"Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ"

Reflections by
Kent Winters-Hazelton 

[8-15-02]

Perhaps a cynical mind like mine might suggest that either the document "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ" has very little significance (and I don't think that is true) or the commissioners didn't spend the time looking at what it had to say. What follows is a brief comparison between the statement on Christology at the 213th (2001) General Assembly, which met a whirlwind of opposition and criticism by the conservative and renewal forces of the church, and the 214th General Assembly's statement, which was overwhelmingly endorsed.

Initially, some of the criticism of the 213th statement came in its use of the word "unique," which, according to this interpretation denied that Jesus is Lord alone. But according to the dictionary I have on my desk, the definition of "unique" says that it comes from the Latin, unicus, meaning, "1) Single or sole, and 2) Being without a like or equal." The definition of "only" comes from Middle English, anlic or an, meaning, "1) unquestionably the best: peerless, and 2) alone in its class or kind: sole." Hmm. There doesn't appear to be much difference there. [Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1972]

The 213th statement seems to reflect an appropriate understanding of Reformed Theology's emphasis on God's action in the act of salvation; "It is [Christ's] life, death [and] resurrection . . . that restores creation, providing salvation for all those whom God has chosen to redeem " [Emphasis added] Whereas the first part of the 214th statement seems to stress the human response to God; " . . . all people are everywhere are called to place their faith . . . in him." While this is indeed an acceptable interpretation of Christian Theology, it is not necessarily a Reformed one. The latter statement tends to place its trust not in the sovereignty of God but in the response/decision of human beings. This statement reflects a more theologically conservative interpretation of salvation, which is then reinforced by the quotation from Ephesians and in the declarative statement which closes the first paragraph, namely that "no one is saved" apart from God's action in Jesus.

In reading this paragraph, I am reminded of the comments made by Douglas John Hall at the Covenant Network meeting in Atlanta. In addressing the question of the confession of Jesus as Lord, Hall pointed out that

We find ourselves surrounded by true-believing, biblicist and fundamentalist versions of our faith which out-do us in confessing Christ - but a Christ so unbending, so dismissive of differences, so reducible to dogma that we cannot recognize in him the One we have been taught by biblical scholarship and Reformation theological tradition to honor as redeemer.

Jesus preached a totally God-centered religion, whereas Christianity is Christocentric. Everything focuses on Jesus. But Jesus was not concerned with himself; he was concerned with how to bring himself and the people who listened to him into the Kingdom of God, to be children of God. [Bible Review, June 1984]

Curiously, in the second paragraph of both statements, we see the honest expression of the tension within the Church's Christology and Reformed Theology. They open us up to a broader understanding of the mystery of God's gift of salvation. "Although we do not know the limits of God's grace," reads 213 and "Yet we do not presume to limit the sovereign freedom of God," declares 214. The statements point out the division within our denomination. Does God save only us (Christians) or can and does God's salvation go beyond our understanding? Some of us limit God to "No one can be saved apart from . . . Jesus Christ," while others hold that "God, our Savior, . . . desires everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth." We continue to wrestle with whether this is an either/or or a both/and proposition.

Douglas John Hall, again in his presentation to the Covenant Network, noted,

If all we can say of Jesus and of God is that Jesus is God - all the God of God there is - then we have effectively ruled out all attempts of the human spirit to glimpse the mystery of the universe.

One of the curious behind-the-scenes developments of the Christology report was an effort to lift up the key paragraph of the "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ" document (the paragraph quoted above) as a comment in one of the actions the Committee. Earlier in the committee, efforts were made to lift up this paragraph as a heading for the whole document. Commissioners wisely pointed out that anyone on the committee could suggest a good sentence or paragraph to lift up for the Church, which would impact how people read the document as a whole. Still, this issue came up on the floor of the Assembly. Up in the corner of the stands, again we had quizzical looks on our faces. Why would the conservatives want to highlight the internal contradiction of our Christology?

This statement states clearly that salvation comes from Jesus Christ, but it leaves room for a question regarding whom God may save. This is the mystery that has confounded Christians for centuries, has divided theologians, and has been the point of debate within the PCUSA for the past two (and maybe two hundred and two) years.

Both statements clearly acknowledge that we cannot "limit" God's gift of grace. The 214th statement seems to go a bit further in seeking to define the limits of God's salvation, "no one is saved . . ." yet still declares that God's gifts "are not ours to determine."

But isn't that what the conservatives at the Assembly wish to do? Why would they support this statement with such vigor? Do they think people will read only the first paragraph and not the second and third? Do they think it is not arrogant for us to define God's salvation for humankind?

In conclusion, there are two critical points that need to be taken from the presentation of "Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ," at this year's General Assembly. First, this is a statement of this General Assembly and not the whole church. This is not a new confession, it is not to be included in the Book of Confessions, it is not the work of a committee of the Church commissioned to write a new statement for the whole denomination, it is not a final, complete or perfected statement of the person and work of Jesus Christ for us today. Second, Christology is a complicated topic, worthy of the rich and diverse expressions recorded in the Book of Confessions. [See Jack Rogers' statement at the 2001 Covenant Network Conference, on the Web at www.covenantnetwork.org/rogers3.html.] Indeed, the Office of Theology and Worship have stated that this document is just the first of a series of writings they will present to the Church. We must make sure that the Church is aware of this and that the OTW fulfills its mandate.

In reading the two statements, side by side, I am still unclear why one was beaten into the ground and the other highly praised. The words of each are slightly different, but the meaning is not significantly changed from 213 to 214. Maybe I am not alone in my puzzlement.

The author:

The Rev. Kent Winters-Hazelton is president-elect of the Witherspoon Society, and is pastor of the Claremont Presbyterian Church, Claremont, CA.

[8-19-02]

Dear Editor or Whomever:

I'm writing to respond to Kent Winters-Hazleton's article "Comments on the Christological Statement." I need to admit up front that I'm not a big fan of the Witherspoon Society (nor the Lay Committee, for that matter). However, there is much about Kent's article, especially the first half or so, with which I, and probably many other evangelicals, agree.

The Christological statement passed by the 213th GA was, in my opinion, sufficiently orthodox. If I remember correctly, the person who offered it as an amendment used the word unique in the sense of sole or only. I'm not opposed to what transpired at the 214th GA. The Theology and Worship unit's document is a solid piece of theological reflection and writing, very much in line with traditional Reformed Theology.

The criticism of both statements by certain evangelicals, and probably some liberals, is that their pet words, syntax, or whatever got left out. I'm very much reminded by these criticisms of an elder in a church I used to serve. Unless and until he changed a word or two in any written document put out by the Session, it would not receive his okay, i.e. without his words in it, it was a flawed document. So it is in the PC(USA). We have far too many critics who believe that they, and only they, must have the final word or approve the final edition of everything. What a shame!

David Bower, Pastor
Belington and Philippi Presbyterian Churches
Presbytery of West Virginia

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: