The Resurrection Creates Reconciliation

by Jared C. Wilson 

As we search the Scriptures for insight into Jesus, we must never forget the primary reason why the biblical testimonies exist.

Look at what John asserts as the thesis statement for his gospel: “[B]ut these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (20:31). He didn’t write his gospel just so you will understand, be convinced, or be informed; he writes so that you will believe with a life-giving effect, so that you will take in the power of the cross and be born again with a life with the quality of resurrection.

It is not enough to simply be convinced that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. You must be convicted of it. Your convincing has to lead to a conviction and a commitment. The influence of the work of the cross on your life must come full with the power of the resurrection, and that is not a power that will be content to settle in your mind. It is a power that gives new life. Just like the disciples mourning the death of Jesus believed his death had some meaning for forgiveness in their lives were set afire by the reality that Jesus lives, we must move beyond belief into a life—into a kingdom life—that buzzes and hums with the eternal quality of resurrection.

A resurrection gospel is a full gospel. What we are accustomed to is a simplistic, stripped down gospel, a gospel that suggests, “You have issues, but Jesus died for you; now be a good person.” The full gospel says, “The problem is a radical one no less serious than death and it requires a radical intervention no less powerful than resurrection.” The full gospel says the level and quality of your messed-up-ness is complete, exhaustive, irreconcilable, but the gift of God’s grace extends infinitely, eternally, covering it all. It reconciles us fully to God in a way that can only be described as bringing a dead person back to life.

As a matter of truly living out a resurrection life, we followers of Jesus have to re-focus our understanding of salvation from what we’re being saved from and place it on what we’re being saved to. That is the difference between the occupied cross and the empty tomb.

Look at the way Paul describes the fullness of salvation:

[E]ven as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ . . .  (Eph. 1:4-9)

There is a richness here, a full fledged act of rescue and reinstatement that goes so far beyond getting our golden ticket to heaven. This passage demonstrates the true fullness of salvation. Look at how mighty to save our Lord is:

He chose us before the world was created. He chose us to be adopted into his family. Consequently, we don’t just have forgiveness, we have the key to unlocking the mystery of God’s will. Because Christ’s resurrection is the firstfruits of our own, we can know that God is including us in his plans for the future, for his plans for the universe. We are not privy to all the details, and he certainly doesn’t need our help, but we have the assurance that our loving God has established for us a future and a hope. He is choosing us as partakers in the indescribable glory of God.

In our sin, this may not seem like such a big deal, but if we could grasp even a sliver of how much we don’t deserve such lavish treatment, we might behold the power of the resurrection in it. You’ve got to really get grace, that it really is all that Christ is in exchange for our complete and utter emptiness. The resurrection is not just about turning over a new leaf. It really is about being dead and then being brought back to life. It really is about being an enemy of God and being brought into the light.

In Colossians 1:21, Paul describes our state before salvation as being alienated from God. We were separated from him, far from him. We are images of God that are broken. We were in bondage to sin, we were dead and buried like Lazarus in the tomb, we were effectively disowned and dismissed, and like the prodigal son’s exile, it was self-willed. We were, for all intents and purposes, anti-God, even if consciously we were just ambivalent. But then the resurrection power of Jesus, he who is mighty to save, ushers us into new life—where?—“in him.”

Paul describes this wondrous reunion alternately here:

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.  (Rom. 5:9-11)

We are saved from many things: sin, Satan, punishment, death. But primarily we are saved from the wrath of God. And we aren’t just passed over for wrath; we are brought in, held close, covered up. We have received reconciliation. This is such a powerful way to talk about salvation, because it moves us beyond self-centered talk of being saved into a personal faith, as if Christianity is about self-improvement, and takes us right into being unified again with God, which posits salvation such as it is—Jesus the Savior taking dead strangers to God and transforming them into living friends.

We have been reconciled to God. We were alienated from him, effectively enemies, but in Christ’s death we were made right with God. In other words, the debt we owed has been paid and credited to us, and in Christ’s resurrection we have been made alive to God.

See, when Adam fell, taking the fruit he wasn’t supposed to and eating it, he marred creation by ushering death and division into it. By embracing sin, he invited death and he set up a dividing wall between him and God that could not be surmounted from his (Adam’s) side. So a new Adam has come, dying to fulfill the death owed by man, and rising to give new life to those who desperately need it. And therefore we are reconciled to God.

That is the meaning of life, by the way. It’s not being healthy and wealthy and happy and wise. It’s not being successful or achieving all your dreams. The meaning of life is moving from alienation from God to being adopted into his family.

But the reconciling work doesn’t stop there.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.  (2 Cor. 5:17-21)

What happened at the fall? Not only did Adam and Eve create separation between themselves and God, they created it between each other as well. The Bible says there was then also enmity between the man and the woman. So the fall distances us, separates us, it makes us say to ourselves, “I am my own person.” And to fully embrace the fullness of the gospel, we can’t just say, “Jesus has saved me from my sins,” we have to confess, “Jesus has reconciled me to God . . . and to others.”

Thus ensues the ministry of reconciliation Paul talks about. As followers of Jesus, “Christ’s ambassadors,” we act out our reconciliation with God in our relationships with others. This is the foundational command Jesus gives as the Mission Statement of the life of discipleship: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart soul mind and strength . . . and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The two are inextricably linked, because the saving reconciliation is a holistic reconciliation, a full reconciliation. Because he lives, we can finally, really live. The resurrection restores the entirety of our brokenness and division.

Posted at: https://ftc.co/resource-library/blog-entries/the-resurrection-creates-reconciliation/

7 Marks of a Good Apology and 8 Marks of a Bad Apology

Article by Brad Hambrick

Repentance is an essential part of the Christian life, relational health, and maintaining an accurate view of the world. Repentance is when we quit trying to make our dysfunction “work” and embrace the life-giving alternative to our sin that God offers.

Repentance is when we quit trying to make our dysfunction 'work' and embrace the life-giving alternative to our sin that God offers.CLICK TO TWEET

When we direct repentance towards a person we have offended we often call it an apology. For this reason, Christians should be better at apologizing than anyone else.

In the context of offense (when we are the offended party), it can be difficult to be objective about whether an apology is good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, genuine or obligatory. Motives are subjective and rarely all good or all bad.

In this post, I pull from several previous posts and resources in order to try to identify the markers of a good (i.e., God-honoring) apology and markers of a a bad apology (i.e., one that fails to accomplish God’s redemptive agenda after an offense). I hope these help us repent well when are the offending party and discern wisely when we are the offended party in a conflict.

7 Marks of a Good Apology

Ken Sande in Peacemaking for Families, his excellent book on conflict resolution, describes seven elements of repentance (bold text only). This outline is developed in the order that words of repentance would typically be spoken in conversation. Explanations and applications will be provided for each point.

* This material is an abbreviated excerpt from the mentoring manual for the Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communication seminar (unit 5), so while in places it has a marital focus it is applicable to any relational context.

1. Address Everyone Involved.

If someone was directly or indirectly affected by your sin or observed your sin, then you should seek their forgiveness. When you fail to seek forgiveness you leave that person believing you think your actions were acceptable to God (particularly damaging for children and others over whom you have leadership responsibilities). Our repentance is often used by God to awaken us to the far-reaching, unintended consequences of our sin.

Mentality: Think of relationships scarred by sin as rooms of your home infected by termites. Sin is a destructive force that enjoys doing residual damage until is it exterminated by repentance and forgiveness. There is no such thing as an “insignificant termite” in your home. Likewise, there is no such thing as an “insignificant effect of sin” in a relationship.

2. Avoid If, But, and Maybe.

Our first tendency in repentance is to soften what we admit. Words like if, but, and maybe have no place in repentance. “If” calls into question whether what you did was really wrong. “But” transforms repentance into accusation. “Maybe” indicates you are not convinced your actions were wrong and invites a conversation (or debate) that is likely to go badly and, regardless, is not repentance.

Acknowledge you violated God‘s character. Repentance is about more than acknowledging sub-optimal behaviors. It is an admission that I misrepresented the character of the God whose name I bear when I call myself a Christian (i.e., literally “little Christ” when the title was first given in Acts 11:26). When we seek forgiveness we are saying, “I failed in my life purpose to be ‘an ambassador of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20)’ and I want clarify what I distorted to you.”

Do not use verbs of completion (i.e., I know…) but verbs ending in “-ing” (i.e., I am learning…). Avoiding verbs of completion allows the other person to talk about other aspects of our offense without it feeling like they are “piling on” to what we have already said ― “I know.”

3. Admit Specifically.

One goal of repentance (in the name of “loving our neighbor as yourself”) is to make forgiveness as easy as possible (which is never easy). We can do this by being detailed in our confession. Generic confession is often a sign of insincerity. “We all know what happened,” is no excuse for brevity. Hearing that you can be specific without falling into blame-shifting or self-pity is an important indicator that you are a “safe” person and that restoration is wise.

If making a list of the specific ways that you have offended someone in preparation for confession causes you to feel intense shame, then you need to make sure that you have repented to God first and embraced His forgiveness. Your spouse’s forgiveness cannot be an emotional replacement for God’s. When shame drives confession, your emotions of contrition will take center stage and overpower your request for forgiveness.

4. Apologize (Acknowledge the Hurt).

Sin has consequences; both intentional and unintentional. Repentance expresses empathy and often takes responsibility for the dominoes that fall as a result of our sin. This is not groveling or penance (both of which are emotionally manipulative). It is an exercise in other-mindedness. Resistance to expressing empathy reveals that the same self-centeredness that made our sin seem rationale in the moment.

Reflection Questions: How did my sin affect my spouse (personally, emotionally, spiritually, socially, professionally, etc…)? What messages did my sin send? What impact did the delay between my sin and my repentance have? What life pattern did my sin continue?

Remember, your goal in repentance is an effort to represent God more accurately to the person you have offended. God is compassionate and understanding to our hurts (Psalm 56:8). If our confession is rooted in a desire to make God known in each moment, then our confession will include evidence that we have reflected on the impact of our sin.

5. Accept the Consequence.

Repentance is not a plea-bargain or negotiation. Repentance is not a time when we establish the “acceptable terms” for our sin. If our repentance and confession are sincere, then the need for consequences-as-punishment (to open blind eyes and soften a hard heart) is absent. However, consequences can still play a disciplinary role (reinforcing life lessons and solidifying prevention measures) and a trust-building role (providing tangible fruit to the otherwise unverifiable desire to change). It is acceptable, and often wise, for the forgiving person to request consequences of these latter kinds. However, it is not your place to define what is punitive, disciplinary, or trust-building.

Begin by stating the obvious. If there are clear changes you need to make, state them in your repentance. Do not phrase them as, “I will do [blank] for you,” as if these actions were a favor or concession, or “If you insist, I will [blank],” portraying change as punishment. It is more in keeping with repentance to say, “Because I see my need to change, I will [blank].”

End by asking an open ended question. Honest questions are a sign of humility. They reveal that we are not presenting a contract or deal, but that we are seeking to be restored to a person. A simple, “Are there other ways I can show you the sincerity of my desire to change or make you feel honored?” would suffice.

6. Alter Your Behavior.

The repentant conversation is not the culmination of the journey. It is merely the drawing of the map and acknowledgement that the map is needed. If we stop at verbal repentance our lack of effort gives the person reason to say, “You didn‘t really mean what you said.”

Read Luke 14:28-33. Part of embracing the Gospel is counting the cost of following God and embracing the sacrifice. Obviously, it‘s worth it. We give up our life of sin and its misery and we gain a life being transformed to what God intended and Heaven. But it feels painful and often we want to back out because of our doubt. The same is true with repentance, because it is rooted in the Gospel paradigm of dying to self to find life.

7. Ask for Forgiveness & Allow Time.

“I‘m sorry” is not the same thing as asking for forgiveness. “I‘m sorry” is an appropriate statement after a mistake. “Will you forgive me?” is the appropriate statement when we have sinned against another person.

Remember, forgiveness is commanded by God, but Scripture never calls on the confessing party to be the one who reminds others of this command or to insist that it be obeyed.  As a general rule to promote humility and patience, allow at least as much time for forgiveness as it took you to come to repentance. It is hypocritical to expect someone else to process suffering (your sin against them) faster than you changed your sin.

8 Marks of a Bad Apology

This material was originally posted as a blog at the Biblical Counseling Coalition site.

The recognition that there are healthy and unhealthy forms of repentance is both common sense and biblical (2 Corinthians 7:8-13). On this everyone agrees; secular and sacred. The difficulty is in discerning disingenuous repentance. Mature and discerning people can witness the same conversation and walk away with distinctly different impressions about whether a given expression of remorse represents genuine repentance, sorrow for being caught, or a tactic to gain relational leverage.

In this post, I hope to accomplish two things. First, I will attempt to clarify two common misperceptions about manipulation. Second, I will discuss a series of phrases commonly used in repentance which can be red flags that the remorse being expressed will not lead to healthy relational restoration.

Misperception #1:

Manipulation is about motive (why or how something is done) more than method (what is said or done). There is no way to make a list of “manipulative phrases.” Every phrase listed below has a context in which it could be legitimate and appropriate. Manipulation is about motive (resisting change, minimizing responsibility, blame-shifting, etc…) and is most effective (in a negative sense of “effectiveness”) when that phrase/action used seems legitimate.

Implication – The explanation after each phrase below will be important to understand. If the description of how each phrase can be a part of manipulative repentance does not fit a given use of that phrase, it should not be considered manipulative.

Misperception #2:

Manipulation does not require “malice aforethought” or intellectual cunning. From my experience in counseling, most people who are using remorse to gain an advantage or avoid responsibility are not aware, in the moment, of what they’re doing. They just want to escape the discomfort of the moment. This driving desire (i.e., to escape) shapes the way they define words and frame questions.

In reality, that is what manipulation is: manipulation is defining words and framing questions (by verbiage or emotions) in such a way that makes a healthy response from the other person seem selfish, mean, or unreasonable.

1. “I know I’m not perfect.”

Your expectations that I responded decently are unreasonable. You are holding me to a perfectionistic standard. In order to avoid being confronted by you, I would have to be perfect. You should feel bad for being judgmental and harsh instead of asking me to seek restoration for what I did.

2. “I’ve never pretended to be someone I’m not.”

You knew who I was when we started this relationship so you are being unfair by expecting me to be decent. This confuses genuineness with righteousness; authenticity with holiness. By this standard, someone could be consistently hurtful and we would still be to blame for their sin because we chose to be in relationship with them.

3. “You are bringing up stuff from the past.”

We can only talk about events, not patterns of behaviors. Often this impasse is reached when the individual repenting is unwilling to see that the event (for instance, intoxication or belligerence) in question was part of a larger pattern (i.e., addiction or abusive speech). If there is a pattern of behavior and this pattern goes unacknowledged, then the level of efforts towards change will be inadequate to produce the necessary change.

4. “You know I am not the kind of person who would do that… that is not what I meant.”

Your experience of me is not an accurate depiction of reality. My self-perception and intentions are truer than your experience. These phrases leave the person repenting in charge of defining the event for which forgiveness is being sought. The intent /self-perception of the sinner is being imposed as a limit on the pain of the one sinned against. The result is that the offended person has less voice in describing their pain. The offending person remains in charge of the narrative.

5. “I said I was sorry. What more do you want from me? What more can I do?”

If anything more than my words (i.e., “I’m sorry”) are required in response to my actions, then you are being unforgiving, mean, weak, or hyper-emotional. Also, this response often implies that an apology should be met with an immediate sense of trust and equanimity in the relationship. Any lingering sense of mistrust by the offended person is then labeled as an unreasonable and ungodly form of punishment.

6. More use of first person pronouns (i.e., I, me, my) than second person pronouns (i.e., you, your).

While this is not a specific phrase, the excessive use of self-centered pronouns may reveal that the person repenting is focusing on their personal experience of the offense more than the impact on the person they hurt or offended. In this way, the person repenting is remaining the main character in their repentance as much as they were in their sin.

Note: First person pronouns should be used in the active / ownership part of repentance. However, in the description of the impact and aftermath of our sin, healthy repentance focuses more on the disruption we caused in the other person’s life.

7. “There are a lot of people / couples who have it much worse than you / we do.”

You should feel bad for complaining when the situation was not as bad as it could have been. This equates “could have been worse” with “not bad enough to mention.” It also portrays suffering as a competitive sport in which only those who suffer the worst merit sympathy for their hardship.

This phrase often comes towards the end of an unhealthy repentance conversation. Early in the conversation the repenting person minimizes or blame-shifts. When the offended party tries to clarify the degree of hurt, this is viewed as exaggeration. This perception of exaggeration leads the repenting person to use the logic of “this situation is not as bad as [more exaggerative situation].”

8. “I promise I will do better (without agreement about the problem or concrete examples)”

Even though I minimize and disagree with you about the past and present, you should trust what I mean when I say “better” about the future. Commitments to change are not bad, although these commitments should usually have more humility than an absolute promise. However, when commitments to do “better” are made during a disagreement about the nature of the offense, these commitments become a way to shut down communication. Again, if you don’t accept my promise, you’re being mean, unforgiving, or unreasonable.

Conclusion

Remember most expressions of manipulation are unintentional (this does not reduce culpability). Many people are unskilled at difficult communication and become unduly shaped by their own interests when they should be owning their sin.

Frequently, I have found that when a counselor can articulate the unhealthy dynamic that exists in an attempt to repent, the offending person can see the coerciveness of their attempt at reconciliation. Usually (if it’s in marriage counseling), the couple will say, “Yikes, we do this a lot. We knew it wasn’t working but we couldn’t figure out why.”

This leads to a fruitful conversation about why their past efforts at restoring conflict through the biblical process of repentance and forgiveness had been unsuccessful (or, only intermittently effective).

In other cases, where the offending spouse is more committed to their self-centeredness, these explanations are rejected as unreasonable. In these instances, helping the offended individual / spouse remain open to the possibility of a more fully restored relationship without acquiescing to the manipulative style of communication becomes the focus of counseling (example of this kind of approach here).

Article originally posted at:  http://bradhambrick.com/7-marks-of-a-good-apology-vs-8-marks-of-a-bad-apology/

Racial Reconciliation: What we Agree on and What We Still Don't Agree On

Article by Kevin DeYoung

There may not be any subject more difficult to talk about publicly in this country than racial reconciliation. And in writing that first sentence, I realize some people don’t even like the term racial reconciliation! So feel free to substitute “race,” “racism,” “ethnicity,” or another term that says we’re “talking about Black-White tensions in this country.”

Of course, those aren’t the only racial tensions worth exploring, but Black-White is the racial relationship most fraught with pain and difficulty in American history. While many things in this post are relevant to a variety of majority-minority relationships, what I have chiefly in view is the relationship between African Americans and white descendants of Western European nations (i.e., people like me).

One more definition before getting to the point. The “we” in my title refers to Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, gospel-celebrating, sanctification-seeking, church-going Christians. “Evangelical” is what I have in mind by “we,” but I understand that this term is problematic for many. Nevertheless, I want to make clear that I’m not writing about Americans in general. I’m writing about Christians. And not just any Christians, but serious and sincere Christians—the sort of people, I’d like to think, who read blogs like this one. I have in mind honest, humble Bible men and women who are willing to thoughtfully listen and candidly engage in this difficult conversation, without trying to score cheap points or demonize those who disagree.

With all that by way of preface, let me be so bold (or foolish) as to attempt a list of things we (mostly) agree on and things we (probably) still don’t agree on. I don’t offer this as a comprehensive summary of recent conversations, nor do I list these things because they are the only things that matter (let alone, to suggest that the disagreements don’t really matter). What’s more, I don’t presume that the disagreements necessarily break down along racial lines. We mustn’t think that any racial or ethnic group is monolithic. These are disagreements I see among American Christians (of all kinds) about racial reconciliation, not necessarily divisions between Blacks and Whites (though they often are that too). I admit that my criteria for determining “agree” and “disagree” is subjective (e.g., blogs I’ve read, tweets I’ve seen, messages I’ve heard, conversations I’ve had). But perhaps working through an imperfect list like this can help us see how much we do agree on already and help us clarify what our continuing arguments are really about.

1. Racism

We agree that all people are made in the image of God and deserving of honor, respect, and protection. Every notion of racial superiority is a blasphemous denial of the imago dei(Gen. 1:27). There is no place for racial prejudice and ethnic favoritism in the church (Gal. 3:28; James 2:1). Where bigotry based on skin color exists, it should be denounced and repented of (Eph. 2:14; 1 John 3:15).

We do not agree on what else counts as racism or the degree to which our cultural, civic, and ecclesiastical institutions are basically race-blind, racialized, or outright racist.

2. Racial Disparities

We agree that there are deep and disturbing differences between Blacks and Whites when it comes to a variety of statistical measurements, including: education, employment, income, incarceration, home ownership, standardized test scores, single-parent households, and participation at the highest levels of leadership in business, academics, athletics, and politics.

We do not all agree on the reasons for these disparities, whether they are owing to personal choices, cultural values, families of origin, educational opportunities, structural racism, legacy of oppression, or a combination of these and other factors. Likewise, we do not agree on the best approach to closing these gaps. Some favor political measures, others focus on educational reform, others emphasize church planting and discipleship, while others work for cultural renewal and community development. Many Christians see the need for all of the above, but even here there is disagreement about what the church’s focus should be.

3. Martin Luther King Jr.

We agree that MLK was a courageous civil-rights activist worth remembering and celebrating. MLK was used by God to help expose racial bigotry and overturn a corrupt system of Jim Crow segregation. King’s clearsighted moral convictions about racism, his brilliant rhetoric, and his example of non-violence in the face of intense hatred make him a heroic figure in American history.

We do not agree on how gospel Christians should celebrate this legacy. While most people acknowledge that King held unorthodox theological positions and was guilty of marital infidelity, we are not of one mind on how these matters should be discussed or how they relate to his overall contribution to American and ecclesiastical life. In a similar vein, we do not agree on how to evaluate the legacy of clay-footed theologians like Jonathan Edwards or Robert Lewis Dabney.

4. American History

We agree that our history has much to celebrate: far-sighted leaders, Judeo-Christian ideals, commendable heroes, technological innovation, and military sacrifices. There are many reasons we can be proud to be Americans.

We do not agree on whether our history should be remembered chiefly as one of liberty and virtue (spotted with tragic failures and blind spots), or whether our national story (despite many noble exceptions) is more fundamentally one of hypocrisy, prejudice, and oppression.

5. Current State of Affairs

We agree that race relations have come a long way in the past 50 years. Things are better than they used to be. We also agree that racism still exists and that even if we play by the rules and pursue the American Dream with the same effort, we do not all begin at the same starting line or experience the same success.

We do not agree on whether our cultural, political, and academic institutions are basically fair (with exceptions) or basically rigged and in need of structural change (with repentance for the majority’s part in perpetuating systemic bias). For example, in just the last year I read a thoughtful book by a white man arguing that the deck is stacked (by Whites), and has always been stacked (by Whites), against African Americans. I also read a thoughtful book by a black man arguing that racism is largely a thing of the past and that focusing on Black victimhood is self-defeating. (I realize, of course, that neither book is representative of the way most Whites and Blacks think, respectively, of the issue.)

6. Corporate Responsibility

We agree that it is appropriate, in some situations, for Christians, for Christian institutions, and for churches to be rebuked for corporate sins and to repent of corporate failures. The Old Testament prophets often denounced the nation of Israel, even though individuals within the nation were certainly living in holiness and integrity. Likewise, we see that Daniel offered a prayer of confession for his people, even though he likely was not personally guilty of all the sins he confessed (Dan. 9:1-19). In the New Testament, we see that the Jews were held responsible for Christ’s death, even though some Jews followed Jesus and lamented his death.

We do not agree when and how—and in many situations whether—this corporate accountability and repentance should take place. We do not agree on how (or if) the passage of time, racial identity, and ecclesiastical affiliation should shape these matters. Similarly, we do not agree what should be done, if anything, beyond repenting for corporate sin.

7. Politics and the Church

We agree that the church of Jesus Christ must not be beholden to any political party. We agree that the church is neither competent nor called to offer opinion on the specifics of every political debate or policy discussion. Preachers should, as a general rule, preach verse by verse through the Bible, letting God’s word set the agenda, rather than riding hobby horses or trying to respond to the latest controversy. At the same time, we agree that Christians, churches, and pastors should not be silent on matters of justice about which the Bible clearly speaks.

We do not agree on how the “spirituality of the church” applies in every situation (or if it is a biblical idea in the first place). At its best, the “spirituality of the church” roots us in the explicit teaching of Scripture and helps us keep the main thing the main thing. At its worst, the “spirituality of the church” has been used to ignore evil in our midst and sidestep issues of biblical obedience. While we recognize that the gospel is of first importance and that the gospel has public ramifications, we do not always agree on how these two convictions play out side-by-side in real time. There is little agreement on which issues are “moral” and “biblical” and which are merely “political.”

8. Systemic Injustice

We agree that sin is not just a matter of individual responsibility. It is possible for systems and structures to be unjust even when the people inhabiting those systems and structures may not have personal animus in their hearts.

We do not agree on whether disparities themselves indicate systemic and structural injustice (see above). Likewise, we do not agree on the best remedies for institutional racism where it exists.

9. Police and Judicial System

We agree that our country imprisons far more of its citizens than any other nation does. We also recognize that minorities are imprisoned at rates disproportionate to their population as whole. The presence of mass incarceration has a deleterious effect on many minority communities and families, as well as in the lives of those who are imprisoned.

We do not agree on the reasons for mass incarceration or whether the disproportionate imprisonment of minorities is a sign of entrenched bias. We do not agree on the nature of policing nor on the state of our judicial system, whether both are (largely) fair and colorblind or whether both are prejudiced (intentionally or unintentionally) against persons of color. By the same token, we often respond differently to stories involving the police and African Americans, either siding instinctively with law enforcement officers or assuming that each questionable encounter is another example of pervasive police brutality.

10. Sunday Morning

We agree that the biblical vision of heaven is a glorious picture of a multi-ethnic throng gathered in worship of our Triune God. We would rejoice to see our churches reflect this biblical vision more and more. To that end, we lament our cultural blind spots (and don’t know we have!), which make it more difficult for people unlike us to feel at home and be in positions of leadership and influence in our churches.

We do not agree to what degree this “segregation” on Sunday morning is the result of present sin, historical sin, personal preference, unfortunate cultural ignorance, or understandable and acceptable differences in worship and tradition. We do not agree on whether all churches must be multi-ethnic, should at least strive to be multi-ethnic (as their location allows), or whether there are ever justifiable reasons (and if so, what those reasons are) for a church to be entirely (or nearly) mono-cultural. And if the pursuit of racial diversity is desirable, we do not agree on whether this multi-ethnic vision is just for predominately White congregations, conferences, and communities or if it also applies to historically Black churches, conferences, and communities.

11. The Church and the World

We agree that the Bible calls the church to be honest about its own sins (1 Peter 4:17) and to keep itself unstained from the world (James 1:27). As salt and light, we should be distinct from the world, while at the same time having a salutary effect on the world.

We do not agree on which is the more urgent need of the hour, to repent of our sin and renew our witness in the world, or to spotlight sin in the world and keep ourselves free from its corrupting influence. We know both are necessary, but our personal and corporate inclinations often lean in one direction more than the other. Likewise, we often disagree on what urgency looks like in racial reconciliation and whether this conversation should or shouldn’t take precedence over other moral issues like protecting the unborn and defending biblical marriage and sexuality.

Why This Matters

I’m sure I missed some important categories, and some of my own leanings probably show through in the way I’ve framed the issues. But as much as possible, I tried to state the agreements and disagreements fairly and matter-of-factly.

“To what end?!” You may ask. Toward several ends.

First, in laying out a list like this, perhaps we’ll be able to better isolate what we are arguing about at any given moment. With racial matters, we are often guilty of making every conversation about everything else. So even though the disagreement started off by talking about colonial American history, we ended up arguing about Donald Trump, mass incarceration, and corporate repentance. To be sure, sometimes everything is connected to everything, but I still maintain that our conversations will produce more light than heat if we can focus in on one argument at a time.

Second, my hope is that if we can focus on specific disagreements, rather than meta-complaints, we’ll have a better chance of putting forward constructive criticisms and thoughtful rejoinders. I don’t deny that “racism” is a thing, just like “cultural Marxism” is a thing, but let’s be careful not to smother our opponents in labels when we should be respectfully piling up facts and arguments instead. Being “slow to speak” doesn’t mean we can never say anything. It means we try to understand, try to sympathize, and try to explain instead of dismissing our (good faith) interlocutors out of hand or stigmatizing them with unwanted names and isms.

And finally, maybe a list like this can help us put our arguments in the appropriate categories. Let me be clear: all of the disagreements above are important, and Christians should be engaged in all of these debates. By laying out these disagreements, I’m not suggesting we now ignore them or act as if no answer is better than another. And yet, we ought to recognize that some of these disagreements are biblical and theological (e.g., the nature of corporate repentance, the entailments of the gospel, the dignity of all image bearers), while others are matters of history or policy, while still others require a good deal of expertise on sociology, law, economics, and criminology. By more carefully isolating our real disagreements we will be better equipped to talk responsibly, listen respectfully, find common ground, and move in the direction of possible solutions.

Article originally posted at:  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/racial-reconciliation-mostly-almost-agree-likely-still-dont-agree/