“[Many] who sit before pulpits have been given a steady diet of Jesus Christ without a context in theology. A listener might get the impression that faith in Christ had replaced faith in God.”[i]

The Protestant Reformation produced many good effects, not the least of which are the great quotes! How can we possibly forget such quotes as “Here I stand, I can do no other” or “The human heart is an idol factory” or “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!” But above these quotes hang even more important formulations of doctrine which have echoed through the halls of the Protestant Church for half a millennium now—Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria, and Sola Scriptura. I personally remember these as one creedal statement: “Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone, on the authority of the Scriptures alone.”

It is somewhat well-known what the dangers are of misunderstanding some of these elements. Belief that salvation comes by grace alone is good and wise, but to misunderstand this sometimes has led to an anti-missional spirit, because Christians have come to believe that God’s grace alone will save, regardless of whether they evangelize or not. Other times, individuals misunderstanding what it means that salvation is by faith alone have ventured into antinomianism, believing that if one has faith then that faith alone is the grounds and evidence of salvation, regardless of the life and other beliefs of the person holding such faith. These issues have been handled historically, but only now are Christians beginning to engage with an equally difficult error—a misunderstanding of salvation in Christ alone. This misunderstanding, much like those which have gone before, can have an impact on both the left and right wings of culture, as will be explained in this article.

Left-Wing Dangers of Misunderstanding Solus Christus

In the aftermath of liberal theological developments, pouring from beneath the pens of scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann and company in the early-to-mid 20^th Century, a new group of Christians arose which focused largely on the social elements of the gospel. These individuals, perhaps best represented by Harry Emerson Fosdick, de-emphasized the place of doctrine and theology proper. They instead worked (effectively to their credit) to advance what they considered Gospel-oriented social causes, such as women’s rights, common-sense child labor laws, or later on, civil rights.

To maintain credibility in a largely Christian culture, these individuals could not simply appeal to the good nature of their constituents. They had to link their actions to Jesus Christ and God’s will. So, they developed a useful tool that we might call the “spirit of Jesus”. That is to say, even if Jesus never explicitly said, “Women should have the right to vote”, they would contend that it was something Jesus would say, if you are familiar with the “spirit of Jesus”. In this context, the “spirit of Jesus” has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit (as Paul used the phrase in Philippians 1:19). Rather, this “spirit of Jesus” that they referred to would be more like one who gives money to a poor man on December 25^th, saying he is doing it in “the spirit of Christmas”.

These individuals advocating for a social gospel believed they were channeling the true essence of who Jesus was and what Jesus would do. Indeed, it was during this time that the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) came into the mainstream.[ii] But as they focused more and more on what Jesus would do, they focused less and less on what Jesus did. As they theorized about what Jesus would say, they focused less and less on what Jesus said. As they focused more and more on who Jesus would be today, they forgot who Jesus was.  

Thus, by the time you got to the mid-to-late 1900s, a person could say, “That’s not very Christ-like” even when referring to something Biblical, such as Church discipline (which finds its very grounds in the command of Jesus). Today, anyone doing any form of public evangelism will almost certainly be identified by the modern American culture as unlike Jesus, because (they will say) “Jesus loved everyone and never condemned anyone.” Some will even say things like “Jesus wasn’t religious, He was spiritual.” While they may have enough of a continued sense of Christianity to deny that salvation is found in other religions, they soften so much of the gospel that they may even say such things as, “Jesus will accept the efforts of unsaved people who do the best they can with the light they have. Even if they believe in Mohammad or Buddha, he will forgive them as if they were believing in him. All paths lead to Jesus, and he is forgiving and accepting of all.” Thus, they will argue, salvation is still in Christ alone.

At the root of this problem is actually a serious misunderstanding of Solus Christus. These individuals believe wholeheartedly in Jesus Christ. The problem is that the “Jesus Christ” they believe in is imaginary and has been formulated head-to-toe by their own desires. He is a “Jesus” who shares nothing in common with the true, historical Jesus of the Bible, except perhaps His compassion for the poor, sick, or outcast. His justice is entirely gone. His holiness, His religiousness, His gravity and severity—all of this has been thrown to the wind because those elements, in the mind of these left-leaning individuals, are “not in the spirit of Jesus.”

Such an error can occur only because these individuals have jointly misunderstood the doctrine of Solus Christus and ignored the other doctrines, such as Sola Scriptura. Their faith and belief in “Christ alone” are worth nothing, because the Christ in whom they believe is not the Christ who has the power to save—He is a figment of their imaginations.

Although He is the ultimate source of salvation, all paths lead to Him (contrary to what the Bible would say) and what is more, He has no standard by which He judges, nor will He ever be judgmental or unaccepting of anyone or anything. This is the Jesus in whom they place their trust—a false Jesus—but a “Jesus”, nonetheless.

In short, the “Christ alone” in whom they trust is a self-imaged idol, formulated based on a desired truth. If the Jesus of the Bible does not line up with the “spirit of Jesus” they desire to be the case, they will simply create a new Jesus in whom to place their faith. In this way, they can use religious-sounding language and even some Scriptural references to defend their beliefs, and their savior even bears the same name as the Christian savior, but all the while they have created a new religion. A fallacious Solus Christus.

Right-Wing Dangers of Misunderstanding Solus Christus

It may come as a surprise to many to find that the right-wing, that is the broadly conservative wing, of Christianity has also fallen into a dangerous misunderstanding of Solus Christus in the mid-to-late 20^th Century. The error proceeding out of this misunderstanding is sometimes referred to informally as “Jesus-olatry” combining “Jesus” and “idolatry.” In fact, the technical term for the error is Christomonism (christ-o-mon-ism). This is not to be confused with “Christocentrism” (christ-o-sin-trism), which seeks to find Christ throughout the Bible as the central figure of the Scriptures.

Christomonism directly refers to individuals who only accept Jesus as divine, rather than the Trinity, but the term has come to be associated with a method of preaching, singing, and believing that only recognizes the importance and value of Jesus Christ at the expense of the other members of the Trinity. To give an example, when sitting down to hear a sermon on John 3:16, most individuals would be entirely unsurprised to hear a sermon altogether centered around the person and work of Jesus Christ. Many would be disappointed or horrified if the sermon was not about Jesus.

In reality, however, John 3:16 does not itself focus on Jesus Christ. The verse is mainly about God the Father, not God the Son. It is a verse about how much God the Father loved the world. In showing His great love, it emphasizes how much God the Father gave so that believers will have eternal life. John 3:16, while mentioning Jesus, who is the “only Son” referenced mid-verse, does not center around Jesus—but the Father. And yet, how surprising would it be to hear a sermon on John 3:16 that focused not on Jesus, but on God the Father.

Similarly, it has been pointed out by such scholars as Sidney Greidanus that the music played and sung in conservative Christian churches reflects this trend. He wrote in 1999, “The tendency toward Christomonism is also noticeable in Christian communities where the Psalms are no longer sung and ‘gospel songs’ as well as sermons focus primarily on Jesus in isolation from God the Father.”[iii] We might think nothing of it, but it is time for the American Christian community to recognize that we have talked about Jesus so much that many are entirely unaware of the personhood of the Holy Spirit and the activity of God the Father. That is not to say that Jesus is less important than we have recognized Him to be—but it is to say that the Father and Spirit are equally important.

In a shocking form of similarity to what occurred on the left-wing through the last century, one of America’s most prominent conservative denominations had an open example of Christomonism come to the forefront in the year 2000. That year, the Southern Baptist Convention met to affirm a new edition of its statement of faith. Wayne Ward, a professor of theology who had worked for decades at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, came to the floor and said, “The Bible is Scripture, God’s written Word. But it does not say anywhere ‘believe on the Bible and thou shalt be saved.’ No, ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’” He would go on to say, “The Bible is not equal to Jesus. The supreme revelation of God is Jesus Christ.” What he was arguing for was the idea that so long as an individual believed in Jesus Christ—the Jesus Christ of the Bible—their beliefs about the rest of the Bible were negotiable.

Al Mohler replied to Dr. Ward on the floor of that debate, “Jesus Christ said himself, of the Scriptures, ‘These are they that testify of me.’ Pray tell, what do we know of Jesus apart from the Scriptures?”[iv] Dr. Mohler pointed out the danger of Dr. Ward’s erroneous concept of Solus Christus—he had disconnected it from Sola Scriptura. Much like many fundamentalist Christians who take great pride in announcing that they do not need theology or hermeneutics because they have “determined to know nothing apart from Jesus Christ and Him crucified”, Dr. Ward made the error of thinking that even the Jesus of the Bible can be understood in a vacuum apart from the rest of the Bible.

This Solus Christus, only slightly different from that of the liberals, does recognize the Jesus of the Bible as the true Jesus, but in applying what is known about Him, it lacks any ability to get up and cross the street because it has denied the foundational truths that Jesus Himself claimed were to be known about Himself. When Jesus walked with the two men on the road to Emmaus, He explained who He was to the men by “beginning with Moses and all the prophets” (Luke 24:27).

The Only Appropriate Application of Solus Christus

It has unfortunately gone rather unnoticed to this point that there is a problem in the modern American application of Solus Christus. As has been shown, there seems to be a proclivity amongst left-leaning individuals to create a “Jesus Christ” who fits the desires of those seeking to use him (their false Jesus) for the accomplishment of their own causes. This person will then be worshipped and proclaimed as if he is the same Jesus as the one in the Bible, though notably without all of His “less-desirable qualities”.

Across the aisle, however, the conservatives have shown an equal and similarly dangerous proclivity towards extracting the Jesus of the Bible from His Scriptural context and applying Him for their own purposes. This can come from the desire to formulate a certain hermeneutic, or a certain ethic, or even a certain governing system. Bereft of the remainder of Scripture, even the Jesus of the Bible can be misrepresented and used to justify one’s own purposes. Of equal concern is the fact that even a faithful church which teaches a faithful doctrine of Christ may fall out of Christocentric preaching, singing, and teaching, into Christomonic preaching, singing, and teaching. In their devotion to Christ, they sometimes abandon their devotion to God the Father and God the Spirit.

The only appropriate way to apply the doctrine of Solus Christus is in union with the other Solas of the Reformation. A “Jesus Christ” formulated apart from the Scriptures is imaginary. A “Jesus” who does not deliver salvation on the basis of the grace of God, through faith alone, is imaginary. A “Jesus” who acts for social causes and not the Glory of God is imaginary. And an imaginary Christ will serve no one any more use than an idol of wood. Carefully, it could be said today that many people claiming to worship “Jesus Christ” are indeed worshipping a false god—because the Jesus Christ they worship is not the Jesus Christ of Christianity.

References:

[i] Fred Craddock, “The Gospel of God” in Preaching as Theological Task, Thomas Long and Edward Farley, eds., (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 74.

[ii] This phrase originated in Charles Sheldon, In His Steps (Chicago: Chicago Advance, 1897).

[iii] Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 178.

[iv] Videos of this exchange and the rest of the discussion can be found on YouTube.