Reconciliation Chapel

Tim: Today was reconciliation day. I have never before attended a reconciliation chapel, because I have never heard good things about them in the past. This year, though, I had heard the speaker was going to be a good one, so I was excited to go. His name is Pete Menjares (I think) and he’s from Biola. He was excellent.

My main issue was the fact that we hardly got to hear him talk. The intro took forever. Then there was a little symbolic ceremony, in which a number of faculty/staff people lifted up a big rope that was supposed to represent taking responsibility for reconciliation. Then at the end, they had ropes down the aisles that we all were supposed to hold, symbolizing that we were all playing a part as well. While I got the idea of it, it still seemed a little strange to me, but that’s probably because I’m not creative enough for symbolism. Mostly, I felt like it took even more time away from the speaker. Grr.

When the message finally arrived, I was quite pleased. He talked about reconciliation in a way that was simple and meaningful, which I always appreciate. He talked about how when he became a Christian, he was such a Bible-thumper that his mom kicked him out of his house. Years later, he came back and apologized. She spoke to him about why she was hard on him as he grew up without a father, and their relationship was healed. They were reconciled. I like that. Maybe the reason I like it is just that it’s simple and heartwarming, without the difficulty of huge social concerns and implications. I don’t know how well his story parallels reconciliation of different groups of people. I guess I just tend to feel like group reconciliation is best going to happen when we all learn to do it individually, with all our neighbors, no matter who they are.

Having mentioned group reconciliation, I have to say that he did an excellent job of reconciling Minnesota’s subtle bitterness toward California when he began by thanking us for giving them Tori Hunter and the Lakers. I liked him immediately! I like people who make me laugh.

On a deeper level, he got me thinking about how I think about reconciliation in the world. Maybe I’m the only one, but for most of my life, when I heard things like “God is reconciling the world him Himself,” I have generally thought in terms of restoring the ability to have relationship with him and to go to heaven. Through Jesus, the barrier was broken down, allowing us to live in relationship with God, and as we spread this news, the entire world is allowed to be reconciled to God. Makes sense, and is true. But should it end there? Some would be so bold as to suggest that God reconciling himself to the world doesn’t end with allowing the restoration of relationship, but includes the actual process and result of that relationship – meaning there are huge social implications.

Now this is just my interpretation, but it sounds to me like the idea here is that “God reconciling the world to Himself” comes to mean God (and His people) actually remaking the world, not just the individual, in His image. I think in our post-World War era, we have kind of lost the idea that there is actually any hope of this, so we focus on individual salvation (in terms of going to heaven) rather than on bringing blessing and deliverance (on every level) to the world. I also think that we are a little scared of this thought, because it can sound an awful lot like Social Gospel. But I think we need to think about it

None of this is anything that hasn’t been said before, but I wonder how often we really think about it. What are our views on this? Is God allowing us to have relationship with him, or is he trying to restore creation as a whole? I would say both, and I’m guessing most people would agree with me. But do we really think and act like it’s both?

Peter:  So before this chapel I was talking with a friend about it, and we were exchanging thoughts on the past reconciliation chapels, and as my friend was a reconciliation major I asked if she had any particular thoughts on reconciliation chapel, and of course she did.  She said that reconciliation chapel had frustratingly been about racism in past years, which she told me emphatically, was ‘not what reconciliation is about.’  To be sure, the principles of reconciliation apply in a racially charged atmosphere, but in the words of another friend, also a reconciliation major, reconciliation is about bringing together people and people groups with God and with one another who have previously been separated from God or one another.

            In the sense that the speaker this year approached reconciliation from this holistic perspective of it, it was a good chapel.  Although I would agree with Tim that he had a short time to speak, and that the object lesson either needed work or I’m a defective object lesson person, he did have a simple and to the point talk, with a lot of good things to say.  His message culminated in espousing John 17:20 which describes Jesus’ longing that ‘they [we] would be one.’  It is this that I feel like I need a lot of work on, but so do most Christians, at least the ones with high levels of visibility.  There are so many ways in which we as Christians divide ourselves, it’s really frustrating.  I remember reading in one of the Bethel publications a short story which made me kind of mad.  It was a short story whose purpose was to bring a realization to the hypocrisy of the church… but ended up merely condemning conservative Christians.  I don’t consider myself conservative any more so than I consider myself liberal.  I believe that in our society, and in our Christian community we have this tendency to polarize issues.  One of my pet peeves is when people take an issue and set up two sides.  I think it merely limits the scope of the issue as well as creates enmity among those interested.  You’re either protestant or catholic, you’re either liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, you’re individualistic or communal.  Everything does not fit into a one-dimensional continuum.  I’ve heard more people extrapolate on the evils of individualism, and it makes me want to hit them, because guess what, communalism and individualism aren’t mutually exclusive.  Think about it.  And I feel like there are so many issues where people have the same concerns, the same beliefs, and still find a way to disagree about it (i.e. views on how to address poverty in the united states).  We don’t have to polarize everything, and we don’t have to agree on most things.  So I guess what I’m saying is that, hey, Menjares was right on.  We should reconcile ourselves, our communities, and our world with God, and with one another.  I appreciated, as did my reconciliation friends, the mature and holistic approach to reconciliation made by menjares, and I would encourage it to become more common.  I apologize for the convoluted nature of this post, I had a lot of things going through my head and it was difficult to put it on paper coherently, hopefully something made sense.