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

The comparison is getting old. “Oh, you think homosexuality is wrong…what about divorce?” Gene Robinson says that his favorite way of combating arguments against homosexuality with other Christians. It usually shuts them up, and with good reason. It’s a perfect example of someone looking at the speck in another’s eye, and ignoring the plank in their own. But should we really be using that argument as a way to make another sin acceptable?

Maybe we should be using it to talk about marriage. Because few people take marriage as seriously as they used to. Some people think harder about a tattoo than their potential spouse. There’s [almost] no getting rid of a tattoo. But if we stopped accepting divorce as just a part of modern society, people might start thinking harder about getting married. Divorce used to hold some stigma. But now it only does if you’ve been married 3 or 4 times. It should hold some disrepute. It’s a bad thing. It’s sin unless your spouse was unfaithful. We should treat it as such.

So, I was looking into the ELCA’s Study on human sexuality and noticed this same thing in one of the 2005 Churchwide Assembly’s resolutions. This paragraph follows a position statement describing homosexual activity as a sin:

Every minister of the Church is a sinful being. This church in its structures of oversight makes decisions about every person who presents himself or herself for the rostered ministries of this church. Where this church judges that a person might serve the Gospel and mission of this church well, she or he is approved for ministry. The most instructive parallel for this moment may be clergy who are divorced and remarried, a condition specifically condemned in Scripture by Jesus. Without contradicting scriptural teaching, this church examines such persons and their witness, and may endorse their call to ministry. In a similar way, this church could agree to a particular review of partnered gay and lesbian persons called to specific contexts, and agree that they may be able to serve this church and the Gospel well. Leaving the language reflective of the traditional view intact and requiring the additional steps for granting exceptions respects what this church believes to be the extra-ordinary nature of these calls.

Well, does the divorced and remarried minister understand that his action was sinful? Did he repent? Does he intend to repeat it? If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then there is no reason, Scripturally, that he should be prevented from serving. Conversely, I’m fairly certain no candidate for ministry who is actively involved in a committed same-sex relationship will say that his actions are sinful, repent of them, and have no intention of repeating them.

Plus, there are questions such as who initiated the divorce, and whether the previous nuptials ended due to unfaithfulness, that could determine whether the action was sinful in the first place. And even then, is the current marriage a sin after there has been repentance? These questions don’t exist for those in same-sex relationships. There are simply no biblical guidelines for acceptance of these situations, like those for accepting divorce.

We need to stop wallowing in our own mediocrity. Instead of using the prevailing acceptance of one sin to gain acceptance for another, we should be trying to eliminate sin in our lives and communities. Not to gain salvation, because Christ alone offers that, but to show our gratitude, and to show our faith. We are called to holiness, and we should strive for it.

Related: Across the Board, On the Narrow, Sin and the Sinner, Religious Left, You Call That Protection?

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin hasn’t officially separated from the national church, but they’ve taken the first steps. I’m really impressed with the coverage in the Reuters article. The AP’s piece, however, left me underwhelmed.

The Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin voted Saturday to affirm its membership in the worldwide Anglican Communion, in what diocese leaders called a first step toward a formal break with the national church over the ordination of gays and women.

If only that were the truth of the matter. Reuters hits it dead on with this:

“Homosexuality is just one symptom of how the church has lowered its view,” said McCalister. “The key issue, however, is the ecclesiastical structure that recognizes the authority of the Bible, as it has for about two millennium. We’re not bringing in anything new.”

This is the heart of it. The upper echelons of Episcopal Church authority have begun to set the Bible’s “lesser teachings” aside in favor of a policy that goes something like, “Love your neighbor, even if that means ignoring some of Jesus other commands.” I don’t know what other issues will arise in the future, but right now we have a large number of Christians who believe everyone on earth is saved, regardless of their acceptance or rejection of the Gospel; many who believe that the idea of Jesus’ divinity was added in later. This break isn’t about ordination, it’s about theology and the position of the Bible in the church.

The Bishop Schori has a wonderfully deceptive response:

“Our task as the Episcopal Church is God’s mission of reconciling the world, and actions such as this distract and detract from that mission,” she said.

But who’s really “breaking away” here?

The Episcopal Church is a branch of the 77-million member Worldwide Anglican Communion, a loose federation of national churches around the world. Jefferts Schori leads 2.4 million followers in the United States.

At the San Joaquin diocese’s convention on Friday, Bishop John-David Schofield said, “The Episcopal Church walks apart from the Anglican Communion, but accuses us of leaving the church.”

The ECUSA is abandoning the centuries old view of the Bible as the infallible Word of God. As a Christian, that should be tantamount to apostasy.

I hate to use attendance statistics to suggest the health of a church, but if you check out the “growth” reports about the Episcopal Church from 1992-2004, you’ll see that only one diocese increased it’s membership relative to the population. Many actually lost members despite 10-20% population gains. That is not a good sign in a country that generally views Christianity as a good thing, with anecdotal evidence that points to a growth in overall church membership.

Like I said though, that’s not the way to determine whether a church is doing God’s will…just a fun fact. In the end what matters is this: The only tangible connection we have with Jesus’ teachings is the Bible. We have the Spirit and we have prayer, but those things are intangible. If we are to believe in him we have to trust the Bible to guide us to him.

Even Luther says in his Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ that when a dispute arises between our perception of the truth and the Bible’s declaration, the Bible’s language should prevail. The church fathers went to Scripture to guide practice. And Scripture testifies to itself, the Bereans searching the Scriptures to be sure the Apostles teaching was correct. I hope the leadership of the Episcopal Church remembers that, before the cookie falls apart in their hands.

The Episcopal Church USA’s new presiding bishop is Katharine Jefferts Schori. She is the first woman to head any member of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Doctrinal questions of women in leadership aside, this could be the end of the Episcopal church as we know it…

Jefferts Schori has some not-so-well-received ideas about the church. The one that gets the most press is that she is pushing for the full acceptance of homosexuality in the church. She says that “she won’t impose her views on others” and that the US church will compromise to stay united with the worldwide Anglican Communion…”for a season.” But she says that when it comes to the other denominations theological qualms with women’s ordination, “they’ll have to ‘get over it’.” See the AP story here.

She wants to pursue peace and healing, and is even willing to compromise, but she will have her way. She’s like a spoiled 3 year-old making a power play. Is this the application of liberal tolerance? That she is moved to include everyone, as long as they agree with her?
That problem is bad enough. But the position that you won’t hear much in the mainstream press, is that she doesn’t think that Jesus is the only way to God.This isn’t a big deal in the world. Most people think there are other ways to God. But for the primate of a denomination of 2.4 million people, this is blasphemy.

That word doesn’t get tossed about very much, as well it shouldn’t. It’s a serious charge that in centuries past has resulted in charred bodies tied to stakes. But what else can you call it? Misguided? No, the idea that God will give you every selfish request is misguided. Deceptive? No, telling someone that you have no sin is deceptive. Mistaken? No, saying the Great Commission is in Malachi 28 is mistaken. This is what Paul called preaching another gospel. This is blasphemy.

“If we insist we know the one way to God,” she said, “we’ve put God in a very small box.”

“It’s this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is — like God — more than any one person can encompass.”

Those are her own words. She says this despite the fact that Colossians 2:9 says, “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” and Jesus’ own declaration that “no one comes to the Father, except through [him].” She is unconcerned with what the Bible teaches, and decides for herself what is right and wrong. She has taken to leaning on her own understanding.

Some of you who are reading may not be Christians, and probably think it’s great that someone is coming in and going against the grain. You may not think it’s legitimate to hold to such old teachings, and that it’s good that someone is thinking outside of the text. The only problem is that the Bible and it’s teachings are what hold Christians together in this world. Belief in Christ, as the Scriptures tell him is what we are based on. Schori is free to believe that Jesus is only one of many ways to find God, but she shouldn’t have a leadership role in an organization that is based on the belief that he’s the only way.

This post from Get Religion tells the story well, including this incredible insight from an email:

A pastor is married for years, has children, runs a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, and then “finds himself” and abandons wife and children for a live-in situation with another man. His reward? Consecration as a bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church of America and wide-ranging media praise. LATimes, I believe, had a nice kiss-up interview with Gene Robinson just this week.

Another pastor apparently is married for years, has children, builds and runs a a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, fights temptation and loses, stays with his family, and when the dam breaks, is crucified in the press as his reward.

If you’re unaware, V. Gene Robinson is the gay Episcopal bishop who was consecrated in 2003, with praise from the media. The second story is of Pastor Ted Haggard, of New Life Church in Colorado, who was fired on Saturday following his scandal. I don’t think this email is saying anything to the effect that Haggard should have been allowed to stay, only that the media swing is amazing.

As it says in this article, Jefferts Schori’s comments are in line with what she has said before and with ECUSA leadership. And this is only a symptom of the new forms of Bible interpretation that take the stance that the text contains God’s truth, but not explicitly. This stance holds that the entire Bible, every story, is a metaphor. With this idea of the Bible nothing is certain. There are no concrete facts or commands.

When you reduce the whole of the text to metaphor you can support anything. Despite there being no Biblical support for the idea that God sanctions monogamous homosexual relationships, and concrete evidence that we were intended for monogamous heterosexual relationships (Gen 1, 2; Mt 19, Mk 10, 1Cor 6, Eph 5), you can say things like, “God loves us, why would he create someone as a homosexual if it was a sin?” And no matter what I say, you can refute it, because you don’t believe the Bible is true word of God.

What these groups don’t realize, is that when Jesus argued, he argued from Scripture. A lot. He is constantly referencing the Old Testament. When Satan tempts him he responds by quoting scripture. When the Pharisees confront him about his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath, he uses Scripture. But if take their position, scripture comes second to reason.

I’ve gone through this before, in the posts On the Narrow, and On the Narrow (pt. 2).

What will become of the true Christian faith? How long will it be before the idea that Christ is all, that he was truly God in the flesh, is all but gone in our society? There’s a lot of talk about the growth of Christianity in the global south. Will it become the new center of Christendom when intellectuality takes over the church in America?

The advance of this mindset in America’s large denominations, particularly the PCUSA, ECUSA, and ELCA is frightening to me. We need to separate this “Christian Spirituality” or “Christian Universalism” from Christianity, and quickly.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Matthew 7:13-23

There are two things I’m getting tired of from the Christian left in this country. No, they are not abortion and gay marriage. But the first is that every time a blogger or columnist editorializes their statements about conservative Christians, they whittle the position down to abortion and gay marriage. They’re going for the “if I hear it enough, it must be true” response from their readers. If they tell everyone that the only thing that matters to a conservative Christian is abortion and gay marriage, no one else will see that we care about other things.

Here’s how the conversation might go…

Connie: I think that school vouchers is a great idea. If we can work out a way to bus the low-income kids to the better schools of their choice, then that would start to eliminate the education gap in this country.

Libby: No, you can’t do that, because only the rich kids would be able to go to the good schools, and the poor schools would get worse.

Connie: That’s what the bus system would be for…the poor kids.

Libby: But buses put undue strain on kids and their families, the poor kids will suffer.

C: They already suffer. The education will help them escape that suffering.

L: You don’t care about poor people’s well-being, you just want this because it’ll allow you to vote for someone who’s against abortion and gay marriage.

C: That’s not true.

L: It is! That’s all you conservative Christians care about. You always bring it up!

C: Uhhh…you brought it up.

L: Whatever. If you could get past that, we might actually accomplish some things.

And on and on it goes. Of course, they never mention the fact that they could be the ones to ignore it. Because what happens is, liberals push for it, conservatives object, then the liberals say we’re holding up real progress because of things that don’t matter. Well, if they don’t matter, stop pushing for them!!!!! If you stop pushing, we can stop pushing back. But people won’t abandon their principles on either side. Perhaps if the left pushed a social/humanitarian agenda that didn’t include abortion or same-sex marriage, the right would jump on board. I would. I’m all for helping poor people. But if you say we can’t have the coffee without the cream, then I’ll have tea.

The other thing that I’m fed up with is this idea that the Religious Right has hijacked the faith for a political end, but the left hasn’t. A quote from Jim Wallis:

Greg shared his cynicism about politics in general and his dislike of how some on the Religious Right have made politics a divisive issue in churches. He recently wrote an op-ed piece in the Minneapolis StarTribune titled “My church has been hijacked by politics.” But he doesn’t want to see the same thing on the Left either, and I agreed.

That’s preposterous. The left has been hijacked, just as the right has. I’ve sat in a lot of conservative church services–revivals, youth rallies, Sunday morning, evening, Bible studies, different denominations–I have never heard a political sermon. Not once. I know it happens in various places, but I’ve never been present. But 6 months after I started working at a liberal church, I had heard more politics from the altar than I thought I would in my life. When I see reverends out pushing a political agenda, I don’t just see Falwell and Robertson and Dobson, I also see Jackson, and Sharpton, and Hanson. The Episcopal Church is facing major issues because the left-wing of their church is pushing a new agenda that the right wants no part of.

And let’s not forget that little tidbit. The agenda of the left is the new thing. If you’re not satisfied with the way things are, you’re welcomed to call for change, but don’t get mad at those who are satisfied when they object. The left continues to suggest that the right is pushing an agenda, but the right is mostly standing firm in the existing one, while the left pushes new stuff(the aforementioned school vouchers program excluded).

I wish all these people (like Wallis) who claim to want to separate the church from politics would actually do it. You’re a reverend for crying out loud. Stop doing political blogs and speeches and forums and what not where all you do is blast the Christians on the other side of the aisle because they don’t agree with you and start preaching the Gospel of Christ.

Don’t just preach it for the poor, but for the rich as well…and not just for the liberal, but the conservative also. Wallis was wrong to say “that any gospel that wasn’t good news to the poor simply wasn’t the gospel of Jesus Christ.” The truth is that any gospel that isn’t good news to all people is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

« Previous Page