Jesus proclaimed that Christianity is indeed a narrow and exclusive belief system when he shared in (John 14:6): “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” We also read in (Matthew 7:13-14): “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Christianity by definition proclaims that only Jesus is worthy of our worship. If we strip away the deity of Jesus and his substitutionary death on the cross we are left with a Christless Christianity. Yes, diversity can be good, but when it comes to the foundational doctrines of Christianity we must remain narrow or else risk presenting to the world a false Christianity. Yes, there is a place for diversity of views in certain areas of doctrine (that’s why we have different Christian denominations) in non-core beliefs, but not when it comes to the essential doctrines of the faith. In these cases, we must remain steadfast in our narrowness.
There are some who view this narrowness of the gospel as a negative. They feel that we need to be more open-minded and tolerant of diverse views of Christianity. These advocates of religious diversity argue not only that contemporary diversity is good and historic Christianity unduly narrow, but that this was the state of affairs among Jesus and the first century Christians. As Christianity moved into the second and third centuries, they contend that Christians became increasingly narrow in their doctrinal views. The question is does the evidence support this view?
Christianity will always present a narrow road to Jesus since Jesus clearly claimed to be God and thus alone is worthy of worship and obedience to His teachings. Their idea that diversity prevailed during the first and second centuries is hard to swallow since clearly many of the original apostles of Christ died a martyr’s death just because they held to this narrow view and would not renounce the claims of Christ. Advocates of diversity of the gospel message claim that diversity was always the original intent of Christianity. But the exclusivity of the gospel clearly precludes diversity since Jesus claimed to be the only way to heaven. Diversity, in actuality, destroys the message of the cross and makes Christianity just another of many ways to God.
Clearly the religious leaders of Jesus’ day knew that Jesus claimed to be God and the only way back to the Father since it was for this belief that they had Christ crucified at Calvary. A simple reading of the New Testament leaves us with only one alternative – that Jesus is God. Jesus believed He was God, His apostles believed He was God, and the early church fathers believed He was God. Diversity in non-essential doctrines, yes, but never in the core doctrines of Christianity. If we take those away we have another gospel and no real Christianity at all. So, right from the very start of Christianity orthodoxy of essential doctrines was what prevailed. Exclusivity, not diversity, has always been and will always be what true Christianity is all about when it comes to the core doctrines of the Bible.
The Narrow Gate Isn’t a Mood: Why Christianity’s “Exclusivity” Is Actually Mercy………………………….M.R. Neveu
Curt’s point is blunt and correct. Jesus doesn’t present Himself as one spiritual option on a buffet line. He presents Himself as the way to the Father, and that claim is inherently and appropriately narrow.
Curt also draws a clean line between non-essential diversity (where denominations exist) and essential doctrine (where you either have Christianity… or you have a religious fan-fiction with a cross sticker).
Now, some people hear “narrow” and assume “mean,” “arrogant,” or “intolerant.” That’s mostly because modern culture treats truth like a personal accessory. Match it to your outfit, update it seasonally, return it if it feels uncomfortable.
Christianity refuses to play that game.
By the numbers we go.
1) Narrowness is baked into Jesus’ own claim, not invented by Christians with control issues.
If Jesus said, “I am the way… no one comes to the Father except through Me,” …and He sure did…then “exclusive” is not a marketing decision. It’s just… basic reading comprehension.
If Jesus said there’s a narrow gate that leads to life, then Christianity can’t turn around and advertise the faith as “a wide-open spiritual wellness platform.”
Here’s the core logic:
If Jesus is God, His words carry divine authority.
If Jesus is not God, then Christianity collapses at the foundation.
If Jesus is God, then it’s not “intolerant” to say His way is true.
It’s simply consistent.
Curt nails and polishes the guardrail: remove Christ’s deity and substitutionary death…and you don’t get “a kinder Christianity.” You get Christless Christianity, which is like calling a corpse “a wellness lifestyle.”
2) The church can be diverse on secondary matters, but must be stubborn on the essentials.
Curt’s distinction is the adult one. Denominations exist because faithful Christians differ on non-core doctrines, not because the early church couldn’t decide whether Jesus was Lord or just a motivational rabbi.
A previous Neveu outreach sermon tossed to the Madera Ca Mission crowd (a long time ago, in a galaxy far away in California) puts steel in that beam. Apologetics is, in plain terms, “where we prove the truth of Christianity.” That truth centers on Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension.
Uh-huh…not “Christ was inspiring.” Not “Christ helps my anxiety.” Not “Christ is my vibe.”
Christ died for our sins, rose, and reigns. That’s the message, and it doesn’t survive dilution.
So yes:
Diversity in church practice, culture, and secondary interpretations? Sure.
Diversity in whether Jesus is God and whether the Cross saves? No.
Because once “essential” becomes “optional,” Christianity stops being faith and becomes a spiritual suggestion box.
3) Narrowness isn’t only theology, it’s history and witness.
Curt rightly points out that the “early Christianity was originally diverse and only later got narrow” idea is problematic to reconcile with the reality that apostles and early Christians suffered and died rather than deny Christ’s claim.
Would you agree to torture and death knowing your core belief was a lie – and simply by admitting it, get off the pain/death hook with your accusers? Hmmm, tough question.
Neveu’s sermon builds this out with receipts, not good-humor vibes:
He told his Mission audience that early writers like Josephus are part of the historical conversation affirming Jesus as a real figure, and that serious historians don’t treat Jesus as mythical.
If you don’t think a weekday evening mission crowd in a town like Madera Ca is tough on truth and no patience for BS, just sit in on a relief mission bible session/sermon. Any time. Make sure to eat with the residents and clean up your table afterwards…missions are big on residents carrying their weight. Theological ideas somehow are a bit clearer to consider in that environment.
Ya know, in the early Christian writings of that period, Tacitus reported that Christus (Jesus) suffered execution under Pontius Pilate. In Neveu’s sermon, he highlighted the key implication herein. Hostile or neutral witnesses had no incentive to invent this story. It was reported. And they didn’t have Woke talking heads disguised as scribes in the period, that came much later.
So let’s press the timeline. The message of Jesus was preached quickly, publicly, to Jews and Gentiles, and in the very places the detractors were most able to refute it if it were false. Yet even the crucifixion wasn’t successfully denied…let alone the core messages of Jesus.
In other words, Christianity’s narrowness isn’t the church tightening the screws over time. It’s Christianity being faithful to what it has been from the start.
Jesus is Lord, crucified, risen, reigning.
And that’s why “religious pluralism” cannot be stapled onto the gospel without tearing it. If Jesus is the way, then “all ways” is not inclusivity. It’s contradiction dressed up as kindness.
Christianity is narrow the way a lifeboat is narrow. It isn’t trying to offend the ocean. it’s trying to save the drowning. Curt’s message is worth keeping sharp. We should continue the practice. We can be gracious, patient, and humane, but we cannot pretend the gospel is a flexible spiritual metaphor without gutting the Cross and insulting our Creator.
So yes, the gate is narrow. Thank God it is, because it means salvation is not “earned by the elite.” It’s given by the Savior.
The gospel is narrow because truth is specific, and mercy is personal: one Christ, one cross, one empty tomb, one open door.
Thanks Mr. Blattman
Thank you, Curt, for your comments on fundamental Christianity.