that he can, in consistency with his own nature, be favourable toward sinners. Justice demands the punishment of sinners. The death of Christ satisfies justice, and so reconciles God to us. This reconciliation makes God our friend, and enables him to pardon and save us. (See Sin.)
From Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)
Mainly because it's straight biblical commentary, and this is an encyclopedia, not a Bible commentary. If it's to stay, it needs to be attributed to a theologian or school of thought; perhaps it could be attributed to Easton, but we don't have a biography of him online, so I'm not sure how helpful that would be. In any case, I don't have time to carefully neutralize it just now.
I'll also admit that I happen to strongly disagree with the sentiments expressed, as I believe most of historic Christianity and Judaism would agree that God does not change. This was a crucial point established at the Council of Chalcedon and by many of the church fathers individually. The introductory sentence and entire second point appear to say that God does change, that God does not love everyone, and that there is something greater than God called Justice that demands that God punish sinners. This contradicts Anselm's notion that God is "that greater than which nothing can be conceived".
Enough ranting. Suggestions for improvement, anyone? Wesley
- Matthew George Easton (1823-1894) Scottish Presbyterian. Since he came from a mainstream denomination, it is unlikely he held wildly unorthodox views. "His justice" doesn't necessarily means something greater than him. And I'm not clear on why you think it says that God changes. But I agree it makes a lousy encyclopedia article. At least it would have to mention the non-theological uses of the term and perhaps in reference to sociology and psychology, etc. might make an article not a definition. Maybe. --rmhermen
- I gotta agree with Wesley on this one. The Easton text is beautiful, refreshing -- but it's not an encyclopedia article on reconciliation. It is rather one man's view of the Christian doctrine of reconciliation. If we are to include it, the boilerplate text of the other Easton articles don't work in this case. Someone (I pick Wesley!) should write a general article on the topic, perhaps even including inter-racial (or political) aspects. --Ed Poor
Note also spelling difference between Reconcilation and [Reconciliation]] (latter version has extra "i").
To answer your question, rmhermen: From the first line: "It is mutual, i.e., it is a change wrought in both parties who have been at enmity." This suggests that reconciliation is a change wrought in God as well as in the human. "Justice demands the punishment of sinners." Does Justice demand that God punish sinners, that Satan punish sinners, or that sinners punish themselves? Justice is something that has to be satisfied, that forced Christ to die on the cross. All this suggests that it is something greater than God. It's possible that I'm reading the wrong ideas into his statements though, and English usage may have changed a bit in the last 100+ years. As for being Scottish Presbyterian, I suppose this might be reflective of Protestant Calvinist theology, or at most of Augustinianism. I really can't say. It is certainly foreign to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which constantly prays to God as "the only lover of mankind."
Ed, I appreciate your vote of confidence, but I don't really have the energy to do this right. I just know that the Easton text by itself strikes me as very wrong in this case. I like both your and rmhermen's suggestions for general directions this could go, and I'm glad you caught the typo. Can't believe I missed it! Wesley
This article may need {{cleanup}}, but is it still a {{stub}}? I think it ought to have the 'stub' tag removed. --Dcfleck 20:34, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
- Agreed. Actually, I think the article may need {{split}}. Especially considering the Todo item on top of the talk page. Rl 21:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
John Howard[edit]
This rally needs a NPOV clean-up. It reeks.
- "Attempts at reconciliation have been largely abandoned by Australia's current conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, who has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations over human rights violations. Howard - a supporter of the British monarch who remains head of state of Australia - has just been re-elected for his fourth term."
Surely someone can think of some more (PC/leftist) taunts to throw at Howard? Does he kick dogs? 220.238.162.193 03:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
A Broader and Simpler Definition[edit]
In defining reconciliation it is important to consider what should be omitted as well as included and to write simply with profundity. Perhaps a good working definition is when people who were at enmity with each other are now walking in intimacy together. In order for intimate relationship to be restored between people, there are several components to the process that must be included - those components can be difficult and complicated. They include, but are not restricted to, revelation of the problem, admission of the issues (or confession), apology/repentance, reformation (reforming how people regard one another), restitution (which includes the re-writing of history books to include the wounding and the healing), strategic restoration of relationship and celebration. In the working definition above, there is a concept of walking together in intimacy - which proposes continued effort and movement in the direction of healed and restored relationship between people and nations. In complex inter-nation issues, the process of reconciliation from initial dialogue to celebration, could take decades. In inter-relation issues, the process can move along quicker. But it is imperative to remember that time does not heal wounds and that reconciliation must begin with each asking the question, "What have I done (or what have MY people done) that have added wounding or injustice to a particular person or group?" This is because there is never a guilt-free party. Everyone bears a responsibility of righting wrongs to which they have been a part.