Stephen
Terry, Director
Standing
for the Truth
Commentary
for the April 27, 2024, Sabbath School Lesson
"Some faced jeers and flogging, and even
chains and imprisonment. They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in
two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and
goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated--the world was not worthy of
them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in
the ground." Hebrews 11:36-38
As I look at the bookshelf in my
den, I see versions of the Bible in several languages. I am free to pull one
off the shelf and read it. In past ages, there were those who willingly died to
give me that right. Such persecution does not exist where I live. It has been
replaced by indifference by those who choose not to believe towards those who
do. Little knowledge exists outside the Christian community about the price
paid to secure that freedom. It happened long ago, and we have religious
freedom enshrined in the United States Constitution, so it is irrelevant to
today's Christian community. Or is it?
In the early years of the church,
beginning with Stephen in Jerusalem, Christians were martyred
for their faith. This is a stark contrast to modern Christianity. While they
lost properties, status, and even their lives in the 1st
-3rd centuries, today we spend far more time accumulating all that
the world has to offer, knowing that no one will take it from us because of our
faith. While this is not true globally, most Christians avoid the sacrifice
entailed by avoiding living in those countries that persecute them. Instead, we
go to primarily safe countries to build churches, hospitals, and schools, often
returning to the safety of the United States when circumstances threaten our
lives or our property. But early Christians did not have that opportunity available.
Rome was everywhere. To flee persecution was often to only die tired.
The temptation was strong to
recant one's faith to live and prosper in the Roman Empire. Early on, expecting
Jesus soon return and the resurrection of the faithful dead, many willingly
gave their lives rather than renounce Jesus. But by the 3rd century
under Emperor Diocletian things had changed. Christians were promised if they
would only burn a little incense to the emperor, they could continue their
lives unmolested. While many refused and paid with their lives, many others,
including clergy told themselves the incense meant nothing, burned it, and went
on about their lives. The church often disfellowshipped these individuals for
betraying the faith. After Diocletian died and the persecution ended, some of
these wanted to return to fellowship, and this created a theological crisis.
Were these people eternally damned for betraying Jesus by burning the incense? And
what about the clergy who fell away? Were those they baptized and ordained
valid Christians? The church of Rome was willing to accept them back into the
fold, but the Donatists of North Africa were not, and conflict between Roma and
the Donatists raged until Augustine of Hippo developed a theological framework
for the state's power to destroy religious dissent. Then the power of Rome was brought to bear, ending the dissent. This was a power
previously enjoyed in Imperial Rome. It was the basis for Diocletian's edict. But
Augustine created the justification for the church to enlist the state, to
swing from being persecuted to becoming the
persecutor. Some may feel that the Council of Nicaea in the early 4th
century was the turning point that provided the validation for persecution of
dissenting Christians by Rome to begin. That council may have opened the door
for the state to enter the church, but it was Augustine that gave the state
wings.
The state has often sought unity
by using religion to achieve that result. By attacking the Christian
dissenters, the church responded by willingly opening its doors to state
largesse. The first real trial of this was at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
Bishop Athanasius and Bishop Arius had long been disputing over the nature of
Christ. Both had significant numbers of followers, and neither was able to
prevail. Athanasius appealed to Constantine at Nicaea to condemn Arius as a
heretic. The emperor complied by ceding Arius's lands and property to his
opponents. While this destroyed Arius financially, it did not dissuade his
followers. Persecution often only causes believers to become even more
entrenched in their beliefs. Once Constantine had accomplished having the
church recognize imperial power in this way, he later relented and restored
Arius's lands to him. But the damage had been done, and
Augustine built upon that precedent to create the justification for the state to
unite with religion to persecute dissenters.
By the middle of the 6th
century Arius's followers had been conquered, though not eradicated. The modern
Jehovah's Witnesses keep Arius's teachings about the nature of Christ alive. But
the conquest did not mean a stop to the church employing the state to persecute
and murder Christian dissenters. History has a lengthy list of campaigns that
killed hundreds of thousands. Cathars, Waldenses, Huguenots and many other
dissenters who did not have the power of the state to back them up fell before
the weapons of state armies blessed by Rome and sent to destroy them. In countries
that served the Catholic Church, inquisitors were given
power to destroy those who would dissent from Rome, often condemning those who
refused to recant, or Jews who refused baptism to the flames.
Dissenters learned well from Rome,
and they began to align themselves with state power in resistance to this
persecution. For centuries, Europe was wracked by wars
as dissenting Protestants battled Catholics over whether faith should be an
individual matter or controlled by the state. States like Britain that wanted
to truncate papal power in the British Isles were just as willing to use the
Protestant church as Constantine was to use the Catholic faith for state ends. Many died as the British throne vacillated between Catholic
and Protestant monarchs pressing conflicting religious agendas. By the 17th
century, people who were desperate to flee all the bloodshed and persecution in
Europe began to arrive in the Americas. Unfortunately, many had learned well in
the Old World and brought the willingness to use the state to enforce orthodoxy
to the new lands. Puritans, settling in New England, persecuted and murdered
Quaker heretics. Less than two decades after the landing at Plymouth Rock, they
also drove Roger Williams out. Williams then founded Rhode Island on the
principle of religious freedom, a principle that found its way into the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
While a founding principle of
religion in the United States, in practice we often fall short. Memories of the
religious wars of Europe were still fresh when the Potato Famine in Ireland dumped
starving Irish on United States shores, Irish who were mostly Catholic. This brought
the wars to a new land, igniting a Protestant Crusade against the incoming Catholic
immigrants.[i] While
we often tout ourselves as a country founded on religious freedom, we have
struggled to make it a reality. Every new wave of immigrants seems to reignite
the flames of religious conflict. Now it is the arrival of Muslim immigrants that
seems to be the tinder threatening to ignite religious conflict. Despite this,
we have often felt we dwell in peace and safety compared to other, harsher
regimes elsewhere. But some question whether that safety derives from our democratic
society or from an unwillingness to risk what we have to stand on religious principles.
In other words, have we become too wealthy? Compared to others around the
world, we have so much, and they have so little. The difference is so stark
that we feel threatened by those desperate refugees who come to our borders
with nothing, seeking entrance. We say there is no room. Germany is the same
size as the state of Montana but has eight times the population density. Compared
to some other countries, we are practically empty.
For the Christian, there is an
added concern. The Bible tells us that an apocalypse is coming. Things will
steadily get worse and like the flood of Noah's time, there will be no recourse
short of divine intervention. Jesus represented the event to come as a loving
return to take his people home for the places he has prepared for them.[ii]
The book of Revelation, represents it as a horrible, bloody retribution against
those who refuse a relationship with Jesus. I can understand why Martin Luther
questioned including Revelation in the Bible. Although purported to be by John,
it clashes with everything else John wrote about Jesus. It expresses the frustration
of those who were martyred for remaining faithful but have not yet been
resurrected by Jesus' return. Evangelists have been preaching ever since the
time of Jesus that his return is imminent. Two thousand years later, we are
still waiting and many, many believers have been laid to rest in the interim.
As their descendants, we live in relative peace and safety. We presume that
will continue to be the case. There is no urgency as things have gone on with
no indication of change in the immediate future. But the Bible says
prophetically, "While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will
come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not
escape." (1 Thessalonians 5:3) Should we worry?