Many people ask whether Christianity is too narrow because it appears to make exclusive claims about truth as well as moral demands that modern society finds difficult to accept. So, if ‘is Christianity too narrow’ is one of the seven most googled questions about God, we should probably investigate it further.
What do we mean by ‘too narrow’?
Let’s start by defining what we mean by ‘too narrow’. Google’s AI answer to the question is that it means Christianity is ‘exclusive, rigid, and claims to be the only path to the truth’, a comment that was taken from the site Today in the Word. To me this would seem like a reasonable definition. We’re basically saying that Christianity is defining itself by a set of beliefs, a code of practices, and/or a set of specific behaviours to the exclusion of anything else. Believe this and do that, otherwise, you can’t join the club.
In truth, however, when people ask whether Christianity is "too narrow", they may mean several different things. They might mean:
- Christianity claims to be the only true religion.
- Christians are unwilling to tolerate people with different lifestyles.
- Churches exclude certain groups.
- Christianity makes moral claims that modern society finds uncomfortable.
These are related questions, but they are not the same question
Whatever we mean by ‘too narrow’, the accusation is that Christian beliefs exclude people, making Christianity seem inaccessible to those who might otherwise wish to explore it. It can make Christianity seem inaccessible with no space for those whose personal beliefs, attitude to life, or choice of lifestyle, don’t entirely gel with its teachings. In other words, you might be interested in joining the club, but the membership fee is a bit too steep.
By ‘too narrow’, do we actually mean ‘intolerant’?
Before we go any further, we should examine the question of Christianity and tolerance more closely, and it’s an interesting question. Perhaps it isn't the doctrine or theology itself that people object to, but the perception that Christianity excludes certain sections of society. To put it plainly – what we’re actually asking is whether by ‘too narrow’ we mean that Christians or Christianity are less than welcoming to those in the LGBTQ+ community.
Questions surrounding sexuality, marriage and gender identity have certainly become the most visible examples of the wider debate about inclusion. But while they are the ones that most often shape public perceptions of whether Christianity is welcoming or exclusive, they are not the only issues on which Christianity makes moral claims. The debate over abortion has polarised many Christians from wider society, as have disagreements over the relationship between Christianity and science. Likewise, the claim that Christianity is the only true religions Jesus Christ is the only way to God is often viewed as one of its most exclusive teachings.
It should also be noted however, that there are sections of the Christian church that do openly welcome and embrace the LGBTQ+ community and many see no conflict between Christian faith and modern science. So we should be careful not to assume all churches are necessarily alike. While Christian beliefs are based a core of central and fundamental teachings, churches differ considerably in how they interpret and apply many doctrines. The Christian Church is large and diverse and there will always be a range of views within it.
So, ‘too narrow’ certainly can mean ‘intolerant’ and it is a charge that can fairly be laid at the feet of certain sections of Christianity.
Is only Christianity ‘too narrow’?
But while we’re laying the charge against one religion, it would seem only fair that we should look at others as well. If Christianity is too narrow, is it the only religion guilty of that charge? And of course, it isn’t, and it can’t be. In truth, if any belief system is going to claim to be a source of truth, then it must be ‘narrow’ to a degree. As soon as you state ‘this is true’ and ‘this isn’t’ you are necessarily drawing boundaries which can only be narrow if they are to be of any use.
But let’s look at some other religions for comparison.
In general, Buddhism and Hinduism are often perceived in the West as placing greater emphasis on spiritual practice and ethical living than on affirming a specific creed, although both traditions are internally diverse and contain a wide range of beliefs and practices. In general terms, the focus is on living the right way to achieve enlightenment or earn a temporary stay in a sort of heaven before rejoining the cycle of death and rebirth.
On the other hand, both Islam and Judaism very much have a core set of beliefs that must be adhered to, much as Christianity. If Christianity is deemed to be exclusive, then the same can be equally said of both religions. Both of these traditions differ greatly internally, but each has a set of beliefs that define its identity.
In fact, even people who reject religion altogether usually believe some things are objectively right and others objectively wrong. Whether it's human rights, equality, freedom or justice, everyone draws moral boundaries somewhere. The question isn't whether we should have boundaries, but whether the boundaries we draw are true and justified.
If Christianity is too narrow, should it change?
So then, if we are saying that Christianity, and other religions, are too narrow, are we implying that they should relax their beliefs to welcome more members to the clubs? But should they? Or would they, by doing so, cease to be what they are?
A religion, or any group of like-minded people, must have a defined set of beliefs or principles in order for it to have any purpose. Every organisation has boundaries. Universities decide who graduates. Political parties define policies. Scientific theories exclude explanations they consider false. Religion is no different and once you dilute those principles, any group begins to lose its focus. Let’s say I formed a Shakespeare’s readers club to study the works of William Shakespeare. That club would soon become something else entirely if a new member suggested we alternate a Charles Dickens novel in between each play. So much for Shakespeare.
In both cases the changes may not necessarily be for the worse, they may even make the clubs more interesting. But they alter the nature of the original idea. It might turn out to be more appealing to read a range of authors rather than just Shakespeare every week, but the point is that it won’t be a Shakespeare reader’s club. It will be something different.
Now apply this principle to Christianity, or any religion for that matter. If you have a core set of beliefs that define the religion, once you begin altering or diverging from those beliefs, the religion is going to be intrinsically different. It could even cease to be what it was. As we’ve seen, Christianity is not just one church but a variety of churches with shared fundamental core beliefs. Christianity has certainly developed over two thousand years, and there are many, many denominations, or branches, that vary in focus or practice, but Christians generally distinguish between deeper understanding of doctrine and abandoning the beliefs that define Christianity. They might disagree on the details, but they agree on the principles. Think of them as siblings—they're all individuals but still part of the same family.
So, should Christianity be less narrow and more open to other views? Perhaps it should, but the risk in doing so is that Christianity will cease to be Christianity.
Christianity and inclusion: does Christianity have a responsibility to be more inclusive?
Which leads us on to our next point. Why should Christianity be more inclusive? Does it have a responsibility to be?
We’ve seen that by being more inclusive, Christianity runs the risk of losing itself in the process. But that’s not actually the point here. The real question is why should a group of people who believe certain things feel the need to change their beliefs in order to be more inclusive? If I run a French course, should I feel the need to accommodate the person who asks to learn Spanish? It’s a French course. So, if a religion says that it believes that beliefs a + b + c = d, should it have to accommodate someone who comes along and asks for e to be included too? To accommodate this person, I have to make a + b + c + e = d.
In short, if we have a group of people who say they believe certain things to be true, then whether or not you join their group really depends on whether you agree with their beliefs. It shouldn’t be up to those with the beliefs to accommodate you, it should be up to you to decide if you agree with them. I have no responsibility as a person running a French course to accommodate the person who wants to learn Spanish. The responsibility is theirs to find a Spanish course. So, is Christianity too exclusive and should it change to be more inclusive? Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism have to be what they are and it’s entirely up to us whether we wish to accept their beliefs.
Christianity and tolerance: narrowness vs judgementalism
There is one final point to be made in this discussion, and I have a suspicion that it’s this point that is behind many of the accusations that Christianity is ‘too narrow’. It’s the fact that some in Christianity have been, and still are to some extent, far too ready to place themselves in the position of judge and jury. Pointing your finger at others and telling them they are damned to hell is a long way from offering an all-encompassing welcome to the non-believer.
In fact, abstaining from judgment is a core Christian teaching. Jesus warned against this very thing, saying, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3).
It is important then to distinguish between being welcoming to non-believers and unquestioningly affirming every belief or lifestyle. A church may sincerely welcome anyone through its doors while continuing to teach doctrines that some visitors disagree with. Whether that balance is achieved in practice is another question entirely, but the two ideas should not be confused.
But significantly, just as those who are non-believers have no place accusing Christians of being too narrow in their beliefs, Christians have no place passing judgment. From my understanding of Christianity, judgement belongs to God alone
Conclusion
So is Christianity too narrow? That depends on what we mean by "narrow". If we mean that Christianity makes definite claims to hold the truth, such as Jesus is the only way, then yes—it is necessarily narrow, just as every worldview that claims to be true must be narrow in that sense. If we mean that Christians should be unwelcoming, judgemental or lacking in compassion, then Christianity's own teachings point in the opposite direction. The real challenge is not whether Christianity has defined beliefs, but whether Christians live out those beliefs with humility, grace and love.
Add comment
Comments