On John R. Franke

I have been attempting to read a Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, 2004) by Brian McLaren for over a month now. Finally, I believe that I will start. As alluded to in previous articles, I am intellectually wrestling with the current thrust in the Church toward an ecumenical-like dialogue (conversation ) with world culture; a dialogue that also implies a concomitant thrust away from a firm adherence to Scriptural absolutes. To what degree is that true? We Christians wish to appeal to world culture, and rightfully so, but a question begs to be asked: at what price should we dialogue? Will we join a world headed toward an eschatological and violent end, or will we be salt to the inhabitants of that same world? Actually, the adherents of this emergent thrust are more inclined to have the conversation with fellow Christians, and of course, it is in this arena that we are the most susceptible to Scriptural deviance. So join me as we pursue the contents of this book, and let us do so by addressing some of the comments made by John R. Franke in the forward to the book:

Dr. Franke says this concerning the dialogue between liberal and conservative believers:

Residents of the liberal and conservative precincts of the church are engaging in respectful and constructive dialogue across the metaphorical divide that has separated them for nearly two centuries…(p, 13)

The question that needs to be answered as we peruse the book would be along the lines of something like this: Will a simple “no – you are wrong” be an acceptable response in this “respectful and constructive” dialogue? By implication, are there any absolutes allowed in this conversation?

Dr. Franke continues as he alludes to the leanings away from modernism to the more thoughtful and liberating ideas of postmodernism by saying this:

This rethinking has resulted not in irrationality, as is often claimed by less informed critics of postmodern thought, but rather in numerous redescriptions and proposals concerning the understanding of rationality and knowledge. These postmodern ideas produced a more inherently self-critical view of knowledge than modernity. (p. 14)

To be rational, have knowledge, and to possess introspection before adopting a belief system is a good thing. Are the adherents of postmodernism implying that those who went before did not so introspect? Hopefully, as we progress through this conversation
we will not become so humanistically self-critical that all substance will be muted beyond understanding.

He continues:

In response to this situation, “post-liberals” and “post-conservatives” have sought to move in the direction suggested by generous orthodoxy through a nonfoundationalist conception of the Christian 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 church, and the gracious character of the gospel. (p. 15)

Questions abound here. By inference, post-liberals and post-conservatives are a good thing. How would these post-liberals and post-conservatives describe a nonfoundationalist conception of the Christian faith? Does this concept frighten anyone? What are strong ecumenical interests? Does such a scenario suggest apostasy? With what church should we unite with? The man-made cultural church, or the called-out remnant of the Church? What is the gracious character of the gospel? With a humanistic bent, one would be tempted to put the concept of evil as non subject matter here. Well, I’m further in the hole here. I started out wanting to understand Brian’s book, but now am forced to read Dr. Franke’s book Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context as well.

Finally he says this:

Generous orthodoxy does not so much specify a particular point or position as it establishes a spacious territory defined by certain distinct boundaries in which there is space to live, move, and breathe while exploring the wonders and mysteries of the faith.

Dr. Franke has written far more in his brief introduction than is addressed here. These are just some of the many questions that have intruded upon my life while reading it. But, here is the one question above all others: Just what will those certain distinct boundaries be? Hopefully, they will show up somewhere in Brian’s book. What boundaries will the emergent/postmodern community establish as concepts that cannot be violated? If I say no – you are wrong, can I still be a part of the conversation?

More, much more to follow.