The considerations on reconciliation and theology, religion and science have led us to focus on the connection between “Reconciliation” and “Religion”. This is surely a new field for current research, because the role of religions as promoters of violence has been emphasized much more strongly than their role as agents of reconciliation. This bias has tend to basic assumptions which are not convincing and which are even misleading if they guide those who take political action. These assumptions are outlined below:
- Monotheistic religions are per se more ready for violence than polytheistic ones. (cf. the violence in polytheistic religions like the Flower Wars of the Aztecs, but also the tendency towards reconciliation in monotheistic religions) Claims to absoluteness and superiority of certain religions do per se promote violence. (Although all world religions basically stand for such a claim religions often grow through strictly non-violent means.)
- Claims to absoluteness and superiority of certain religions do per se promote violence. (Although all world religions basically stand for such a claim religions often grow through strictly non-violent means.)
- The strengthening of religious identities promotes violence. (The reconciliation potential of each religion contradicts this thesis.)
- Religion – if it is ready for violence – has been exploited by political or economic interests. In itself, however, religions are essentially peaceful. (The conflict-promoting traditions in the Holy Scriptures of most world-religions refute this theory.)
- Fundamentalism is per se a source of violence. (If one understands fundamentalism as confession to a foundation regarded to be true, the difficulty emerges with the fact that there are strictly pacifist fundamentalist groups in each religion, e.g. Witnesses of Jehovah, Amish etc.)
- Every influence of religion on politics promotes violence. (Although theocratic intentions almost always lead to violence, there also exist influences of religion on politics that promote reconciliation).
It is our aim to support and promote the claim that every religion has a conciliatory potential and that the role of religion in political and social conflicts depends on their transformation (or the lack of this transformation) and reorientation towards this potential. We want to examine this possible reorientation in Europe’s most prevalent religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism):
- Is such a reorientation happening? What does it look like?
- Is there a basic assumption that underlies all the different concepts of reconciliation?
- Is there some kind of significant effect in actual conflicts that is the effect of this reorientation?
- How is the new orientation communicated to the believers if it is communicated at all?
In answering these questions we aim for a threefold contribution, which corresponds to the threefold motivation: The first contribution will be to the current debate on a shared, general understanding concept of reconciliation. An understanding of reconciliation that is derived from or influenced by religious considerations might be able to close the gap between the two approaches described above. On the one hand it takes into account that reconciliation in and of itself is unavailable, on the other hand it is inspired by many religiously motivated activities of peacebuilding.
Secondly, our research could have a direct effect on political practices in regions of conflict. In distinguishing between different concepts of reconciliation one can get an orientation for the dialogue between different cultures. Thirdly we intend to make an essential contribution to Christian theology: Utilizing the broader horizon of Karl Barth’s work can help bring clarity to his importance for other sciences and even political action.
It could encourage theologians, concregations and hopefully even large groups of the various world religions to consider orienting themselves in a significant way towards teaching and reconciliation.
