The same one* who posted the entry that I point to in the previous entry below, also posted this one ( Constantinianism of the Left?) which is yet another complaint lodged against the Jim Wallis “God’s Politics” message, and again, they miss the mark, I believe. While this guy, Jamie, is obviously an articulate and peace-loving Christian, he is the one who “doesn’t get” Wallis, for he is yet another, that, given his obvious wisdom, would know better if he had actually read much of Wallis over the years, that he is off the mark about Wallis when he says:
In Dan Bell’s terms, he still believes in statecraft. What was most telling, I thought, was for all his talk about faith, and even “evangelicalism,” last night, I don’t know that he ever once mentioned _the Church_! Instead, he’ll focus on “people of faith” getting out the vote, lobbying congress, and doing everything they can to marshall the political process to effect prophetic justice. But that kind of picture plays right into the hands not only of American liberal individualism, but also the deep anti-ecclesial individualism of evangelicalism. In contrast, I think the only hope for justice is a robust church, which requires an ecclesiological account of the formation of disciples. Wallis seems to think a good “moral” civics lesson is enough. Indeed, at the end of the day, he thinks that democracy trumps the Church, for as he put it (yes, this is a direct quote): “Religion must be disciplined by democracy.”
Then he goes on to say:
I couldn’t help but concluding that, whatever Wallis’ earlier stance might have been, he’s really just ended up as a humanist.
So you “conclude” based on “whatever”? That’s sort of what it seems like, alright. “Whatever”, or read as: “Whatever it SEEMS like”, with no history of the movement Sojourners has been for the past 30 years (before Jamie was born, I expect), and one of not just radical TALKWallis seems to think a good “moral” civics lesson is enough.
Hogwash, Jamie. Who you describe is a straw-dog. You may be right about of the lessons or points you make as they stand on their own, but it seems to me the target is misplaced.
I’ll continue to believe that our most important political action remains the act of discipleship through worship.
You see, now, I could jump all over that one and call you an escapist, withdrawalist , ivory-tower person, but then I don’t know much about what happens in your life apart from and because of your worship. I think you ought to at least extend to Wallis the benefit of your ignorance of “the rest of his life and journey”.
* see my previous post (below this one, or click here) for an interesting case of mistaken identity — the post which I am critiquing is by James K.A. Smith himself, whose book I am just about to begin (Introducing Radical Orthodoxy) See the comment below, in this post) from Eric, and my response, above that. I think this might prove to be a fascinating intellectual journey for me here. I’ll post on tnis when I get home later (after I’ve read some of J.K.A. Smith’s book)
I would mostly agree with James here. Like he says in quoting Daniel Bell, he still believes in statescraft, and ultimately, his ecclesiology is pretty weak.
I know you often criticize those who criticize Wallis because there’s always an assumption that they don’t know Wallis or haven’t been with him on his journey for the past 30 years or so, but really, he’s just saying the same things over and over again (by his own admission, when I saw him a few months back).
Wallis has some good ideas, but I’m really becoming critical of him myself with his uber-vague language of “people of faith.” Why can’t he just say “Christian”? I know there’s a certain “audience” he’s talking to and stuff, but to me, that seems like a correlationist compromise. I wish Wallis would be much more specific in his language because me, like many of my friends (and Jamie here) who have reservations about him, are pretty much decided that his ambiguity is much too easily co-opted by the forces of modern liberal democracy.
Here, I would challenge you to now read some of James’ works (Introducing Radical Orthodoxy or Speech and Theology: Language and the Logic of Incarnation), so that you can fully know where he is coming from.
To help out in advance, I think what James is ultimately saying here is that Wallis still finds himself tied to modernity, and ultimately gives too much legitimacy to the modern liberal nation state (which is, like I’ve mentioned before, a parody of the church).