3 Comments

1. “
   by Bethany Brooks
   Posted November 7, 2008 at 11:13 pm · Permalink

   I’ve just returned home from this wonderful evening and want to react while it is fresh in my mind.

   In response to Dr. Edgar’s question about the depth of the gospel being taught in Rwanda (I hope that’s a fair paraphrase!):

   While this doesn’t speak to the quality of gospel teaching in the country as a whole, the line of the film that most struck me was Rosario’s declaration that the perpetrators of the genocide did not ultimately wrong her, because she did not create them. Rather, God made them, and they were his to forgive. This statement is God-centered in a radical, mind-boggling way, especially in light of the tendency of victims to stand in judgment over those who have wronged them or over God himself (as will be demonstrated in the Masterpiece show “God on Trial” this Sunday on PBS).

   Given that sin and guilt are never only on one side (Dr. Langberg’s ‘multi-lane highway’), and given the dark, labyrinthine quality our hearts take on when the sole focus is Our Own Act of repentance or forgiveness, it seems that this kind of God-centeredness is the only hope. Not that it bypasses the need for history to be told by many voices or for all those involved to study their own hearts, but perhaps this vision of God on his throne is the only ground on which the truth-telling of a nation or the self-study of individuals can be truly redemptive.

   Thoughts?

2. “
   by chrissimmons
   Posted November 8, 2008 at 12:02 am · Permalink

   Thanks for this, Bethany. Missiologists have argued, and Bill Edgar was picking up on this, that Western missions bears some responsibility for the way the Rwandan church has heard the gospel (i.e., in terms of the church being in bed with the government and having no sense of a prophetic calling in the culture). The Western idea of the church being at ease in the culture and as a result losing its holy voice is something that Charles Engel and Bill Dyrness talk about at length in their book “Changing the Mind of Missions.” They argue that in large measure, 20th century missions coming out from the US has spread Americanism as much as the gospel.

3. “
   by Bethany Brooks
   Posted November 8, 2008 at 12:03 pm · Permalink

   Yes, I understand that the church’s complicity in the genocide is also an indictment of the missionaries who brought a Westernized gospel to Rwanda. But with the focus on reconciliation and healing now, questions were raised about the kind of forgiveness looked for– superficial words, quickly spoken? Or something longer and more difficult? Related to this is the role that God plays in bringing about forgiveness; Chantalle, as the film portrays her, seems to view God as a peripheral figure, there to give her strength for her act of forgiveness. In contrast to this, Rosario demonstrates a view of God that has been deeply transformed from the default human attitude and, in turn, begins to transform her view of others.

   Larger questions emerge from this: To what extent will society benefit from the model and vocabulary of the gospel (repentance, forgiveness, mercy) without its power to transform the heart toward God? As the church is involved in applying these gospel forms to the world (as it must be!), is there a danger of it neglecting the heart of the gospel and ‘losing its holy voice’? What is the antidote to this temptation?

   As I long and labor to see those in my own city benefit from a society that reflects gospel values, these questions become urgent and haunting.