if i seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured i have equal doubts about my own, and i don’t mind if you think i’m wrong. i’m sure i am wrong about many things, although i’m not sure exactly which things i’m wrong about. i’m even sure i’m wrong about what i think i’m right about in at least some cases. so whenever you think i’m wrong, you could be right. if, in the process of determining that i’m wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, i hope i will have somehow served you anyway. [11]
yale theologian hans frei sought to move beyond the liberal/conservative impasse of modernity and coined the term generous orthodoxy to describe an understanding of ch.nity that contained elements of both liberal and conservative thought. however, he also envisioned an approach to ch.n faith that moved beyond the views of knowledge and certainty that liberals and conservatives held in common. this entailed the rejection of philosophical foundationalism characteristic in both liberal and conservative theology…
much of the polarization between liberals and conservatives has come from comparing ‘our’ best with ‘their’ worst [’our’ worst often accurately critiqued by ‘them’ and ‘their’ worst by ‘us.’] but neither of us understood ‘their’ best very well, and thus both we and they violated the Son’s dictum about not judging. when i imagine what a generous orthodoxy can become, i realize i must seek to honor both conservative and liberal heroism. and when i do, i want to consider myself both liberal and conservative. i must learn from their mistakes, and when i do, i don’t want to be boxed in either category. instead they can look up for a higher way and look ahead to the new fields of opportunity and challenge that stretch from here to the horizon, where the terms post-conservative and post-liberal may be helpful for a while, and then the whole polarizing vocabulary can be, i hope, forgotten. [140]
…’post-liberals’ and ‘post-conservatives’ have sought to move in the direction suggested by generous orthodoxy through a non-foundationalist conception of the ch.n faith. they can be identified by some common characteristics and commitments, such as strong ecumenical interests, a desire to move beyond the liberal/conservative divide, and a willingness to think through old questions in new ways that foster the pursuit of truth, the unity of the ch., and the gracious character of the gosp. these common commitments have provided a fruitful context for conversation between post-liberal and post-conservative thinkers who together are seeking an understanding of ch.n faith that is both orthodox and generous. [11]
a generous orthodoxy, in contrast to the tense, narrow, controlling, or critical orthodoxies of so much of ch.n history, doesn’t take itself too seriously. it is humble; it doesn’t claim too much; it admits it walks with a limp. it doesn’t consider orthodoxy the exclusive domain of prose scholars [theologians] alone, but welcomes the poets, the mystics, and even those who choose to say very little or to remain silent, including the disillusioned and the doubters. their silence speaks eloquently of the majesty of the Father that goes beyond all human articulation. and it welcomes the activists, the humanitarians, the brave and courageous and compassionate, because their actions speak volumes about the Father that could never be captured in a text, a sermon, an outline, or even a poem. [155]
a generous orthodoxy is like that. it acknowledges that we’re all a mess. it sees in our worst failures the possibility of our deepest repentance and the Father’s opening for our most profound healing. it remembers the Son’s parable that wherever the Father sows good seed, ‘an enemy’ will sow weed seeds. it realizes that you can’t pull up the bad without uprooting the good too, and so it refrains from judging. it just rejoices wherever good seeds grows. [230]
mclaren, brian, a generous orthodoxy. [youth specialties books, 2004]
