Though seeking to retrieve premodern resources for theological reflection, RO is not simply a nostalgic preoccupation or a simplistic return to old paths. Rather, it seeks to rethink tradition as the very condition for theological refelection — something that evangelicals would do well to consider. Even its crtique of modernity should not be construed as a simple antimodernity; rather, “Radical Orthodoxy, although it opposes the modern, aslo seeks to save it. It espouses not the pre-modern, but an alternative version of modernity”*

James KA Smith, IRO, p.65

* this quote is from John Milbank’s Programme of Radical Orthodoxy

Here I feel a bit more bold to feel that is permissable to bring up my lingering hesitancies about RO (or at least Smith’s version of it as I receive it so far) because of the ringing , stinging ctitique that Smith leveled at Wallis in his blog post (and its scathing title: Constantinianism of the Left?) after hearing Wallis at Calvin College. As you may have noticed, I have been regularly challenging that, even as I proceed throughout the book, and seeking to, at various junctures, illustrate where I think Wallis is actually a better theological allie and resource for RO as he is a threat or an example of modernity , or Constaninanism gone leftist.

If RO truly seeks “to save modernity”, I am still wondering (and I realize I have much more to go via Smith’s IRO) where the point of meeting and dialogue is supposed to occur so that such a “conversion” can take place. I know that I will be firmly allied with MANY tenets of RO (as I get this feeling via what I heard Smith say in the interview by Jonathan, the content of which has drawn me to Smith in the first place (in addition to the posts Eric has made about what he is reading in his RO class (also here) which he is auditing and “reading along”) I am certainly in step with Smith’s views on the primacy of peace as an attributre of the Christian community, and of the realities of empire. I’ll probably be making a more extensive journey through Fors Clavigera (James K.A. Smith’s blog) after I complete IRO.

I have decided that I should use my misgivings about the Wallis critique as a point of dialogue with my reading of Smith’s take on RO. I love the exploration of the many facets of RO, such as the characteristics of modernity and “secularity as neutrality”, which I agree wholeheartedly is nothing of the sort — although some “secular notions” (themselves a representative of someone’s “orthodoxy”) are more cognizant of this than others). I also like the idea of distinctiveness or “particularity”; that the church should be “unapologetically Christian”, although this has yet to be fleshed out in terms of how this impacts “witness” or our presentation of the gospel to the world. This of course is most fully encapsulated in the idea that “the call of the church is to be the church”, and so grounded in the nature of the life of the community, but what of the dialogue that seeks to “save modernity”; to confront the unquestioned and/or unconscious acceptance of its influences. How does one do this and avoid the kind of polemic that Smith has levelled at Wallis? I object to the polemic not becuase I don’t believe there is ever any justification for strong rebuke, but simply becuase I do not believe Wallis actually represents any kind of a Contantianian sensibilities, but is actively engaged in confronting the American church with the dangers of such. Not in any sense of that word.

Are there others out there who are a bit bothered by this charge made by Smith? I want to provoke a closer examination of this, because I want to see what I have seen so far in RO succeed as a framework and as an “ethic” of sorts, but I am concerned about the esoteric nature of such an extent that it encourages such a , well, anal insistence on “not saying certain things certain ways”. I know that language is important , but there are many “approaches” of deep integrity to the gospel that do not study such “aspects of modernity” so closely, and so are unaware of how deeply concerned the people fortunate enough to have been exposed to the RO survey of modernity are about the entrapments that exist in the political process.

But I believe that Wallis is well aware of these. Even though he may using some language that may make it seem “compromising”, I do not think his aims are compromising, nor his methodology. My only concession thus far is that he COULD be more careful, but couldn’t we all? I still think Sojo’s ministry over these past 30 years is “credential” enough to at least warrant a sense of appreciation from the RO theologians, rather than such a scathing inditement, seemingly bordering on calling him a heretic.