Why is that a hit piece? Two reasons. First, that formulation "denied the classic Christian belief that salvation involves turning from sin and accepting God's forgiveness through faith in Jesus." Bill Sherman, the author of this article, is a religion columnist for the Tulsa World. Surely he knows that this description of salvation grossly over-simplifies the church's teaching, reading back into Christian history the relatively new pietistic view of salvation through inner conversion. And Sherman must know how frightfully complex the social dynamics of a congregation can be. But the implication here is clearly that Pearson became a heretic, and lost his church as a result. It's almost a logical consequence of the sort you hand out to children: you break the vase, you have to replace it. You preach Unapproved Doctrines, your church leaves you. That's not nearly a sophisticated enough analysis, but it does what it was intended to do: leave you with a negative impression of the subject.

More important, what's the standard here? That Pearson is, in fact, a heretic by espousing a universalist theology? That puts him in popular company, says Beliefnet's Steven Waldman via our own Chuck Currie:

Yet 68% of "born again" or "evangelical" Christians say that a "good person who isn't of your religious faith" can gain salvation, according to a new Newsweek/Beliefnet poll.

This is pretty amazing. Evangelicals are among the most churchgoing and religiously attentive people in the United States, and one of the ideas they're most likely to hear from the minister at church on a given Sunday is that the path to salvation is through Jesus. Apparently, rank-and-file evangelicals have a different view.

Nationally, 79 percent of those surveyed said the same thing, and the figure is 73% for non-Christians and an astounding 91% among Catholics.

Think that poll's biased? Well, conservative uber-evangelical pollster George Barna's results were consistent:

According to the Barna Research Group, among adult Americans:

• 86% believe that "eventually all people will be judged by God."
  
• 57% believe that good people will go to Heaven
  
• 39% believe that those who do not accept Christ as savior will go to Hell
  
• 46% agree and 47% disagree that all good people will go to Heaven.

To slice the matter a little differently, Higher Dimensions went from the top 1% of all American congregations by participating members to perhaps the top 10 or 15%. Losing 4500 members has got to hurt, no way about it, but even so, Peason's church is still more popular than the vast majority of congregations.

Now, you might say - and why not - that the popularity of a belief is no measure of its rightness.  But then why the focus on Higher Dimensions' membership decline? Why the mention of Oral Roberts' cold shoulder?

It would be equally appropriate to this story a different way. I once heard of a Baptist church in Tennessee that decided to integrate in the 1950's, long before that was a widely acceptable choice. Their pastor led them from a congregation of 500 to one of 60, and from there they rebuilt, around a vision of racial equality and - wait for it - inclusion. By any kind of worldly measure, the congregation's drive to integration had been a disaster. But the pastor stuck to it, proclaiming that the church was called to be faithful, not successful.

But of course to tell the story that way would trip up the narrative of conservative religious ascendancy. We are told, ad nauseum, that mainline denominations are losing membership because they are too politically or theologically liberal while conservative churches are packed to the rafters. Never mind that virtually no denominations have shown significant growth recently. Never mind that birth rates may have more to do with church growth than liberal vs. conservative dichotomies. No, Pearson has been too inclusive, and therefore his ministry has been a failure.

Really, the hit in this hit piece is not so much on Pearson, but his inclusive theology. There are some people who just can't believe that there can be an "in" without an "out." It upsets their understanding of God's economy, which is to say literally, the structure and management of God's household. At best, a narrow definition of salvation is a moral precept beyond arguing: either you perceive the limit, or you don't. At worst, though, it is the root justification for a whole slew of very earthly injustices. For if the grace of God is limited, then it can be said that there is a definite hierarchy of salvation, and that has led to all kinds of monstrosities: sexism, homophobia, racism, centuries of oppression of Jews and other non-Christians. Because we are in the world, attempting to discern exactly the power and purpose of God inevitably involves us in wrestling with the power and purpose of the world around us; it is simply not possible to find a super-political understanding of salvation.

To declare an inclusive salvation threatens the political accomodations our society has made with Christendom. If all sinners are judged worthy of the grace of God, then there is no worthwhile theological justification for withholding marriage from gays and lesbians. If Jesus Christ may not be the only road to salvation, then there is no reason - religious or secular - to prefer the expression of Christianity in the public square. And if God has no preference for who is saved, but treats all as equals, then there is no cover for God's children to do anything else. Imagine Dr King's "beloved community," where the children, black and white, all play together - only expanded by a hundredfold. Gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, Jewish - how are we to tell who's in if we can't tell who's out?

But more to the point, how are we to tell who's up if we can't tell who's down? That, I contend, is what is truly at stake here. Pearson, like the United Church of Christ (with whom he is negotiating an affiliation for his congregation), presents a threat to the way power is traditionally distributed. He, like the UCC, presents a specifically Christian face to inclusion. For contrary to the usual slur, neither Pearson nor the UCC are anything but Christians. I won't speak for Pearson, but the UCC has been very clear that it does not intend to "unite all religions under one banner." We simply proclaim the Christ who welcomes us at God's table, and maintain a healthy silence on other perspectives. Pearson, as a dues-paid-in-full conservative "spirit-led" pastor is even more of a threat. He erodes the very foundations of exclusionary theology. The man used to hang with Pres. Bush, for God's sake. So he must be made out to be a kook and a flop. Otherwise, he might start to give ideas to the 31% of evangelicals and 39% of Americans in general who believe that Christ is the one way to salvation.

In other words, he might wind up being a good and faithful representative of the Christ to whom Paul could sing a doxology:

who, though he was in the form of God,
   did not regard equality with God
   as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
   taking the form of a slave,
   being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
   he humbled himself
   and became obedient to the point of death--
   even death on a cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him
   and gave him the name
   that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
   every knee should bend,
   in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
   that Jesus Christ is Lord,
   to the glory of God the Father.¹

¹Don't even start on telling me that this means that one must accept Christ as "personal Lord and Savior," or else. It far predates that formulation, and is considerably broader than it. Paul's point is that Jesus came to serve all.