 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Editorial:
"There's Nothing New About Change"
Anna Rankin
Comment:
Embracing the Stranger
Denise Wright
From
the Director: Change and Decay – so what's new?
David W Porter
Alwyn
Thomson
Ethel White
A
Changing Church
Chris Easton
Women,
the Church and Change
Lesley Carroll
Interview
with Noel Fallows: Multi-cultural Church Life
Anna Rankin
Urban
Grit
Ken Groves
Higher
Throne
Keith
Getty & Kristyn Lennox
2003
Conference: Reconciliation – Illusion or Elusive?
What's
Jesus got to do with Forgiveness?
Stuart Noble
Review:
Lost in Translation
Gareth Higgins
Review:
The Church Beyond the Congregation by James Thwaites
Claire Martin
Review:
A Time for Mission by Samuel Escobar
Ben
Walker
Review:
Against the Stream by David W Smith
Cheryl
Reid
Review:
Evangelicalism and National Identity in Ulster, 1921-1998 by Patrick
Mitchel
David Hewitt
Review:
I was a teenage Catholic by Malachi O'Doherty
Fran
Porter
WHAT'S JESUS GOT TO DO WITH FORGIVENESS?
WHAT HAS Jesus got to do with forgiveness? How should Christians think about reconciliation and the problems that threaten the future stability of political life in Northern Ireland? What is the relationship between these two questions? In light of recent political events and the continuing impasse encircling the Belfast Agreement, these questions are especially relevant. In The Elusive Quest: Reconciliation in Northern Ireland, Norman Porter provides a welcome opportunity for constructive debate about reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In addition to making a valuable contribution to the debate about the future of Northern Ireland, Porter's work offers Christians an opportunity to consider how they might begin to think about such questions.
Porter's insightful political analysis and grasp of the Belfast Agreement makes The Elusive Quest an indispensable read for anyone interested in political and social reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The strength of his work is its highlighting of the failures of the current approach to reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Porter's analysis demonstrates that this failure has less to do with political structures and formal agreements and more to do with subterranean attitudes and patterns of behaviour that perpetuate division.
What may surprise many readers is the 'moral' tone of much of Porter's reflection. With rare clarity, Porter sees beyond the 'political' and delineates an understanding of reconciliation that the church should take seriously. So clear is Porter's vision that one leading politician describes his approach to things political as 'highly moralistic'.1 In attempting to evaluate this particular aspect of Porter's work I'd like to suggest that there are at least two lessons for Evangelicals in Northern Ireland. Firstly, Porter's research presents Christians with an opportunity to sharpen their political reflection. However, secondly, while learning from Porter, it is essential that we think carefully about the difference between a theory of reconciliation and a theology of reconciliation.
Undoubtedly one of the strengths of The Elusive Quest is its uncompromising criticism of political games and the frequently petulant behaviour of our elected representatives. Porter articulates, without equivocation, the frustrations of many an evangelical as he surveys the political damage wreaked by the political 'prophets' of the North. Porter questions the normative manifesto of many politicians, pointing out that representatives who do all they can to 'defend their corner' offer nothing beyond a politics of cultural self-interest. His reminder that the prioritisation of reconciliation will call other 'priorities' to account is particularly relevant. Porter demonstrates with alarming accuracy that the accepted style of political discourse in Northern Ireland in and of itself presents a significant obstacle to reconciliation. In measured tone, he makes clear that the prevailing modus operandi means that possibilities for dialogue are an increasingly endangered species as yet another 'enemy' is denounced and another (pyrrhic) victory won.
Evangelicals in Northern Ireland should welcome Porter's evaluation and join him in questioning the norms of our established patterns of political discourse and endeavours. Rampant confusion of theological and political categories in Northern Ireland frequently prevents Christians from making an appropriate response to the political (mis)behaviour that takes place in the name of 'truth,' 'democracy,' and sadly, 'God'. Porter exposes the questionable origins and disgracefully superior attitudes that motivate a great deal of this 'political righteousness'. In response, evangelicals need to demonstrate that the gospel calls for another style of political discourse – the discourse of grace.
This brings us to a second point. While I agree with much of Porter's analysis of reconciliation, there is a need to think critically about one particular aspect of his proposal for a way forward. One of his central arguments is that the absence of public virtues, such as forgiveness, magnanimity and reasonableness, makes a "strong reconciliation" impossible.2 Porter laments the privatisation of virtue and recommends that we expect these civic qualities of all citizens and their representatives. His hope is that the cultivation of such virtues will encourage the healing of divisions and pave the way for a truly reconciled society. While there is something compelling about this argument, I feel uneasy about Porter's call to virtue. This is not because I feel that increased emphasis on the 'virtues' of forgiveness, magnanimity and reasonableness is a bad idea. My fear is that Porter's basis for a call to virtue is abstract – in other words it is not based on a theological foundation. Where is Porter's call to virtue founded? It seems that, despite including explicitly Christian ideals, Porter's virtues have nothing to do with the Christian gospel. By this I mean that either Porter believes that the importance of virtue is obvious or he is operating with a notion of 'natural law' that serves as a basis for his understanding of the importance of virtue. Whatever the case, neither of these options is acceptable if we are seeking to make a contribution that is emphatically Christian. And so we return to the question of a theology of reconciliation.
As Christians we are not called to live our lives in line with an abstract notion of 'the good' or to obey some sort of 'natural law'. While we may speak of virtue, our forgiving or loving can never be abstracted from our identity as the people of Jesus Christ. If our calling is to live out the gospel, then it is this same gospel that must determine our theology, our ethics and our politics. Abstract ideals, be they virtues or preconceived understandings of 'justice', 'democracy', or 'law', have no place in a lexicon that is defined by the Christian gospel. The gospel of grace must redefine our social, cultural and political values and loyalties. A call to an undetermined and abstract 'forgiveness' should trouble evangelical Christians. What does the virtue of forgiveness mean if it is detached from the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Instead we offer a forgiveness that is based on the gospel of grace and redefined and determined by Christ's life, death and resurrection.
The problem of abstract understandings of virtue is symptomatic of a wider issue. Porter's work is an excellent treatise on political reconciliation and should be read by anyone with an interest in the political future of Northern Ireland; however, it is not a piece of Christian theology. Porter's vision of reconciliation requires ostensibly Christian activities. However, his overarching understanding of reconciliation involves two parties who sort out their differences and overcome alienation by way of cooperation, conversation and compromise. As Christians we need to hear Porter's political theory, but equally need to wrestle with the challenging and uncomfortable reality of the Christian doctrine of reconciliation. Where Porter elevates conversation and reasoned compromise, the Christian gospel tells the story of a God who comes to enemies, who are completely uninterested in conversation or forgiveness, and in grace works reconciliation for us in Christ. If we are serious about developing Christian answers to political questions then every aspect of our thought process needs to be informed by Christian categories. Our task is consistently to bring this understanding of reconciliation to bear on political questions and challenges. Only in this way will we avoid developing solutions that betray our theological foundations and lead us on a truly elusive quest. Norman Porter's work presents a challenge to Christians in Northern Ireland. His 'vision' of reconciliation is agonisingly close to the sort of contribution evangelicals should be making. Porter has seen that reconciliation requires more than a 'political' solution. People are required to act, to take the task of reconciliation beyond the realm of the conversational or the symbolic gesture. Old patterns of behaviour must cease and a new way of living made normative. However, in the end, Porter builds with sand where rock is required; even the practice of virtues will not get at the heart of the problems that he precisely diagnoses.
What has Jesus got to do with forgiveness, democracy and reconciliation? If, in our political reflection, we remain serious about asking questions like these, we can hope to avoid abstract understandings of forgiveness or reconciliation and offer instead theologically robust suggestions for the healing of ancient divisions.
Notes:
1 David Trimble, Review of The Elusive Quest, TLS April 18, 2003.
2 See The Elusive Quest, 97-103.
STUART NOBLE is originally from Holywood and is currently exploring the theology of reconciliation as a PhD candidate in Theology at the University of St Andrews.
 |
||
 |
 |
|