Complicity, Truth and Reconciliation
During Truth and Reconciliation Day, we paused to acknowledge our nation’s responsibility—and the participation of Christian churches—in the residential school system. We, the church, have a responsibility to reflect, think, and seek reconciliation. The basis for that is truth, difficult truth: We remembered the children who suffered, the families separated, and the harms carried through generations of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities. These are documented realities that the church must face honestly. National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.
Complicity is a word often used in this discourse, and it deserves careful consideration. When I use that word, I am asking how I am connected to the continuing effects of past wrongs, what advantages I have inherited, and whether my actions or omissions help sustain injustice or bring reconciliation. What I certainly do not mean is that every person today has personally committed the historical wrongs.
As Christians, we bring those questions to Scripture with a willingness to examine ourselves.
In 2 Corinthians 5:14–21, Paul describes the love of Christ as the force that moves him. Christ’s death and resurrection change the direction of our lives: we are called to live for him, and our way of considering others changes. God reconciles us to himself through Christ and entrusts Paul and his fellow workers with the ministry and message of reconciliation.
As we apply that passage to our relationships with others, we must take its call to a transformed life seriously. We cannot receive reconciliation as though it places no responsibility on us, our resources, or our response to suffering. Grace gives us the freedom to acknowledge wrongdoing and the courage to change.
But none of that can happen without a shared understanding of truthfulness. Jesus identifies himself as the truth, and Ephesians directly calls us to put away falsehood and speak truthfully to one another. The Christian conviction that all truth belongs to God means we cannot make our comfort the test of what we are willing to acknowledge. It also requires humility: our understanding can be incomplete, and we must remain willing to listen, examine evidence, and accept correction. John 14:6; Ephesians 4:25
In Matthew 10:26–33, Jesus calls his disciples to acknowledge him publicly despite fear and opposition. This passage is specifically about allegiance to him. It nevertheless challenges us to consider whether fear of social or institutional consequences governs our willingness to live faithfully. Confessing Christ should form people who can tell the truth even when it exposes failures within institutions we love.
This is not a basis for declaring that someone who makes a mistake, asks a question, or disputes a particular word has denied Christ. It is a serious invitation to examine what we protect when faithfulness becomes costly.
James moves the examination into action. In James 2, he challenges a profession of faith that leaves a neighbour’s material needs unanswered. In James 4:17, he teaches that knowingly failing to do the good we ought to do is itself sin. So then, our responsibility includes what we leave undone. James leaves no room for the assumption that inaction is automatically innocent.
Applied to reconciliation, these passages require us to face the history of forced assimilation, dispossession, and violations of Indigenous relationships to land. That history includes lands seized or occupied and treaty commitments dishonoured; the circumstances differ across communities and territories. Precision strengthens our acknowledgment. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, What We Have Learned; Calls To Action
Those of us who benefit from the advantages of these arrangements must ask what responsibility comes with them. Receiving an advantage without choosing it does not absolve us of responsibility for what we do once we understand its connection to harm. Where we knowingly defend harmful arrangements or resist repair to preserve our comfort, complicity can describe our present response.
I include myself in this examination. If I resist that word, am I seeking accuracy, or avoiding what acknowledgment might require? If I prefer different language, what responsibility am I willing to name and accept?
A changed heart may begin with listening and learning. It must remain open to changed conduct: speaking up, supporting Indigenous-led priorities, sharing resources, making restitution where appropriate, and changing institutional practices. Meaningful repair should be shaped with those harmed.
We do not earn God’s reconciliation by correcting every wrong. We receive his grace as people who need it. That grace calls us to repentance when we recognize our wrongdoing and to faithful action when we recognize our responsibility. Our silence and our actions have consequences—for our neighbours, for trust, and for the credibility of our Christian witness.
Further resources:
https://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/IndigenousRelations?details=true#tab3