Stephen
Terry, Director
Horizontal
Atonement: The Cross and the Church
Commentary
for the July 29, 2023, Sabbath School Lesson
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in
Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28, NIV
All of Ephesians, chapter 2, is
succinctly summed up in this single verse from Galatians. It is the essence of
the opaque theological jargon - "horizontal atonement." Paul had a gift for
clarity concerning the gospel. Sometimes we do not. Little wonder then that
what was meant for all should be so obscured that the same church that teaches
us the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" has freely murdered throughout its
history in furtherance of Christian ecclesiastical dominionism. It should come
as no surprise then when confronted with the inconsistency, the response is "We
are no longer under the law, but under grace." This blatant attempt to make
Jesus a party to their crimes, whitewashing them under the concept of grace, is
offensive. And if I find it offensive, what would God, who inspired Paul to
write our opening verse, think about it.
Sadly, whenever the church has
felt inconvenienced by commanded love toward humanity, they throw up the
barricades and hide behind those imagined protections from heretical or pagan pollutions,
all while patting themselves on the back for being the only ones whom God
forgives of such transgressions. Paul would not have done this. While modern
Christians have a fortress mentality, withdrawing from association with the very
people they were called to serve and love, Paul went to those in need of the
gospel, supporting himself by manual labor. Despite attempts on his life[i] he
never withdrew to the safety of disengagement. And while contending for the
faith, he never lifted his hand against another, something that cannot be said with
any frequency about church leaders and laity through all the centuries since. Those
who live a life of humble service without strife are notable for their rarity.
Most notable has been the antisemitism that arose early in the church, partly
as a response to the persecution of early Christians by Jewish leaders, both
secular and spiritual, and partly from a need to disassociate themselves from
the idea that they were simply another Jewish sect and therefore intrinsically
inclined to revolt and riot in opposition to Roman rule. As can be seen in the
writings of leaders like Justin Martyr, who penned "Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew,"
and in the canons of various councils, especially the council of Laodicea in
the late fourth century, those who followed along too closely with practices
seen as Jewish were accused of Judaizing and therefore deserving of all the ire
the church could muster. Thus, antisemitism was not only useful for distinguishing
Christian from Jew, but it could also distinguish heretics from those loyal
supporters of powerful church leaders. This is hypocrisy, paying lip service to
Christian morality which has no other basis than Old Testament laws, and then
breaking each of them in practice while claiming a divine endorsement by
ordination of their unassailable authority as a Christian, an authority increasingly
backed by the state from the fourth century on.
This was bound to happen, as the
church grew in influence, the constant willingness to vilify one another in the
name of Christ provided the perfect opportunity for Byzantium to step in and
take sides and control Christianity. This should have been no surprise, because
the Roman emperors used this tactic repeatedly in the secular realm. They used
it to take over Judea after the Maccabean revolt. It was this tactic that
placed Herod the Great on the throne in Jerusalem. Despite two major revolts by
the Jews, revolts that succeeded in destroying an entire Roman legion, they
could not throw off the Roman yoke once fastened. Rome and later Byzantium were
always able to exploit the divisions that existed in Jewish society and similarly,
the divisions that festered in Christianity. The split between Arius and
Athanasius of Alexandria over the nature of Christ provided the perfect opportunity.
Constantine sided with Athanasius, and Athanasius deferring to Constantine's
decision established precedent for the church to call on secular authority to
enforce dogma. One factor that evidences this being an astute political act on
the part of the emperor is that his decision allowed Athanasius to destroy
Arius' ability to assert power and influence to advance Arianism, but most of
what Athanasius succeeded in taking from Arius was later restored by Constantine.
The emperor gained influence through the conflict, and Arius and that conflict
may continue to prove useful in the future. Athanasius could crow about his victory,
but the empire now had dominion over the church, and Rome, continuing to use
similar tactics, eventually through a papal mouthpiece, would not see that grip
on Christianity loosen for well over a thousand years when the Reformation struggled
to free the church from secular control.
The Reformation seemed the dawn
of a new, more apostolic Christianity. Man could go directly to God for
salvation. No longer could the church, and therefore the state, declare who was
and who was not able to find salvation. But it found kings and emperors just as
willing to exploit the split between Protestantism and Catholicism as those
rulers who had previously exploited splits. Faith could not be free as practiced
under those old paradigms. It only found the freedom to follow its own natural
path to spiritual development by coming to North America and severing those
controls the state imposed in the old world. This in part was why Protestant
America, when confronted with the flood of Irish immigration of the early nineteenth
century resulting from the Potato Famine, saw a threat to that freedom as the
Irish brought with them the Roman papal system that had subjugated Europe for
so many centuries. The split that enabled secular authority to exploit religion
to its own ends could once again manage to overcome the separation that the
United States has managed to craft between church and state.
Ironically, the church that
sought to be free has become ever more divided with the passage of time. Deep
divides have grown between denominations over whether gender should determine
the right to ordination. Divides also exist over various forms of sexual
expression allowed in some denominations but denied in others. A very deep divide
exists over the issue of medically necessary abortion. Astute and not necessarily
helpful political leaders are exploiting these divisions just as Constantine
did in the fourth century. But we are far enough removed from that ancient
experience that the danger of the church appealing to the state to decide these
issues hides from our understanding. Just as Athanasius did not understand that
he had handed the church to Constantine on a silver platter, those who support
political leaders who back their dogma will find that behind the scenes, their
opponent loses nothing, while they have lost control of Christianity.
Seventh-day Adventists have sounded
a warning about this for almost two centuries now. But they did not fully
understand the broader implications. They saw the "man of sin"[ii] that
would eventually arise and would "think to change times and laws"[iii]
as someone or some system that would abrogate the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue.
This was the only one of the Ten Commandments that dealt with time, so it
became a focus of an end time apocalyptic scenario. It was also easily
evidenced all the way back to the antisemitism of the early church where the
Sabbath was suppressed as "Judaizing." But one problem with that as a
definitive End Time scenario has been overlooked. The passage in Daniel is
plural not singular for both "times" and "laws." This indicates a much broader
subversion of Christianity than a single commandment. It indicates a Christianity
willing to sell its soul for ever greater power over the lives of people. As
Adventists we may be blind to this craving for power, even if it is operating
in our own ranks. We have not been free of leaders exploiting divisions within
our own ranks to consolidate their power, so we have no excuse for being naive.
The Sabbath can indeed be an area of contention that will invite exploitation
by power hungry individuals willing to exploit any disagreement, but they do
not need that issue. Any one of the denominational fissures over gender,
sexuality, or abortion can serve equally well, and once they have been exploited to deny freedom of conscience, the precedent
is in place to deny any other threat to power, including the right to observe
the biblical Sabbath. That would be a slam dunk once the state and the church are merged, for most of Christendom began to abandon the
Sabbath in the first few centuries after Christ. It would not take much to codify it out of existence today, especially if
people do not understand what is at stake.
But again, Daniel says "laws"
plural not singular. The Sabbath is not the whole story. God is love, and if we
do not love, we do not know him.[iv] Love
is not self-seeking and keeps no record of wrongs.[v] Modern
Christianity fails on both counts by promoting its own agenda and keeping
records of those they feel are wrong. This means they are not loving and
therefore do not know God. As Martin Luther discovered, it is impossible to
reform a church enamored with power. He finally had to step out in faith on his
own. We should do the same. Secular legislation cannot save us from our fears.
A church co-opted by the state also cannot save us. Salvation is in Christ alone,
and if we do not claim that and learn what we can from the Bible about
developing that relationship, then we become pawns for anyone seeking to
exploit our fears to enable their own grasping for power. Real freedom is only
through Christ.[vi]