A couple of months back, after Bp. Schori’s original NYT Magazine and NPR interviews, I sent an email to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson. For those of you who don’t know, the ELCA and the ECUSA have a relationship of “full communion”. This is a pretty significant linking, though it’s not really a merger. As an ELCA minister I was fairly disturbed by some of the comments she made, especially those saying that Jesus is not the only way to heaven. Bp. Hanson got back to me about a month ago, but my anti-spam got it, and I just noticed it yesterday.
Basically, I asked him what his reaction was, how it might affect the communion, and whether the ELCA would follow suit. This is what he said:
I received your email of November 28 in which you expressed concerns about a statement made by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Bishop Schori’s remarks about those who are saved represent a specific theological school of thought that became increasingly popular at the Second Vatican Council and beyond. While it does not deny that Christ is God’s revealed means of salvation, it opens the door for the possibility that God has the capability of saving fallen humanity through a variety of means. Such a position would be in accordance with the biblical principle that God desires the salvation of every human being. We are certain that God accomplishes such salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We are not certain that God also will act in other ways to proffer salvation. Only God knows how God will act to redeem the world.
In order to place the best construction on Presiding Bishop Schori’s intention, I think we can affirm that it is not up to us, fallen creatures that we are, to determine for God the full range of how God may act towards us. That is how I read her remark that we should not attempt to put God in a box. And while I might not choose to express myself in the same way as Presiding Bishop Schori has done, I believe we can affirm both that Jesus Christ is God’s uniquely revealed means of the world’s salvation and that God has the freedom to act in order to bring all people under God’s kingdom.
The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in constitutional provision 2.02., declares:
This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.
The proclamation of God’s message to us as both Law and Gospel is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed, beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel, and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. As we celebrate the birth of our Savior among us, may you be filled with peace, joy, and hope.
Living in God’s amazing grace,
Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Well, Hanson just ticked up a couple of notches on my respect-o-meter. Typically i see a response that is worded so carefully as a load of B.S., but he makes a couple of strong points. Yes, God has only revealed himself to us in Jesus, and we know that salvation is found in Him. But Jesus told us that the Father desires the salvation of ever person. And we know he has the power to do anything he wants. So the possibility is open that there are other paths.
But the logical conclusion of this position is that we need to spread the Gospel as far and fast as we can and leave the rest to God. If He decides to save people through other means then that’s his prerogative…but we can’t count on it. We have to act as though there are no other options, because we can’t be sure. Similarly, as a 25 year-old I know that Social Security and Medicare might be there when I’m 67, but I better not count on it for my survival during retirement.
Bp. Schori was not saying this. It’s clear that she’s saying that we shouldn’t act as though Jesus is the only way. I find this difficult to do, because Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles were very clear that the nations would be saved through the cross. The nations…Gentiles…Goyim, with all their myriad religious traditions, would be saved through faith in Jesus of Nazareth. This is in stark opposition to her assertion that “people of other faith traditions approach God through their… own cultural contexts.” As a church leader she has a responsibility to be faithful to the Scriptures and lead people toward Christ, not make it easier for them to ignore him.
I hope that God chooses to save those who are pure in heart and spirit, but did not find Christ in life. Especially those who were hurt by bigoted, self-righteous, misguided Christians, and couldn’t bring themselves to return to the church that scarred them so badly. But if there were another way, why would Jesus have to die the way He did?
BTW, if your wondering about the random bold words, I decided to emphasize every time I referred to God using a third person masculine pronoun, because Bp. Hanson refused to do so. I understand that there’s a philosophical reason to avoid it, but Jesus called God “the Father” and that’s reason enough for me. Besides it’s stinkin’ hard to read a sentence like, “Only God knows how God will act to redeem the world,” or “I believe we can affirm both that Jesus Christ is God’s uniquely revealed means of the world’s salvation and that God has the freedom to act in order to bring all people under God’s kingdom.” Don’t they teach you not to do that in 7th grade, or something?
Already Making Waves (Revisited), Already Making Waves, A Spoiled Kid In A Weird Hat, More From the Schore, Schori’s Glory
Technorati Tags: authority, bad_grammar, bible, christian, christianity, Church, conservative, cross, ECUSA, elca, Episcopal, Episcopalian, full_communion, heaven, jesus, lutheran, mark_s_hanson, minister, only_way, presiding_bishop, progressive, progressive_christianity, salvation, schori, Theology
10 responses so far...
Ok, so you’re going to have to take me on the journey from Matthew 25 to this question about whether salvation is through Christ alone.
I wrote read the text and think carefully, very carefully. Matthew 25, 31 on was the text I was thinking of. Sorry.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
I see where you’re going. But you have to look at that in the context of Christ’s person, purpose, and ministry. He is the Son of God, whoever believes in him will have eternal life, and whoever does not believe will be condemned (Jn 3:18). He came seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). In his ministry he sought to lift up those who had been pushed down. He told his followers to make disciples in the names of the Trinity, and teach them to obey all that he commanded them.
You can’t create an “either or” requirement, because Christ taught “this and.” Helping the poor, sick, weary, and brokenhearted is not the only step on the path to salvation.
It’s not the only step but it’s the majot step.
You’re confusing an intellectual proposition with faith.
Simply stating that a proposition is true doesn’t mean anything.
There are many people who have been, are being and will be saved who have no idea Who Christ is since they have either never heard of Him or, considering history, have a completely mistaken notion of Who He is
because of the actions and attitudes of those who claim to be His followers.
Leave salvation to the One who grants it and don’t presume that you know who can or can’t be saved or under what conditions.
He will decide who has acknowledged Him as Lord and Savior not any of us with our little pea brains and hearts.
I’m not confusing them, the Scripture I quoted uses the word “believe” which is the verb form of “faith” in Greek (pisteo (believe) and pistis (faith). They mean the same thing. To strip the term down to an intellectual proposition is to set up a straw-man argument. Belief/faith in Christ includes trust and always leads to action. Assent to the intellectual proposition that “Jesus is Lord”, leads to nothing in and of itself. As Christ said, “Not everyone who says unto me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven…”
John 3:18 makes it clear that you must believe in Jesus to escape condemnation. Matt. 7:21 makes it clear that much more than that is necessary.
While those who hear and reject the Gospel are condemned, I have seen no Biblical provision for those who never hear the Gospel. That’s why I am (partially) an inclusivist regarding salvation.
God will decide who acknowledged Jesus as Lord and Savior. But, at the risk of being redundant…in order to acknowledge something, you have to hear it and assent. It begins with an intellectual proposition, though it ends much farther down the road.
I was careful to say in my OP that God “has the power to do anything he wants. So the possibility is open that there are other paths,” but for me the uncertainty of that proposition means we must still spread the Gospel, as it is the only path that we are sure of.
I am leaving salvation to the One who grants it, and his Word says how to receive it.
Good for you.
What I want to point out however is how, ( I can’t think of any other word) obnoxious is the claim that only “belief” in Christ will lead to salvation.
I know, I know, John stated that but I’m not sure he stated it the way it’s often understood these days.
That is, I think it was understood quite differently back then.
Now, I know people have this tendency to anachronistic thinking, and I think that’s the problem here.
I’m quite sure that all who will be saved will be saved through Christ but I don’t think it means that all have to jump up and down and shout “Jesus is Lord!” in order to be so nor do I think He’d require it.
In fact, I think most of us when facing the dread Judgement Seat will be lucky to be able to say, ” Forgive me”, as we look not only upon Him but on all those who’ve we’ve offended. If we’re “lucky”, ( better “graced”), we’ll have defenders beginning with the Holy Spirit and going from there to others who will testify for us.
When I’m called to testify for others, I don’t think that their “belief” in Jesus will be important, rather their actions will be and vice-versa.
All in all, it’s a mystery, thank God, but I really wish people would emphasize the mystery rather than the seemingly obvious.
I make no claim that only “belief” will lead to salvation. I do speak from scripture directly, which says that those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will be condemned. If you insist on contending that you “think it was understood quite differently back then,” I can’t really argue with anything but to say that I think it was understood somewhat differently, in that belief includes much more than agreement to a proposition, but not so different that you can believe in something without first acknowledging it.
In your view, my idea that scholars from the first century to today have a firm grasp on what it means and meant to “believe” or “have faith” is unfounded and anachronistic. I disagree.
As long as you base your argument on a definition of “belief” that is revised to fit a particular theology, we won’t see eye-to-eye.
Also, I agree that anachronistic thinking is part of the problem here. The evidence of early Christian positions on the path to salvation exists clearly in the writings of Paul, Peter, James, and the church fathers.
Perspectives like the one you’re describing show signs of what John Piper calls “scholarly disingenuousness”. The begin with qualifiers like “perhaps”, “probably”, and “I think”, and “by the end there [emerges] a confidence that something reliable and useful had been found.” They are houses built on the sand.
In the context of all of the verses in John that use the word “believe”, it is clear that the traditional understanding is contextually supported. You can disagree, but without Biblical or first century evidence to support the position, it’s just speculation. I’m happy to speculate and wax hypothetically, but I won’t base my theology or my faith on it.
Oh, yeah, and I never said anything amounting to “jump[ing]up and down and shout[ing] ‘Jesus is Lord’.” Belittling and misrepresenting my position is no way to debate.
And regarding who will be there to testify at judgment: Mal 3:16 “Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.”
Remember that all caps LORD is a placeholder for YHWH. so those “that feared YHWH and thought upon his name” are the cloud of witnesses. The name is important. Their “belief” will be important.
You’re suggesting a works only salvation that contradicts Scripture. Of course, by presupposing that John didn’t mean “believe” as we read it, you escape that contraction. John 6:28-29 is clear that to receive eternal life, we must “believe in the one [God] has sent.” It is so plainly obvious as to be unavoidable to the responsible Christian.
I’m happy to emphasize mystery. I think one of the worst effects of the enlightenment on theology is the elimination of mystery in favor of systematic certainty. But there are many things about God that we don’t understand. Meditation on time and space and eternity and his capacity for love magnify that mystery. Paul revels in the mystery of the faith. But there are some things that are very clearly stated, in many places by multiple writers throughout the NT and the early church. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the obvious. Your call to emphasize the mystery seems more like you hope to ignore it so that it doesn’t have to be dealt with.
I am glad that we left the ELCA for the LC-MS. The ELCA leadership is screwed up especially when Bp. Hansen defends the views of PB. Schori. Actually the ELCA should be E_CA because it doesn’t even know if it is Lutheran anymore except in name.
Blogs4God
Read Matthew 25-
After reading it, think about it- think about it real, real deep.