A revisiting of some of the dialogue about the sometimes racous dialogue on Generous Orthodoxy Think Tank about the …..a one liner is kind of hard to pose…….the argument about whether Radical Orthodoxy in general, and Hauerwas specifically, are “dismissive” of activity around “justice seeking”, or whether or not there is an “obligation” for Christians to “work with” political structures in the context of being faithful.

(Did I get the “gist”?)

Generous Orthodoxy ThinkTank: Eric Lee’s Response to Steve Bush on Hauerwas

JKA posted:

Given that Steve Bush’s earlier post “Between Hauerwas and Augustine” generated such lively and vigorous discussion, some might be interested to revist the discussion by considering Eric Lee’s recent “Reply to Steve Bush.” (Eric is a faithful commenter at Think Tank.) Just FYI.

Some of what I replied to Eric with:

I still don’t know quite where I am on those questions……I don’t mean to be “relativisitic” when I say I like the reasons you both give….I understand Hauerwas a lot better now than last summer, and I like JKA a lot better than I did last summer, but I see where SB is coming from when he asks:

Cannot Christians join with others who are actively attempting to rearrange the social, political, and cultural structures of global capitalism, even as the Christians participate in, and indeed as an extension of such participation, the realization of eschatological justice and peace in the Eucharist? The theological commitments of Radical Orthodoxy suggest as much, but their rhetoric refuses this possibility.

I also like:

I find Radical Orthodoxy’s increasing emphasis on the expansive generosity of God’s grace welcome, since this implies that non-Christians invested in worldly political and economic practices have ethical potentialities heretofore unacknowledged by Radical Orthodoxy.

I also recognize the sections from Hauerwas that you rightfully posed as evidence to the contrary that he TOTALLY frowns upon working with others on “justice” issues (even though I realize Hauerwas has an aversion to that term , mostly because of the tendency of so many to fail to see the way in which so much of that simply props up the system against which they are aimed).

I was reminded also of Bonhoeffer and his work with the resistance and the plot to kill Hitler. Earlier, there were plans for a coup, and Bonhoeffer placed much hope in the possibility of working to effect a “hostile takeover” employing some key military leaders who were on the fence who might help effect the coup. Of course Hitler was an especially heinous case, but I wonder how “heinous” something needs to be before some amount of “collaboration” on some common ground of some appeal to some “don’t do harm” principles that many non-Chriistians could agree on is not “preferable”; and just as Bonhoeffer eventually decided that it might be better to involve himself in an assassination plot when the coup failed to materialize. Again, my point here being that there are numerous instances where Bush and Co, are not simply ineffective, greedy rich guys seeking to close all available avenues toward “leveling the playing field” (even though its never the aim, as Zinn points out in his history, to really achieve a lasting justice/equality; they just talk the talk, do what they want and plan to do, and deny it and twist it and progagandize it into a rally cry ; and to some extent all of the US political administrations have done so; but I do have to say that these guys are the worst of the lot, and we could all do with some light being shed on them, and take our chances with prevention of further plundering of every arena they get their grubby paws on. Still , this would not be “beloved community”, or reach the end of reconciliation, but it would certainly be a lesser evil, and worth stopping, and a better place from which to be able to peer back and say “that was awful”, then set sights ahead, and perhaps the churches that do live the Jesus story will be seen to have been right.

Today, I have more to add on this:

My sensibility on this centers on the question of AT WHAT POINT do the actions of government, in the name, of course, of “freedom” and “democracy” and “the will of the people”, require resistance, and when is it deemed “neccessary” or “obligatory” to “unveil” the degree of deception that is happening to obscure the real damage being done? When is it desirable/obligatory to “participate with a coup”. I also don’t think we can posit a “POINT” at which we spring into action, or “Wait” if such a POINT is not considered “REACHED”. I think there are numerous modes of “Trends” that are causes of rightful concern, and that WAITING for a POINT is not “faithful”.

What I’m saying here is that there are more than a handful of instances where the Bush administration is attacking and dismantling numerous “safety nets” that , n the past, conscientiousand knowledgable people , in those areas, have worked to protect from abuse by “capitalism” (like environment, Food and Safety, education, healthcare, elderly care, and on and on). INcreasingly, I am seeing the Norquistian activity of “dragging these to the bathtub” in the name of throwing these areas to the dogs of “the market”, not to mention the ongoing dragging of the world into violence and war. I don’t see that “waiting” for the death toll to reach that of Hitler’s actions is any kind of “comparison game” to be played. If it was considered “rational” for Bonhoefer to participate in a coup plan, and finally an assasination plan (that’s not what I’m suggesting here—-I am instead desirous of any and all “coverups” and instance of corruption and scandal to be uncovered ad infinitum. Not that this country will in any way take a rightful next step beyond that point, but it will at least STOP THE OPPRESSION AND KILLING.

I feel that there are vastly more areas of common ground between “Radical Orthodoxy” and “Progressive Christianity” than many of the most vocaL critics of the latter from within the former are indicating by some of their more public writings or statements. The pieces from Hauerwas that Eric has lifted up seem to me to give testimony to that. James KA Smith talked about in his interview on “Evangelicals Out of the Box” that many Progressives seem to expend much energy in avoiding “sounding like” the Religious Right. I think that perhaps there is an element of this in Hauerwas when he complains about Christians talking about “peace and justice”. Yes, the terms have come to be polluted with liberal democratic notions. But they are clearly Biblical TERMS, and the property of no ideology.

It seems we need to try to look more at how these theologies are constituted in living breathing communities seeking to be a people set apart and living apart from the dictates of culture, and a people called to aid one another in being formed as a “recovery group” to help us overomce our addictions to culture by faithful practices.