Matt Rawlings explains why he was depressed as a “progressive” Christian:
I came to reject orthodox doctrines such as Biblical inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, the exclusivity of salvation through Christ, the foreknowledge of God and many others. I publicly ridiculed “the old guard” as out-of-touch and fully embraced post-modernism.
My decreasing lack of zeal for the mission of the church was a result of my increasing rejection of orthodox Christianity. I had come to accept the postmodern dictum that because we all interpret, there is no real fixed meaning to any text. There may be better and worse interpretations but there was no final interpretation.
I grew depressed because I had anchored the hope for my entire existence in the shifting sands of my own whims. I knew somewhere in my heart of hearts that my own “new interpretation” of the text was as much of a Freudian wish-fulfillment as my former atheism had been. I knew too somewhere in my heart-of-hearts that J. Gresham Machen was right–an unorthodox faith is not even truly the Christian faith but a whole other religion.
Well, there’s a lot of that going around lately. A lot of people work very hard to conform God’s word and Christian doctrine to fit whatever they already wanted to do in the first place.
The main job of any religion is to not change. It sits there, eternally not changing, and challenges you to change yourself to fit it. Not the other way around. That’s one of the things I admire about the Catholic church — they are really good at not changing. If making changes in an institution is like turning a battleship, changing the Catholic church is like altering the orbit of a planet. It’s a big deal, and it should be. An eternal God isn’t subject to whims, and if you’re eternal, a “whim” is the Jurassic period.
Rawlings’ quote gets it exactly right: If you’re pursuing a changing, “evolving” Christianity, then you aren’t pursuing Christianity, but another religion entirely.