After reading some late last night and early this morning in Introducing Radical Orthodoxy (IRO), I returned to this blog post from James K.A. Smith on some critiques he has for the presentation Wallis gives in the stop the God’s Politics tour made at Calvin College on May 5. I still think he severely misread/mistinterpreted what Wallis meant, especially as I re-read it and notice thsse two items:
Fors Clavigera: Constantinianism of the Left?
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.”
I don’t think so. Wallis is in NO WAY saying that the ideals of democracy are above that of Christianity, or any religion for that matter. Based on what he has said in other contexts on this subject, I believe he is saying this with the “truthfulness” factor in mind. That if the ideals of democracy, even as a “base set of grond rules for civility and social compatibilities”, should be expected to be a “minimum” of a religious ethic (albeit incomplete, form a theological perspective). So, “at the very least”, religion should not be totalitarian, deceptive, and manipulative (which of course, he is directing at the Bush administration, and at the Religious Right, who not only swallow the whole administration spin, but also go about their business in very questionable ways). When we find ourselves being able to sooner trust public servants (although that number is rapidly dwindling) than we can “religous leaders”, then indeed, “religion” — (and I would bet that Wallis would explain this in the same way) that betrays the basic tenets of trust and truthfulness is put to shame before the most basic of decencies. I in no way believe that Wallis places ANYTHING “of the world” , including democracy, above the church and the Kingdom of God.
Another unfortunate judgement: “I couldn’t help but concluding that, whatever Wallis’ earlier stance might have been, he’s really just ended up as a humanist.” Nah. No way. You gotta read some more of other Wallis works, James.
“The talk last night was riddled with talk of “values”–which is just the code word for some kind of vague, supposedly common American moral vision”
James, the crux of God’s Politics is that the “values” consversation has been far too narrow, confined to two issues mainly. “Values” is not a Wallis term, it is a confrontation of the Religious Right concerning their misrepresentationsa and oversimplifications of what “values” are. Wallis points out the Scriptures talk about many many more than just abortion and gay marriage (and on those, it does very little if any, and especially since the issues of the poor and loving one’s enemies are dealt with in Scripture in hundreds of places.) But then I know that you know that. You seem to be paying no attention to who Wallis’ audience is for God’s Politics. Most Christians I know who would also agree with your views on “Kingdom values” as radically different and of a whole different kind of order , also know and identify and appreciate what Wallis has been doing. We all know that he would speak to the church that he knows, and is a part of, in a much different language.
I myself would have rather heard Wallis talk more about the church, because I know that this is the concern of churches that already know and realize the problem of obedience in an empire, and of the dangers of Constantinianism for theology. But again, this wasn’t the topic of this particular string of “town meetings”
I feel that there has to be some level of concise coverage of something in order for it to get a wider audience (IOW, be “accessible” and get it out quick. And a wider audience, in this case, is a good thing for a “better theology”. I DO think it is a MUCH BETTER theology. It is a much more “nuanced” and sociologically aware type of theology (than that of the Religious Right) I myself am pleased to have the likes of Wallis and his message being given a voice, than those of the “alternative” (which is more of the same. Just as it takes some “simplification” to teach children , there has to be some amount of “generalization” in setting some clearly definable and so more accessible to more folks .
JKA Smith’s article doesn’t really give much credit to any of the positives. It’s been a bit unfair and caustic. It actually seems to be sort of a “reacti on” rather than a quality critique. Maybe we’ll see that from Smith someday. I’d be happy and extremely interested to see it.
It seems to me , again, that one can only derive the kind of conclusion as Smith has on the basis of a very incomplete and distorted understanding of the larger “Sojo” narrative and history. This does not mean Smith is bad (indeed, I love what I have read, and am looking forward to continuing on in just a little bit ), but that he has identified some statements out of this context in a way other than what Wallis intended. I’m sure Wallis could and would have quite a dialogue with Smith on this one, and Smith seems to be of the quality of spirit that he would feel that he was a tad too harsh, and perhaps even change his assesment of Wallis and Sojourners in short order after such an exchange or a familarizing himself with the Sojourners history.
Just wanted to say all that, and confirm that I’m nevertheless not “turned against” the messenger, as he is whetting my appetitie for more exploration of RO via Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, and its various architects. Also that I don’t think that anyone who might glance at God’s Politics (or even read it all) and have the same reactions as Smith, is somehow “irresponsible”. I certainly have a history that has been deeply influenced by some of Wallis and Sojourners (as well as a friend who is one of the original members who “sojounrned” from Chicago to Washington , D.C.). I also think that helps me to have a have a wider sense of the complexity and the molding of their “group theology” (which I think is important in “interpreting” most accurately. That doesn’t mean that I can’t be fooled or that there aren’t dangers lurking re: various kinds of relationships with power. I think that Wallis and Sojo have also been exposed to and have explored that themselves. Just some food for thought.
More on the positive side regarding IRO is coming up real soon after I have jumped back into it.
I suppose I should also add that I wish he hadn’t said that, not because I think it reveals some dark side, but because it just seems like a dumb, confusing choice of words. When one’s only defense is “he couldn’t have meant that….that makes it tougher to defend or explain.
I would add, as another possibility that Wallis was also using “democracy” as a “public value”—as an assurance that he is not talking “theocracy” as it is feared, not as it might be or should be. I tend to believe that there IS (as I presume RO people would agree, a legitimate THEOCRATIC model), but in the attempt to first and foremost critique a deceptive present administration, and to address the failure of the “opposition party” to be engaging enough to the more conservative or simply to the Chriatian sensibilities of many sorts, this is not a topic that will not be well received now, when fears of theocracy are surfacing.
Not to be “accomodationist”, but simply to keep in mind that there are some understandable fears on these matters, Wallis is describing a “religion that is not to be feared, but one which is considerate of plurality of faith-stories”. “Democracy” suggested here is much like what I imagine MLK was talking about when he appealed in his speeches to the “American dream” which he certainly “recast” in terms of “justice” (and yeah, I know that there is a certain level of suspicion among RO-ers that this tends to be a concept cast in the mold of the legitimizing/defining political system in place) — but again, to appeal to some “simple ground rules of common agreement, these are the most familiar to people in our culture, and often a deeply ingrained “core value” (democracy as honestly “serving the needs of the people”, then, is an appeal to, and assurance of, a “faith-discourse of which we need not be afraid.) I find it basically impossible to believe that Wallis could be harboring any intention or desire to serve the interests of “the system”; and he has done this consistently across administrations of both major parties, as well as rejected consumerism in many forms.
There is just nothing that tells me otherwise, and no reason for me (or Smith) to question an isolated quote, when there’s so much other stuff that would negate that interpretation. Smith’s implication is that Wallis serves “democracy first”, which I defintiely do NOT buy. Like you said, I can’t imagine what exactly he meant. I can only best assert what he has said elsewhere to refute that he woold place democracy in a place of authority over “religion” (unless, perhaps, he is referring to “religion” of the type that needs some discipline — like violent, fundamentalism that would deceive and repress “for the cause” which they consdier a greater good)
My obvious preference is to err on the side of a trust based on 30 years of rejection of many versions of “the American Way of Life”.
Dale
Your analysis of Wallis’ “Religion must be disciplined by democracy” is interesting, but I’m not sure if I fully buy it. I’m not sure what on earth he could have possibly meant by that, still.
It is a much more “nuanced” and socilogically aware type of theology (than that of the Religious Right) I myself am pleased to have the likes of Wallis and his message being given a voice, than those of the “alternative” (which is more of the same.
Actually, Radical Orthodoxy undercuts these notions of “sociology” from their origins, as I am reading now in Milbank’s Theology & Social Theory. Ultimately, I still think James Smith here has the correct assessment of Wallis, but again, it will take more reading of where they are coming from to see that. I think they just want Wallis to go further and to stop, in his language, giving legitimacy to the powers of the modern liberal nation state.
Some of my sessions in my RO class with Pastor John have helped me to see that Wallis is really a kind of liberation theologian of sorts. It’s interesting stuff, to be sure, and it’s a good start, but I don’t think it’s where we need to end up.