Thursday, August 28, 2008

The Faith of Barack Obama

Thomas Nelson recently published a great little book called The Faith of Barack Obama by Stephen Mansfield. Mansfield is a NY Times best seller and has written several faith biographies over the years (most notably one on G-dub a few years back). This book is well-written and informative--but most importantly it is balanced. When I heard Mansfield was a conservative writing about Obama's faith I expected the normal doctrine bashing and short-sighted criticism that failed to take an adequate look at his life and motivation. I was pleasantly surprised to find just the opposite. Mansfield deftly outlined and concisely summarized the key events in Obama's life that have led him to where he is and helped to mold his theology. But a true theology it is. Barack is not another secularized liberal attempting to squeeze religion out of the public sphere; rather, he is an individual whose faith in Christ has led him to the positions and decisions that he has taken and made. Below is a quick synopsis of the 6 short chapters.

1. To Walk Between Worlds

In this chapter, Mansfield speaks of Barack's troubles in his early life with finding his identity. Born of an African father and white mother he never quite felt at home with either race. It is enlightening for those who want to see where it is that Barack's motivations come from. He identifies, and fits right in with the current postmodern scene because of the diversity he has come from and ways he is able to embrace a certain amount of contradiction.

2. My House, Too

Not only does Obama resonant with postmodern philosophical currents, but also with theological ones as well. It's not just an ideology for Barack, it is a way of life. In the Democratic National Convention speech of 2004--which pushed Barack to national prominence--Obama noted that those in the Blue states "worship an awesome God." In this way he was quick to show the impact that his faith had not only on his life but also on his policy decisions. The famed Rev. Wright is also discussed in this chapter and it becomes apparent that this man has bought into a form of theology (black liberation theology) that comes more from bitterness and resentment than from the Word of God. Clearly, there are past wrongs that have influenced these theologians to develop this theology, but things are still a bit messed up within it.

3. Faith Fit for the Age

This chapter is the only one that really deals with the brand of theology that Obama adheres to. It is fit for the age because, for the most part, it rejects the exclusivist claims of Christianity in order to make it more fitting for a postmodern, pluralist society. This liberal Christianity, though flawed in many respects, still influences Obama at his core. It impacts the decisions he makes so that his life direction has always been flavored by the need to conform to what he conceives of as his Christian duty. Moreover, in an age of full disclosure, Barack is ready to bare his soul and speak on matters of faith that past leaders (and current older ones) have been won't to do. This enabled the public to get a unique few of how he thinks and the tenets of orthodox Christianity that he accepts as well as those that he does not (among those he questions are the exclusivity of Christ, the idea of eternal damnation and the inspiration of scripture).

4. The Altars of State

This chapter deals with Obama's road to the Senate and the campaigns that got him there. Specifically, it is interesting to note how often Obama entreats the liberal democrats to engage with religious citizens of America and to claim their own religiosity. However, it also becomes clear that Obama's religious system (though possibly not his own personal faith) is just a watered-down version of civic religion. Liberal Christianity cannot motivate individuals to sufficiently impact the world for Christ because He is not at the heart of LC. Mansfield takes the issue of abortion to illustrate this clearly. He notes that Obama is farther left than even the National Abortion Rights Action League.

5. Four Faces of Faith

The four faces of faith that are outlined here are Obama, Hilary, McCain and Bush. Obama's is the public faith that is open and genuine. Hilary's is the faith that struggled to make sense of the things happening in the world and the experimentation of the baby boomer generation. She struggled to find a connection to the spiritual life that was meaningful and impactful--and it isn't clear if she ever found it. McCain's is the quiet Stoic Christianity that is so characteristic of older generations. It is a faith that sees Christianity as a duty and the Christian life as consisting of fulfilling these duties--not on transformation and renewal that impacts all of life. Bush's faith, for being so famous, is relatively new. He didn't become devout until well after his college years when he found that his alcoholism was out of control. It is clear that his faith, if young, is sincere.

6. A Time to Heal

Finally, Mansfield exhorts his readers to take Obama seriously. Even if he doesn't win the election, he still speaks for a large portion of society. It isn't just the democratic portion but the portion who are Christian and liberal, followers of Christ and sympathetic to the worries of a postmodern world. Obama's is not a faith that has no effect on his policy (as Dean so arrogantly bragged in the 04 elections); it is faith that is active, and activist. It is a faith that is tired of a Christianity that is socially irrelevant and doing nothing for the ills of society. We must first understand Obama because of what he represents, only then can we comment on his fitness for office.

In the end, I think Mansfield did an excellent job in his book. He outlined Obama's faith in an easily accessible and immensely fair way. Though I am still undecided on the vote, I know understand just how important a factor Obama's faith is to him. It is not just a political ploy to win more voters. Even if the theology is misguided, it is genuine. And it is in development.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Sin in the Life of a Believer

What is the role of sin in the life of a believer? I know that believers are free from the eternal consequences but sometimes I wish I was free from all of the power of sin here and now. To what extent can that really happen? Namely, what kind of temporal freedom from sin can the believer hope for on earth? I guess I have just been convicted by some passages in 1 John that speak of believers continuing on in sin. John says that those who walk in the light won't continue in sin and I just can't quite figure out how he means it. At first glance one would think that John actually means that once you become a Christian you never actually sin again, but that can't be it right? If that is what he means then I guess I'm not really a believer...except that I know I have the Holy Spirit inside of me who testifies to my status. So how do I reconcile the fact that I'm a believer and yet still sin?

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The New Calvinism

Oh gosh...this article below is absolutely amazing. I really appreciate how Dr. McCall points out the positive aspects of the New Calvinism but cautions against its defects at the same time (not even on strictly theological grounds).

"No theological tradition has cornered the market on arrogance. I have been accused of it (sometimes, I fear, with very good reason). Yet there seems to be – though I’m sure that what I say here is highly fallible – an amazing quantity of it among the New Calvinists."

This is, for me, the true heart of the issue. One of those reading it wrote an especially insightful comment: "I appreciate the new theology and the stress on doctrine and on Biblical Theology as a discipline. I regret that this can be accompanied by the idea that this doctrine is inerrant rather than the Bible being inerrant."

Just as we as Arminians have to be open to other traditions and other theology, so too the New Calvinists should recognize that Calvinism is only a school of thought and not (even as some renowned preachers would have it) equivalent to biblicalism.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

The New Perspective

Was Paul preaching about salvation by works vs. grace or about something else entirely?

I'm not sure what I think about the new perspective on Paul and I'm not even sure I understand all of the implications. Is there legitimate support for the view that Paul is talking about Jews boasting in their own election and not as trying to earn salvation by merit? I think some of the arguments proposed seem to be compelling, but I don't know much of the other side. Well, in a way I guess all I know is the other side, the traditional reading of Paul, I just don't know much of the response to the NPP. Of course, I know where there are tons of resources to read about it - and I have read a few - but I wanted some opinions on what you all think of the perspective.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Postmodernism: Critique and Apology

I think Postmodernism has received a bad rap from much of Evangelical theology in recent times. Some of that criticism is deserving, but much of it is misplaced. In the following I want to try and critique the negative while commending the positive. Let me know what you think.

The Apology (Defense) of Postmodern Methodology:
While there are certainly negative, and even harmful, vices of the postmodern movement, we in the Evangelical church have much to learn from their methodology. Put simply, it makes sense to appeal to a culture for norms of style, approach and technique. In fact, this understanding is itself biblical. When Luke recounts the journeys of the early church in Acts he specifically points to a change in evangelistic approach based on the receiving culture. For instance, in Acts 17 Luke details the efforts of Paul in Thessalonica, Berea and Athens. In the first two cities, Paul went straight to the synagogues (as was his normal custom) to convince the Jews and God-fearing Greeks that Jesus was the Messiah who fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. However, he tried this approach in Athens initially and discovered that they didn't have as thorough a knowledge of the O.T. as the other cities did and so he shared the good news by comparing God to their myriad of deities, and explicating His unique supremacy. All that to say, some methods work and others don't - Christ doesn't care (for the most part) how we approach people with His Word as long as that's what we're doing. Rock music is okay, jeans are okay, sandals are okay. It's the heart of man that matters right?

The Critique of Postmodern Philosophy:
While the methodology of Postmodernism may be useful, it's philosophy is inherently dangerous. I think a lot of the key promoters of the movement - think Brian McLaren, Tony Jones etc. - suffer from an apathy for (or perhaps ignorance of) the philosophical implications more than an actual desire to dismantle the Truth claims of Christianity (for in fact, as the atheistic postmoderns make clear, once we accept all the tenets of postmodernism there isn't even a metanarrative - or God's eye view - of the world anyways). With a postmodern hermeneutics the Bible loses all authority, and with authority, all meaning. With a Bible devoid of meaning we come to a life belief system devoid of truth. There truly is no reason in calling yourself a "Christian" unless by doing so you want to assert that, at the very least, you believe this belief system to be superior to others. I believe in God because I think He is superior to the other gods in this world. But this is impossible without an objective truth grounded in the mind-independent reality (which postmoderns tend to deny our access to). Postmodernism isn't all bad, even philosophically, unless it is taken to the extreme: toleration for a plurality of viewpoints is certainly a virtue, toleration for a plurality of "truths" most certainly is not.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

What is Saving Faith?

I have an assignment in my Epistemology class to compare the concepts of "belief" and "saving faith", with a view toward either differentiating the two or explaining their connection. I don't really know which way I am going to argue - I feel like a whole lot of peripheral issues are brought to the forefront when we explore this concept of saving faith. Is saving faith, along the lines of Gordon Clark, mental assent to a set of propositions? Is it belief plus some other mental state (such as trust) or emotional state (such as love)?

When I try to think of the possible necessary and sufficient conditions for saving faith, but really when I analyze the concept of salvation this way, I run into a paradox. Specifically, what could the necessary and sufficient conditions for salvation be. Since I am not a Calvinist I believe that human free choice has to be in there somewhere, but I want to maintain God's sovereign control at the same time. So, let me explain why the diagram below is insufficient.

Necessary Conditions: God's grace + Human acceptance
Sufficient Conditions: God's grace

These conditions say that for salvation it is necessary that both God's grace and Human acceptance be present - we usually call these individually necessary but jointly sufficient conditions. However, we have this individually sufficient condition of God's grace, but if God's grace is both necessary and sufficient then there is no need for any other condition. To show this through analogy imagine that we are trying to figure out what it means to be a legal citizen of fictional country XYZ. In this country, to be a citizen means that you are born within the territorial boundaries of this country. That's it, that's the only way to be a citizen of XYZ. So, in regards to citizenship, being born in XYZ is both a necessary and sufficient condition to achieving this status. Therefore, no other factors come into play. We can't say, for instance, that another necessary condition is that you be Christian since that would make being born in XYZ no longer an individually sufficient condition for citizenship. What this example shows then, is that, if we want to maintain that Human acceptance is a part of the salvation equation we need to make some adjustments.

So to solve this problem we say, okay then maybe God's grace is necessary but not sufficient. Will this solve the problem? Namely:

Necessary Conditions: God's grace + Human acceptance
Sufficient Conditions: None (individually)

While this will allow us to say that Human acceptance is a crucial part of the salvation equation, this turns out to impinge upon our other interest, the sovereignty of God. If we eliminate God's power to give salvation completely independent of man I believe we have done something to His greatness. We now have to say that God's grace is not sufficient alone to provide salvation for people. But what happened to Sola Gratia?

As well, we can easily dismiss the options that have Human acceptance as sufficient (as the early Christian heresy of Pelgianism).

So I guess my question in all of this is not specifically about salvation, but about this "saving faith". What does it mean? Is it an illusory concept as the Calvinists will have us believe, or is there actually something to Human free belief (or the combination of belief+trust+love)?

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Name the Author (without google)

This post is intended to illumine some of the real thoughts of the theological giants (keep in mind they are all giants) of the past:

1. "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

2. "No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief."

3. "God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons."

4. “Wherever we find the Word of God surely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there, it is not to be doubted, is a church of God.”

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Open...or Closed?

So I have been thinking a lot lately about the beliefs that I hold key and how strongly I believe, or even should believe them. While learning a lot about epistemology I have come to the conclusion that, though I do have justification for most of the beliefs I hold, I think I do hold some rather dogmatically (that is, without proper epistemic justification). The issue that comes mainly to my mind is the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. I have been dogmatically against Calvinism pretty much ever since I discovered what belief in that theology entails. While holding the belief in Arminianism rather dogmatically, I still do maintain several lines of argumentation to justify my overall rejection. I do have to admit that I have just as many philosophical misgivings about the theology as I do theological misgivings. However, I am afraid that I have come to the point where there is no amount of information that could change my mind on this issue. This scares me because I want to maintain an openness about the issue that allows me to change positions based on where the evidence, biblical, theological and philosophical, leads. While I do know that several of my dogmatic beliefs are properly, and justifiable, lodged in the "unchangeable" section of my mind, I'm not sure if this belief belongs there or not.

Of course, this kind of closed-mindedness about certain beliefs isn't a bad thing. In fact it is called foundationalism, which is the major epistemological theory of justification for knowledge-claims that many of us hold, especially the theists among us. Basically, foundationalism holds that there are certain key beliefs that do not need justification and instead provide the foundation for all other knowledge. Strong foundationalism has been shown to be sorely lacking in philosophical sophistication and subsequently rejected by most scholars since not ALL of our beliefs can actually be traced back to these basic or foundational beliefs. However, a weaker form of foundationalism can, I believe, be rationally defended and maintained. This weaker form (also called moderate or broad foundationalism) just holds that we do indeed have beliefs that do not need justification and are just "given". It's really up for grabs how many beliefs that really encompasses. Recognizing that I can't make a strict case for theological beliefs being so foundational as to lack the the need for justification (because I think most are, and need to be, justified) I think their is a parallel between foundationalism in regards to basic beliefs and a sort of theological foundationalism (those beliefs we take as a given) in theologizing. For instance, some of the beliefs that I hold, while I feel they are completely justified, cannot be rejected based on any amount of evidence - no matter what form that comes in. Some of these beliefs are: the proposition that God exists, the deity of Christ, the historicity and salvific accomplishment of the Cross, etc. And I don't know where to stop adding beliefs. Are there ones I have included (in my stock of knowledge, not in this list) which need to be open to amendment? This issue bothers me because I want to be open new issues. I can't decide where Calvinism falls in this matter. Though I completely affirm those who do hold this view, I wonder how far we have all come from being open to contradictory evidence. I know, for instance, that there is a Calvinistic response to every argument or verse I could bring up - as the Calvinist knows in regards to my own view. But on something like the deity of Christ there are also secular liberal critics who could probably argue quite effectively that this fact is a myth. And on the issue of divinity, I cannot be persuaded, no matter how convincing the evidence, that it is not true. So I guess the question is, what beliefs do I put in the "unchangeable" box and which do I remain open about?

Sunday, January 27, 2008

How do we CHANGE the World?

So I went to the Passion Conference this weekend at the Nokia Theatre and it changed my life. I don't know what that means for how I live but I know that God wants something completely radical for me. I am struggling with how I live a transformed life here and now. I don't want to wait until I finish school, or until some other time when I have free time. I want to start living a different life right here and right now.

Francis Chan spoke on Saturday night and totally floored me. He challenged us to do something about the injustice in our world. How can I sit here and watch TV, play on my laptop and explore new ways to invest my money while there are millions of children starving to death, young girls being sold and forced into sexual slavery, whole villages unable to get clean drinking water and people dying everyday without knowing our Savior? I don't think I can do it anymore. I can't do this normal suburban life that society expects from me and I so desperately want. The words that kept coming to my mind throughout the whole talk, and the ensuing response time, were "Lord, teach me to live against my nature and against my culture". Contra meum ingenium, contra meum populum (I'm a big fan of Latin just fyi -and its hard to get our understanding of the concept of culture and society out of Latin). I want to live the life that He has for me and not hold on to what I want. At Passion we sang a song that powerfully conveyed the message of God's love for all of this messed up world.

This song was written by a band who set up worship in a brothel in Pattaya, Thailand and Passion has used it as their mission and new album title for the upcoming world tour.

You're the God of this city
You're the King of these people
You're the Lord of this nation
You are

You're the light in this darkness
You're the hope to the hopeless
You're the peace to the restless
You are

There is no one like our God
There is no one like you God

Greater things have yet to come and
Greater things have still to be done in this city

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

On Homosexuality

I find the typical conservative Evangelical approach to homosexuality appalling. Don't get me wrong, I don't think homosexuality is okay - but I don't think our treatment of it is okay either.
Homosexuality is never listed as the worst sin, and in the New Testament, is only mentioned in a list of other sins (and never as the worst in these lists either). We are way off in our treatment of the matter.

Besides, I think there is a much better way to view the situation.

I find a two things by looking at Scripture:

1. Any kind of sexual activity, including lust or impure thoughts, outside of marriage is wrong (cf. Matthew 5:28; Acts 15:29; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:12, 18, 10:8; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; I Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:4).

2. Marriage is only between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24; Romans 7:2, Hebrews 13:4).

Once these two things have been established, which I will take as givens for the large majority of Evangelical Christians, a different conclusion follows.

Specifically: There is no need to proclaim homosexuality as wrong.

Lust or sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong and there is to be no marriage except the union between a man and a woman. Any lust or sexuality activity, whether homo- or heterosexual, is immoral outside of marriage. Why don't we just say that lust and sexual activity is wrong? Why the need to proclaim homosexuality as wrong separately from heterosexual sexual immortality? The one place where homosexuality is mentioned (by name) in the New Testament is in 1 Corinthians 6:9 where Paul says that "neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Clearly, Paul is not listing separate immoral offenses but delineating ones that overlap (who would argue that adulterers are not sexually immoral?). The few other New Testament verses to deal with it (though much more sparse than I first imagined) only refer to homosexuality as it typifies sexual immorality (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Jude 1:7). Moreover the translation of the Greek word "arsenokoitai" has been notoriously difficult and means different things in different contexts. It can and, I would argue, does mean homosexuality in at least one of the contexts but the point is that it is a difficult word.

To end, just let me mention that while the word is translated as "homosexuality" only once in the New Testament, the word "serve" is used 58 times. Maybe our focus should be somewhere else...

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Defending Huckabee pt. 2

Who would have thought there would need to be another defense of the former Governor? But, alas, there needs to be. This time the objection (though much more charitably offered) is from Biola professor Mark Reynolds - here. Fortunately, Dr. Reynolds allows that he may have misunderstood Huckabee's contention and I would argue that he does misunderstand it. Having followed Huckabee for the past 12 months (since he was on the Daily Show talking about his new book) I have read and heard lots about his position on this particular issue. Moreover, I have actually read his book - From Hope to Higher Ground (great book by the way) - and understand what he says about politics. I have also had personal communication with him and can attest to the fact that he holds the separation of church and state as very important and knows that he cannot force his beliefs on an unbelieving nation.

Dr. Reynolds fears that Huckabee is trying to impose "biblical law" on the nation through his message but this isn't really what Huckabee intends. Huckabee stated that he wants to bring the Constitution "into line with God's standards", not that he wants to replace the Constitution with the Bible. I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing for a politician, who happens to be a devoted follower of Christ, to say. The specific moral laws in the Bible may be "specific revelation" that is intended for Christians but the overarching morality of the Bible (love your neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, do justice, walk humbly, love mercy) is clearly meant for Christians to bring to the world. It doesn't mean imposing our beliefs on people - especially through government - but it does mean working to make the world a better place. A world where all people are following biblical morality will indeed be a better place. The only things that Huckabee has ever brought up in regards to the Constitution are a right to life amendment and a definition of marriage amendment. He has never advocated changing anything currently written in the Constitution because it violates God's law (his fairtax proposal would abolish the 14th amendment but this is not under the auspices of bringing the Constitution into line with God's moral standards).

I do think he has been pressed lately about his faith and it is getting very hard for him to maintain a viable political campaign and still feel that he is not compromising his beliefs. I think it would be hard for any Christian who loves our Lord as much as Huckabee does to figure out how this love show be tempered in the legislative arena (as far as presidential legislative power - both direct and indirect - goes). Though you may not agree with him, Huckabee is certainly our brother in Christ and deserves our prayers through the stress and strain of a political campaign. Even if you don't think he is the best candidate he sure is giving the nation a look at a charismatic (in a good way), personable, down-to-earth, environmentally committed, social justice oriented man of God. Politics would be far better off if there were a few more Huckabee's in office.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Defending Huckabee

Gregory Boyd has a recent post (here) disparaging presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee on his announcement that he wanted to bring the constitution into line with God's standards. Besides bringing up issues that are irrelevant (such as the fantastical notion that Huckabee lobby for slavery, polygamy, concubines and holy wars merely because they're in the O.T.) Boyd doesn't even address the policy decision Huckabee announces. That is, if Boyd did the work he would discover that Huckabee is firmly adamant about the separation between church and state. And instead of contradict this position, the new announcement only signals his desire to see America regain some of its moral fiber.

Two further comments on his post. First, bringing the constitution into line with God's standards does not mean making the Bible our new constitution (though Micah 6:8 might be a good starting point). Second, simply because a saying isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't in line with God's standards. In fact, we rely on the fact that our Christian teachers and preachers speak words that are in line with God's standards everyday. So to say that the opening of the constitution, drawn partly from John Locke (the last part is unique to our Constitution), would be disallowed because of its source is untrue. Even if, and Huckabee never insinuated this, he wanted to overhaul the entire Constitution, Locke's phrase wouldn't automatically be eliminated. In philosophy we call this the genetic fallacy - judging a proposition by its source and not by its content - and a fallacy it is.

I respect and admire former Governor Huckabee and I think that, rather than call for an overhaul of the Constitution as Boyd fears, he is merely stating the need to bring moral value back into America. I would hope that those who try to bring their lives into line with God's standards wouldn't be the ones criticizing a leader for wanted to bring those he leads into line with God's standards.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Can Orthodoxy really be Generous?

Tonight I was reading through Brian McLaren's book "A Generous Orthodoxy" and had a few thoughts...Specifically, his concluding chapters on these normally dichotomous subjects (liberal/conservative, Methodist/Calvinist, Charismatic/Fundamentalist) caught my attention. Though I definitely don't agree with all of the postmodern culture and ideology (or anti-ideology), I think McLaren speaks some timely truths. He calls us to view the "other side" more fairly, and more generously, so that we can learn from their strengths. For instance, while liberal Christianity certainly has its shortcomings, its mere arrogance to think that conservative Christianity does not. Instead of focusing on what other Christian traditions are doing wrong, our approach should be to seek out their strengths and incorporate those into both our doctrine and our practice. As McLaren points out, unless the contemporarily liberal causes such as social justice and environmental conservation are taken seriously, we will never be able to call ourselves true followers of the way and teachings of Jesus Christ. Of course this isn't to say that all the world needs is material or physical healing. There is definitely a spiritual and eternal deadness prevalent in our world as never before. This is precisely why we need input from more than one tradition.

In case your tempted to accuse me of postmodern relativism, be sure you recognize what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that the "other side" is right in all it proclaims just because that's what they believe, nor am I saying that truth is too elusive to constrain to factual inquiry. Nor am I even saying, with McLaren, that the word objective makes me uncomfortable. What I AM saying is what a wise man once said 2,000 years ago, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

So maybe the question shouldn't be "Can orthodoxy really be generous?" but "Can orthodoxy really be anything but generous?"