 Theological statement has room for misunderstanding By John H. Adams The Layman Volume 35, Number 4 Posted July 19, 2002
Yes, the General Assembly’s Committee on Christology and Confessions said unanimously in approving a staff-written declaration that emphasizes that salvation is through Christ alone. Aye-aye, said 97 percent of the commissioners (497-11) when the matter came to a vote on the floor of the 214th General Assembly. So, after two years of wrangling over whether Jesus alone is Lord or whether there are other salvation-granting deities, are Presbyterians now overwhelmingly convinced that Jesus Christ is, as the statement says, “the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope and love in him … No one is saved apart from the gracious redemption in Jesus Christ”?
Polling by the denomination’s Research Services, in a report titled “Background Survey for the 2000-2002 Presbyterian Panel,” produced these results: Only 46 percent of members and elders, 38 percent of pastors and 22 percent of specialized clergy agree that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” Clearly, most Presbyterians believe some people who do not explicitly state their faith in Jesus can be saved. Is that true for New-Agers, Unitarians, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Bahai’s, Baalists, Rastafarians and followers of Confucius? Is it true for agnostics and atheists? Is it true for people who have heard the gospel and say they reject it? Is it true for people who have never heard the gospel? The General Assembly’s statement, which was written by the staff of the Office of Theology and Worship, leaves open those possibilities. Immediately following its declaration that “Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord …,” the statement continues, “Yet we do not presume to limit the sovereign freedom of ‘God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ [1 Tim. 2:4]. Thus, we neither restrict the grace of God to those who profess explicit faith in Christ nor assume that all people are saved regardless of faith. Grace, love, and communion belong to God, and are not ours to determine.’” By juxtaposing its two extremes – salvation in Christ alone and we-don’t-know-for-certain – the theological statement resurrects a paradox that has tantalized Reformed Christians for two millennia. Invariably, most lean one way or another and few find a comfortable conclusion in the middle. There have been hyper-Calvinists, for example, who refused to share the gospel, convinced that God alone would choose whom he wanted and that preaching might produce artificial results. Of course, they ignored the fact that the same sovereign God who elects people unto salvation also directs believers to “go into all of the world, preaching the gospel. …” Others have used the “who-knows-for-certain” theology to accept anything-goes religions and theology. That’s one of the conditions in our sagging denomination. Many members of the staff and denominational leaders do not want to confront people of other faiths with the claims of Christ. They would prefer to “dialogue” – to talk each other down to a peaceful coexistence that doesn’t include the theologically incorrect taboos of supposed intolerance, accountability and judgment. But they dialogue at a risk of their own unfaithfulness. The overwhelming message of the Scripture is that God intends his people to be a light to the nations. A light doesn’t cast theological shadows. It doesn’t say, on the one hand, Jesus; on the other, who knows? The weakness of “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ” – the title of the six-page declaration adopted by the General Assembly – is that it gives almost equal time to that which is clearly revealed (Jesus is the only Lord) and that which is concealed (God’s sovereign administration of his grace). Scripture does not raise them to equality. Few and far between are the verses that question how and when God saves someone apart from his revelation in Jesus Christ. Some of those verses may be addressed only to the Church and not to the world, which would make their citation questionable. Even the New Testament, a commentary on the Old, ascribes the redemption of Israel to the work of the pre-existent Christ, who, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is very God of very God. The Apostle Paul, whose writings have been interpreted to provide some uncertainty about the sovereign work of God, never shied from the commandment to tell others about Jesus. Convinced that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God by the preaching of Christ,” he endured the reprisals of Jews, Gentiles and the Roman government. His operative word was not dialogue; it was witness. Indeed, the theological statement does span that which is known and that which is unknown. But paradox should include a caution both to Presbyterians who might reject the clear teaching of Scripture and to those who might use the unanswered to justify their disobedience of God’s commandments. There is room for mischief in “Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ.” The overwhelming endorsement it won during the 214th General Assembly surely included people who believe evangelism is the same as boycotting Taco Bell or endorsing a woman’s choice to have a viable infant murdered and then pulled from her womb. They might believe preaching is equivalent to lobbying Washington to have Israeli soldiers pull out of Palestine. They might believe the gospel is an invitation for sinners to continue living in their sin. They might conclude that saving grace exempts believers from discipline. But such are not evidences of faithfulness. |
|||
| Theology
that Matters index Respond to this article |
|||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|||
