Church leaders say they want to provide a safe place for people to be honest and open about their struggles, but if we are not careful, our denunciation of public expressions of doubt may cause some of the sincere doubters in our own congregations to climb into their shells and never ask the substantive questions. This facade gets tiresome, of course, and it is the reason some people just drift away from church altogether.

Evangelicals were taken aback this summer by popular Christian contemporary musician Michael Gungor’s denial of the historicity of several Old Testament narratives. This came just weeks after Jars of Clay’s lead singer, Dan Haseltine, took to Twitter to debate the merits of same-sex marriage. Both situations provoked celebration from the left and consternation from the right.

Why such a fuss over Christian musicians’ theology and ethics?

For better or for worse, evangelicalism’s lack of authority structure and ecclesial identity open the door for campus ministries, parachurch organizations, and singers, writers, and moviemakers to fulfill the role of quasi-theologians. This is why, when celebrities cross the boundaries of their conservative audience, they get an earful from their constituency, who, rightly or wrongly, feel betrayed by the star’s defection.

The left’s response to Gungor and Jars of Clay was to celebrate an artist’s willingness to boldly “ask questions,” to be “authentic,” and to reformulate Christianity in ways that take into consideration our contemporary setting. The conservative response was to decry these artists as defectors from the faith and to write them and their questions off.

My Facebook feed was filled with both responses – those who praised the courage and creativity of Gungor, and those who condemned their unorthodox views. Both attitudes left me unsatisfied. Here’s why.

The Celebration of Doubt

The left’s response to Gungor is to breathlessly cheer anyone who “steps out of line” doctrinally as they “explore their faith.” This kind of reaction is frustrating for two reasons.

First, it implies that one must leave the bounds of historic orthodoxy in order to explore their faith. As if it’s courageous for a fish to say, “The ocean is not big enough for me!” and then flop onto the sand. “Exploring our faith” ought to mean we move into the deep end of the pool of orthodoxy, not that we get out altogether and mock the other swimmers. (And how is it the “broadminded” progressive is the one who narrows the number of miracles to believe?)

Secondly, it implies that asking questions is always a good thing. Doubts are exalted and certainty is demonized. Or at least, doubting is courageous and certainty is suspect.

But questions are never just questions. As Mark Galli says, “There is no such thing as a neutral inquiry when it comes to questions about God.”

Galli contrasts two kinds of questions, one that arises out of a “trusting faith” and another that arises out of “a desire to have God prove himself on human terms.” The left’s celebration of doubt fails to deal adequately with the self-justifying tendencies of the human heart:

“Given human nature… we can safely assume that the questions are largely driven by a desire to justify ourselves, to put God in the dock, and to don those judicial robes.”

Read More