Grace and Justice: the Keys to Complete Reconciliation

Racial or ethnic reconciliation is now approaching center stage on the evangelical church's agenda.  This is a good, though long overdue move.

The question now is how deep does the reconciliation process go?  And what would full and complete reconciliation look like?

Reconciliation can and probably should begin at the personal relationship level.  That is the level of most ethnic reconciliation today.  What are the next steps?

Organizationally, leadership and power must be shared with ethnic leaders.

For Euro-Americans the next step is acts of justice - concrete action to rebuild the lives and communities of the poor and oppressed.  We must move from personal relationships to social justice. Ethnic groups are rightly suspicious of personal reconciliation efforts that do not move on to acts of justice.  Social justice is needed to heal the enormous damage of oppression; remember that biblical oppression means to crush, humiliate, animalize, enslave, impoverish and kill persons created in the image of God.  Oppression must stop; justice must be done.

For American ethnics the next step, according to Spencer Perkins, and Afro-American, is grace - grace to forgive the oppressor.  From the human standpoint, inward bitterness is a natural response to outward oppression.  It is best if the grace of forgiveness is offered in response to the oppressor's repentance and confession of sin.  But sometimes grace may need to be offered even if there is no repentance.

The oil of grace lubricates the path of love.  Grace is the highest expression of love.  To keep the process of reconciliation moving, generous grace must come from both parties.

Grace, alone, can take us halfway along the road to reconciliation.  Justice, alone, can take us halfway also.  But both grace and justice are needed for full and complete reconciliation.

So far in this article on grace and justice, we have been talking about Christians - Christian principles to be lived out within the church.

Can we expect the larger society, even governments, to apply the concepts of grace and justice as principles of governance?  Or is this expecting too much of government?  What should a government do in response to the violence of a civil war or to the violence of systematic and brutal oppression?  Is there any way out of the violence cycle, the retribution/punishment type of justice?

Some governments are trying amnesty programs to stop the cycle of violence.  The word amnesty is related to amnesia, amnesty comes from a Greek word meaning "a forgetting, a general pardon, especially for political offenses."  One of the meanings of grace is mercy.  Amnesty is a political act of grace, mercy, pardon and forgiveness.

So the political act of amnesty is taken not only to stop the cycle of violence, but also to establish the grounds for some degree of social healing, restoration and reconciliation in society.

Periodically in the Philippines violence broke out over land reform - who owned the land in a largely agricultural society.  The poor peasant farmers believed that the rich and powerful, often with the aid of the government, the military and sometimes the US government, were illegally taking control of more and more land.  This left millions of peasants either landless or farming marginal land.  In frustration, the peasants took up arms to regain their land.  The government, however, called the peasants rebels, enemies of the state, and tried to crush them militarily.

For twenty years, roughly 1975-1995, the civil war raged.  Many were killed, millions of dollars were wasted, and life in civil society disrupted.  Ramos was elected president (formerly he was a military general who led efforts to crush the rebels) and he decided that for the good of the society the cycle of violence had to be stopped.  The government declared an amnesty for those involved in the civil war; peace negotiations were initiated with the goal of bringing about reconciliation.

Some of the imprisoned rebel leaders have been freed and given money to use to go back and rebuild their communities.  Some land reform has begun, but so far it has been too limited.

If, in the future, full and comprehensive land reform does take place, such as happened in Japan, Korea and Taiwan after World War II, then this act of justice will reduce the tensions and conflict between the rich and poor.  The grace step of amnesty has opened the door to peace and reconciliation, but it must be followed by acts of justice to complete the reconciliation  process and produce a measure of shalom in society.  Economically, acts of justice are cheaper than wars of violence so an enlightened society ought to choose grace and justice.

Black South Africans faced a similar situation when they took over the power of government in the early 1990's.  What were they going to do about the violence and oppression conducted against them by past Afrikaner governments?  Would they hold trials and punish to the fullest extent those found guilty of violence and murder?  Some would argue that this approach is necessary to hold the standard of justice high.  Only if past wrongs are righted by just punishment can people hope for a future of justice.  (These ideas on South Africa are largely taken from "How much Truth Can We Take?" by L. Gregory Jones in Christianity Today, Feb 9, 1998.)

The new government did not take the punishment approach to justice.  Instead they decided on a grace approach and declared amnesty for the violent oppressors if they would come forward and fully confess the truth about their past actions.  Repentance and restitution were not required for amnesty, but confession and the full truth were conditions for amnesty.  Those who did not confess could be put through the traditional judicial approach, found guilty and punished for their crimes.

In 1994, the South African Parliament passed a bill establishing a Commission on Truth and Reconciliation.  "This commission linked together amnesty, truth telling, and a goal of reconciliation as key features of one process."  Remember, amnesty or pardon is an act of grace.

Is this cheap reconciliation?  There does not seem to be much emphasis on legal or social justice at this stage.  Some persons are confessing murder and the walking away with no legal punishment.  Some victims want vengeance and punishment; forgiveness at this time does not seem appropriate or possible.

Others, taking a longer view, say that punishment or retributive justice should give way to some higher goals - reconciliation or restorative justice.

Grace and forgiveness lay the foundation for the possible restoration of the oppressor.  But some oppressors are either so hardened in their conscience, or so theologically convinced of the rightness of their position that they refuse to repent of their misdeeds.

Reparation (apparently by the government) to the victims are provided as the Commission deems appropriate, so some degree of economic justice is provided.  The Commission hopes that the truthful confession will reduce the rationalization or justification of past misdeeds.  Also, truthful confession by the perpetrator seems to open the door to forgiveness from the lips of some of the victims.  Forgiveness is apparently more healing to the victim than is retribution or punishment of the oppressor.  And forgiveness potentially opens the door to reconciliation.

All of the above is possible only if a people begins with grace.  Usually governments have little to do with grace, but they attempt to dispense justice.  But here we have two governments, Philippine and South African, which are attempting to operate upon the highest of Christian principles - GRACE.