Ever since the Tower of Babel, confusion in faith has led to division in fellowship. Around the world, society is divided into factions of rich and poor, Black and White, male and female, according to distinctions of race, class, gender, and social status. It doesn't take a theologian to recognize that this was never God's will for the church; nor does it take a historian to know that the church has not been immune to the dis ease of discrimination.
It is said that the young Gandhi was impressed by the teachings of Jesus and went to a church in hopes of learning more about the Carpenter of Nazareth. But he was met at the door and informed that the church was for Whites only. At this point he turned his back forever, not only on that church but upon a profession of Christianity. Whether or not this incident actually took place, the story illustrates a very real historical problem in the Christian church. The Christ with a seamless robe has seen His body fragmented by a thousand petty distinctions. Though Paul taught that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal. 3:28), * it has become a proverb in the United States that the 11:00 worship hour is the most segregated hour of the week. Unfortunately, God's people have often been the "tail" and not the "head"—a reflection of society rather than an agent for change.
Part of the problem might be our misunderstanding of justification by faith. Popular preaching often neglects to point out the social context in which Paul preached his message, and thus fails to bring home the practical implications for human fellowship. Whereas for Paul the gospel was the breaking down of the "dividing wall of hostility" (Eph. 2:14) between peoples and bringing them together to form a living temple (an object lesson of God's grace), modern preaching emphasizes almost entirely the "vertical" and personal aspects of the gospel, leaving out entirely its social ramifications.
The crux of Paul's gospel
In Paul Among Jews and Gentiles Krister Stendahl points out that Western theology from Augustine to Luther has interpreted justification by faith in terms of a crisis in conscience. Paul, however, directed his preaching to a crisis in community: tension between Jew and Gen tile. Both Romans and Galatians, the key New Testament works on this subject, reflect this tension. For Paul, justification by faith was not just a theory for contemplation or a balm for a guilty con science; it was the constitution of a community.
After its terse, emotional introduction, the book of Galatians does not move into an objective account of Paul's theology, but a personal account of Paul's testimony. This short autobiography climaxes in the event that sets the tone for the entire letter: his confrontation with Peter (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul's dispute with Peter is crucial to our under standing of this Epistle, and even, to a great extent, our appreciation of justification by faith. Peter had not preached a false gospel, yet his actions were tantamount to just that. Peter's sin was that he "drew back" and "separated himself (verse 12), fearing the circumcision faction. Jews had strict rules to regulate their association with Gentiles, and maybe Peter did not want to appear as if he was lowering the standard. (He must have forgotten that one of the charges leveled against Christ was that He "receives sinners and eats with them" [Luke 15:2].) Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy, for his actions were motivated not by conviction but by coercion.
This incident sets the stage for the rest of the Epistle. Paul's gospel is not delivered as an objective theoretical dis course, but in the context of the drama of human relationships. "But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we our selves were found to be sinners [i.e., be having like Gentiles], is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor" (verses 17, 18). The real sin, Paul says, is building "up again those things which I tore down," or in other words, building the "dividing wall of hostility" between people for whom Christ died (cf. Eph. 2:13). Orthodoxy should not be measured by words alone. Peter's actions spoke louder than his words, and his doctrine was measured by his deeds.
The central issue in the rest of the book of Galatians revolves around circumcision— the mark of distinction between jew and Gentile. Circumcision is no longer relevant because "there is neither Jew nor Greek, . . . slave nor free, . . . male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Abraham's off spring are spiritually defined, by faith in Christ (verse 29). Paul summarizes his message in chapter 6 by saying, "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God" (verses 15, 16). Often the term "new creation" is applied to individual believers as preachers emphasize the new birth. I believe Paul had a broader application for this term as it is used in the context of his Epistle. The Israel of God is the new creation: "all who walk by this rule."
The book of Romans can also be looked upon as Paul's defense of the Gen tiles as coheirs of Abraham. In a book with few obvious literary divisions, the most obvious break occurs at the end of chapter 11, which ends with a "doxology" and an "Amen." Chapter 12 begins with "I appeal to you therefore ..." and goes on to give the practical applications of Paul's gospel. Chapters 9 to 11, in which Paul discusses the spiritual nature of Israel, the human manifestation of God's saving acts in Christ, are the climax of the book.
Had more attention been paid to the corporate concerns of Paul, church history would have been radically different. For instance, the discussions of election and predestination that divided the church for centuries would have been far different had they been based less upon a Greek philosophical mind-set and focused more upon the general context in which Paul speaks. Whenever Paul speaks of election and predestination, he is thinking of God's purpose for His people, and a destiny that cannot be thwarted by the stubborn willfulness of individuals. Thus, though God's people have failed (Rom. 2:23, 24), the Word of God hasn't (Rom. 9:6). God's purpose is being worked out by a remnant, chosen by grace, that includes both Jews and Gentiles.
The corporate context
For Seventh-day Adventists the implications of the corporate context within which Paul preached his message of justification by faith cannot be overestimated. We believe that justification by faith is the third angel's message in verity, or in other words, central to our mes sage and mission to the world. If Jesus' statement that our love for one another reveals the genuineness of our discipleship (John 13:35) was not enough, Paul's confrontation with Peter should remind us that our practice speaks louder than our preaching. If the purpose of Paul's preaching was to break down the walls of hostility among human castes and to raise up a living temple, a flesh-and blood object lesson of God's grace (Eph. 2:13-18), then we would do well to focus on practical, human relations questions as much as or more than on theological debates.
For instance, to what extent does my local congregation "receive sinners and eat with them"? If imputed righteousness, when stripped of theological jargon, means that God accepts me just as I am for Christ's sake, and we are to "welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed [us]" (Rom. 15:7), can we say that we have accepted Paul's message if we fail to be accepting of others? Many people, especially those who work with troubled people, have told me in dismay that the church is not a place to bring sinners. Is churchgoing an exercise to re affirm our sense of superior piety, or are we actively reaching out to the social lepers around us?
If in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek," how long can we be content with a White church on one side of the town and a Black church of like believers on the other side? Church growth theorists like to stress the pragmatic value of missions based upon cultural identities. And language barriers also make cultural churches a necessity. Yet these churches should be regarded as missions: a means and not an end. When we institutionalize ourselves (sometimes up to the conference level) along racial lines, we create a permanent cleavage in the body of Christ. Our practical value as an object lesson of God's grace is lost, and the spirituality of our people suffers. The broader the range of diversity among the people with whom we associate, the lower the probability that our perception of the gospel will be influenced by one particular cultural bias. And the greater the chance of a richer and fuller spiritual life.
To what extent are we, and our local congregations, breaking down the walls of social barriers and reaching out to all castes and clans? If we are not actively breaking down social barriers, we are, by our complicity, building up that which Christ tore down. These factors may be a more reliable litmus test of our under standing of justification by faith than any theological shibboleth.
I don't think we are sensitive enough to the miracle of Christ among us and what that means for our mission to the world. As the song says, what the world needs now is love. A demonstration of brotherly love among church members, one that knows no barriers or boundaries, is an irrefutable argument for what we preach. It may not be all that we have to say to the world, but it is the only way that Christ ordained to say it.
I've been fortunate enough to look out from the pulpit and see obvious miracles of God's grace. Where else could we see old and young, rich and poor, Black and White, come together in such intimate fellowship as in the church of God? For without Christ we have nothing in common; yet with Christ we are a family.
*Bible texts in this article are from the Revised Standard Version.
