Reconciliation as an ultimate category

Does anyone know what “reconciliation” means in church-speak? Dr. Schori, the Episcopal Presiding Bishop, uses it quite a lot, and calls it the mission of her church, but you never see a clear definition.

So far as I can tell, the word refers to a state of affairs in which everybody remains as much as possible the same as he already is, but things are arranged so it doesn’t matter. There’s some overall global structure in place to take care of us all physically, do away with bad feelings, and make us all equal. In other words, we are no longer to make our own lives or affect those of others. Otherwise we might come into conflict, and anyway we won’t be equal. Instead, we are to be placed in the custody of comprehensive universal governing structures that protect us from the consequences of our actions and those of others, while leaving us as much equal freedom as possible consistent with those constraints.

So far as I can tell, that would be the perfection of Dr. Schori’s religious vision. If that’s what Christ had in mind. I wonder why it took so long to figure out?

1 thought on “Reconciliation as an ultimate category”

  1. Reconciliation
    Theologically, reconciliation would be a big deal to a gnostic or a nominalist, alienated as they are from both the imminent and the transcendent.

    It’s not so big a deal for a Platonist, a realist, or a Christian. For a Christian, the work of reconciliation has been done; it’s for us to rejoice.

    I think Schori uses it in a different sense, in the sense of the conqueror. After Schori and her ilk conquer the Episcopal Church theologically, which has been achieved for all intents and purposes, the next step is reconciliaton with the prostrate local population (to at least collect tribute and taxes). It’s propaganda for: “Now that we know who has the power, and how things are going to be, let’s all get on board and pretend we all get along.” It’s Vichy talk.


Leave a Comment