What is a generous orthodoxy?

Unfortunately, it could be the next expression with a positive connotation that takes on a negative one because of how it is abused. Think of "gay," "choice," and of course "liberal," one meaning of which is "generous." As John Frame says,

I fear that [Brian] McLaren has loaded up the concept of generous orthodoxy with so many confusing arguments and unbiblical notions that he is likely to give generous orthodoxy a bad name.

Frame's comment is in review of Brian McLaren's book called a Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, 2004 and 2006).  We can contrast Frame's comment with what John Franke says in a foreword to the book:

Brian D. McLaren offers a provocative, stimulating, and challenging account of a committed Christian orthodoxy that is truly inviting. In so doing, he has provided a model for those who are seeking to develop, nurture, and practice a postmodern, ecumenical, and missional Christian faith. … [The book comes from] the perspective of a thoughtful and reflective working pastor (p. 16–17 of the paperback edition, 2006).

Al Mohler’s opinion is more like Frame's:

The problem with A Generous Orthodoxy, as the author must surely recognize, is that this orthodoxy bears virtually no resemblance to orthodoxy as it has been known and affirmed by the church throughout the centuries.

 In another foreword to a Generous Orthodoxy (the paperback edition), Phyllis Tickle calls Brian McLaren a modern Martin Luther, and his book a Generous Orthodoxy the equivalent of Luther's 95 Theses.  We can get an idea of what kind of reformation Tickle is looking for by noting her favorable comments endorsing another book, What God Has Joined Together? The Christian Case For Gay Marriage, by D. Myers and L. Scanzoni (Harper Collins, 2005):

I have been close to giddy with the hope and belief that this book may be the first significant break in the dam. . . . For that, above all else, I am most deeply grateful. 

I have also heard both Dave Dunbar and John Franke speak of the emerging church movement as a reformation.

For a positive definition of generous orthodoxy, we could look at how the expression is used by Episcopalian Fleming Rutledge:

The word ortho-doxy (Greek for "right doctrine") has both positive and negative connotations. In a culture that prizes what is iconoclastic and transgressive, orthodoxy has come to sound constricted and unimaginative at best, oppressive and tyrannical at worst.

The position taken on this website is that we cannot do without orthodoxy, for everything else must be tested against it, but that orthodox (traditional, classical) Christian faith should by definition always be generous as our God is generous; lavish in his creation, binding himself in an unconditional covenant, revealing himself in the calling of a people, self-sacrificing in the death of his Son, prodigal in the gifts of the Spirit, justifying the ungodly and indeed, offending the "righteous" by the indiscriminate nature of his favor. True Christian orthodoxy therefore cannot be narrow, pinched, or defensive but always spacious, adventurous and unafraid.

The articles of faith distilled in the historic Creeds and Confessions of the Church are gifts of the Holy Spirit. Christian doctrine is the foundation for a dynamic, courageous intellectual life at the frontiers of 21st-century challenges. Without basic affirmations, we are dangerously unequipped. An analogy might be the successful rock climber who puts up new routes and achieves maximum exhilaration; without strict discipline, tested equipment, and exceptional patience, however, the climber’s ambition will lead to failure and even death. When the Biblical and creedal bedrock of the historic faith becomes optional, it is fatal for the Church, for she loses her distinctive theological character. Ultimately, it’s about God. If God is who he reveals himself to be in the Holy Scriptures, then his Word is the true and trustworthy guide to the heights of human aspiration and depths of human disappointment.

That is, the expression "generous orthodoxy" is somewhat redundant because Christian orthodoxy is connected to the goal of moral likeness to God, which implies generosity. One could substitute "generous" for "merciful" in "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36). An ungenerous orthodoxy would be no orthodoxy at all, as it would imply an ungenerous God.

Also in an Episcopalian context, however, C. FitzSimons Allison, retired bishop of South Carolina, thinks that the "generous orthodoxy" of A. Katherine Grieb is "generous" in the sense that a prostitute is generous, since she uses the idea with reference to allowing room in the Episcopal Church for "same-sex-unions" (including among the clergy). We read in the prophets that Israel had this same kind of prostitute’s generosity, as Israel’s idolatrous practices result in the nation being constantly compared to a prostitute. Since the curses in the law fall upon those who practice such things, the Bible obviously does not view such conduct generously.

Israel’s history foreshadows church history, since Israelite nature is just human nature, and by nature we are spiritual prostitutes. The work of sanctification is to transform us into faithful promise keepers, just as our God is faithful. The work of Christian ministry, using this same figure, was expressed by Paul: "I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy, for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin" (2 Cor 11:2).

The new preamble to the Biblical Seminary doctrinal statement says, "Biblical is a community that affirms a generous orthodoxy in the Reformed tradition." One might think that "in the Reformed tradition" puts the right spin on "a generous orthodoxy." But since the seminary’s new vision is to train leaders for the emerging church, and "generous orthodoxy" is one of the buzz phrases of this movement, one is more likely to think of McLaren’s book, a Generous Orthodoxy. I suggest that McLaren’s generous orthodoxy is more in line with the generosity of the spiritual prostitute, since he, following John Franke, advocates syncretism of two different religions, theological liberalism and Christianity (see Brian McLaren: Answer to John Franke's Prayer?). Then why does the seminary’s statement say "in the Reformed tradition"?  Remember that they really think that the emerging church movement is a work of reformation.  An alarming thought, isn't it?  I think A. Craig Troxel puts it well:

Semper reformanda is not a slogan to excuse our changing the message or discovering new truth because we are taking our cues from the culture. It is a principle that provokes us to modify our confession because we are taking our cues form the Word of God. As some have noted, there is a huge difference between the Reformation and the Emergent Church at this very point. It wants to hitch its wagon to Reformed mules when it is convenient, but it is not really in it for the long haul. This reflects how opportunistic, superficial and eclectic evangelicalism can be.