Centers of Reconciliation In Bruce Milne’s book, he argues that the church is meant to be a center of reconciliation. This idea of a reconciliation center is predicated upon the vast division in society, division which is normally comprised of the four major categories of class, age, race, and gender. According to Milne, a center of reconciliation is a place which seeks reconcile the divides found in those four categories (Milne 14). In other words, a center of reconciliation is meant to either mend, bridge, or even transcend these categories of division and/or distinction, to borrow the verbs used by Milne.  Where then are these centers located? What is the most appropriate place to see this reconciliation take place? The answer varies from person to person. Generally speaking, these centers are understood to be (or at least meant to be) the societal structures of nations, states, and cities. And the engine for the reconciliation of class, age, race and gender is legislation. While this is a popular opinion and legislation may indeed have some validity in contributing to fair and just societies, this is not the answer for true reconciliation. It is also not the answer Milne gives.  Instead, Milne suggests that the most appropriate place to see this reconciliation take place is not in legislation, but in the church. Yet, his reason is not due to a moral argument that the church is the arbiter of truth, or that a theocratic society is the most preferred variety for considering the legislative process of reconciliation. Instead, his reason is due to the fact that the church is described as nothing short of a new humanity. That is an argument of transcendence, which is quite appropriate for transcending divides. A reasonable follow up question to ask of Milne’s argument is, what does it mean that the church is a new humanity? The apostle Paul describes this to the Corinthians: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, that is in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5.18-19). And this whole discussion from Paul is predicated on the previous verse, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come” (2 Cor. 5.17). Based on the testimony of scripture, the church is the heartbeat and center of reconciliation. It is to the bride of Christ that God has gifted and entrusted the ministry of reconciliation, and this means that anything short of the ministerial context of the church is short of the full realization of reconciliation. This is a profound answer offered by Milne, especially as issues of class, age, race and gender are primary issues that legislation and political science seeks to solve.  It could well be argued that the church is overstepping her bounds when she seeks to enter into the realm of state by assuming that she hold the key to solving these issues. But according to the apostle Paul, the whole idea of reconciliation is a heart issue, one which requires a new humanity altogether. And if the stakes of reconciliation are high enough to require a new heart, no one would argue that such a problem could be fixed by legislation. New hearts do not come into being by legislation, new hearts come into being in a new humanity.  With that grand thesis in mind, here are some personal considerations of my efforts towards reconciliation in my own ministry context. It is important to strSupport the show