It seems like everyday there is someone new arguing that Christianity needs to be more inclusive. The argument often stems from cultural observations on pluralism. People point to the fact that the generation growing up is surrounded by pluralism. Their friends are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, New Agers, atheists, etc. How can we continue to be exclusive of people we know so personally, love, and respect?
This very question reveals the naivete of our generation. Christianity was not birthed in a religiously monolithic society, nor has it ever truly enjoyed one, with the exception of perhaps in a few areas. Our society is religiously pluralistic. But so was the pagan Roman society that Christianity found itself in from its beginning. In fact, our religious pluralism pales in comparison. As hard as Western culture tries to shake Christianity, it cannot escape its roots.
The argument that “Christianity must change or die” is laughable at best. The Church Fathers would surely have had a good chuckle at this one. These men knew pluralism like we can’t fathom. There were gods for everything. Traveling to a new town? Don’t forget to bring back an idol of the local deity. They had mystery religions, Judaism, Roman cults, emperor cults, Greek deities, Persian deities, Egyptians deities, and so on and so forth. There were stoics and cynics and mystics and shamans. Christians stood out in the midst of them all. Their response to the challenge of pluralism? The more you kill us, the more we grow.
Early Christians were imprisoned, beaten, and killed for their faith, but they knew the truth what the Apostle Paul said when he spoke of his own sufferings:
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…
Paul knew that when people saw him suffer, they saw Jesus suffer. Christianity need not retreat in the face of pluralism. We have faced this scene before and won.
But we cannot call for doctrinal revisionism either. It is the purity of Christian doctrine that separates it. We’ve had a more inclusive Christianity for three hundred years. It’s called liberalism. It has infected every mainline denomination in America at one point or another. From Presbyterians to Baptists, and Lutherans to Methodists, not a single denomination has escaped. The call by some such as Brian McLaren and Greg Boyd to do away with core doctrines, such as substitutionary atonement, cannot be heeded.
Do they have some parts of the message correct? Absolutely. Christianity can and should show concern for the poor. Christianity does show concern for the poor, but this does not in any way require a doctrinal trade off. We can be conservative, orthodox Christians, AND love the poor. But loving the poor without the core doctrines of Christianity is not love at all. Love requires discernment (Phil 1:9), which McLaren and those following in his footsteps lack.
McLaren’s “New Kind of Christianity” is no Christianity at all. You can keep your religion Mr. McLaren, I’ll take the ancient faith.
Seeking The Face 