Introduction
Humanity has achieved many achievements over its existence, discovered new phenomena, and developed futuristic technologies. However, every positive deed was offset by some negative consequences. To combat this negative influence, people first try to research and set up theoretical frameworks to understand the ethical effects of their deeds, like the concept of reconciliation. However, it is open to various interpretations with possible problematic implications. Therefore, even though many religious groups actively use the concept of reconciliation in approaching social issues, it is crucial to know the limitation of its application.
The Concept of Religious Reconciliation
The concept of reconciliation in the religious texts is connected to the notion of atonement and salvation. Scholars have always attempted to interpret the Bible’s events to understand them better and apply them to the real world (Seals & Bush, 2020). For example, Anselm concluded that humanity sinned by taking away God’s honor, and only the sacrifice of Jesus can reconcile people’s relationships with God. Jesus is a perfect reincarnation of God and, thus, cannot be swayed by Satan, protecting the purity and immortality of his soul (Seals & Bush, 2020). His life and death are more than any human can provide to God (Seals & Bush, 2020). Thus, God is satisfied with his sacrifice, and the relationships are restored. Now, people can achieve immortality in their souls, escaping Satan, if they lead good and honest lives inspired by Jesus. In other words, God reconciled with humanity through himself in the form of Jesus, forgiving humanity’s original sin.
Two Views on Reconciliation
The idea of reconciliation has been applied to their worldview by religious people for a long time. The most typical application of the concept is morality and ethics. There could exist two major ways to apply the idea of reconciliation. The first way is that God will forgive human mistakes regardless if the sinner asks for forgiveness (McNeil, 2020). God went as far as sacrificing himself in Jesus’s form to reconcile and forgive humanity’s original sin. Therefore, he can pardon any other sins humans committed and continue to do later. In this view, humans can live however they want, as God will forgive them anyway.
On the other hand, the second view of reconciliation can be that humans should try their best to live dignified lives because God went as far as to sacrifice himself. People cannot be sure if any of their negative actions later can be considered another sin, equal to the original one or even greater. In this view, humanity can spoil the relationship with God at any time, reversing the reconciliation (McNeil, 2020). This view is because people cannot be sure if they can take away God’s honor and if he is willing to reconcile again. In this view, humans should try their best to mitigate any negative influences on the world and do good things to maintain relationships with God, emulating Jesus’s behavior of helping others.
The Implications of Religious Reconciliation on Social Issues
Depending on the views of reconciliation, social issues can be examined differently. Over time, human society developed, becoming more complex. One human being can, directly and indirectly, influence the well-being of other humans, living creatures, and the environment (Eitzen & Zinn, 1997). In other words, it has become harder to live without negatively affecting other people, even without one’s knowledge, due to globalization. This hypothetical person can directly do good things, help the poor, volunteer, and donate to charity. However, indirectly this person can support child exploitation, suffering, and slavery by buying unethical products without knowing their source, as companies increasingly try to hide their practices to escape consequences. Another option can be that this person has no other options to substitute their essential products, like food and clothing (Eitzen & Zinn, 1997). As a result, this person still buys them knowing the negative impacts. In this case, living according to the second view of reconciliation becomes harder and almost impossible. Then, the question arises of whether the people must live by the first option, hoping God will forgive them.
One of the issues of humanity is that people live by the first view of reconciliation or do not think about it at all. People tend to get overwhelmed by the indirect negative impacts of their actions and lose hope, going to the extreme by committing more direct negative deeds (De Cock et al., 2021). Scientists recently confirmed this observation on the situation with climate change (De Cock et al., 2021). Even though people are aware of it, they get overwhelmed, stop their support for the environment, and consciously choose to do things against nature, giving up hope. Thus, they choose to follow the first view of reconciliation, resigning to the influence of Satan or hoping for God’s forgiveness. This effect leads to more suffering in the world and does not guarantee God’s forgiveness.
Conclusion
Researching global social problems and putting them in the context of reconciliation’s different interpretations, I realized that I still support the second view. People need to emulate Jesus and do good deeds. Even though we cannot control some indirect effects of our actions, we still need to try to mitigate them and join many movements that fight for positive change. Ultimately, the two views can be combined. God can forgive our indirect negative effects and judge us for the direct ones, considering our efforts to do good and asking for forgiveness. However, God is such a perfect being that imperfect humans cannot comprehend. Thus, in my opinion, we need to strive to improve to get closer to our possible ideal and do morally right things just because it is right.
References
De Cock, C., Nyberg, D., & Wright, C. (2021). Disrupting climate change futures: Conceptual tools for lost histories. Organization, 28(3), 468-482.
Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (1997). Social problems (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
McNeil, B. S. (2020). Roadmap to Reconciliation 2.0: Moving Communities into Unity, Wholeness, and Justice. InterVarsity Press.
Seals, Z., & Bush, J. (2020). Redeemed From Death: Atonement, Incarnation. McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry, 20(147).