go: introduction, part two

invoking an ancient-future approach to the christian faith, bdm contends that twenty-first century christians ought to learn from the various traditions and historic streams of the faith (ago, 18). i think he is absolutely correct. that said, i wonder how he can really expect to learn anything given his commitment to the philosophical system commonly known as postmodernism with its rejection of truth claims. if truth means nothing or next to nothing, how, then, can he hope to learn anything from christians, be they past, present, or future? what role does truth assume in the development of a genuinely gracious orthodoxy?
these questions lead me to the second part of my thinking about gracious orthodoxy, namely, that it must be based on something. without some foundation, which bdm really struggles to affirm, we have no orthodoxy to label as generous or gracious. whether one likes it or not, believing in something is a truth claim. of course, the question is: in what do you believe? if gracious orthodoxy is right thinking not only brought about by the grace of god but also reaching out to others in the same spirit of grace, then from whence does this thinking originate? my answer, which i will revisit in the coming weeks, is from god's gracious revelation to humanity, the christian scriptures. gracious orthodoxy must be based on a whole bible theology or it can be neither gracious nor orthodox. unlike bdm, however, i don't think that believers who affirm the trustworthiness of the scriptures must inherently be ungenerous. on the contrary, if edwards is correct in religious affections, especially in his discussion of the final sign that a person has truly experienced grace, and in charity and its fruits, then the exact opposite must be true. to the extent that christianity is not gracious or orthodox, it has failed to meet the standards of god's revelation.