The Scandal of Exclusivity, the Scandal of Schism

"There is no salvation outside the Church."-- Catholic dogma

Warning: Opinions stated herein are subject to change upon further review and reflect the author's most current ideas concerning pluralism and what defines a church.

I like the Catholic statement taken out of its context. Certainly Rome used the phrase as a means to excommunicate the Protestants and "send" them to hell. Yet stripped of that cultural and historical meaning (which I hardly ever advocate, especially when Scripture is concerned), the statement contains a glimmer of something true, even if only a half-truth. Christ calls us to community, and one will be hard-pressed to find grounds for a solitary faith in the Bible.

Perhaps this is the Baptistness in me, but I would claim that Christ calls us to membership in a church that fosters the spiritually transforming aspects of the Gospel (read: regenerate Church membership). The error of Catholicism (and many other established [read: state supported] churches) is that such membership must be voluntary; the error of Calvanism is that such membership is indeed voluntary rather than an act of God. Any other form of membership in a church prevents it from being truly regenerate as the membership is legislated either by God or by the state. Christ bids all who are weary and heavy-laden to come and receive his rest; he does not compel them through sovereign might. It is for these reasons that I am a Baptist, and I believe that the freedom permitted to the individual is most in harmony with the Gospel.

More substantial than the kind of membership is the nature of the body into which a person is to be a member. Christians have struggled with what defines a church for the vast majority of Christian history, beginning with Paul's conflict with the strict Pharisaical Christians over Gentile converts, to the Reformation, and recently to the Southern Baptist Church chaos that continues to flare up now and again. All conflicts have been over what doctrines are enough to make one a Christian and allow him or her to have fellowship with other Christians (aka be a part of the church).

How many creeds do we have that say, in essence, "This theology, and nothing else."? Does that exclude people who have had an authentic experience with Christ yet do not affirm a specific creed from the salvation present in the Church? Does it not mean that these "heathens" are not competent to answer for their own souls? Our church membership criteria, vary as it does from tradition to tradition, sound the claim of Christ in John 14:6 loud and clear and indeed add much to Jesus' words. He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him and by acceptance of whatever set of doctrines a denomination has.

Again, a half-truth. The other half of that truth is to be found in John 10. Jesus claims that there are sheep (read: people) who are not "of this flock." Typically when I have read this I read "Jew-Gentile struggle." Yet is this not also a question of pluralism? Can Christianity, which begins as a Jew-only movement, expand to the Gentiles with their Greek understanding of the universe? Tertullian says, "No!" The Pharisaical Christians say, "No!" Paul, Luke, Peter, and John's Jesus say, "Yes!"

Returning to my Baptistness for a moment, I reiterate that I believe that Baptist doctrine allows for the most authentic expression of the Gospel in a Christian setting. It allows for the freedom of the individual while reinforcing the importance of community. The question of universalism versus exclusivity in a Christian setting is a question of denominations. That same question in a pluralistic setting is a question of belief systems. The harmony between universalism and exclusivity in a pluralistic setting must be the same harmony between Baptist freedom/ responsibility and the Gospel. It must respect the individual and his/her encounter with God and yet call him/her into the fellowship of the Church. Any theology or philosophy that seeks to do away with one side of the tension will find itself doing away with one side of the Gospel as well.

Thus we have this contention: doctrines qualifying church membership versus God's universalism. How do they mix together to form something that works for all people at all times? I don't know. My best guess at the moment is that all faith traditions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) contain elements of the Gospel and that there are "invisible" Christians who live Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. lives and find their "church" in a mosque, temple, etc. Yet at the end of the day it is Christ who calls them home, and they respond having heard the Shepherd's voice before. They are not of the Christian or Jewish flock, but Jesus brings them anyway.

What is a church? I will not try to define it. Rather, I will say that I meet Jesus in the faces of the people I fellowship with in that place every Wednesday, Thursday, and Sunday. Hopefully that statement is open enough to let us all experience salvation inside the Church while preserving its Christian identity.