Bring Back the Buffalo (VI): The Cross and the Buffalo Skull

In Jesus and the Victory of God, N. T. Wright argues that somewhat controversial point that for First Century Jews, like those to whom Jesus of Nazareth first proclaimed the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, “sin” and “forgiveness” were tightly bound together with the Old Testament narrative of exile and return. His position—and in broad strokes, I tend to agree with it—is that in a Second Temple Jewish context like Jesus’, “forgiveness of sins” meant, in particular, forgiveness of the national sins of apostasy and corruption that were the cause of and explanation for the Roman oppression and national subjugation they suffered as a people. He makes the case that they would have interpreted their present situation in terms of the Babylonian exile described in their sacred scriptures, and they would have seen the Roman occupation as evidence that in some real sense the exile had not yet ended. Inasmuch as the Babylonian exile was a direct result of ancient Israel’s corporate, national sin, the “sin” that needed to be confessed and forgiven in Jesus’s Judea, in the mind of a first century Jew, was also corporate, and national in nature.

In N. T. Wright’s succinct assessment: “Forgiveness of sins is another way of saying ‘return from exile.’”

This position was controversial when N. T. Wright first articulated it, mostly because it seemed to undermine the widely-accepted, individualized gospel popular in modern day evangelicalism, that understands “sin” as our personal, individual moral failures and shortcomings that need we need to be “saved from” by making Jesus our “personal” Lord and savior. This popular-level understanding of the Gospel has little room for the idea of corporate sin, that needs to be confessed by a people, in order that corporate forgiveness, in some sense, might be proffered. And yet, in N. T. Wright’s reading of the New Testament, this was at the heart of the historical Jesus’s ministry and message.

He suggests, for instance, that when the gospels relate that the whole region of Judea was going out to the Jordan river, “confessing their sins” and being baptized by John, they were not confessing their individual sins, or even their personal sinfulness. They were “confessing” the fact that Israel was still, in a very real sense, suffering the realities of the exile, and that they were, in another very real sense, implicated in the national, historic sins that had resulted in this situation, and that they wanted the Lord to end the exile and heal their national life.

It's a poignant reframing of the story, though it doesn’t fit neatly on a 4-point Gospel Tract.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about this idea lately, that for the historical Jesus, “forgiveness of sins” might be more about the healing of national, corporate sin than it is about individual absolution from personally-committed sins. It’s been especially helpful to me as I’ve processed my recent trip to Pelican Lake First Nations Reserve, where a delegation from our church participated in a Bring Back the Buffalo initiative with Loko Koa and Tearfund. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the goal of this initiative was to gift a First Nation community with a herd of buffalo, as a small step towards restitution and reconciliation.

Ever since I heard about this project, I found it deeply inspiring and profoundly moving; it becomes more so after you’ve done a bit of research into the horrific story of Canada’s systematic decimation of the buffalo herds that once roamed freely across the prairies, sustaining Indigenous communities and playing a central role in their culture. Throughout the 19th Century, the Canadian government actively encouraged the slaughter of millions of buffalo, both to clear space for settlers and agriculture, and to force the Indigenous people who relied on the buffalo to accept treaties and move to reserves. There were an estimated 30 million buffalo roaming freely on the Great Plains of North America when settlers arrived in the 1600s; by the end of the 19th Century these had been hunted to the brink of extinction.

I have never hunted a buffalo; I’ve never posed for a grotesque photo next to an obscene mountain of bleached buffalo skulls; I was born long after the last buffalo hunt ended on the great plains of Canada. In that sense, I am not “responsible” for the decimation of those herds.

I have, however, benefitted from the prosperity and the security that the nation of Canada enjoys, a prosperity owing, at least in part, to the fact we’ve had so much resource-rich land to make ourselves at home in, land we acquired, historically speaking, through Government policies that exploited and oppressed the First Nations who called this land home before us.

I grew up visiting Elk Island National Park as a child, home to one of the few remaining “free roaming” herds of buffalo on the continent (I put “free roaming” in scare quotes because, even though the buffalo at Elk Island are left to roam at will, the area of the park they’re allowed to “freely roam” amounts to little more than 75 square miles). We used to oooh and ahhh over the buffalo herds we saw grazing peacefully in its meadows and among its trees, but no one ever told me the reason why the entire population of wild buffalo in Alberta could now fit in a 75 square mile enclosure, when they once teemed across the prairies.

In this sense, I am implicated—personally implicated—in the sad story of greed, violence and racism that is the history of Canada’s dealings with its Indigenous neighbors, even though I myself have never personally slaughtered a buffalo.

This is one of the reasons I find N. T. Wright's read on the gospel so compelling, because it reminds us that sin runs far deeper than just our individual shortcomings, that it is woven into the entire web of social relations, both present and historical, that make us who we are and form the context in which we live. The individual first century Jew who went out to hear John and be baptized may not personally have done anything to cause the Roman occupation, but they were implicated in Israel’s national sins nonetheless, and knew it, and received John’s baptism as a profound sign, both of their acceptance of their part in the problem, and of their longing for corporate absolution and restoration.

When we realize that Jesus offers us forgiveness at that broad, corporate level, that through the Gospel we can be forgiven—even of our part in the decimation of Canada’s buffalo herds—it sets us free, I think, from the paralyzing, unspecified sense of shame that often inhibits robust action towards reconciliation, while allowing us still to face these issues squarely, with an honest acknowledgement of our own responsibility in them.

I realize this might be misunderstood. It may sound like I’m saying that, even if Canada’s historic treatment of Frist Nations people was sinful, and even if I have benefitted personally from that sin, well, Jesus forgives me, so it just doesn’t matter.

That’s not what I’m saying at all.

What I am saying is this: that when we come to terms with the implications of the cross in its broadest sense, we discover that even the systemic sins that we may have unwittingly participated in have been judged—condemned and atoned for—in the crucifixion of Christ; and if we accept the Son of God’s death on our behalf for even those sins, he forgives us of that culpability and, in so doing, graces us to pursue right relationship with our Indigenous neighbors, not out of a place of shame or a need for self-justification, but out of a profound longing to live as agents of the very shalom we ourselves have experienced in the cross.

Realizing that Jesus died for our corporate sins, too, sets us free, I mean, to redress those sins honestly and authentically, with no fear of condemnation or need for excuses. I have tried in previous posts to give some ideas of what it might look like to “redress those sins honestly,” but my sense is that, unless such efforts are tied intimately and inextricably to the cross, they can very easily slip into self-righteous virtue signaling that do more harm than good.

When they are done in response to the cross, though, and as the outflowing of the grace we’ve experienced in the cross, they can be done with all the humility and grace, the longing for community and neighborliness, the open selflessness and shared understandings that are so crucial, if our interactions with our Indigenous neighbors are going to result in genuine truth and real reconciliation.

<<<back