Seldom have our churches worked with such theologically pivotal themes as those which have engaged us in recent years and continue to do so. We are in the middle of a process which aims at a joint declaration concerning justification with the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, we are preparing ourselves for the joint assembly of the Conference of European Churches and the Council of European Bishops' Conferences, which will be held in Graz, Austria, and which will focus on the theme "Reconciliation - Gift of God and Source of New Life".
We Lutherans have often complained that in ecumenical conferences, and in the ecumenical movement in general, the pivotal dogmatic questions have too often been displaced by socio-ethical themes. Now we almost feel as if we have been given, at one time, more than we ever dared to ask or expect. This is the occasion on which we, as European church leaders, have the opportunity to reflect on the question of reconciliation as a gift of God. Theologically, this simultaneous occurrance of the themes of reconciliation and justification turns out to be more than just a mere coincidence.
Certainly, the inclusion of the theme of reconciliation in the agenda of this Budapest conference is no coincidence either, since the Graz Assembly is intended to be a very important ecumenical step on our continent. It is called the "Second European Ecumenical Assembly". We have, therefore, the obligation to take the central theological questions of Graz into account in our present conference, this duty being at the same time an excellent opportunity for us to participate in this important ecumenical process of our continent. We do hope that Lutheran churches can make an important contribution to the preparations of the Graz Assembly and to the work done in the conference itself, and we also hope that all this will be a useful learning process for us. Participation in the ecumenical movement is a continuous process of giving and receiving.
How is the Graz Assembly going to deal with the great and pivotal issue of reconciliation? The first draft of the working and final document has been sent to the churches and different kinds of organizations and groups for their evaluations and comments. The deadline for responses, with possible proposed changes, is the end of January 1997. In this regard, the timing of our present conference is ideal! The question asked by the Planning Committee, "Have we correctly perceived the most important issues and perspectives under the concept of reconciliation", can serve as a relevant and useful starting point also for us, here and now. Thus, we accept the invitation of the Graz Planning Committee.
The context of the Graz Assembly is the suprising and confusing situation of Europe seven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and just a few years before the end of this millennium. No matter what direction one looks at, the conclusion is the same: Europe needs reconciliation. The plan is that the Graz Assembly will respond to this challenge through six subthemes:
1. The Search for Visible Unity Between the Churches
2. Dialogue with Other Religions and Cultures
3. Reconciliation as Working for Social Justice, Especially Overcoming Poverty, Social Exclusion and Other Forms of Discrimination
4. Reconciliation Between Nations and Promoting Non-Violent Forms of Conflict Resolution
5. Reconciliation as a new Praxis of Ecological Responsibility, Particularly with Regard to Coming Generations
6. Reconciliation as just Sharing with Other Regions of the World
As a basis for discussion concerning these subthemes, a chapter has been drafted on questions of principle and theology, in order for it to be discussed and accepted by the Graz Assembly as the "Message of Graz". In our present conference, this particular chapter is obviously of special interest to us as we discuss reconciliation as a gift given to us by God.
The evaluating of the preparatory material for the Graz Assembly is, in a way, a process of determining its position or location. In order to do this, we need two perspectives, namely, an ethical one on the level of praxis, and a dogmatic one on the level of principle. We must ask, on the one hand, whether the churches are where they should be concerning the anxiety and needs of our continent and its people. On the other hand, we must also ask whether the theological starting point of the document is correct with regard to the content of the churches' responses to these needs. In this presentation, I shall focus on the second of these two questions, because the topic given to me corresponds with the first part of the theme of Graz.
For determining a position, one needs a map. What does the theological map on which the Graz Assembly is located look like, with respect to the Assembly's view of reconciliation? In the following, my aim is to remind us of some of the basic lines and patterns of this map, which is familiar to all of us.
The logical background and precondition for the word 'reconciliation' is a situation marked by a break-up, i.e., a disagreement and hostility between the partners. In the Bible, this background for and need of reconciliation is depicted already in the very first pages of Scripture, where the cosmos created by God in a way breaks up and harmony is displaced by a loud dissonance. This happens between the human being and God, man and woman, and the human being and nature. Brother kills brother and peoples no longer understand each other. Outside the Garden of Eden, the cherubim and a sword which flashes with lightning and fire guard the way that leads to the Tree of Life. The wrath of God stands between humanity and the Tree of Life. The human being has become, in a very profound sense, an outsider, and the whole of creation has fallen under the rule of the forces of destruction.
The pivotal position and role of the idea of reconciliation in both the Old and the New Testament should be understood against this background. The Old Testament paves the way for the NT's declaration of reconciliation in three senses in particular: 1) Annually, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest made atonement for the sins of the entire people (Lev.16). 2) In the vision which Isaiah saw when he was called to be a prophet, his sins were atoned for by means of a stone which the seraph took from the altar (Is. 6). 3) Deutero-Isaiah's description of the servant of God presents the idea of the vicarious suffering, the taking on of a punishment and the sacrifice which bring about reconciliation: ..."he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases... upon him was the punishment that made us whole" (Is. 53).
In the New Testament, Christ is depicted, above all, as the reconciler: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). The one who both initiates and brings about reconciliation is God himself: "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ" (2 Cor. 5:18). The source of reconciliation and the only foundation for it is the love of God: "God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8). In the following sentence, Paul articulates the integral interrelatedness of reconciliation, justification and salvation: "Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God" (Rom. 5:9). In the same connection, Paul very explicitly emphasizes that reconciliation is a gift given to us.
The reconciliation brought about by God in Christ was a "once-and-for-all" event, and in this sense it is something that has already happened. For human beings, however, this reconciliation is continuously realized through the "ministry of reconciliation": "We entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20). Thus, we are encouraged to receive "the message of reconciliation" in faith (2 Cor. 5:19).
However, Christ's work of reconciliation does not only apply to the relationship between God and the human being. Christ also creates a new fellowship among us, human beings, by uniting us with himself (Col. 3:3-25, Eph. 2:11-22). It does not matter whether you are Jew or Greek, slave or free, or male or female; "for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
Reconciliation with God and people's reconciliation with one another belong together in such an integral manner that one form of reconciliation cannot exist without the other. In the gospels, this interrelatedness is emphasized in a particularly clear fashion (Matt. 5:23-24, 6:14-15, 18:21-35; Mark 11:25). Reconciliation is at the same time a gift and a calling.
It is a well-known fact that Christ's work of reconciliation has been given different interpretations in the different phases of church history, during which several doctrines of atonement have emerged. In his book Christus Victor (the Swedish original: Den kristna försoningstanken, 1930), which has become a classic, the Swedish professor (and later Bishop) Gustaf Aulén classified these doctrines in a manner which continues to be helpful to all theological map-makers.
Aulén distinguished between three major types of interpretations of reconciliation. In view of our theme, it must be pointed out that the nature of reconciliation as a gift of God is also interpreted differently by these three groups. According to Aulén's analysis and classification, the first of these groups is called the classic doctrine of atonement; Aulén himself, however, speaks rather of the classic atonement motif. In the theology of the early Church, this was the dominant interpretation of Christ's work of reconciliation; its typical representatives were, among others, Irenaeus and Athanasius. In agreement with Paul's words on how Christ has overcome our enemies, Wrath, Sin, Law and Death, and liberated us from their tyranny (Rom. 5-8), Christ's work of reconciliation was interpreted to be, above all, a victorious battle against the forces of destruction. In a way that is hidden from us, the love of God has, in Christ, overcome even the wrath of God himself, and has thus brought about reconciliation and new communion. Reconciliation is totally is gift of God.
Aulén referred to the second group of atonement doctrines as the Latin or scholastic theory of atonement. This group mainly came into existence and developed within the western branch of the Church, and was, to a large extent, based on Tertullian and Cyprian's theology, in which the work of Christ was understood and interpreted through juridical categories. As a result of the influence of such things as the institution of (private) confession, for example, Christ's work of reconciliation began to be increasingly viewed from the perspective of merit and satisfaction (L. satisfactio). This kind of doctrine of atonement reached its culmination in the theology of Anselm of Canterbury. He regarded atonement or reconciliation as a satisfaction which Christ gives, on behalf of human beings, to God, who is also the agent; thus, God is at the same time both reconciler and reconciled.
This Latin theory of atonement separates that which Christ does as God and that which he does as a human being from each other. This means that the early Church's view of reconciliation as a sole act of God is obscured. At the same time, the love of God is also obscured. Namely, this view is very close to the idea that atonement appeases the hostile God who begins to love the human being actively only after this appeasement. According to the biblical view, however, it is precisely the God of love who reacts to sin with wrath.
The juridical nature of the Latin doctrine of atonement, as well as this doctrine's image of God, was severely criticized already in the Middle Ages, and has been criticized increasingly especially since the era of Enlightenment. Abelard rejected the juridical approach to atonement and emphasized the exemplary effect of the death of Christ on the faithful: the suffering of Christ reveals to us the love of God, and, in response, kindles in us love for God. Thus, the hostility towards God that exists in the human being changes into trusting love, and reconciliation thus takes place.
A sequel to this subjective doctrine of atonement by Abelard emerged in the modern era, its extent corresponding with the extent to which the main emphasis in theological thinking was shifted to the human being. Both in the theology of the Enlightenment era and in later theology (e.g. Schleiermacher and Ritschl), atonement or reconciliation was mainly regarded as the human being's change of mind. On the side of God himself, no change is needed. He is the permanent love, and love demands no satisfaction. Thus, the "message of reconciliation" is a revelation which corrects the human being's fallacious concept of God. The negative attitude of the human being towards God had thus been based on a misunderstanding.
Before I try to locate the position of the Graz working document's concept of reconciliation on this map of the three doctrines of atonement, it is certainly appropriate to ask where Luther is located on it. His location co-ordinates can perhaps best be found in his explication of the Second Article of the Creed in the Small Catechism:
I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, delivered me and freed me of all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with silver and gold but with his holy and precious blood and with his innocent sufferings and death, in order that I may be his, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as he is risen from the dead and lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.
Certain pivotal elements of the classic doctrine of atonement can easily be found in this interpretation of Christ's work of redemption and reconciliation. Christ has defeated sin, death and the devil, and has thus redeemed us from their dominion. Luther often classifies God's law and wrath, too, as destructive forces. Indeed, Gustaf Aulén is of the opinion that Luther's view of reconciliation meant a renewal and deepening of the classic atonement motif.
Certain characteristics of the Latin doctrine of atonement also make their presence felt here, especially in the fact that Luther looks at the human being from the viewpoint of sin and guilt. This perspective is not alien to the classic doctrine of atonement either, but in the classic view the captivity and slavery of the human being under the rule of the destructive demonic forces outweighs the aspect of guilt.
Luther's explanation also contains a subjective element, but in a manner differing from the subjective doctrine of atonement mentioned above. For Luther, the primary aspect is not that of a psychological change based on knowledge-centered revelation, but a change of the human being's entire existence and of its preconditions, owing to the fact that reconciliation, redemption and justification are integrally connected.
Luther's view of reconciliation is theocentric, not anthropocentric. The point at issue is what the God of reconciliation continuously does as the Redeemer and Justifier, and as the one who keeps renewing his creation and making it whole.
Where, then, will the Graz Assembly be located on the map of theological doctrines of atonement and reconciliation? If one looks for an answer to this question in the above- mentioned draft of the working and final document, one becomes quite confused. When one tries to find the co-ordinates of the view of reconciliation that manifests itself in this paper, one feels at first as though they must be entirely off the map. This is not necessarily the fault of the co-ordinates, though; the map may also be to blame, in which case a wrong map has been used for determining the location.
Without taking a stance on the question of whether the traditional map of atonement doctrines used above is correct or fallacious, it can nevertheless be said without doubt that the draft for the working and final document of the Graz Assembly often speaks of reconciliation in a manner that differs from the way in which we have learned to speak on the basis of the long tradition of the theology of atonement and reconciliation. In the draft, the word 'reconciliation' is used as a solution to a problem which is different from that addressed by the traditional doctrines of atonement. The traditional doctrines mainly address the problem of enmity between God and the human being, whereas from the viewpoint of the Graz material the main problem is the hostility among human beings and human communities, among churches, among religions and cultures, between the rich and the poor, among the nations, between the human being and nature, etc.
These are, of course, immensely important questions, and reconciliation is undoubtedly a concept and word that can be used in the search for solutions to ecumenical and socio-ethical conflicts. The problem is how the reconciliation between God and the human being is related to the reconciliation among human beings. Does the former have an intrinsic value in itself, or does it just have an instrumental value related to the ecumenical and socio-ethical reconciliation? The greatest theological problem in the preparatory material for Graz is that the reconciliation brought about by God is practically confined to the horizontal dimension of life alone. The mission and ministry of the reconciler is limited to equipping humans to achieve reconciliation among themselves.
A paragraph that is of central theological importance (12) says that reconciliation as a gift of God means that in Jesus Christ God became a human being and is now present in the creation. "We have faith", it is said, "that the power of this love, of Christ's 'pneuma' (spirit) lives and works among us. We speak of this good and holy Spirit as the energy of reconciliation, as the power to effect change... And we can be certain that in and with the presence of this Spirit of God, reconciliation becomes an historical possibility. God introduces reconciliation as a concrete possibility into human history."
The document also says that what underlies everything is the mercy of God (paras 14-19), which is revealed to us in the 'kenosis' of the Son, and the energy of which is active among us in the Holy Spirit. This mercy and compassion of God is the source of new life from which reconciliation flows. Traces of this source can be recognized in the relationships among people and among peoples in various parts of the world, and also in the sacraments, which renew life.
The theological basic conception described above (if it can be called such) may possibly remotely echo the classic doctrine of atonement; of the Latin doctrine of atonement, not even an echo is left. What the document's conception has in common with the subjective doctrine of atonement is the emphasis on immanence and on the activity of the human being, as well as a certain tendency to psychologize; the most significant and important of such common characteristics, however, is that no enmity is perceived between God and humanity.
It seems that in the draft of the preparatory material for the Graz Assembly we encounter an old theological question which may help us understand what is actually the point at issue here. In the history of the Church and theology, there is a certain long- running tension between the theology of incarnation and the theology of atonement or reconciliation. Where one of these two has occurred with one-sided emphases, it has happened at the expense of the other. It seems that the Graz document is an example of a narrowing and distortion of the concept of reconciliation, resulting from the dominant role of a certain view of incarnation: when God himself is present, one no longer needs to look backwards but can, inspired by the Spirit of God, set out to establish reconciliation on earth.
Those who put together the draft of the working and final document of Graz would have had a wonderful opportunity to draw up a different kind of draft. Namely, one year previously (1995) a small preparatory book appeared which took both the vertical and the horizontal dimension into consideration in quite a different fashion. (Reconciliation, Gift of God and Source of New Life. A Study Guide for the Preparation of the Second European Ecumenical Assembly, Graz, 23-29 June 1997. CEC/CCEE 1995) In the second section of that document ("Biblical, Theological and Liturgical Impulses"; pp. 4-10) the text is related to biblical material and to material provided by the history of theology in a manner which results in a view of reconciliation that represents the churches well. At the same time, the text also manages to show what it means, in practice, to carry out the ministry of reconciliation in church and society. It would be desirable that the draft of the working and final document sent to the churches could be checked and revised along these kinds of lines. If this is done, it will be possible to find a theological position in the Graz Assembly which enables us to choose a direction when we set out to carry out the ministry of reconciliation in the world today.