Generous Orthodoxy  

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.
More about Generous Orthodoxy>

Latest News

Fleming's book has gone to the publisher

Posted: Thursday, July 31, 2014

The completed manuscript of Fleming's book The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ has gone to Eerdmans Publishing and will be published in 2015. This book, the product of 20 years of work, is designed for pastors and preachers, inquiring lay people, and perhaps seminary students. It is not an academic book, despite its academic pretensions! As the time of publication approaches, I will offer information as to how it might be used in congregations.

Recent Ruminations

Bet you didn't know this!
Wednesday, December 17, 2014

I've become a maniacal Trollope devotee in my old age (OK, "young old") after a friend of my husband's gave me Barchester Towers. I thought I'd better begin at the beginning so I read The Warden first and was hooked for life. How odd that my mother, who was reading Dickens at age six (no exaggeration) never to my knowledge read Trollope. He wasn't in fashion then.

Anyway, while waiting for the rest of the Barchester Chronicles to come in at my indie bookstore, I read The Way We Live Now. What a terrific book. I kept saying to myself, this is about Bernie Madoff. After I'd thought that a dozen times, I went to Google, typed in "Augustus Melmotte Bernie Madoff" and bingo!  All kinds of people have made that connection.

So naturally, after I read it, I ordered the BBC videos of The Way We Live Now. I was immediately thrilled with David Suchet as Melmotte. What a superb performance! Melmotte to the life! wasn't long before I Googled David Suchet. Not being particularly an Agatha Christie fan, I hadn't seen his complete repertoire as Poirot. Don't miss Suchet's charming and touching reflections about Poirot; it's all there on the Wikipedia entry about Suchet. It definitely makes me want to see some of the Poirot performances, and one can't help admiring Suchet for his insights.

And now...are you ready for this? The Wikipedia article (yeah, I know, Wiki is not entirely dependable, but...) tells of his background as a Jew of mixed extraction and his nonreligious upbringing. Then it goes on to say,

Raised without religion, in 1986, Suchet underwent a religious conversion after reading Romans 8 in a hotel Bible; soon afterwards, he was baptised into the Church of England. Suchet stated in an interview with Strand Magazine, "I'm a Christian by faith. I like to think it sees me through a great deal of my life. I very much believe in the principles of Christianity and the principles of most religions, actually—that one has to abandon oneself to a higher good."[31] In 2012, Suchet made a documentary for the BBC on his personal hero, Saint Paul, to discover what he was like as a man by charting his evangelistic journey around the Mediterranean.[32]On 22 November 2012, the British Bible Society announced the appointment of David Suchet and Dr Paula Gooder as new vice-presidents. They joined the existing vice-presidents:John Sentamu (Archbishop of York), Vincent Nichols (Archbishop of Westminster), Barry Morgan (Archbishop of Wales), David F. Ford (Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge),Joel Edwards (International Director of Micah Challenge) and Lord Alton of Liverpool. 

Romans 8! St Paul! I think this amazing story will send us all back to that great chapter. And never underestimate the power of those hotel Bibles.

It's nice to know that Suchet was named an OBE (Officer of the British Empire) by the Queen in 2002 and promoted to CBE (Commander of...) in 2012.  

Gang rape at the University of Virginia
Sunday, December 7, 2014

Back in the 1950s, as many Virginians my age will remember, a girl (not yet old enough to be called a woman) from an upper-class girl's prep school (high school) in Virginia was installed in a room on Thomas Jefferson's sacred Lawn, where only the most superior student leaders are granted living space, and young men from the "best" fraternities came and went all night. The details, which I will forbear to include, were explicit. Next day (or soon after), her parents complained, and the president, former governor Colgate Darden -- often described as the most distinguished Virginian of his time -- promptly suspended a number of the perpetrators.

That was not the end of the story. The parents of the accused perps called their top-rung lawyers and pressured the governor who, being part of the old-Virginia network, was friendly with the lawyers. The young girl was identified in the rumor mill as a "nymphomaniac," and that, supposedly, was enough to stifle any further protests. I am told that to this day, the UVa records pertaining to this sensational event are sealed.

I emphasize that my account may not be absolutely accurate in every detail. The whole episode was surrounded by such a smoke screen of sensational gossip, salacious details, and massive cover-up that now, sixty years later, it is probably impossible to ascertain what really happened. Incredibly, an internet search yields nothing, and yet it was a major topic of conversation in Virginia for months. I can't even find the exact date, yet I have never forgotten it. I was probably about 15 at the time, and I could not understand why no one seemed outraged. It was passed over as just something men did, and if they did it, it was the girl's fault. I particularly remember being shocked and distressed at the way my girlfriends discussed it, without outrage, without disgust, without fellow-feeling, without moral perspective.

All this has come back to me in light of the now-notorious alleged gang rape at the Phi Psi fraternity house on September 2012 that, thanks to reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely of Rolling Stone (December 4 issue), has now become the most-discussed issue not only around the Grounds (don't call it the campus!) but across the land and even the oceans. One of the most striking phenomena in the article is the description of the reaction of the female students, supposed "friends," who showed no sympathy to the rape victim, a first-year student who had not been drinking heavily at the time of the assault in an upstairs room at the fraternity house. Apparently no one thought to take her directly to the hospital for the collection of data.

The president of the University (a woman) issued a statement widely derided as tepid. Her second statement was more forceful, but nowhere near the level of moral passion reached by the student president of the Inter-Fraternity Council (IFC), Thomas Reid, who addressed a student gathering in these words: "It makes me personally sick to my stomach to make me think about what happened that one night in that specific fraternity house, and it disorients my understanding of this community." That is the sort of statement that gets at the real truth of the situation. The IFC issued a statement calling its members "horrified, disgusted, and viscerally saddened." That is the tone that the University president failed to produce. The New York Times reporters observed that it seemed as though "the fraternities, themselves, reacted more strongly than the administration." (11/25/14)

An interview with the associate dean of students Nicole P. Eramo, widely available on the Internet, is conducted with penetrating skill by a student with WUVA,  the student news network. The interview exposes the indirection and evasion typical of institutional officials everywhere when they are guarding the institution above all else. It's time to stop pointing to the Roman Catholic Church as if it were the only institution that protected its own in the face of atrocities.

Rape is a crime. Rape is a violation of human rights. Rape is an act of aggression and domination against another human being. Rape is an invasion and violation of another person's body and as such, an act of violence against another person's very self. In that sense it is a form of torture.  Judaeo-Christian anthropology envisions the human person as a psychosomatic whole, so that intentional injury done to the body is injury done to the soul, for they are one. Rape is also injurious to the perpetrator(s); a person who cavalierly (pun intended) does something so callous and cruel to the body of another person is severely damaged in his inmost being. He carries this abomination with him all his life. (Women can attack other women in a sexual manner, equally reprehensible, but at the moment we are talking about male culture.)

The University of Virginia was not coed when I was an undergraduate at neighboring Sweet Briar, but my roots in the institution are as deep as anyone's. My great-great-grandfather was on the original faculty. My grandfather was professor of history for 49 years. My uncle was the university historian. My father and another uncle were graduates of the Law School. My husband has two degrees from Virginia; he has been an active, devoted alumnus and was chairman of his fiftieth class reunion. My grandparents lived on Rugby Road for most of a century; I spent every summer of the first 20 years of my life in Charlottesville. As an undergraduate I spend most weekends staying in my grandmother's house on Rugby Road while hanging out in the relatively restrained St Anthony Hall fraternity house, in a parallel existence to what may have been going on elsewhere around "Mad Bowl." To this day I find walking on the Lawn and Ranges one of the most enriching aesthetic experiences available anywhere in the world. I am neither naive nor sentimental, but this most recent violation of what Virginia meant to my family is sickening to me, and the lukewarm response of those who would protect the institution at all costs is beyond appalling.

There is an Edwardian text (not exactly a poem) called "The Honor Men," by James Hays (class of 1903), which was widely reproduced at the University for a century, even though it is mawkish by any post-Jazz Age standard. It reads in part:

If you live a long, long time, and hold honesty of conscience above honesty of purse,
And turn aside without ostentation to aid the weak...
And track no man to his undeserved hurt,
And pursue no woman to her tears...  
Then you may say in your reverence and thanksgiving,
I have worn the honors of Honor;
I graduated from Virginia.

I read that thing a zillion times in my youth and the line that stayed with me is the one about pursuing no woman to her tears.


Postscript: I don't take back a single word of this in light of the errors of fact uncovered by investigation into the Rolling Stone article. The lamentable failure of the journalist (and her editors) to pursue the details more strenuously will, however, make it that much more difficult to persuade victims to come forward, and will encourage rape-deniers and others who don't care to understand that rape is a crime to feel gleefully vindicated. Something very bad almost certainly happened to Jackie, whatever the confusion in her testimony, and if not to her, to numerous other silent and not-so-silent victims. In the Duke lacrosse team case, although the players were found not guilty in court, it is a fact that the team hired a woman to dance at one of their alcohol-laced gatherings, and that some extraordinarily ugly things were publicly written and said about her by some of the players. 

Read All Ruminations>

Latest Tips From the Times

Christmas greetings from the insensitive
Friday, December 12, 2014

I do not have a son who committed suicide, but many years in pastoral ministry and many more years of just plain living have imprinted on my mind and heart the need for greatly increased sensitivity in relationships and interactions with people who have suffered terrible loss. Kay Warren, wife of pastor Rick Warren, writes in the new Christianity Today Newsletter of "friends" who send them the same jolly Christmas cards that they always send, full of their children's and grandchildren's pictures and doings. Her article is really impressive, written out of raw pain and yet controlled and well-expressed. There is much to be learned from it. It is entitled "Stop Sending Cheery Christmas Cards," with the subheading, "When you don't mention our son's tragic death, it only hurts more."

 I think Mrs. Warren has done a courageous service for us all. There is a widespread and fallacious notion that one should not mention the name or the death of a child or other greatly loved person. A friend of mine whose son was killed in an accident in his early 20s often spoke to me of the hurt she felt that so few of her friends ever mentioned it. It was as though her son had never been born. Another friend mused that people probably thought that mentioning her lost daughter would "remind her"--"as if I would forget her!" she exclaimed indignantly.

Here is the first page of Mrs. Warren's piece: there is much more as the article continues.

Christmas 2013 was our family’s first without our son Matthew. I could barely breathe. I stayed away from the grocery store and the mall, fearing I couldn’t hold it together in either. The Internet became my friend as I shopped late at night, without sentimental mall music stirring up memories of Christmases past—when all three of my children were alive.
But every day, the Christmas cards arrived.

When I opened the first batch of cards, shock washed over me. Photos of beautiful, happy, intact families cascaded onto my kitchen table. Most were accompanied by a greeting wishing me a joyous Christmas. Some had a signature and the message, “Hope you have a great Christmas.” Others included a standard family newsletter, listing the accomplishments, vacations, and delightful family moments that had filled their year. I grew astonished, then angry, as I realized that none of the cards mentioned that our precious Matthew had died violently six months earlier, leaving us definitely not having a joyous Christmas.

Eventually I left the card-opening to Rick. The cards remained unopened in the traditional iron sleigh that has held our cards through the years until after Christmas Day had passed. Weeks later, I tore through them, angry tears pouring down my cheeks as I separated them into three piles: ones that didn’t mention our grief, ones that did so with a short, “Praying for you,” and ones that included soothing, loving, and thoughtful words of compassion and empathy. The third stack was the smallest.
...Last week I wrote about this experience on Facebook. I asked readers to consider sending a plain card to grieving families (instead of an obligatory “happy family” photo). “Tell them in a few words that you are aware of how painful Christmas can be and that you are praying for them,” I wrote. “Yes, it’s inconvenient—it will take more time than your rushed signature, and it will require entering into someone else’s loss, mourning, grief, and anger.”
I ended the post on behalf of grieving parents everywhere: “If you aren’t willing to modify your way of sending cards for a while, please do us a favor and take us off your list.” Hundreds of folks resonated with my words and spoke of similar experiences. Others were deeply offended and let me know.


Read All Tips from the Times >