This bit from Aaron Armstrong's review of my new book is worth considering more:
After reading this book, one thing is abundantly clear: Anderson is a uniter. He finally brings “progressives” and “conservatives” together—but it’s not to hold hands and sing “Kumbuyah.” Instead, he recognizes that both are guilty of the same thing: simplistically approaching questions.
This is an astute observation , one that I really appreciate. I make no secret of my generally conservative outlook on the world. If anything, "mere orthodoxy" is itself an effort to make such an outlook more plausible and attractive.
Yet more often than not, the conservative stance toward "dialogue" and "questioning" has been one of skepticism, if not downright hostility. There's some good reason for that: even though they have made much of "questioning," theological progressives haven't been any better at it. Take maybe the most significant manifestation of the mode in recent years, Rob Bell's Love Wins: as a book, it seems only interested in lobbing questions out there without sticking around for any answers. You know, kind of like this guy. (That's not a compliment.)
But the way to get people to avoid questioning badly is to point toward a more excellent way of doing it. Conservatives have generally been eager to provide lengthy answers to the questions progressives have been asking, but didactics and exposition are not inquiry--and on that score, conservatives I think can be said to be found wanting.
