Is Confessionalism Exclusionary? Part 1: Facing the Fear of Boundaries

In Part 1 of this two-episode exploration on Catechizing Conversations, host Cisco Victa delves into the challenging question: If confessional Christianity draws boundaries, is it inherently exclusionary—and is that a bad thing? We examine our culture's deep-seated aversion to exclusion, rooted in historical atrocities, and contrast it with Scripture's call to clarity and conviction. Drawing from biblical examples like John 14:6 and Galatians 1:8–9, Cisco shows how even Jesus and the apostles set firm lines. The discussion uncovers the universal truth that every belief system excludes, using real-world illustrations like Unitarian churches versus the Athanasian Creed. Finally, we confront evangelicalism's tendency to minimize doctrine for unity's sake, quoting key insights on "essentials vs. non-essentials" and using baptism as a case study for how confessions prevent theological erosion. This episode lays the groundwork for understanding boundaries as acts of faithful love, with Part 2 promising deeper insights into protection and application. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:32

Welcome back to Catechizing Conversations. My name is Sisko Victa. And today we are beginning a two-part series on attention that many Christians feel but often don't talk about. And that is exploring how upholding clear doctrinal distinctions enables us to love others more faithfully and effectively. Because here's the main question we're wrestling with across these episodes. If confessional Christianity sets boundaries, and confessional Christianity does set boundaries, does that make it exclusionary? And if it does, is that really a problem? When we're talking about confessional Christianity setting boundaries, I'm specifically thinking of how Bible-believing, let's say, Lutheran churches look like the Augsburg Confession, or Bible-believing Reformed churches look like the three forms of unity. Bible-believing Anglicans look like the 39 Articles, and those of us in the Presbyterian tradition who are Bible-believing, we look like the Westminster Standards. So those confessions draw boundaries, and they include some and then would exclude others. And the question is, is that a problem? Is that problematic? Because in today's world, any line drawn, any doctrinal difference highlighted, or any truth claimed that rules out error often gets labeled as unloving, overconfident, or brash. But we know the Bible calls us to clear thinking, to strong beliefs, to an open confession. So how do we handle this apparent clash? Well, in this first part of the episode, we will walk through why our culture reacts so strongly against exclusion. The fact that every belief system draws lines, even the ones that claim not to, how our time makes confessions feel out of step and unpopular, and then lastly how evangelicals often downplay doctrine to avoid division or exclusion. So let's dig into these matters step by step. Let's start with care and sympathy. The word exclusion stirs up strong feelings today, and for good reason. History is full of terrible wrongs done by groups that sharply divided us from them. The most extreme cases you think of the Holocaust, racial segregation, apartheid, many cases of ethnic cleansing. These remind us how destructive harmful boundaries can be. And so modern people hear the word exclusion and immediately think of such historical evils, racism, segregation, genocide, discrimination, etc. And because we know those horrors so well, any boundary, any line, any distinction feels oppressive and dangerous. To say this is true and that is false sounds to the modern mind like saying these people belong and these people do not. So it's no surprise that when we say I believe this, not that, it can come across as pushy or arrogant. In our current way of thinking, claiming something is true makes everything else false, and that feels like shutting someone out. Creeds and confessions, those time-tested summaries of what Christians believe, end up looking suspicious, like they cause fights instead of protecting what's true. But we need to be reminded first that Scripture is full of boundaries, good boundaries, not harmful boundaries. Jesus draws boundaries clearly. Jesus does not leave truth open-ended. John fourteen, six is an example. I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. That is an exclusive line. Jesus also divides between the path of life and the path of destruction. Matthew seven, thirteen to fourteen. Jesus draws boundaries. The apostles also draw boundaries. Paul draws the strongest possible line around the gospel in Galatians 1, 8 through 9, when he says, If anyone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed. John draws a boundary around hospitality and fellowship in 2 John 10, when he says, Do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, a particular individual who has fallen from the faith. Paul also warns that false teachers will rise inside the church, Acts 20, verse 28 to 30, fierce wolves will come in among you, from among among your own selves, wolves. So let's stop and ask, are all boundaries bad or just the ones used to hurt people? The difference is a key as we move forward. One clear insight from today's episode is this every belief system draws lines, including those that say they welcome everyone without limits. Carl Truman in his book The Creedal Affirmative uses the example that the Unitarian Church will often say our only creed is love. It sounds inviting at first, but it brings in a but bring in a pastor who teaches the Trinity and who's asked to preach, and you'll hear a polite no thanks. In other words, even groups without a written creed have unspoken rules, they won't bend. The Athenation Creed by comparison is direct, isn't it? It lays out the heart of the Christian faith, God is three and one, Christ fully God and fully human, and says denying these puts you outside the faith. To our ears that straightforwardness can feel a bit too bold. Who are you to set such limits? But the Athanasian Creed is just restating what Scripture already has said. So the real question isn't do confessions exclude, because everyone does that. But are those lines based on God's word or just on what feels good in the moment? This sets the stage for why these lines feel so unwelcome in our world today. Or we can say the contemporary modern man has a disdain for confessions and creeds. They're hard to swallow for him. Because we have an extreme focus on personal choice, we have a deep suspicion of leaders, ideas that truth is whatever you make it. A constant worry that firm beliefs always lead to fights or control. This kind of thinking has crept into solid Christian groups and it's made confessional commitments less attractive. But we must take a hard look at our faith and evangelicals evangelicalism today, including those of us on the reform side. For in our drive to keep peace and avoid being called divisive, we've become quiet about stressing doctrine. We blur differences, calling almost everything not a big deal or not an essential, and in the process we weaken the faith we claim. The old Presbyterian Thomas Witherow said it like this It is very common for professing Christians to draw a distinction between essentials and non-essentials in religion, and to infer that if any fact or doctrine rightly belongs to the latter class, it must be a matter of very little importance, and may in practice be safely set at naught. And the go-to response to that is the matter is not essential to salvation, therefore we need give ourselves little concern on the subject. But this line of thinking is dangerous. To say that, because a fact of divine revelation is not essential to salvation, it must of necessity be unimportant and may or may not be received by us, is to assert a principle, the application of which would make havoc of our Christianity. After all, what are the truths essential to salvation? Are they not, there is a God, all men are sinners, the Son of God died upon the cross to make atonement for the guilty, and that whosoever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. And as Witherow says, there is good reason for believing that not a few souls are now in glory who in life knew little more than that, the first principles of the oracles of God, the very alphabet of the Christian system. And if so, no other divine truths can be counted absolutely essential to salvation. But if all the other truths of revelation are unimportant, then it follows that the Word of God itself is unimportant. And we see this when various coalitions make short faith statements to bring people together for shared work that may work well for them. But when everyday believers treat those basics as the full picture, trouble follows. Unique beliefs fade, theology turns into personal taste, and deep commitment fades to apathy. One quiet way the church weakens its own teaching is by saying this is not essential for salvation, and thus treating it like it doesn't count. For instance, baptism usually lands in that bucket. People say, sure, we differ on baptism, but it's not about getting saved, so let's not fuss over it. But that mindset is just what a solid confession won't stand for. Witherow's idea hits home here. If you label anything not essential for salvation as a throwaway, you've set up a rule that will one day make most of the Bible seem unimportant. Only a few beliefs are the bare minimum for someone on their deathbed to trust Christ and be saved. But God's word is far richer than that short list. And God doesn't waste a single word of his inspired word. His wisdom, our worship, his people, all of it is of great importance. So a confession is the church saying, in a sense, we won't toss most of God's word aside as leftover theology. A strong confession doesn't let you wave off baptism as a whatever. But it pushes the church to wrestle with those questions. What does the Bible say about who gets baptized? How is it done? What does it mean for Christ, for his promises, his people? What does it mean for our children? This then calls for a clearer, more defined position. And that's where needed exclusion steps in. If your confession holds that believers' children get the sign of God's promise of baptism, then it rules out baptizing only adults who can speak for themselves. If it says baptism is a once-for-all sign, it rules out redoing it just because someone changed churches or desires a fresh start. And those lines aren't cruel, they're truthful. They show exactly what the church sees in the scripture. So without confessions, every non-essential turns into some kind of bargaining chip. Baptism becomes a pick your own adventure. But with confessions, baptism is tied down to the church's reasonable take on what the scripture says about it. And so, yes, that puts some ideas outside the lines. And that's not picking fights, that's desiring to stay true. So when folks say baptism isn't worth splitting over, the confessional church answers, God has included in his word. We've stated what we believe he means by it. We welcome anyone as family who sees it differently, but we won't act like the teaching doesn't matter. And we won't build Christ's church as if his commands are optional. Confessions stop us from twisting non-essential for salvation into not essential for following Christ. And by setting real boundaries, they keep the church from gradually treating most of God's word as if it's up for grabs. And here's the tough truth. When everything is open to debate to debate, nothing really matters. When teaching is optional, the Bible becomes optional too. And Ephesians 4 14 through 15 warns us not to get thrown around by every new idea like waves at sea. Real steadiness and true togetherness needs boundaries. Thus downplaying doctrine doesn't build peace. It creates a thin, breakable fellowship. A church embarrassed by what it believes isn't humble. Ultimately, it's disloyal. We'll pick up this thread in part two and we'll dive into how this plays out further and why confessions are our best defense against the cultural uh opposition that we see today. Thank you for spending time with me on this first half of this episode of Catechizing Conversations. If it's got you thinking, pass it along, subscribe for part two. And uh until then, stand firm in the faith. Continue walking in the way that pleases the Lord. My name is Sister Victa. You can find out more about us on Victaleadership.com or our church, Lebanon Valley PCA.com. Lebanon Valley Pca dot com. May the Lord bless you.