May 07, 2007
Joe Bell
I recently attended an off-the-record discussion of the Episcopal Church where the guest was an Episcopal bishop. The name of the bishop is unimportant; it is the discourse that was significant and it provided a clear understanding as to why the church will eventually break apart. The church cannot remain intact because it houses conflicting ideologies about the most basic components of the Christian canon.
Arguably the primary belief in Christian theology is the role of Jesus. In John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.”
Jesus declared, very directly and without equivocation that those who wish to receive forgiveness for their sins and spend eternity in heaven must accept Him as their savior. Millions of individuals around the world believe that is the truth and millions believe it is false. Everyone has the right to exercise his or her free will, however, one would expect leaders in a Christian church would accept John 14:6 fully and without reservation. Nevertheless, when the bishop was asked about Jesus being the only way to eternal salvation he hedged, not at the beginning of his response but certainly at the end.
He said, “As far as Jesus being the way, the truth and the life, I believe it absolutely. I am unapologetic. But can God work in other ways? Can He save people who don’t believe in or know Jesus? Maybe.”
This is not a small detour from Christian theology. The bishop said he believes Jesus is who He said He was, but he also believes the Almighty might work in other ways. Well, yes, He could - but He doesn’t. Of all the ways that God could have chosen to deliver salvation to humanity the Bible states He sent His only Son into the world. The forecasts of the coming of Jesus are found throughout the Old Testament. In Isaiah 53 the prophet speaks of the coming of Jesus and describes Him as “a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering.” Isaiah said, “By oppression and judgment he was taken away” and “he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Despite the bishop’s reflection that God may at some point choose to save people who do not believe in Jesus, the Bible gives the Christian nothing to hang that theological meditation upon. Nowhere does Scripture say God “might change His mind at some point and renege on the Jesus deal” or that He might “develop an express salvation.”
There are many religions in the world that individuals may embrace as they search for a theology that speaks to their heart and soul and grants them the inner peace and fulfillment they seek. Millions of people throughout the world live devout lives that have nothing to do with Jesus. But the question before the Episcopal Church is: Can a person be a Christian when he or she has reservations regarding an essential component of the Christian canon? It would seem that the answer would have to be “No.” It would be pointless to follow Jesus if one has doubts about the veracity of John 14:6 because that brief passage encapsulates the entire reason Jesus came into this world.
The bishop supported the election of Gene Robinson, a homosexual, to the position of bishop of New Hampshire, despite the fact that the Bible declares homosexual acts to be sinful, as are any adulterous sexual relations. The bishop justified his position saying that he knows Bishop Robinson is a good man. He also said that the love we should have for each other “trumps some other prohibitions.” A number of points must be made. First, what other prohibitions might love trump? Stealing? Lying? Heterosexual adultery? Are these actions also excused and trumped by love in the Episcopal hierarchy?
Second, the promotion of Robinson to the position of bishop does not begin and end with his being a “good man.” Every day good men and women struggle with sin but the goodness of their other actions does not absolve them of the need to repent and neither will good works alone grant one entrance to the kingdom of heaven. In “Mere Christianity” C.S. Lewis wrote, “We must not suppose that even if we succeed in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world – and might be even more difficult to save.”
We should all strive to be courteous to those we interact with and show consideration to others. But while “being nice” is necessary for a stable society it is not going to deliver salvation. Episcopalians should expect that those who rise to leadership positions in their church are more than “nice people.”
Several years ago I wrote, “The rip in the fabric of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA), began to open at least as far back as the 1960s when California Bishop James Pike decided the Holy Trinity did not exist and that there had been no Virgin Birth. Nevertheless, he also decided to remain at his post as a Christian leader. …Heresy charges were invoked against Bishop Pike but there was neither the will nor the numbers to move forward. Whether overwhelmed by the counterculture of that era, or perhaps Pike’s doubts were widely shared, the Episcopal Church failed to reprimand the obstinate bishop.”
When leaders of the Episcopal Church began to reject Christianity’s most sacred components it placed the church on unsteady ground. It has been wobbling ever since. Listening to the bishop the other night reinforced my conviction that the Episcopal Church will split. The theological interpretations of church leaders are contemporary and flexible. They are also inaccurate. Regardless of what religion one embraces, all should be tolerant of those who seek God in different ways as well as of those who choose not to seek God at all. But a proper tolerance of another person’s religion does not mean rejecting primary components of one’s own doctrine. That is the corner in which the Episcopal hierarchy has placed its flock.
###
Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.
jbellopedresponse@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment