“What does a pastor do when he’s having questions and doubts of his own?”

This week, we read a few chapters from Brian McLaren’s book, A New Kind of Christian.  Told in narrative form (actually, it kind of reads like a YA novel…), McLaren presents a problem within the church: Christianity hasn’t evolved with the times, and some things need to change.  What should change and what should stay, however, is the tricky part.  This raises the question of how much change is good before that which is being changed becomes something entirely new?  Or would any sort of change make that thing entirely new?  In class before the reading, the class came to a consensus that so long as the fundamentals of Christianity (and I speak for the Protestants) don’t change, any denomination (or non-denomination) can interpret the rest of what Christianity means in their own ways.  Such non-negotiable, factual bases include:
God is real, there is only One, and he is the ultimate authority.
Belief in the Holy Trinity, and therefore, that Jesus is God.
Christ’s physical, historical death, resurrection, and ascension that fulfilled biblical prophesy and covers all our sins.
The Bible is THE Word of God and is literal history.

In the McLaren text, the main character, Dan, a pastor struggling with a stagnant faith, meets Neo, a high school science teacher who causes him to re-think his stance on Christianity altogether.  In this emerging postmodern world, how should Christianity adapt?  Neo presents his “personal hunch … that postmodern philosophy itself may be a pluralistic umbrella making room for many diverse philosophical voices within it.”  Now that sounds quite good, doesn’t it?  Everyone can have a voice, and not one has to be absolutely correct.  The trouble is, there has to be boundaries.  There comes a point when opinion becomes falsehood, and at that point, one must admit to being wrong.  There are many areas in which Christianity has changed or adapted, and there is also much variation between denominations.  Such differences are not bad.  It becomes an issue, however, when a church or denomination deviates from Christian core beliefs.

In the McLaren text, Dan ponders the sight of a cross next to a Native American dreamcatcher in someone’s car.  He states that the syncretism was not a backslide into paganism but instead a mutual respect of both religions.  The driver of the car may find that Christianity is just lacking in the mysticism area, and Native American spirituality can fulfill that for him.  As I was reading, I couldn’t help but raise my eyebrows and quietly scream in protest.  It is not uncommon for people to pick and choose what they want to hear from the gospel.  After all, religion is supposed to make you feel good, isn’t it?  And if it doesn’t then there’s something wrong with the church/religion.  This is the main problem I have with McLaren.  There are some things in Christianity that cannot and should not be changed.  Yes, there is no issue with changing the way the biblical narrative is said to make it easier for people of different times to understand. Yes, there is no issue with different denominations having different traditions.  Yes, it is good to question your beliefs; handled well, doubt can reinforce your beliefs.  But once you start to change the actual narrative, distort the gospel, and cherry-pick parts of the message… It isn’t Christianity anymore.  It’s a bastardized version: tainted, corrupted, and utter falsehood.  And it’s become all too common.