Recently, I was invited by Park Avenue Baptist Church to
give a reflection on the meaning of reconciliation and/or restoration during
morning worship. At the time of the
offer I eagerly agreed. They gave me the
opportunity because of my association with the Stewart Center and my presumed
knowledge of the subject matter. I, like
those that invited me, assumed that I could provide a relevant perspective on
reconciliation/restoration thanks to my involvement with under-resourced
children and families.
As the day approached I searched my memory for experiences
and conversations with our children and families that testify to the Center’s
engagement in restoration and reconciliation.
Instead of providing examples and validation of the Center’s work my preparation
cast doubt on my understanding of, and involvement in, reconciliation and
restoration.
My appeal to the dictionary did not alleviate my dismay. The first definition for ‘reconcile’ I encountered
said “to win over to friendliness; cause to become amicable.” Surely the Stewart Center’s ministry amounts
to more than winning children and families over with friendliness. According to numerous sources, restoration can
be expressed as “a return of something to a former, original, normal, or
unimpaired condition.” This definition
makes restoration more troubling than reconciliation because it implies the
existence of a time or condition better than the present. The idea of restoration lacks relevance for
many of our children and families because there is nothing in their past to
which they would desire to be restored.
Last month I read a book by John Dominic Crossan – a
prominent theologian of our time – entitled The
Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus. In the book, Crossan challenges the mainstream
understanding of Jesus’ parables. He
also proposes an alternative understanding for parable as genre. Crossan utilizes the “Good Samaritan” to
propose a paradigm through which other parables might be considered.
Traditionally the “Good Samaritan” has been understood as an
example parable. Followers of Jesus are
to emulate the Samaritan’s posture of faith, and course of action. The title good Samaritan now extends beyond
faith language and exists in our vernacular to represent anyone that helps
someone in distress. To our ears, good
Samaritan is a redundant cliché but this would not have been the case for
Jesus’ first century Jewish audience.
For them a Good Samaritan was an impossibility. Jesus’ first audience would have understood
the priest and Levite as good guys set against the Samaritan as
antagonist.
For the Samaritan to emerge as the hero in Jesus’ story
makes it possible for us to understand the Good Samaritan as a challenge
parable as opposed to an example parable.
As a challenge, the parable intends to subvert prejudices and social
absolutes. It is the Samaritan that
offers restoration and reconciliation not the religious leaders. In Jesus’ most famous parable the character
of restoration is occupied by the despised, the undesirable, the disreputable, someone
left out of God’s favor. Could it be
that Jesus’ parable of social upheaval reveals something about the nature of
God’s Kingdom?
Could Jesus be saying that restoration and reconciliation do
not come from those we assume are in the center of God’s will; that it is not
the ‘haves’ that convey restoration but the ‘have-nots.’ It is obvious that we should help those in
need. The parable of the Good Samaritan
did not become one of the most transcendent passages in scripture because it
tells us to help the needy. Maybe God’s
kingdom is contrary to the assumptions we glean from our society. Maybe those on the margins do not need our restoration,
maybe we need theirs.
My reflection at Park Avenue focused on the above themes but
lacked resolve. Since that Sunday in
December I have been looking for evidence of restoration and reconciliation in every
possible outlet. I have spent time
considering how our children, youth, families, volunteers, staff and supporters
model the restoration portrayed in the Good Samaritan. It is unnerving for me
as an ordained minister and someone who feels called to social ministry to
confront the reality that I might be the receiver of God’s restoration rather
than the purveyor. What if God’s restoration is not for those that are left out but by those that are left out?
Peace,
Clayton
