The Church in a Time of National Tragedy

When tragedy strikes the community that a church is in, be that the local community, national, or international community, (like with Covid-19) the churches role is to help facilitate healing. 

We know this because when the Apostle John had a vision while imprisoned on the island of Patmos, he saw God making all things new, God setting all things right, and wiping the tears away from the eyes of those who mourned. (See Revelation 21.) Jesus came to earth to reconcile humanity to himself, and make things right, to undo the tragedy caused by humankind. It follows that God calls the church to help bring about healing by being a part of the process of healing and reconciliation in a time of tragedy.

Many churches talk about engaging their local community or being an active part of their community. They talk about not being a cloistered convent of devout worshipers, but of leaving the safety of the church building, and being present with and for the community. For Evangelical Christians the gospel of Jesus Christ is central to this effort. 

When a tragedy occurs, and a church intends to engage with the local community, they will naturally address the tragedy that has occured, and do so through the eyes of Jesus. They will weep with those who weep, and mourn with those who mourn.

But it can't end there. If the tragedy destroys life, healing involves being present with those who remain. If the tragedy destroys property or livelihoods, healing is about binding up that which is broken and restoring life and property to its former state. Jesus didn't just heal souls, he healed bodies and restored livelihoods. While no individual church can right all the wrongs, a church engaged with its community will aim to be a part of the solution, both spiritually and physically.

But what happens if the tragedy does both of those things and more, destroying justice in the process, because someone commits a crime, or gross negligence brought on my animous?

The church's role does not change. It is still called to bring about healing, but now the process looks different. Now, healing starts with naming the wrong done. 

If the KKK burns a synagogue to the ground in a way that shakes the whole community, (and puts up a cross in the process) it isn't enough for the church to help rebuild the synagogue. Naming the racism that led to the burning of the synagogue is a necessary part of the healing process. Naming the fact that a perverted form of Christianity led to the atrocity is also necessary, as is being aware of, and talking about the historic role that Christians have played in antisemitism. 

This past week, perverted Christians and others assaulted the U.S. capital and threatened to murder the Vice President and members of Congress, in an effort to overturn a democratic election. They murdered a police officer, and brought about the deaths of at least four others. They defecated in a space sacred to the exercise of democracy, and like the KKK, some did so in the name of Christ. 

It isn't enough to say, "well obviously that isn't us."

First, it isn't obvious, not to an increasingly secular world. It is always incumbent on the one communicating to ensure they are understood. In this case, the speaker is any church that wants to engage with their community, and have the moral authority to be heard. If the perverted Christianity on display during the murderous insurrection at the capitol is not our brand of Christianity, then we need to say that. Assuming everyone already knows that, indicates the church is insular and not aware of how it is understood (or misunderstood) in the larger community.

Second, the goal if we recall, is bringing about healing through the message of Jesus Christ. Naming the wrong is a necessary component of that healing. Jesus of Nazareth did not just preach grace, he preached grace and truth.  His truth in his time, required hitm to actively confront those responsible for unjustly destroying others.

In Matthew 23 he said this to the spiritual leaders of his community, "You hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness... you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate."

The church today, is in danger of being left with a morally desolate house. 

Jesus was killed for directly confronting the equivalent of today's pastors. His confrontation brought about his death, but it also brought healing. 

I have heard it said, concerning the assault on democracy that took place last week, that "both sides are responsible" or that "there are some people at our church who were happy with what took place." 

This is is a shocking exercise in lying. There is no version of the facts that indicates both sides stormed the capitol. One might say that the larger political context involves riots on all sides. That is true, and a post for another day, but we can't make the mistake of creating false equivalencies. A peaceful march for justice, followed by mostly others later destroying property is wrong. It is not the same as a single group of people rioting and attempting to overturn an election, directly egged on by the President of the United States. The first group sought justice for those oppressed by racism, a cause that was then in part hijacked by others, resulting in the destruction of property. The second group sought to conduct a coup at the behest of Donald Trump.

What took place in Washington last week is so far beyond left/right politics that it should make the pastor's job naming the wrong in a non-political way easy. Mitch McConnell, the highly conservative leader of Senate has come out against this atrocity as have many other Republicans. The assault on democracy last week is not (or should not be) a partisan issue.  

The church should be apolitical, and as non-partisan as possible, in as much as partisans allow it to do so by their conduct, but the church cannot sit by in the face of atrocity. It can be apolitical while also stating truth and confronting evil, just as Jesus did.

Christ did not side with one political group over another. But he did name the injustice in his world, and he wept with those who were weeping. 

In the event both sides of some wrong are both present in the church and share responsibility, the principles named above don't change, they are just applied differently or evenhandedly.

The church is called to facilitate healing by creating space for grace, and reconciliation, and binding up that which was broken. It must do this spiritually, practically, and emotionally through the power of the Holy Spirit. To do that, wrongs done have to be named and repented of. Cheap reconciliation that tries to sweep the wrongs under the rug does not work in the long run, and is usually immoral. If the church chooses to sit on the sideline because it cannot or will not take the steps Christ has called it to, it forfeits its moral authority and its seat at the table, as the community comes together to heal without it.

Next Steps

 

In 2008 I voted for a Democrat for President for the first time. I did so, not because I agreed with everything that all Democrats said, then or now, but because first and foremost, I had come to believe that ensuring access to healthcare was a fundamental good, which would benefit all of us. One of those benefits was reducing abortion. There were other reasons too, but that was the chief one. That President Obama proposed to take the conservative Heritage Foundation's approach further gave me confidence that he was the right person for the job.

When Republicans pledged to make Obama a one-term President, and absolutely refused to work with him, their true colors started to show though. I believe that was the point that the Republican party started down the path that led to yesterday's assault on democracy.

But returning to why I first voted for a Democrat, I realized that I simply did not agree with several basic conservative ideas, especially when elevated to the point of dogma. For example, the idea that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than a government approach, the size and use of the military, foreign wars and what not, and the priority we should place on the national debt. (It seems we are all in agreement on that last one, at least for the next two weeks. Get ready to hear all about the national debt next month.)

I suspect that in the coming months, with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House, they may go too far, and I will not always agree with what Democrats say. For that reason, while I have been vociferously opposed to President Trump, I don't usually advocate for any particular politician. They can advocate for themselves.

Fundamentally, I changed who I voted for because the Republican party and I both changed. There are Republicans like Mitt Romney, John McCain, and John Kasich (RINO's they are now known as in the Grand Old Party of Donald Trump) that I would vote for over some Democrats, especially if any given Democrat were to adopt a position as radically left-wing totalitarian as Donald Trump is fascist.

I stopped voting for Republicans, because Republicans did not represent my ideals.

I want to encourage you to help continue this trend.

In the next election, based on what has been perpetrated by a Republican President these past four years, and which culminated in yesterday's assault on democracy, consider if someone else can better represent you.

Lest we say that it is not Republicans but Donald Trump and a relatively small group of supporters that have done this, remember that Trump was selected from a slate of 14 options that included so many men and women more qualified then this child with totalitarian impulses.

He was democratically selected. He is the standard beror, chosen by the Republican people. He has been enabled for four years. People that finally stood up to him yesterday, Pence and McConnell for example, they helped bring this about. If what you saw yesterday is not you, leave the party. Change who you consistently vote for, even though you do not consider yourself a part of that party. (Like I'm not a Democrat, but I consistently vote for them right now.)

Now, here is the catch. Do not grow attached to any given alternative to the Republicans. In time they too may try the ties that bind us. Stand apart. Advocate for public policies you believe in. But don't unequivocally join a tribe.

Let Trumpism and the rotting Republican party be a cautionary tale.

Instead, enlargen the walls of the tent, and let all who love democracy come in.

Where should Republicans go from here? Here are my thoughts as an outsider, with lots of Republican friends I respect.

First, we need a healthy Republican party, or some follow-on to the party. I as an American first, want this for two reasons. First, because we need checks and balances, and without a loyal opposition of high integrity, Democrats will run off the rails. It's just human nature. Second, because the people that voted for all the Republicans up and down the tickets across the country are not going away (unless I can convince them to all vote for Democrats i.e. my post above LOL). But seriously, all people need good representatives.

While I am not likely to agree with Republican public policy positions or vote for them any time soon, I want them to exist and be a healthy party, with good representatives of high moral character.

If we could raise up a new party, that would be fine, but I don't think that is likely. I would say clean house, but I am not sure that is any more likely in the short term.

You may see an extremely conservative minority party emerge that is more professional, and less totalitarian than Trump. One led by people like Pence. But that would render them a regional party.

Republicans should not hold power in any significant way in the near term. They have forfeited that right temporarily. (That is, that is what should happen if the majority of voters agree with me.) But Republicans will re-emerge. And they should.

It is said that when a Supreme Court justice writes a minority (losing) opinion, they write for the future. Sometimes their minority position, or something like it is adopted at a later date. It is a sign post saying, "not all agree, there is a better way." We need Republicans to write the minority opinions, that we may return to in time if Democrats make poor choices. (And they will make some.)

Or to use another analogy from the world of law. We need a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a judge and jury, in every case. Each has a role to play. Even when the defendant is guilty as sin.

In the short term I don't personally want Republicans to win elections. (Not because I am a Democrat, but because I don't agree with their public policy positions.) But they will win some, and we need them there to hold Democrats responsible--just as a good defense attorney holds a prosecutor accountable to doing their job the right way. A good prosecutor is a professional who respects the Constitution, in part because there is a defense attorney there to make sure that happens.

We need checks and balances. If the Republican party is rotten, then there is no one to hold Democrats accountable, and we need them held accountable.

Then, if Republicans evolve, and if things change over time with the passing of a generation, as they surely will, and if Democrats overreach, as they surely will to some extent, then you may just see me vote for a Republican again someday. Maybe. But not likely anytime soon.