A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

What does TEC teach about salvation?

Yesterday’s Boston Globe carried an article about Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of Massachusetts disassociating themselves from the national church body on account of the latter’s “teachings on gay clergy, homosexuality, and salvation.”

Leaving aside for the moment the controversy over V. Gene Robinson and the larger issue of homosexuality in the church, what’s this business about the Episcopal Church’s teaching on salvation?

A bit further on we read:

After the ordination of V. Gene Robinson , a gay man, as bishop in New Hampshire in 2003, disaffected congregations asked that the national convention of the church return to a literal reading of the Bible that unequivocally forbids homosexuality. They also asked Episcopal leaders to affirm that the only route to salvation was through Jesus.

The 2006 convention did neither of these things, leading congregations such as All Saints of Attleboro to leave the denomination and others to request that they be overseen by traditionally oriented bishops rather than those who support the new teachings, such as M. Thomas Shaw, the bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts.

And:

Parishioners concluded that the majority in the Episcopal Church of the United States, which backs full acceptance of gays and lesbians and does not hold that belief in Jesus is the only route to salvation, “are at odds with the vast majority of Anglicans, with the Christian community of North America, and with Christians throughout the world,” [All Saints parishoner Ron] Wheelock said.

Now, there are two possibly distinct things being claimed here. One is that the Episcopal Church denies that “the only route to salvation [is] through Jesus” and the other is that “belief in Jesus is the only route to salvation.” These aren’t necessarily the same thing. It’s possible that salvation only comes through Jesus but that explicit belief in Jesus (at least in this life) isn’t a necessary condition for that salvation. In other words, Jesus can save us even if we don’t know that it’s Jesus saving us.

So, it’s possible to affirm that Christ’s work is what opens the door to salvation without claiming that one must explicitly acknowledge that work in order to receive its benefits. I take it, for instance, that the Catholic church teaches something like this when it says that

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part I, Section Two, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 3)

Apparently part of the controversy has been fueled by some remarks made by new Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori about the relationship between Christianity and other religions. For instance, in a recent Time Magazine interview, Bp. Schori said in response to the question “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?”:

We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.

Now, that’s not as precise an answer as one might’ve liked, and I think Bp. Schori may be conflating Christ’s work and our belief in that work (just as the Globe article above seemed to be doing). But if what she means to affirm is that God can act to bring people to salvation who have never heard of Jesus, then I don’t see anything particularly problematic about that.

What would be problematic would be if Jesus was reduced to simply one manifestation of a kind of ineffable transcendence that is no more (or less) binding or normative than those claimed by other religions. In such a view, there are a plurality of “vehicles to the divine,” none necessarily better or worse than any other. This is not a tenable view in my opinion, and it’s certainly outside the historic Christian mainstream. If the Episcopal Church were in fact found to be teaching such a view, then there would be serious cause for concern.

Of course, it’s not entirely clear what it means for the Episcopal Church to teach x since there is no teaching magisterium to pronounce definitively on what the church teaches. I’m not sure what kind of force the pronouncements of the General Convention have, but failing to affirm a particular version of the claim that the only route to salvation is through Jesus is not the same as denying it.

Indeed, the proposed resolution that was defeated at the General Convention seems a bit ambiguous itself on what is being claimed:

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved (Article XVIII); and be it further Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6); and be it further Resolved, That we affirm that in Christ there is both the substitutionary essence of the Cross and the manifestation of God’s unlimited and unending love for all persons; and be it further Resolved, That we renew our dedication to be faithful witnesses to all persons of the saving love of God perfectly and uniquely revealed in Jesus and upheld by the full testimony of Holy Scripture.

One could interpret this in a polemcial way – that is, affirming that one must explicitly call on the name of Jesus in order to be saved, and affirming a particular understanding of Christ’s work (“the substitutionary essence of the Cross”), in which case it’s understandable that the delegates would have problems with it. I myself would be wary about setting conditions on what people have to do in order to be saved, or requiring that everyone adhere to a particular Atonement theory (something the larger church never saw fit to require in any of its creeds or councils). Or, one could read it as mushy boilerplate that essentially says “Yay, Jesus!” which, while not being a bad thing for the church to say, doesn’t seem to require being affirmed by a church whose entire raison d’etre is the good news of Jesus.

More to the point, I think one would be better off looking at the daily practice of the church to determine what it believes about Jesus. The Prayer Book liturgy, the preaching, the sacraments all presuppose and proclaim that Jesus saves. In my admittedly limited experience, that seems to be the primary way in which the Episcopal Church teaches what it believes. If that’s the case, why the need to reaffirm the basic foundation of the church’s mission in a General Convention resolution?

It could be that the controversy over soteriology is a stalking horse for the issue of homosexuality. Otherwise, it’s sort of hard to account for the outrage over a position which, on a charitable reading, isn’t really any different from the position of the Catholic Church, who almost no one has accused of selling out the exclusive claims of Christ.

On the other hand, it’s possible to imagine a case where a church does fall outside the bounds of orthodoxy. If the Episcopal Church were to promulgate a statement explicitly denying the unique mediatorial work of Christ, then I think you whould have such a case. But as far as I can tell it hasn’t done that, and its life and practice presuppose the opposite.

,

12 responses to “What does TEC teach about salvation?”

  1. Karen B.

    A couple of additional links for your consideration of Katharine Jefferts Schori’s theology.

    NPR Interview:
    http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15977

    Australian Broadcasting interview:
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2006/1696173.htm#

    (click on transcript, and note the very final section especially)

    Many of us evangelical Episcopalians are hoping someone will do a point-blank interview with Schori to clarify her Christology and Soteriology. Many of us are very very concerned indeed.

    Reply
  2. Chip Frontz

    Sorry, Lee, but I think TEC, at least in its institutional expressions, is innocent until proven guilty of being explicitly Christian.

    There’s such a thing as the exception proving the rule. I think that’s where the Catholic Church is. Everyone knows that Rome considers Christ to be the Father’s means of salvation for the world. So when an exception is proposed, it proves rather than disproves the rule.

    However, I think that the case can be made that TEC, no matter what the BCP says, has practiced a Gospel-reduction to inclusivity so dramatically that it seems that the exception has BECOME the rule. The statements of +Katharine notwithstanding, that argument could be made based upon the panoply of religious symbols in Grace Cathedral San Francisco alone, or the necessity of a very public flap before two Episcopal priests in your former stomping grounds were officially chastised for being practicing Druids or Wiccans or whatever they are.

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    Reply
  3. Lee

    Karen B. – Thanks for stopping by and for the links; I’ll check them out.

    Chip – good to hear from you! Not sure I agree though. Unless we’re going to say that ELCA is in the same boat. Don’t we (they? I’m a little schizo about my current ecclesial affiliation) also have our druids, goddess-worshippers, etc?

    IMO it all goes back to authority, at least as far as mainline Protestantism is concerned (we know who speaks for the church in Catholicism). But in our case, who speaks for the denomination on such matters? And in the absence of explicit repudiation, why is a church that historically lives by the Word and Sacraments not presumed to be explicitly Christian?

    Reply
  4. LutherPunk

    Lee – my wife and I had this exact conversation the other night, hoping that what Schori meant was somehting akin to what the Roman catechism affirms, mainly, that it MAY be possible to receive salvation outside the church if the proper conditions prevail.

    In reading and watching interviews, however, I don’t think a case can be made for this; at least, it doesn’t seem that this was her intent. Of course, who can know intent except the person with whom the words originated.

    In spite of all of this, the vast majority of Epsicopalians I know and encounter are Christ-centered, faithful people who just happen to have some loopy folks in purple.

    Reply
  5. Chip Frontz

    Lee, when the most prominent Episcopalians out there are people like John Shelby Spong and Matthew Fox, both of whom have gone on record extensively about their explicit disbelief in the central Christian doctrines, with no record of disavowal from the church leadership, then the comments of the Presiding Bishop take on a slightly different meaning than they do buried in the Catholic Catechism. That’s why it is a safe assumption to think that TEC’s “views on salvation” are suspect from the standpoint of historically orthodox Christianity.

    If I met an Episcopalian layperson (or bishop) who simply read and believed the Prayer Book’s interpretation of Scripture, little or no problem.

    And the ELCA is perfect. 😉

    -C.

    Reply
  6. Lee

    LP – you may be right about PB Schori. Though I think there’s a tendency when people report on these things to treat the PB as kind of the “Pope of Episcopalianism” and this as some “new teaching” that TEC has promulgated. Whereas, I think the reality is considerably messier, not least because the PB is really just “first among equals.” On the other hand, if +Katharine really is as wishy-washy a liberal as might be suggested, it doesn’t bode well for the future of TEC that they’re ok with that kind of stance being the public face of the church.

    Chip – I have to wonder why +Spong and Matthew Fox are the most prominent Episcopalians. Is it because their views are representative of the church at large or because reporters like the “man bites dog” angle of a Bishop denying the Resurrection? I’m inclined to think it’s the latter. Not to say that all’s well in the house of TEC (or anywhere else!), but I’m dubious that those two are representative even if prominent.

    Reply
  7. Gaius

    And the 39 articles? Have they become optional, or is belief in them still accounted necessary to salvation?

    I suspect belief is not taken as optional among the African bishops to whom so many American congregations seem to wish to turn, though clearly Bishop Spong is not alone in trumpeting his rejection of every doctrine but the latest version of physicalism.

    And isn’t that precisely a key part of all the hoopla?

    Too, as is well known, the Roman Catholic Church holds belief in a great many things to be not optional, and necessary for salvation, declaring disbelief a mortal sin.

    That Catechism you allude to is very, very fat. And it is not offered as a mere suggestion how maybe things might be, roughly.

    You are right that the Church holds people who have never heard of Christ can be saved. But it also holds that the generality of people who have heard of Christ must accept him, and a great deal more, to be saved.

    Atheism is not safe. Nor is heresy or apostasy. Nor is adhering to the wrong faith once the right one has been heard, even if you were born and raised in the wrong one.

    And a great many Protestants to this day are firmly convinced that followers of that Whore of Babylon, the RC Church, are doomed and will be damned for the sin of wrong belief.

    Still, you are surely right that it is the question of homosexuality that has functioned as a kind of “last straw” for many Christians who have for decades put up with liberalism – even frank atheism – in the pulpits and in the seminaries without ever really sharing it or for a moment respecting it.

    But, having decided to rebel, it is understandable that they would not rebel only against the last straw, but would choose to reject the entire load.

    Btw, as to the question of authority in the Episcopal church, is it not the reigning British monarch who, formally and officially, has the last word?

    Although if, for whatever reason, she decided to speak and spoke against tradition and scripture, I suspect the Africans and conservatives everywhere would reject her authority; while the American hierarchy and perhaps the generality of theologians, while being glad of her support for liberalism, would also reject her authority for institutional and political reasons.

    Reply
  8. Joshie

    The English Monarch is the earthly head of the Church of ENGLAND, not the entire Anglican communion Gaius. As for belief in the 39 articles being required for salvation, I would suggest you look at article XI for an answer to that question. See also article XX on authority.

    I will repeat what I have said elsewhere that this flap over homosexuality in TEC and other denominations is, at its heart, not about scripture or anything else but politics, pure and simple. It’s being used as a wedge issue to pry people apart. The fact is, this did not arise over divorced, or women not wearing head coverings in church, or charging interest on loans or eating ham sandwiches (all of which are forbidden by scripture) but over homosexuals in the clergy and in congregations which, surprise surprise, happens to be a hot-button political issue right now.

    These so-called Anglican evangelicals in the U.S. who wish to make alliances with African Anglican churches that PROMOTE (not just condone) the opression of women, preach the EXECUTION (not just exclusion) of homosexuals and have played prominent roles some of the most notorious genocides and bloodiest civil wars in recent history just so they don’t have to deal with “Adam and Steve” living in the parsonages, they are truly morally bankrupt individuals who themselves should be excluded from any Christian who takes what the Bibles says seriously. How mass murder is morally equivilent to a man putting his penis in another man or a woman stimulating another woman’s gentitals is beyond me.

    Reply
  9. Lee

    My impression is that the 39 Articles are not considered binding in the way that, say, the Augsburg Confession is for Lutheran churches (much less the Catechism for Catholics). I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Articles are sometimes regarded as too protestant by the catholic wing of the church. In the American prayer book (’78) they are relegated to a section called “historical documents” I think. Personally, I think the Articles hold up pretty well.

    And Joshie’s correct that the Queen is the titular head of the CofE only: other Anglican churches are self-governing. Indeed, the first American bishop was consecrated by Scottish bishops because English bishops were precluded from consecrating a non-Englishman (if I’ve got my history straight).

    I think that it’s true that many conservatives do consider the consecration of +Robinson and attendant events as “the last straw,” but whether that’s a consistent stance considering the other accomodations the church has made to modernity is another matter. Maybe I’m mistaken, but there doesn’t seem to be anyone making a huge fuss about the fact the TEC communes divorced and remarried people, or people who use birth control, or people “living in sin” as they used to say. So, it’s hard to resist the impression that there is a double standard operating – one for straight folks and one for gay folks.

    Reply
  10. Lee

    p.s. Here’s an interesting brief piece on “the Scottish roots of the Episcopal Church (USA)” (not vouching for accuracy):

    http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/episcopal-church.html

    Reply
  11. LutherPunk

    Just to answer both Chip and Lee, yes, the ELCA has its fair share of folks who make the rest of us scratch our heads. The difference in my estimation is our tendency to reflect a strange sort of congregationalism, though we aren’t congregational in polity.

    I mean, I like at places like this and ask where the Bishop is and what he is doing while they are praying Goddess rosaries.

    Reply
  12. LutherPunk

    oops, link didn’t work. that was herchurch.org

    Reply

Leave a reply to Karen B. Cancel reply