Limits to Reconciliation

 

Q.	What is the mission of the Church?
A.	The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.
Q.	How does the Church pursue its mission?
A.	The Church pursues its mission as it prays and worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice, peace, and love.

Book of Common Prayer, page 855.

These questions from our catechism point to how the Church's mission is restoration of unity with God and each other in Christ - a mission of reconciliation. We are living in a terribly polarized time - and not just in the United States. Ultra-right fascist elements are on the rise worldwide as climate change is putting pressure on food supplies and migration and the COVID pandemic still continues to infect and ravage our health. When anxiety rises, the temptation to follow some strongman who claims to "have all the answers," is a serious threat. We often fall prey to idolatry - whether embodied in a person or an ideology.

I am deeply weary of the relentless assaults on our democracy and the Christian Nationalism which has distorted the Gospel into a fascistic purity cult willing to attack anyone who isn't white, isn't straight, and isn't cisgender. Sadly, these Christian Nationalists have gained power in a number of states and are attacking the LGBTQ+ siblings and destroying safe access to abortion for women (even when it is medically necessary to save a woman's life). This, of course, is an extension of patriarchal white supremacy which has oppressed BIPOC people since the colonization of this nation. It's just widened it's attacks to hurt even more people.

Christian Nationalists are attempting to force a narrow interpretation of the Bible on everyone in clear violation of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause and the new ultra-conservative Supreme Court is going along with this agenda. I grieve when friends and family must make plans to escape the rising fascism in the United States to save their lives. This is NOT Christian and it is NOT democracy.

There are voices in the Church who are calling for reconciliation in this time of polarization. While I find this an admirable and fundamentally Christian position, I also question where the limits to reconciliation are. In his book Forgive and Get Your Life Back, Episcopal priest Dennis Maynard explains that forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration are three distinct steps in a process. Too often, I think we jump to talking about reconciliation before we have acknowledged that harm has been done to God's children. We seem to shy away from talking about the limits of reconciliation under the guise of "bringing all parties to the table" in some empty feely, feel-good talk as if doing that will magically erase the pain and suffering inflicted.

How exactly will bringing "all parties to the table" work when some of those parties want to "eradicate" members of my family? How does it work when life saving gender care is denied to trans people? How does it work with anti-Semitic rhetoric calling for the "annihilation of the Jews"? How does it work when some of those parties would rather see women die than get a medically necessary abortion? How does it work when legislators call for bringing back "hanging from trees" (lynching) as a form of capital punishment? Let me suggest something - it won't work until we get clarity on the difference between loving our neighbor and loving their ideology, rhetoric, or behaviors.

I served a parish where we had some hard discussions about the limits of welcome when a member acted out in a way that threatened my safety and that of the leadership. After prayer and conversations, our leadership agreed that our position was "We welcome all people as Christ, but we do not welcome all behaviors." I believe a similar discernment is necessary as we try to be peacemakers in a polarized world. Bringing "all parties to the table" when some of those parties are actively calling for harm to be done to others is welcoming Sin and making the table unsafe for marginalized people. Philosopher Karl Popper called this the Paradox of Tolerance: when you tolerate intolerance, all you'll be left with is intolerance.

When people can "come to the table" with a spirit of humility, an open heart, willingness to listen more than speak, and a willingness to confess where they have sinned and harmed others, then dialog can happen regardless of partisan politics. Dialog is not possible with those who have hardened their ideological stance and are unwilling to change - they have chosen a different god to follow.

I have great respect for Christians who can engage extremists and work with them to soften their positions. I truly do believe that change is possible and this is the courageous work of the cross. It can be done effectively and it is work which needs to be done long before we talk to those in marginalized communities about "bringing all parties to the table" for reconciliation. God loves all people, but God does not love violent rhetoric or acts of hate.

Scapegoat

When he has finished atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22)

This is the passage from Leviticus from which we get the term "scapegoat." The goat bore the guilt, shame and sins of the people on their behalf and it was driven into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). It was a cleansing ritual so that the people could go on with their lives with a sense of wholeness and a burden being lifted.

But what about the goat? Live long enough, and you'll end up being a symbolic scapegoat for something. Anyone who has been a change agent in their workplace often finds themselves playing the role of the scapegoat! The sins of past inactions, poor policies, and bad decisions get heaped on the one who is trying to make a difference until they are driven out of the group. It is certainly much easier to dump our sins onto another and then drive that person out when they begin to shed light on our sins. But, does this ever cause us to repent of the underlying sin and return to a wholeness of relationship?

One way to understand Jesus' death on the cross was as an atoning death. On him was the sin of all humanity laid and for our sins he died. We still hear language like this in the Church. Jesus was certainly a change agent and, in his ministry, he shed light on the systemic sins of his culture. "... it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed," said Caiaphas (John 11:50). This certainly bears the marks of a scapegoat.

Jesus' death was more than this because of his resurrection. The scapegoat returned! Jesus' resurrection reminds us that we cannot run away from our sins or heap them onto someone else and hope they just go away. Jesus' resurrection is God's reconciling love in action. There are no scapegoats in reconciliation - nobody is driven into the wilderness to die. Even in the midst of our sinfulness (and yeah, there's plenty of that for all of us), we are promised through the resurrection that we will be reconciled back to God ... and to each other.