University of Virginia Library

But What of Conflict and Christian Theology?

Branded as radicals and heavily engaged in community conflict, the Congregation has received frequent attacks in church circles for not demonstrating the spirit of reconciliation for which it was ostensibly created. Contributing to this impression, the Congregation seldom interprets social-action projects to outsiders in religious language. They tend not to wave the banner "in God's name." Arguments from political and economic ideology serve as a public rationale for action far more often than does theology. Many churchmen no doubt translate this to mean the Congregation is essentially a secular organization parading beneath the banner of the Cross. In this view, their theology, to the extent they have any, has been gobbled up by the world. Otherwise, how could they justify such divisive confrontations in the name of Christian reconciliation?

Those familiar with the history of conflict within the Congregation may interpret the low profile of theology in justifying action as resulting from the rapprochement between the God-talkers and the secular humanists. This offers only one element in the answer; the fuller answer is more complex.

When pressed, the theological rationale for mission most often cited by members of the Congregation is consistent with The Confession of 1967 and with the theological justification for the establishment of new congregations, both adopted by the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. In this sense, the Congregation is orthodox. One word most frequently used to signify a complex of interlocking theological statements, both by the Congregation members and by the denominational documents, is reconciliation. "God's reconciling purpose is to make and keep man human according to the revelation of himself in Christ. . . . The Church is committed, through the Spirit, to his ministry of reconciliation in a broken world." [4]

This ministry of reconciliation, as set forth in national Presbyterian documents, is marked by action focused upon specific contemporary issues and crises. It is both personal and corporate

and lives by risk in relating to the conditions of humanity. In its dialogue with the Miami Presbytery, the Congregation has never strayed far from its charter regarding the theological rationale for its mission. The legitimacy of this rationale has encountered challenges primarily from main-line churches, placing the Congregation in the curious role of defending the orthodox faith, as interpreted in the Confession, from those who see themselves as the most orthodox of all.

In June 1973 the National Mission Committee of the Miami Presbytery met to consider the continuance of its affiliation with the Congregation for Reconciliation. During the continuance hearing, an interesting exchange occurred between one of the committee members and Righter. It clearly sets forth the Congregation's theological position.

COMMITTEEMAN:

"Dick, I would like to ask a theological question. . . . Is it possible to transform society without first transforming the individuals within it? Can we accomplish a better society by confronting various groups with a set of outward demands, or would it not be better to confront their members with the inward demands of Jesus Christ so that their hearts can be changed? Is it not from the person's heart that flows the transformed life? Didn't Jesus say that it was out of the heart, the inner being, that flowed the evils of society?"

RIGHTER:

". . . in the story of the Tower of Babel there is the idea of `corporate sin.' In the first chapter of Coalescence, Paul talks about all things, visible and invisible, being created through and for God. All things, whether thrones or dominions or principalities-which I would understand to be institutions [like governments, businesses, large organizations]. Now, what I'm getting at is that I don't see it as either/or. I see it as both/and. Proclaiming Jesus Christ is something that is both personal and corporate personal evangelism and corporate evangelism."

COMMITTEEMAN:

"In the work of the Congregation for Reconciliation, have you coordinated the two, the personal evangelism with the corporate evangelism? Maybe I'm not close enough to it, but all I hear is the corporate, the confrontation of society. I don't hear about the confrontation of individuals with the claims of Jesus Christ."

RIGHTER:

". . . The Presbytery established this congregation with a special mandate to relate to the area of racial reconciliation. Because of that, and because the Congregation attracted people who have a bias toward corporate or action evangelism, that is where our emphasis has been. There has been an abrupt personal conversion experience by one of the members in the past year, however, the kind within the personal evangelical tradition. . . . We see both kinds of evangelism as a response to the Lordship of Jesus Christ."

COMMITTEEMAN:

"There's just one more thing I'd like to ask you about. Your church has `reconciliation' in its name. Do you feel that in your work you have been a reconciling force in the community, or a divisive force?"

RIGHTER:

"I would argue that we have been a very reconciling congregation. But you have to get your definition of reconciliation straight. That term is used about six times in the New Testament. Generally what we think of when we hear the term is the reconciliation of men to men or men to God as in 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Romans. But the other passage we don't talk about very much is the one in Coalescence that says all things are to be reconciled to God. . . . Now, how are institutions reconciled to God, to carry out their God-given purposes? . . . What is the church's role in relationship to those powers, those authorities, those institutions? Are we to be part of reconciling all things to God and his purposes for them? I would argue that scripturally we are. To do that, when we call institutions to reconciliation, we're calling them to change, just as we call individuals to reconciliation, to conversion, to change. Reconciliation changes people's lives; it changes institutions' lives, too. Whenever you have change, whether personal or corporate, you have periods of flux, and sometimes crises, and sometimes controversy, and sometimes upheaval and division. . . ."

COMMITTEEMAN:

"While Jesus did confront the Pharisees with rather strong and vigorous words, yet at the same time he was seeking to reconcile not only the scribes and Pharisees but also all men to himself and to God, without setting one against the other." RIGHTER: "I can't see that we're trying to set-"

COMMITTEEMAN:

"Well, you may not be trying to; I'm talking about the results of what you are doing."

RICHTER:

"I don't believe that that is the result either. You see, for me, I think the church needs both kinds of reconciliation going on. I don't see very much of the institutional reconciliation going on within the church. I think that there is a crying need for it, too. Not every church is going to be able to do action or institutional evangelism. Some will be programmed for the work of serving those Christians who see corporate evangelism as their calling. There are other congregations-perhaps most-who will be programmed for a ministry of personal reconciliation. But we need both at all times, and I feel that when we are attempting to reconcile, for instance, people who live in slum housing with the kind of institution that allows that to happen, that is a positive reconciliation and that is following the life-style of Jesus."

COMMITTEEMAN:

"I would differ with your understanding of the life of Jesus."

Although not all members of the Congregation interpret their motivation for social action in theological terms, those who do also share Righter's view of the centrality of reconciliation.

The last comment by Righter in the exchange just quoted merits special attention. He mentions the relationship between the disinherited and the institutional structures of society implicated in their suffering-if only by allowing it "to happen." The goal of social action thus becomes the adjustment of institutional structures to address the needs of those at the lower end of the social hierarchy more effectively and humanely. Participants and members of the Congregation, regardless of theological position, share this goal. It can be justified in humanistic or religious terms. And it is consonant with the definition of social action prevalent in America since the mid-1960s: action directed toward the humanization of social structures.

The ideological basis of the Congregation's mission was perhaps best phrased not by a member of the group but by a local pastor: "I have not been directly involved in the Congregation's work, but I think I see a thread going through all that it does in the community. It insists on the right of persons and communities to participate in those decisions which affect their own destiny . . . they really rub against the organizational grain." He then described several situations in which the Congregation repre

sented the interests of the poor in pressuring local government or businesses to reconsider their courses of action. The Congregation, when viewed in this manner, stands as a public protector of those who lack the power within organizational structures to defend their own interests in the institutional distribution of social benefits.

In taking an advocacy position and setting themselves against powerful organizations, the Congregation appeals less often to theology than to American values for legitimating their right of organized dissent. They affirm the corporate structure of society as existing by the consent of those affected. This appeal to Enlightenment philosophy could not be more ideologically American. Those affected by corporate decisions, they argue, have not only the right but also the duty to make their views known. Ultimately, in a democracy, power does reside in the people. Free enterprise not only calls for "caveat emptor" but "caveat vendor" as well.

The Congregation possesses a theological rationale for action. Their infrequent use of it to justify their social action, however, reflects more than a lack of consensus on God-talk among members. It is better understood in strategic terms.

Political and economic ideology, they feel, simply have greater persuasive appeal than has theology. When challenged by a spokesman of a skeptical public (outside the church), they feel they can generate more support by appealing to concepts of "corporate responsibility," "institutional accountability," and "fair play" than of "corporate evangelism" or "institutional reconciliation." The tailoring of messages to audiences is the primary step, as Madison Avenue knows so well, in the art of persuasion. And persuasion, after all, is the bread and butter of social action.