One of the main arguments of this research is about mediation of which Jesus and Paul are examples in our text of 2 Corinthians 5. The mediation is between hostile people in the Rwandan population and its assumption is that reconciliation should be the first priority for the church because the church's gospel is about building bridges between
God and people, between us and others and between us and creation (see chapter I). 6o
Unfortunately today Christians are alienated from God and hate one another. I have already shown from my contextualization chapter (chapter 4.3) that Hutu and Tutsi had developed a relationship of ethnic conflict, division, hatred, revenge and selfishness due to political, social, economic and religious factors throughout their history. This is despite the fact that according to the biblical text God never intended us to all be the same, or to be from the one ethnic group, living in the same part of the world, but wants the people from every tribe, ethnic group, language and nation to reconcile to Himself (Psalms 22:27-28; Acts 10:34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19). As I noted in chapter 3.2, the apostle Paul had some conflicts with his opponents. He describes a new creation and new world through divine reconciliation and sees it as his apostolic duty to appeal to the world to be reconciled to God (Scott 1998:136), He was first reconciled and wants the Corinthians also to reconcile to one another. I am of the opinion that Paul did not theologize the concept of reconciliation to the extent that it lost its concrete relevance for inter-human relationships. Rather through the cross, God created a new humanity which is one true church (cf. Lloyd 1998:9 and Breytenbach 1986:4).
The text of 2 Corinthians shows that the Corinthian church was a congregation of the followers of Christ or Christians. But this did not stop the tensions between Paul and the Corinthian believers. Even though the bible says that when one is in Christ everything becomes new and one become a new creation (2 Cor. 17), yet there were tensions between Paul and the Corinthians. These tensions are also still in Rwandans today, although eighty percent of the population claim to be Christians. In chapter 4 I discussed how the majority of the Rwandans claimed to be Christians, yet they killed one another.
As was clear from the description and analysis of the Rwandan churches (chapter 4.4), before 1994 the church (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) was generally attached to
66 Chapman and Spong (2003: 270) view reconciliation as a religious calling and they argue that the term reconciliation is a Christian term. Therefore the church should take the initiative in impacting
reconciliation. Clegg (2006:132) views reconciliation as the mission of the church and argues, "If reconciliation has inherent personal and social dimensions, then churches are called to live, worship, socialise and evangelise in ways that promote positive human relationships, individually and corporately and to promote ecologically sound living, not just outside the boundaries of their congregation but also within them."
the country's leadership during the monarchy and after Rwanda became a republic. The church followed the government's ways of dealing with the situation of refugees, ethnic conflict, and reconciliation. The church was not able to challenge the government on different policies.67 I argue that in Rwanda, on the one hand, it failed to speak out against the wrongdoing of the leaders of the country, On the other hand, the church lost a good opportunity to win trust and convince the state to change their policies that led to the genocide. Instead the church participated in the genocide. Consequently, as Kubai (2005:98) says, "Today the church in Rwanda is haunted by its role in genocide". It seems clear from chapter 4.4.3 that even after 1994, the church has still not yet fully broken its close association with the government.
In chapterl.2 and chapter 3.4.6, I have argued that the church should be a messenger of God to promote forgiveness and reconciliation. It should follow Paul who was given the same message to the Corinthians, despite his relationship with the Corinthians and other apostles: "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18). Paul highlights for us that he was changed by God (as I have noted on page 40). Christians are changed also by God through Christ's death and are entrusted with the mediation of reconciliation to the world.
Paul said that he was appointed by God to take the message of what God did to him. God gave Paul the ministry of preaching reconciliation and this was Paul's focus during his ministry.
Christians likewise should be actively engaged as mediators of reconciliation, as God's helpers, as Christ's representatives and as participants in the work of furthering God's reconciliation in the world. God acts, chooses and predestines (Ephesians 1:4-5) but human beings react, respond and reconcile to God (2 Corinthians 5: 20). Paul's ministry in Corinth was both personal and social. As Jesus' appointed ambassador (XpifJTOO o5v TtpeopSvJOJxev), Paul had to reconcile to the Corinthians and become part of their reconciliation to God (2 Corinthians 5:18). I have referred to Chetty who argues that if
671 assume here that those who were against Paul were from the Jerusalem Church and criticized his ministry and his person.
people are able to reconcile to God, they will be able also to reconcile to each other (2001:69), Rwandans first need a complete turn to God.
This does not mean that Rwandans must first be made acceptable to God, as Domeris (1987:79) argues in the context of South Africa, before they can have relationship with one another. It is not even that one has to reconcile with one another to have relationship with God. Reconciliation should require no condition at all (chapter 3.4). It is not conditional. God reconciled us to Himself while we were still his enemies (Rom 5:10).
God reconciled people to himself without counting their trespasses (2 Corinthians 5:19). I am in agreement with Breytenbaeh (1990:67),
That God recreated the sinner and changed the enemy into a friend is the consequence of reconciliation, not the precondition... katallassS refers to the termination of the hostilities, katallagai to the new peace relationship between the
former enemies. The relationship between the parties has been changed, not the parties themselves. Usually katallagg "reconciliation" meant that the fighting parties forgive each other and that amnesty is granted.
In the context for Rwanda, there is a need of forgiveness, but once again it does not seem to be an easy thing to achieve because Rwandans follow the opposite method of forgiveness, which starts from the perpetrator's repentance. The question is whether forgiveness should come before or after reconciliation, I have argued that according to Paul in 2 Corinthians 5, there is no condition for reconciliation in this text of 2 Corinthians (cf. Isasi-Diaz 2006:76). But, as Paul says, "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them" (2 Cor. S:19). Before I look at the dilemma of forgiveness in the Rwandan context, I would like to establish an understanding of reconciliation from a Christian perspective, which I believe can provide a way forward in the situation of Rwanda if the church is willing to participate in the reconciliation process.
S.3 Christian Understanding of Reconciliation as an Expression of Faith and of