When a pastor challenges Christianity's foundations: Can faith survive without its central doctrines?

Geering, a New Zealand Presbyterian minister and theologian, became internationally recognised for questioning traditional Christian doctrines. His views on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the immortality of the soul and the nature of Christian faith placed him at odds with conservative theological positions. In 1967, he faced a heresy trial within the Presbyterian Church in New Zealand, although the charges were eventually dismissed.

His death therefore provides an opportunity to revisit an uncomfortable but important question: How far can Christianity be reinterpreted before it ceases to be Christianity as understood through its foundational teachings?

Christianity has never been opposed to honest questions. Its history is filled with theological debates, intellectual disagreements and efforts to understand Scripture in changing cultural contexts. Faith and reason need not be enemies. Indeed, serious engagement with difficult questions can strengthen religious conviction.

However, questioning a doctrine and abandoning it are two different things.

Geering's position was particularly provocative because the resurrection is not a peripheral Christian teaching. It is central to the Christian proclamation.

The Apostle Paul makes this unmistakably clear in 1 Corinthians 15:14: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Paul was not describing the resurrection as merely an inspiring metaphor or a psychological experience among the disciples. He was presenting it as the foundation of Christian hope. The resurrection was the declaration that death had been defeated through Jesus Christ.

This raises a fundamental theological problem. If Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, what exactly is the Christian faith celebrating? If the resurrection is reduced to a symbol of hope, does Christianity retain the very event upon which its claims of victory over death are based?

Geering believed Christianity needed to evolve in response to modern scientific knowledge, historical scholarship and changing human understanding. His intellectual journey eventually produced works such as Christianity Without God. He was convinced that religious thought could not remain imprisoned within ancient worldviews.

There is something worth appreciating in this argument. Religious institutions should not be afraid of scholarship. Pastors should be readers, thinkers and students of history. Questions about Scripture deserve serious engagement rather than automatic condemnation.

The church must be capable of distinguishing between genuine biblical convictions and traditions that have accumulated over centuries.

However, intellectual sophistication does not automatically translate into theological correctness. Neither does the ability to challenge established beliefs necessarily make someone a defender of truth.

The danger arises when modern culture becomes the ultimate judge of biblical revelation. Instead of allowing Scripture to challenge contemporary thinking, believers may begin modifying Scripture until it becomes acceptable to contemporary sensibilities.

Lessons for African Christianity

This is where the debate surrounding Geering becomes particularly relevant to African Christianity.

Across Kenya and much of Africa, Christianity remains deeply influential. Churches occupy an important position in family life, education, community organisation and public morality. Millions of people attend worship services, participate in prayer meetings and depend on the Christian message for spiritual direction.

Yet African Christianity is not immune to theological confusion. Some churches have replaced serious biblical teaching with motivational speeches, financial promises and personality-driven religious entertainment. Others have embraced religious practices without adequately examining their biblical foundations.

The answer, however, is not to abandon Christianity's central doctrines in the name of modernity. It is to return to Scripture, understand its message and teach it faithfully.

Consider the doctrine of the resurrection. Christianity does not promise that believers will escape suffering, disappointment or physical death. Rather, it promises that death does not have the final word. The resurrection of Jesus is the basis of that hope.

Similarly, the Christian understanding of life after death is not simply an attempt to comfort people who fear mortality. It is rooted in the biblical account of God's promise of eternal life through Christ.

Jesus declared in John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die."

These are not insignificant words that can be casually reinterpreted without changing the substance of the Christian message.

The church must welcome questions without losing its identity

Nevertheless, Geering's story also challenges the church to examine how it handles dissent.

His 1967 experience exposed the human dimensions of religious institutions. Churches can become defensive, intolerant and more concerned about protecting institutional authority than engaging difficult questions.

His observation that the church was as human as any other society deserves serious reflection. Religious institutions are not automatically immune to politics, pride, prejudice or the abuse of power.

A church that cannot accommodate honest questions risks producing believers who know how to repeat religious statements but cannot explain what they believe or why they believe it.

There is a difference, however, between questioning in pursuit of understanding and redefining Christianity until its foundational claims disappear. The church must make room for the former without surrendering its responsibility to defend the faith.

Perhaps the most important lesson from Geering's extraordinary life is that longevity, academic achievement and intellectual influence should not be confused with final authority on spiritual truth.

His 108 years gave him an unusually long opportunity to interrogate religion, influence scholarship and provoke debate. His contribution to religious studies deserves recognition, even among those who profoundly disagree with his conclusions.

His death should therefore not be an occasion for mockery, triumphalism or simplistic condemnation. It should stimulate serious theological reflection.

Ultimately, Christianity must be able to engage the modern world without losing its identity. It must welcome scientific discoveries, historical investigations and intellectual debate while remaining anchored in the convictions that define it.

The question is not whether Christians should think critically. They absolutely should. The question is whether, in the process of making Christianity intellectually comfortable for the modern world, we risk removing the very foundations that make it Christian.

A faith that abandons the resurrection may retain religious language, beautiful buildings, inspiring songs and impressive academic discussions. But Paul leaves Christians with an unavoidable question: If Christ has not been raised, what exactly is the foundation of our hope?

That is the question Geering's life and death leave before the church.

Ashford Kimani is a teacher of English and Literature and writes on education and social affairs.