It was Brian McLaren who made popular with his book title the phrase “a generous orthodoxy.” In my mind, I have interpreted that to mean roughly the equivalent of Augustine's “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.”
I have noticed that the problems come when one person or group decides it is the one to determine the parameters of orthodoxy. They are only too happy to extend generosity in all directions but when the limit is reached, throw the bums out. Briefly stated, orthodoxy is the set of beliefs or doctrines we hold to be correct or essential.
Jim White
I have also noted that even in the most conservative groups the definition of what lies inside the orthodox boundary keeps shifting. When I was editor of The Deacon in the mid 1980s some churches were expelled from their associations because they stepped over the line in ordaining women as deacons. I remember with some irritation even after all these years the critical letter I received from a seminary student who accused me of all manner of evil because I identified a woman who wrote an article we published as a deacon. Curiously enough, he grudgingly commended what she said in the article. Clearly his orthodoxy was not generous enough to include either women deacons or those who published articles by them.
The women deacon issue surfaced again after I was called to the pastorate of First Baptist Church of Newport News. My wife, Connie, had been nominated to serve as a trustee of the International Mission Board. One evening she got a call from an orthodoxy policeman with the SBC. He wanted to know whether it was true that our church had woman deacons. She told the truth: that FBC had had women deacons for years and years. Although she was never notified that her name had been taken from the list of nominations, it did not appear among those to be elected as IMB trustees at the convention.
When orthodoxy was defined more officially by the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, the only thing it said about women in church service was that they were not called as pastors. Nothing was said about women serving as deacons. The orthodoxy became more generous than the unwritten assumptions held previously, but in the same stroke had become considerably more stingy than the 1963 BF&M which left such issues to the leading of the Holy Spirit in the local churches. This is one of the reasons so many churches continue to hold to the previous BF&M.
Understandably, some pastors who had drawn the orthodoxy line in the sand at the issue of women deacons felt betrayed. They had defended their position as orthodoxy only to learn that SBC leaders had moved the boundary. Just so everyone will know. Southern Baptists no longer say that women cannot serve as ordained deacons — at least according to the 2000 BF&M.
Other issues would also illustrate: millennial positions and Calvinism are cases in point.
But I want to get around to this question: how generous can orthodoxy become and still be orthodoxy?
John Killinger caused a flap at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship because he led one of about 60 or so breakout sessions and said something no Baptist I know would agree with.
I was prevented from attending the CBF because of Alma Hunt's funeral, so I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge. But what I read is that Killinger questioned whether Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation. He is reported to have said, “There's an altered view of Scripture and of the role of Christ. Christ is still Savior to most of us, but maybe in a slightly different way than before.”
Someone asked whether this compromises the gospel and he is said to have replied that he thought it raised the level of understanding the gospel rather than compromising it.
I am perfectly content to leave to the individual church and individual person whether a church should call a woman to be its pastor. Several women pastors are serving in our state and are doing as well as their male counterparts. The blessing of the Lord and the moving of the Spirit do not appear in any sense lacking.
But salvation through Christ is another matter entirely. That pretty well defines Christian orthodoxy it seems to me.
Any student of church history is acquainted with the on-going necessity for the church to define heresy and orthodoxy. In the process of deciding, it has been customary for the church to listen to different views, to debate them and finally decide their merits or evils.
By inviting John Killinger to lead a breakout session, was the CBF acting responsibly in listening to a viewpoint clearly not in the flow of Baptist thought? Or was it acting recklessly by hearing such an opinion? I have asked myself that question and have found an answer based on the following:
First, those attending the CBF are seasoned Christians, most of whom are church leaders. They are not spiritual infants who are apt to be blown off course by a contrary breakout session. There was, therefore, little chance that someone's beliefs were going to be corrupted by attending the session.
Second, even though we may not agree with a person's conclusion, discovering what led him to that conclusion will often be edifying.
Third, faith is not a fragile thing for those who exercise it regularly. Listening to opposing viewpoints may topple a weak or sickly faith, but it has the opposite effect on a vibrant, growing faith. Faith becomes even stronger when we have to think through it and allow hard questions to challenge it.
John Killinger may have stepped over the limits of my generosity. If he, indeed, says that there are other ways to be saved than through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, he's over the line.
But to say that the CBF has crossed the line, too, merely by inviting him to lead a breakout session? That sounds like the seminary student who consigned me to the eternal hot place for publishing an article a woman deacon wrote. In our orthodoxy there must not only be a place for generosity. There must also be a place for sanity.