"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."
– Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, a former oceanographer who is the Presiding Bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father except by Me.
–Jesus
How does the phrase go, “don’t blame the playa’, blame the game!”
But then again, playing the game in hell might be a little warmer than a hot summer night in Houston without an air conditioner.
The American branch of the Anglican Communion is and has for quite some time been in very murky water and great pain. Of course, the interviewer’s question itself (title of this post) shows how thoroughly we have indoctrinated our present-day culture with a very odd (and I would say unbiblical) perspective of what it means to be “Christian”.
Still, in essence I have little problem with her actual statement itself, though knowing what I do of the present state of much of the Episcopal Church in the US, any deeper exploration of her meaning would probably expose deep differences. It is clearly our charge to proclaim to the world the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is Messiah and Lord of the whole world and all that goes with that proclamation. It is also clear that, apart from that proclamation, human beings have proven to be very unlikely to respond to God. However, making the blanket statement that God will only act through that overt proclamation does attempt to place limits on him. Yes, Jesus is the one through whom the redemption and ‘new creation’ was achieved in the unique and unrepeatable climax of history. And thus has opened the only path for us.
However, “belief in Jesus” (which was the actual phrasing used in the question), typically in our culture refers to intellectual knowledge of the specific, detailed story (or at least a handful of points drawn from it) and some sort of mental assent to the truth of that understanding. And I do believe (or at least hope) that God’s box is not so small. Intertwined among the stories of the Fall (Genesis 3-11) I see evidence of some few who did still respond to God. And in Genesis 12, I see a man trying to follow a God he did not really know and then responding with amazing obedience despite the bumps along the way. And combining that with Romans 1 I see hints that it is not impossible for people to respond absent any proclamation. In fact, I would tend to argue that a requirement of a human proclamation and detailed knowledge would in fact be unjust by any perspective I can bring to bear on it.
Of course, we must act as if it will happen in no other way. That’s the clear thrust of Paul. And while it may be possible, the lesson of the Fall and Romans 1 is that it is exceedingly unlikely. Absent the proclamation, very few at best respond at all.
I did really like her prayer below, though I may not take it exactly as she intended.
What is your prayer for the church today?
That we remember the centrality of our mission is to love each other. That means caring for our neighbors. And it does not mean bickering about fine points of doctrine.
Oh, and I also meant to say that, as fellow believers, we should be deeply in prayer for our brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church and the pain and struggle within which they find themselves.
The obvious problem I have is in the fact that she now certainly speaks for the entire Episcopal USA organization as she’s been elected as such.
To say, when asked point blank, “we see him as OUR vehicle to the divine, but…it could be different for someone else..” seems pretty close to heresy. I’m not sure how else it could be nuanced. Jesus is either a liar or not. He’s either the ONLY way…or he’s the laughing stock of history.
I DO like her prayer at the end…I just hope she doesn’t include ‘Jesus is the only way’ as a *finer* point of doctrine..
We (I) need to sincerely pray for the Epis Church. They’ve had difficulties for some time now.
I was pointing out that the distinction between the question in the interview and the title of your post actually matters. There is a different between Jesus as the only agent of (more broadly) salvation and belief in Jesus (especially using our contemporary Western concept of ‘belief’ – intellectual, conscious, and incorporating some set of over knowledge) as the only way to find that Way. While I have a sense that she would probably sacrifice much of the former as well, that’s not actually what she said. And constraining God entirely into the latter won’t work, at least from what I can tell of Scripture.
TC,
Does it really matter? Does God “really” hold us to account? Does Jesus really matter in the overall context of anything?
Do we really have to care what the Bible says? So we really have to believe anything Jesus says in the Bible?
How does this affect the pigmies in Papa New Guinea?
She says, “But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”
Obviously not. After all, it was GOD Himself who said “No one comes except through me…”
I went to public school and I can figure that out.
Well, I went to a lot of different public schools, several private schools, and was even homeschooled for a bit (long before it was a popular thing to do and not for religious reasons), and it’s not nearly as clear as you want to make it. Now, I’ll certainly go along with you if you wish to say that given what you know about her theological background, she probably means what you imply, I’ll go along with you. I even stipulated that from the beginning.
However, I can easily interpret her actual words in response to the typical western meaning of the specific question she was actually asked in the interview in a manner that would not trouble me at all. And lacking evidence to the contrary, I would prefer to credit her statement with the more generous interpretation.
Of course, using the categories from a recent Jesus Creed post, I would place myself somewhere between agnosticism and accessibilism on that particular sliding scale. I would be closer to the latter, but lack the certainty its language implies. However, observing the interaction of God with man throughout our text as well as some of the implications of Paul, especially in Romans, I find enough hints of the latter to provide at least hope.
The only way I see that you could not find some potential agreement with her statement is if you hold strictly to the first category, ecclesiocentrism. And I do think that is too restrictive even for what we see in Scripture and for our God. I would say that it is clear that people are unlikely to respond absent the clear and specific proclamation of the church. But I would not say it is impossible.
Besides, if you say it is impossible, that is not compatible with either loving or just.
Possible agreement? Sure. But I obviously have reservations in her statement. But for God Himself to say, “I’m the only way”…then to come back with some fine print and add, “OK…there may actually be an additional avenue or two..” is, IMO, unjust and unloving at best. Malicious at worst.
I have this sense that our comments are simply failing to intersect or connect at all. Let me back up and start with the basic one.
Jesus is the only Way (without even discussing for a moment what sort of way and to where or for what purpose) is not a statement that is congruent with belief (probably the western idea of conscious, intellectual knowledge of and assent to some subset of explicit elements of the story) in Jesus is the only Way. They simply do not say the same thing.
OK. Here’s a good way to probe the question. In Acts 10, at what point in the story would you say that Cornelius had the sort of faith that God would have considered sufficient? Don’t jump to rote assumptions. Read the entire story carefully for what it actually says and does not say. Whose beliefs were most changed by the encounter? What was God’s fundamental purpose for arranging it? Was it to “save” Cornelius? Or to demonstrate to Peter that the old divisions no longer applied? Compare the denouement of this encounter with, for instance, the one of Paul and Silas with jailer in Acts 16. Do you notice some significant distinctions?
There are a lot of things Scripture doesn’t explicitly and completely describe. And one of those is the full mystery of how Jesus is the Way for us. Here I think the apophatic approach is valuable. Try to dwell as much on what Scripture does not say as on what it does. Look for Jesus in the gaps.
That does not translate into either religious intrumentalism or universalism. The former would claim that God architected the different religions as tools to reach people. I know enough about them from personal exploration to find that impossible. Sure, because people are who people are, there are significant similarities. But there are also deep differences and those differences are not compatible with the Jesus we find in scripture. And the latter, of course, would require the same violation of our freedom of conscience that preventing us from sin would have required.
However, between those extremes and the opposite extreme to which the western protestant church seems to have reduced this truth, I find many gaps in which I catch glimpses of Jesus. And, of course, if he truly is Lord of the world and we humans are just a bit slow on the uptake, that’s what I would expect.
None of that reduces the urgency of our responsibility to live and proclaim our Lord. For however Jesus and his Spirit work in the gaps, it is abundantly clear that absent the proclamation of his Church, most people will not turn. Nevertheless, some do, even if they don’t fully understand the God to whom they are turning. And even if nobody ever fully explains this God to them.
At least, I’m mostly certain of that. And the more I write about it, the more certain I become.
I believe, firmly, that the atoning work of Christ is the only vehicle through which our relationship with God can be repaired. In other words, I firmly believe that the person and work of Jesus ARE the only way to Heaven.
The real question, for me, lies in what I must do with that to find God and be in communion with him.
1. Is it mental ascent?
2. Is it sinless obedience?
3. Is it something in-between?
Of course, there are a billion other questions there to enjoy…but I really don’t think that there is an exclusive relationship between recognizing the all-encompassing work of Christ as the vehicle to God and (as the reporter puts it) that “belief in Jesus” is the only way to get to Heaven.
Am I off my rocker here?