Immediately prior to starting my reading of Introducing Radical Orthodoxy by James K.A. Smith, I have these thoughts, in light of Smith’s critiquing of Wallis in this post on his blog. (Now Wallis REALLY needs to get his blog going, so that he can answer these charges; or ,better, instead of calling them “charges” – like they are condemning each other, call it challenges, or invitations to dialogue. Whatever, I’m taking up this matter since I feel the reaction strongly, even as I look forward to the presentation by Smith)

On the way home, after finding out that the Introducing Radical Orthodoxy author was the one who did the blog post that was critiquing Wallis for his “statecraft” (I had already purchased the book , based on several recommendations and the interview with the author, James A.K. Smith which Eric linked a few days back)…..anyway, on the way home I was thinking about how I consider the Church of the Saviour as the source of the most “authoritative” contemporary theology that I have known. They are about a close to a “standard” as I can imagine for what it means to be church. That gives them, for me, a kind of “canonical” status among all contemporary representatives of the Jesus story…and that INCLUDES the likes of Sojourners, and the reason I put it this way is for much the same reason as James K.A. Smith theologically critiques Jim Wallis’ “presentation”: because they are first and foremost church, and they aren’t really known for dissent as much as they are a strongly alternative and powerful prescence of a community responding to call, and doing so out of a highly complex, depth-searching life devoted to the Inward and Outward journeys (this dual-aspect is part of their narrative over the past 58 years, one made quite accessible and moving by the writing of Elizabeth O’Connor). So it is there that I can , on the one hand, identify with Smith’s emphasis on the centrality of the church as the focus.

On the other hand, I also place a high premium on the “obedience” factor; the degree to which a community and its participants are giving of themselves sacraficially to the things to which they sense God calling them, through the discovery of their gifts and the contribution of those gifts to the mission. I find a lot of that in the history of Sojourners, and JIm Wallis has been a major supplier of the narrative; or “writer” of that narrative, just as Elizabeth O’Connor has been for The Church of the Saviour.

I will be have to be dissuaded by contrary evidence that Wallis and Sojourners do not, in fact, place the church as primary source of their own living out of the values of their movement. Without the church, which has been embodied in many “missions” and “locations” and lived out amongst various communities of people who were struggling, and living with them in their struggles, they would not have been able to perservere in the way they did. These are things that were refreshed in my memory from my reading of these things 20 years ago in “Revive Us Again” , which I read and about which I blogged a days ago. So I find it just a little presumptious and unfounded for Smith to say that “Wallis seems to think a good ‘moral’ civics lesson is enough”. This seems to be ignoring the things of which I just spoke in the Sojourners community history.

Also, I will most probably find myself in enthusiastic agreement with Smith’s theology in Introducing Radical Orthodoxoy. I am not at all convinced that it is accurate to count Wallis amongst the “violators” of hardly any of the “prongs” of that theology. I say this on the basis of my previous observation that obedience (ie. “fruit” is the authoritative test, if there be such a thing as a “test”).

This is where I will stand (until I am persuaded to move*):
I believe that it is not outside the “realm” or “responsibility” or “call” of the church to speak to “the powers” of alternatives, and to critique the abuse of power. Of course the primary means is to BE that alternative; but there is also a “apologetic” role in the presentation of a narrative that seeks to communicate to the world in language it can access; and do so to “invite them” or to “make inviting” the participation in such a community of reconciliation. I am struck by what we might have , as an alternative to the so-called “statecraft” of Wallis if he did not get the opportunity to be given a public forum as he has through the publication of “God’s Politics”, and the subsequent “tour” of talk shows and such. And NO, none of this is “enough”, but it IS an alternative, and a very welcome one to many Christians, inclusing myself, who have been embarassed by what the Religious Right has done to the reputation of the church. I am much happier knowing that many comapssionate people who could not in good consceince acquiesce in the mockery that is so many American churches (much less the heresy of these churches in their failure to pay much attention at all to most of the message of Jesus). I want there to be SOMEBODY saying that this is not the way, and this is not the church that was meant to be.

MLK didn’t invoke the church in many of his “famous” and “media covered” speeches, but he was certainly not practicing “statecraft” (or was he? I’m not even sure what that is exactly, but it “sure don’t sound good”)

So I’m gonna read this Introduction to Radical Orthodoxy, and with great anticipation and confidence that much will be added to my sense of church and gain some “sociological/theological” insight into the nature of the church and state relationship, as seen by the RadOx definition/criteria.

And come on, “de-contruct this” (this post , I mean) and get us all started (and I’m talking to nobody in particular) In the meantime, it’s Introducing Radical Orthodoxy time!

*…and please, do try to persuade me; this is a key “aspect” of church for me: to put myself in a postion to be transoformed into a disciple; to be in a situation (ie. a community) where I can learn to be more obedient — and there is quite a bit of “more” to add)