Lausanne World Pulse – LAUSANNE REPORTS – Iconoclasm: An Integral Part of the Church’s Mission of Reconciliation?

By Nanci Hogan

I will not rehash old historical debates among evangelicals as to whether or not the Church should be engaged in justice and reconciliation ministries. Rather, I will start with what has already been done by evangelical leaders on justice and reconciliation.¹ From there, my main intent below is to explore a dimension of justice and reconciliation ministry that has not been widely discussed by evangelicals, namely, the notion that an individual and his or her community’s view of the nature of God, who God is, and what God is like informs both his or her theology and practice of justice and reconciliation ministry.²

In one of its many tracks, evangelical leaders came together as part of the 2004 Lausanne Forum on World Evangelization in Pattaya, Thailand, and discussed the importance of reconciliation as being central to the mission of the whole Church, which is to bring “the whole gospel to the whole world.” Consequently, they have published a paper entitled “Reconciliation as the Mission of God: Faithful Christian Witness in a World of Destructive Conflicts and Divisions.” Based on their study of the scriptures and their ministry experience in reconciliation, participants decided that reconciliation was central to the gospel and should be an integral, if not central, aspect of world evangelization. I will take this premise, which they’ve so eloquently and ably established, as given.

The authors also defined their understandings of the concepts of justice and reconciliation, noting that reconciliation is “God’s initiative….grounded in God’s restoring the world to God’s intentions, the process of restoring the brokenness between people and God, within people, between people, and with God’s created earth.” Their conception of justice is based on the notion of restorative justice, adopted from Desmond Tutu, which consists of “the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of broken relationships, a seeking to rehabilitate both the victims and the perpetrators, who should be given the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community he has injured by his offence.”³

Whose God?
One thing these leaders do not explore in depth, as I mentioned in the introduction, is that the behaviour of an individual, a community, or even a nation engaged in conflict is influenced by their view of the nature of God, and by who they think God is and what God is like.

The behaviour of a community engaged in conflict is influenced by its view of the nature of God.

Whether we admit it or not, because God is so much greater than our human minds can comprehend, the God we worship can only be known and understood through a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13:11-13). This mirror, through which we view God, is influenced and shaped by cultural norms and traditions. How much of the God we worship is actually consistent with what scriptures teach us about who God is—and how much of the image of God we worship is actually an idol fashioned from our own cultural worldview—is difficult to determine. That is why scripture admonishes us to be continually transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we become more conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 12:2).

For example, books have been written about the dangers of American civil religion where the American Church and nation have been conflated. True Christian discipleship in this instance means moving beyond the idolatry of supreme loyalty to the United States above God’s commandments and exploring what it means to be loyal to God and his commandments first and foremost. It is to recognize that God’s law and American laws sometimes conflict (Acts 5:29). Therefore, the ministry of justice and reconciliation must first and foremost be an iconoclastic one. Elizabeth Johnson, a Catholic theologian, explains it like this:

Since the symbol of God is the focal point of the whole religious system, an entire world order and worldview are wrapped up with its character. Specific ideas of God support specific kinds of relationships and not others….For example, God spoken of as a wrathful tyrant can be called upon to justify holy wars and inquisitional torture chambers. Language about God as a universal creator, lover, and savior of all, on the other hand, moves believers toward forgiveness, care, and openness to inclusive community. The symbol of God functions and its content is of the highest importance for personal and common weal or woe.⁴

Therefore, the critical questions for those involved in reconciliation and justice ministry, are: “Who is God?” and “Whose view of God is being used to reinforce systemic oppression?” In other words, “Whose God is being worshipped by those who are viewed as the oppressors?” and “Whose God is being worshipped by those who are considered the oppressed?”

Nanci Hogan has been involved in Christian ministry for more than twenty years. During that time, she pioneered the Strategy Coordinator program for Youth With A Mission (YWAM). Later, she co-founded YWAM England’s Centre for International Justice and Reconciliation, where she was involved in international advocacy on gender issues at the United Nations. Hogan is a part-time doctoral student in international politics at the University of Manchester.