The Ministry and Message of Reconciliation

John Fehlen
  2 

Conflict is inevitable. One does not have to look far within any organization, be it

religious or otherwise, to find conflict brewing. Interestingly, in communities of faith, conflict is

often more intense and prolonged. Perhaps this is attributed to acute spiritual warfare, a

misapplication of scriptural teachings, and/or a clash of personalities, redeemed or unredeemed.

Norm Shawchuck understands that “Jesus engaged in conflict. Sometimes He started conflict…at

other times He resolved conflict. If Jesus could not live in this world without conflict, we might

as well accept it – we, too, will have conflict in our churches and ministries.”1

It is important to note that Jesus not only engaged and started conflict, but he also

resolved conflict. He, on behalf of his Father, was an agent of reconciliation. Subsequently, he

has given us the ministry and the message of reconciliation in order to propagate his heart for

unity and restoration in this broken world. This essay will expound upon the ministry and

message of reconciliation as spoken of in 2 Corinthians 5. In particular, it will make an important

and intriguing connection between reconciliation and a key (and often overlooked) component:

death.

The preponderance of this essay will unpack the ministry and message of reconciliation

with a brief point of application regarding marriage from 1 Corinthians 7:11. But first, we will

see how reconciliation is being utilized even within business and modern culture.

Reconciliation in Business and Culture

As in all of life, businesses experience high levels of conflict and often utilize classic

resolution methods including conciliation, mediation, negotiation, arbitration and/or litigation.

Quite often we hear of businesses, and individuals as well, engaging the legal system to resolve

their conflict. However, there seems to be a growing trend towards reconciliation, beginning with

simply saying, “I am sorry.” Reports such as in the case of Ford Motor Co. and Firestone Tires

                                                        
1
Norman Shawchuck, How to Manage Conflict in the Church, vol. 1 (Spiritual Growth: 1983), 9.
  3 

issuing an apology for an accident involving their products are becoming more common. One

particular articles notes that, “Studies indicate that besides compensation for tangible damages

such as medical expenses, most victims of negligence want three things: a sense that their

complaint is being taken seriously, a satisfactory explanation of what happened, and an

assurance that steps are being taken so it won’t happen again to someone else.”2 In the medical

field, doctors, attorneys and hospital administrators are discovering that liability costs and

medical errors are down at the same time by giving a simple apology and seeking reconciliation

rather than litigation.3 D. Michael Kratchman in is article “Anatomy of Mediating a Business

Reconciliation” believes there is a psychology of divorcing business partners. What begins with

a merging of aspirations and shared dreams eventually grows in different directions and reality

becomes a disappointment. Kratchman finds that “the parties coming to mediation are

comparable to disappointed spouses…to preserve the individual’s dream, the partner is blamed.

The partner becomes the enemy.”4 When multiple parties are in conflict it leads to a breaking of

faith with one another. In a sense this looks similar to a marital separation or divorce – with both

parties seeking justification, an acknowledgment of rights and an appropriation of responsibility

(i.e.: who is to blame?).

Conflict and Separation

Conflict, whether corporately or personally, potentially brings about a point of separation

in which various parties retreat and entrench. Craig Runde and Tim Flanagan, “do not think it is

possible to do away with conflict. People will always have differences in values, goals,

principles, and tactics that lead to conflict…Our experience suggests that when emotions get the
                                                        
2
Kris Frieswick, “Say You’re Sorry,” CFO Magazine, May 01, 2001,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3870/is_5_17/ai_99599731
3
Debra Schmidt, “A Simple Apology Can Spare You A Lawsuit,” July 24, 2007,
http://www.articlepros.com/business/customer_service/article-88017.html
4
D. Michael Kratchman, “Anatomy of Mediating a Business Reconciliation”
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jul/1/130884.html
  4 

best of people, they often use fight-or-flight types of responses that enflame or prolong

conflict.”5 These responses work to pull people apart, only to further embellish already existing

preconceptions and misunderstandings. When left to their own devices, people will often fester

in their pain, hurt, distrust and frustration. Separation, though an oft-utilized coping mechanism,

can be an unfortunate response. In his experience, Norman Shawchuck has found that “the

church generally responds to conflict in one of two ways: it either tries to ignore or avoid it; or

attributes the conflict to a lack of spirituality among its members and then tries to preach or pray

it away.”6 Ignoring and/or avoiding are common forms of separation that one finds often in

conflict situations within churches, businesses, and marriages. What can be brought to bear upon

conflict that results in separation? Is there a way to bring individuals together in a biblical and

sensible fashion? The words of the Apostle Paul to the church in Corinth have much to say

regarding this hopeful possibility. Paul brings clarity in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 to God’s intention

to reconcile the world to Himself through His Son Jesus:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has
come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the
ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not
counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of
reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his
appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made
him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of
God. 2 Corinthians 5:17-21
Christ and Reconciliation

Introduced in the letter of 2 Corinthians is the Apostle Paul’s most extensive treatment of

one of his central themes: reconciliation. In verses 18-21 the verb ‘reconcile’ or the noun

                                                        
5
Craig E. Runde and Tim A. Flanagan, Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader (San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007), xiii.
6
Shawshuck, How to Manage Conflict in the Church, 12.
  5 

‘reconciliation’ occurs five times. Implicit is its connection to the person of Jesus Christ (the

agent of reconciliation) with the endorsement of his Father (the source of reconciliation). It is

through Christ’s death that God has reconciled the world to Himself. Jesus, the Sinless One,

became sin so that mankind might become the righteousness of God. This relational blessing of

reconciliation relies upon forgiveness of sins through the work of Jesus upon the cross of

Calvary. Romans 5 reinforces this: “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled

to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved

through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

through whom we have now received reconciliation.”7 Mankind has been ‘justified by his blood’

(Romans 5:9) and made right with the Father. Reconciliation was purchased in and ‘through

Christ’ (1 Corinthians 5:18). In his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Paul Barnett believes “the

phrase ‘through Christ’ is explained by the wider context as ‘through Christ’s death (vv.

14,15,21; cf. ‘we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son’ – Romans 5:10).8 Barnett

goes on to assert that, “In 2 Cor. 5:18-20…the divine act of reconciliation is complete, certain,

and unconditionally available” and that “Nothing could be clearer than that Christ – crucified and

risen (vs. 14-15) – is the locus and the means of fulfilling God’s purposes for history, humanity,

and the world and creation.”9

Seyoon Kim, in his well-researched work entitled “2 Cor. 5:11-21 and the Origins of

Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation” summarizes the clear reality of Christ and his role in

reconciliation:

This overwhelming experience [Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus] came

together with his new understanding of Jesus Christ’s death as God’s provision for
                                                        
7
Romans 5:10,11 (New International Version)
8
Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing
Co, 1997), 302.
9
Ibid. 302, 303.
  6 

atonement for humankind: ‘Christ died for our sins,’ that is, God ‘made him who knew

no sin for us, so that we might become God’s righteousness in him’ (2 Cor. 5:21). It was

God who provided the means of atonement for us, so that we might be restored to right

relationship…God’s overwhelming grace in his reconciliation of him to himself led Paul

to interpret Christ’s death as God’s provision of the means of atonement and as God’s

work of reconciliation of the world to himself. Thus arose the unique Pauline formulation

of the doctrine of reconciliation.”10

From the bedrock doctrinal truth of Christ as our agent of reconciliation comes the unfolding

ministry and message of reconciliation as given to ‘the reconciled’ by Father God.

Ministry & Message of Reconciliation

There is a degree of ambiguity that exists within 2 Corinthians 5 as to whom the word

‘us’ is referring to: Paul or all believers. To whom has God given the ministry of reconciliation?

To whom has God entrusted the word (message) of reconciliation? Here there is no consensus

among commentators. Some believe both references of ‘us’ are to the community of believers

rather than of Paul exclusively. Others hold that the first ‘us’ reference is that of Paul while the

second refers to believers. The reason for the ambiguity is that opposition, doubts, and criticism

about Paul’s apostolicity necessitate the writing of the letter to Corinth. Thus some interpret the

ministry and message of reconciliation to be an exclusive rebuttal of Paul and his fellow apostles.

This, however, seems limiting in its scope, in that “he died for all” (2 Cor. 4:15) and that “God

was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 4:19). Therefore, this essay proposes that the

ministry and message of reconciliation has been entrusted to all believers. We, like the Apostle

Paul, are, by the death and resurrection of Jesus, now ambassadors of God. Michael S. Moore, in

his book, Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict, “believe[s] that the best way
                                                        
10
Seyoon Kim, “2 Cor. 5:11-21 and the Origins of Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation,” Novum
Tesamentum, vol. 39, Fasc. 4 (Oct. 1997). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560974.
  7 

to become an expert in conflict resolution is first to become a minister of reconciliation.”11 We

are ministers of reconciliation with both a distinct ministry and a direct message: be reconciled

to God.

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, teaches the principle of reconciliation when he says:

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has

something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to

your brother; then come and offer your gift.”12 The disciples were being taught that they were to

take the lead in pursuing reconciliation in the midst of conflict, regardless of who was

responsible. Jesus, in his masterful teaching style, has given priority to reconciliation by

challenging the listener to “leave it all there and go to your brother.” There is a sense of urgency

in his words. Indeed the disciple of Jesus Christ must move with swiftness and purpose to

resolve conflict in the most scriptural and sane fashion.

Granted, conflict is untidy. So can be the process of reconciliation. Human failure and

fear will often muddle the situation, causing each group or individuals to prolong the conflict,

and in doing so, add to the problem. Time becomes a key factor. One must deal with unresolved

conflict in a timely manner and with grace in order to avoid further pain and separation. With

this in mind, John Dawson, the president of the International Reconciliation Coalition, has

written extensively about what he calls Four Healing Steps: confession, repentance,

reconciliation, and restitution.

Confession begins by acknowledging hurtful actions. It involves simply stating the truth

in regards to unjust or painful actions. Then a person moves to a point of repentance, which is a

loving action of expressing sorrow and remorse for hurt caused. Thirdly, through reconciliation,

                                                        
11
Michael S. Moore, Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict, (College Press,
1994), 16.
12
Matthew 5:23,24 (New International Version)
  8 

one expresses and receives forgiveness and carefully pursues or seeks to restore intimate

fellowship. Lastly, restitution is an attempt to restore that which has been destroyed and the

seeking of justice where there is the opportunity to do so.13

In each of these healing steps there is a common denominator that I have come to

discover. When reconciliation is being pursued in any regard, I believe there is an important and

intriguing connection to a very key component: death.

Reconciliation and Death

Along with 2 Corinthians 5, the Apostle Paul develops the concept of reconciliation in

a number of his writings and in each of his references there is a corresponding larger context:

death.

• Romans 5:10 – “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the

death of his Son…”

• Ephesians 2:14 – “For he himself is our peace…His purpose was to create in himself one new

man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God

through the cross [an instrument of death], by which he put to death their hostility.”

• Colossians 1:19-22 - “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through

him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making

peace through his blood, shed on the cross…now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical

body through death…”

• 1 Corinthians 7:11 – “But if she does [divorce her husband], she must remain unmarried or else

be reconciled to her husband.”

                                                        
13
John Dawson, “What Christians Should Know About…Reconciliation,” 1998,
http://www.reconcile.org
  9 

In each of these passages the context becomes clear and compelling. There must be death

for there to be true reconciliation. Of course, that has been firmly established within the

theological framework of the Christian faith in that Jesus’ death purchased our reconciliation

with the Father once and for all. But what has emerged in my understanding is the concept of

reconciliation between individuals or groups involving death - not physically, but rather

spiritually and emotionally. There must be a ‘death of self’ for there to be true reconciliation.

Perhaps Jesus has not only given us an opportunity for reconciliation through his death

but also a model of reconciliation through his death. He has taught us (along with the original

disciples) to ‘leave our gifts at the altar and go to our brother or sister’ – whereby,

communicating an abandonment or denial of sorts in order to achieve reconciliation. Jesus then

went beyond the spoken word to actively demonstrate for the world how reconciliation is

accomplished – through death. One must come to a point of denial and rejection of rights in

order to bring about peace, rather than continually feeding the monster of anger, resentment,

and retaliation.

Runde and Flanagan elaborate on this phenomenon, “Rather than expressing one’s

emotions in constructive ways, the individual attempts to invoke the ‘eye for an eye’ method to

get even. In an ‘I’ll show you’ moment, the conflict escalates, and both parties are left to wonder

what went wrong. The basic problem is that what one party sees as a step that brings the situation

back to ‘even’ is interpreted by the other as a first-time strike or provocation. There is no getting

even because each successive retaliation fuels a burgeoning inferno of conflict.”14 Sadly, this is

how it goes…on and on…the cycle of pain and hurt continues, with each party adding new

pieces of kindling to an already out of control fire. Unless someone stops fueling the inferno.

                                                        
14
Runde and Flanagan, Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader, 98.
  10 

One must put to death the madness and pursue reconciliation, even if they determine that they

are not the cause of the initial issue. Death can be so unfair!

Marriage and Reconciliation

Perhaps the most significant relationship that utilizes reconciliation is that of marriage.

Yet, even in that regard many have a very low opinion of reconciliation. Some will not

understand how “he ever took her back” or others will mockingly question, ‘Why did she go

back to him?’ Pastor David Chadwell believes many “are more likely to associate reconciliation

with ‘accepting defeat’ or ‘hypocrisy’ rather than healing.”15 This is unfortunate because many

(certainly not all) marriages can be reconciled as individuals are, first and foremost, reconciled to

God, through the death of Jesus, and then reconciled to one another through the death of self.

Conceivably, this is what the Apostle Paul had in mind in 1 Corinthians 7:11 when he

gave the command for men and women that had chosen to divorce to “remain unmarried or else

be reconciled.” Undoubtedly, returning to and reconciling with a spouse after a divorce or

extended separation will involve death to self and pride. In the same way that a long-standing

marital argument can often be resolved in a few moments with a simple “I am sorry”, so can a

marriage be completely and sovereignly reconciled with individuals that are willing to die to the

demands of their personal rights. An adaptation of Paul’s words in Romans 12:18 becomes the

marriage motto: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you [the willing partner], live at peace

with everyone [my spouse].”

Peace can truly be the resulting tone and texture of any relationship, including marriage,

that is reconciled both to God and to one another. This ‘shalom of God’ can mark even the most

troublesome of relationships. The ‘shalom of God’ came at a high price – the shed blood of Jesus

at his death on the cross of Calvary.

                                                        
15
David Chadwell, “Jesus, Our Reconciliation,”
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/chadwell/gift/teaching/y2003q4l7.htm
  11 

Bibliography

Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
Publishing Co, 1997.

Chadwell, David. “Jesus, Our Reconciliation.”

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/chadwell/gift/teaching/y2003q4l7.htm

Dawson, John. “What Christians Should Know About…Reconciliation.” 1998.

http://www.reconcile.org

Frieswick, Kris. “Say You’re Sorry.” CFO Magazine, May 01, 2001,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3870/is_5_17/ai_99599731

Haugk, Kenneth C. Antagonists in the Church: How to Identify and Deal with Destructive
Conflict. Mpls.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988.

Kim, Seyoon. “2 Cor. 5:11-21 and the Origins of Paul’s Concept of Reconciliation.”
Novum Tesamentum, vol. 39, Fasc. 4. Oct. 1997. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560974

Kratchman, D. Michael. “Anatomy of Mediating a Business Reconciliation”

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jul/1/130884.html

Marshall, IH. “The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation.’” Unity and Diversity in NT Theology. ed. R.
Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Mitchell, M.M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. Tubingen: Mohr, 1991.

Moore, Michael S. Reconciliation: A Study of Biblical Families in Conflict. College Press, 1994.

Runde, Craig E., and Tim A. Flanagan. Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Schmidt, Debra. “A Simple Apology Can Spare You A Lawsuit.” July 24, 2007,
http://www.articlepros.com/business/customer_service/article-88017.html

Shawchuck, Norman. How to Manage Conflict in the Church, vol. 1. Spiritual Growth
Resources, 1983.

Smedes, Lewis. Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1984.