Yale professor commends 'theology of embrace' By Parker T. Williamson The Layman Online Tuesday, December 14, 1999
A native of Croatia, Volf is no stranger to conflict. Considering Serbian attacks on his people and the Croatian's acts of retribution, Volf said he struggled to formulate a response for Christians who believe that reconciliation lies at the very heart of the gospel. He began by ruling out two false approaches, "cheap reconciliation which abandons the demands of justice" and "first justice, then reconciliation," which perpetuates adversarial relationships. Two dead-end streets Volf pointed to Cambodia as an example of cheap reconciliation. In such cases, oppressive regimes are replaced, but nothing is done about the former atrocities and the people are left with an unresolved sense of injustice. This does not lead to true reconciliation, he said. The demand that justice be satisfied before reconciliation can occur is equally flawed, said Volf. Such demands are impossible to fulfill, he said, "because all accounts of what is just will be invariably contested by a rival group." Any settlement of wrongs, i.e., retribution, simply ensures the fact that two parties will remain in conflict, said Volf. "I try to tell my Croatian friends that they cannot solve their problems by separating themselves from their Serbian neighbors," he said. "Separation ignores the fact that we are shaped by our interactions. The fact that my Croatian friends are Croatians is determined in part by the fact that for many generations, the Serbians have been their neighbors. Proper healing involves the whole relationship, and that cannot be ignored." Christ transcends justice But the chief reason Volf gives for rejecting the "justice first" demand is that this is not what we are taught by Jesus Christ. "Concentrating simply on justice is not true to the very center of the Christian faith," said Volf. "The cross of Christ manifests a God who died for the ungodly. He is not indifferent to the distinction between good and evil, but nevertheless his sun shines on both good and evil." Volf told his audience that he prefers the image of the embrace to describe what happens in authentic reconciliation. "An embrace is different from a bear hug," he said. "It is not forced. It allows space for the other. In an embrace, you approach with arms open. Then you close them, and then you open them again. The metaphor suggests that our personal boundaries are maintained. The embrace is a dynamic process of coming together and then letting go." The will to embrace Volf said the starting point for reconciliation is "the unconditional will to embrace the other." This will is based on God's unconditional love for the godless. "This will to embrace is most fundamental in the Christian's relations with others. It is absolutely indiscriminate and immutable." Volf said that while circumstances may make it impossible to embrace, nothing should undermine the Christian's will to embrace. Without that will, no reconciliation is possible. Volf said that the will to embrace those from whom we are estranged does not turn its back on truth and justice. Truth and justice may prevent an actual embrace from occurring in a given moment, but for a Christian they cannot undermine the will to embrace. In fact, said Volf, the will to embrace forces us to face the truth about our broken relationships because it moves us to rectify the wrongs that have been done in order to reshape the relationship. Keeping the horizon in focus Any legitimate struggle for justice must have the will to embrace on its horizon, said Volf. "What is it that you seek in your struggle for justice? What is your goal? Is your goal to see that people get what they deserve, or is it to heal the broken relationship? If you want justice, and nothing but justice, you will invariably get injustice." Volf said that seeking justice alone leads us to label people based on their past actions. Once the label is applied, he said, it is difficult to see the person any other way. One cannot see the good in a person who has been labeled evil, and thus there is no bridge toward future reconciliation. But the will to embrace another person allows us to work through terrible truths with that person in order to reach reconciliation on the other side of this painful encounter. |
|||
| Respond
to this article |
|||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|||
