Truly generous or genuinely tasteful?
March 9, 2009
David Dunbar, President of Biblical Seminary, has produced a helpful, concise and gracious statement on the nature of generous orthodoxy and its relationship to his own institution. You can find it here.
The statement, and the concept with which it deals, raise a number of questions in my mind but here I will comment on just a couple. First, Dr Dunbar argues that evangelicalism is a diverse phenomenon, akin to family with various gatherings that exhibit diversity within an overall familial unity. There is a debate to be had here, as some (such as Darryl Hart) would claim that evangelicalism is more of a construct than a reality. Nevertheless, if we grant for the sake of argument that such a thing as evangelicalism does exist, then it is interesting that Dr Dunbar lists sexuality as one area of diversity. The comment is almost a throwaway, but given the list of other things he mentions in this context, it is hard not to read him as saying that diversity on this issue is anything other than legitimate and that it does not jeopardise membership of the family. Since it is increasingly clear that attitudes to homosexuality are likely to be the focal point of conflict over ethics within evangelical circles in the next decade, it would have been helpful for Dr Dunbar to have laid out in more detail exactly what the diversity is to which he refers; though, as he mentions, he will be expanding on his statement so we should not rush to judgment.
This then raised in my mind the larger question of how generous `generous orthodoxy' is. First, the very term is problematic because it tends in practice to accent the adjective and thus cast those who dissent from the project as ungenerous. It effectively moves the grounds of discussion from doctrinal confession to an aesthetic and immediately casts opponents and dissenters in a morally dubious light. I am not sure that dissent from a particular program should do that, particularly a program which, ironically, prides itself on precisely its generosity. After all, I have Catholic friends who abominate Reformed theology and draw all kinds of lines which exclude me. I do not consider them ungenerous; far less do I take offence at their position; rather, I consider them to be good Catholics of integrity. So I would rather avoid if at all possible terminology for a program which must of necessity cast those who disagree with me as being automatically suspect in a moral sense. That seems on the surface to be somewhat ungenerous.
Second, I wonder, when push comes to shove, how 'generous' this 'generous orthodoxy' really is. I have Christian friends who struggle with same-sex temptation who tell me that the last thing they need from the church is equivocation on sexuality. If -- and I stress the if -- this is where generous orthodoxy is heading, then they would regard it as very ungenerous towards them and their plight. Further, I wonder why, if sexuality is now an area of legitimate family diversity, why not race? Since coming to the US I have met a few -- thankfully only a few -- who claim to be evangelicals and who are also white supremacists and segregationists and argue this is what the Bible teaches. I would certainly argue that such are not part of the family, that they need to be rebuked, that the boundary needs to be drawn to keep their illegitimate interpretation of scripture outside of the bounds. But I would so so on the grounds that such positions are, as already noted, illegitimate, and wrong, sinful, and demonstrably unbiblical. I wonder if the generously orthodox would do so for the same reasons -- that would surely seem to involve arrogantly claiming to have access to what the Bible definitively teaches on this issue, privileging their view over others, and closing off the conversation with the marginalised and `the Other,' -- in this case men dressed in white sheets who set fire to crosses. I rather suspect that, in the context of a generous orthodoxy which allows diversity on other issues where the Bible seems to be pretty clear, white supremacists would be excluded but really on the grounds that racial hatred is distasteful in contemporary culture in a way that, to use Lesbian critic Camille Paglia's description, nice, polite, middle-class hand holding gays are not. Are the limits of generosity really the tolerable limits of taste among the middle class intelligentsia and chattering classes?
Generous orthodoxy is an interesting phrase, and I for one look forward to reading Dr Dunbar as he expands upon his statement and no doubt addresses many of the concerns which some of us have about the concept. In the meantime, I am inclined to think that `tasteful orthodoxy' might be a better way of putting it; or, better still, why not drop the `orthodoxy' bit, focus simply on the aesthetics, and call it simply `tastefulness.'
The statement, and the concept with which it deals, raise a number of questions in my mind but here I will comment on just a couple. First, Dr Dunbar argues that evangelicalism is a diverse phenomenon, akin to family with various gatherings that exhibit diversity within an overall familial unity. There is a debate to be had here, as some (such as Darryl Hart) would claim that evangelicalism is more of a construct than a reality. Nevertheless, if we grant for the sake of argument that such a thing as evangelicalism does exist, then it is interesting that Dr Dunbar lists sexuality as one area of diversity. The comment is almost a throwaway, but given the list of other things he mentions in this context, it is hard not to read him as saying that diversity on this issue is anything other than legitimate and that it does not jeopardise membership of the family. Since it is increasingly clear that attitudes to homosexuality are likely to be the focal point of conflict over ethics within evangelical circles in the next decade, it would have been helpful for Dr Dunbar to have laid out in more detail exactly what the diversity is to which he refers; though, as he mentions, he will be expanding on his statement so we should not rush to judgment.
This then raised in my mind the larger question of how generous `generous orthodoxy' is. First, the very term is problematic because it tends in practice to accent the adjective and thus cast those who dissent from the project as ungenerous. It effectively moves the grounds of discussion from doctrinal confession to an aesthetic and immediately casts opponents and dissenters in a morally dubious light. I am not sure that dissent from a particular program should do that, particularly a program which, ironically, prides itself on precisely its generosity. After all, I have Catholic friends who abominate Reformed theology and draw all kinds of lines which exclude me. I do not consider them ungenerous; far less do I take offence at their position; rather, I consider them to be good Catholics of integrity. So I would rather avoid if at all possible terminology for a program which must of necessity cast those who disagree with me as being automatically suspect in a moral sense. That seems on the surface to be somewhat ungenerous.
Second, I wonder, when push comes to shove, how 'generous' this 'generous orthodoxy' really is. I have Christian friends who struggle with same-sex temptation who tell me that the last thing they need from the church is equivocation on sexuality. If -- and I stress the if -- this is where generous orthodoxy is heading, then they would regard it as very ungenerous towards them and their plight. Further, I wonder why, if sexuality is now an area of legitimate family diversity, why not race? Since coming to the US I have met a few -- thankfully only a few -- who claim to be evangelicals and who are also white supremacists and segregationists and argue this is what the Bible teaches. I would certainly argue that such are not part of the family, that they need to be rebuked, that the boundary needs to be drawn to keep their illegitimate interpretation of scripture outside of the bounds. But I would so so on the grounds that such positions are, as already noted, illegitimate, and wrong, sinful, and demonstrably unbiblical. I wonder if the generously orthodox would do so for the same reasons -- that would surely seem to involve arrogantly claiming to have access to what the Bible definitively teaches on this issue, privileging their view over others, and closing off the conversation with the marginalised and `the Other,' -- in this case men dressed in white sheets who set fire to crosses. I rather suspect that, in the context of a generous orthodoxy which allows diversity on other issues where the Bible seems to be pretty clear, white supremacists would be excluded but really on the grounds that racial hatred is distasteful in contemporary culture in a way that, to use Lesbian critic Camille Paglia's description, nice, polite, middle-class hand holding gays are not. Are the limits of generosity really the tolerable limits of taste among the middle class intelligentsia and chattering classes?
Generous orthodoxy is an interesting phrase, and I for one look forward to reading Dr Dunbar as he expands upon his statement and no doubt addresses many of the concerns which some of us have about the concept. In the meantime, I am inclined to think that `tasteful orthodoxy' might be a better way of putting it; or, better still, why not drop the `orthodoxy' bit, focus simply on the aesthetics, and call it simply `tastefulness.'
