the church does not have a cultural critique; it is a cultural critique. Its politics is an ecclesiology. Central to the project of RO, then, is a radical consideration of politics — and the political nature of the church and gospel– in a way that does not simply concede political expertise to the secular but rather attempts to unfold a distinctively Christian politics, such that even this “socialism by grace” is not confused with its secular parodies.
IRO, p.80
Here is a key place where the contributions and spirituality of a Sojourners movement and Jim Wallis are most assuredly Radically Orthodox. The “careful language” of his God’s Politics tours were a little bit of a letdown for me, especially knowing of the very definite Christian distinctiveness of Wallis’ sense of mission and call. It is here where I can see the source of Smith’s critique, and yet I also feel that the tone of the critique was unwarranted, since Wallis merely failed to be “bold” and “distinctive” about the specifically missional base of the God’s Politics movement.
Wallis certainly not at all a “humanist”. This is a thoroughly unjust judgment. From the above quote, Wallis and Sojourners have had a large impact on making such a Christianity visible. I, for one, don’t feel that more overtly Christian language would have hurt the impact of the God’s Politics movement at all….but I can see the possibility for it having an unduly adverse affect upon certain people who have been negatively impacted by what I can only call “bad examples” and “dark spirituality” that is dogmatic, self-absorbed, and thouroughly cultural at its base.
Against this, and FOR a hopeful Kingdom-driven vision, Jim Wallis and Sojourners have fought and lived by example for 30 years, and the stories are widely available in many books over the years, many of which have done a great deal to open my eyes, and remap my “canons” of Scripture; the gospel is “radically different” to me now largely due to Wallis. I believe that RO has a deep ally, in practically every way that they describe their own emphases. Who knows, Wallis himself may well be intrigued with someting he reads about this “new movement” seeking to recast and reform the idea of Christian orthodoxy, and invite a James K.A. Smith to a conversation for Sojourners magazine, which would be of great interest to many of its readers, particularly where it involves such things as included in the quote above.
As I’ve pointed out earlier, if I took Smith’s final sentence in that post about Wallis, I woudl be apt to TOTALLY MISREAD and NISUNDERSTAND and even perhaps DISMISS radical orthodoxy:
Instead of Wallis’ leftish civil theology, I’ll continue to believe that our most important political action remains the act of discipleship through worship.
That seems to imply, as I read it, (and less so now , especially after informing myslelf a bit more with some details and background on RO via JKA Smith’s book), that RO may well be another escapist, behind-closed-doors of the snobbish elites in cathedrals ignoring of the task of being-in-the-world. But you see, I READ a little and found out that wasn’t so. There’s 30 years of history of works of mercy, authentic church, community and forgiveness, refusing to “simply concede political expertise to the secular”, and enlisting the support and inspiring similar alternatives to the “worship at the altars of National security” (one of the chapters in Revive Us Again) , and the list could go on.
From this example of the ease in which we can pounce on first (and often insufficient) impressions, I propose a better dialiogue and appreciation of the cultural critique that Sojourners has made accessible to the the frustrated American church goer who feels that the church must have a deeper , broader, more “Christ-centered message” for the world than the oft found religiosity blended with nationalism that is offered today. If it were not for that, I don’t know where my own journey would have veered. I certainly would not have been reading in this book, and saying “amen” to quotes such as the one with which I began this post.
As per your agreeing with the “He doth protest too much” statement:
Well, Smith did only make one post about Wallis, and even then, then the “constantinianism on the left?” title did in fact have a question mark on the end of it. I’d be careful about also not protesting too much back at Smith, but I do understand your concerns.
I think you and I should both be aware, as my pastor always reminds me, who is deeply critical of modernity and thus Evangelicals, that the Church is not our enemy. I would hope and I think rightly assume that Smith, who engages in academic theological discussion as his vocation in writing books and articles, would also very well know this.
Eric,
I can’t see how his advocacy for a legitimate role in the public conversation makes it somehow his fault if people see faith as a “wedge”; I’m sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to use ANY movement for gain (and believe that they’re doing it without such motives). I simply cannot believe, with what I’ve read and heard over the past 20 + years that I’ve been getting Sojourners and hearing Wallis speak, that he is unaware of just these very dangers.
Yes, I do have some ideas for some questions for Smith ( Iust finished Chapter 2, which provided me with a volume of notes that I took, just afire with some agreement, and of course, so if RO (and I take it, to some siginificant degree, also he) believes X, then why so polemic against Wallis who also often advocates postion X.
In fact, in note 80 on p.83, Smith cites his frusration with Michael Horton on his polemics against Frei, Lindbeck, and Hauerwas. It seems that here is an excellent paralllel to my own feelings on his own critiques of Wallis. He says: “Me thinks he doth protest too much, because , on the one hand, he senses how close his proposal is to their project but, on the other hand, feels some need to say that he is not one of them.
Bingo! I can relate, big time. I , too, sense how close my “proposal” or “approach” is to the RO project and to Smith’s narrative on it, and yet, Smith feels some need to say that Wallis is “not one of us”. Further, the latter part of chapter 2, Smith makes a case for the conversation between Reformed Traditions and RO, saying that “RO can profit from an engagment with the Reformed” and also going as far to say “The Reformed traditon has a long history of reflection on a number of themes on which RO has only begun to reflect”. Bingo again. So too, has Sojourners had a long history (including their forebearers in earlier “social movements of grace” a reference to his phrase “socialsim by grace” on p.80, just before his discussion on the Reformed tradition’s contributions).
I will be posting more on this—- I also want to explore the role of apologetic in RO as Smith sees it. I tend to see more from Milbank that tends more toward an appreciation of (what do we now call “secular” in this discussion) well, the non-religious or non-overtly religious society, particularly those who have what I would call a “less selfish” concept of justice; IOW, ones who see some merit in considering the “other”, and thus have a keen sense of injustice done to groups of people, in the name of the “common good”. What would RO’s engagement with people such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn be like? I see much conguency with the attention payed to “alternative readings” of history and the recognition of the “Manufacturing of Consent” that Chomsky narrates.
I’m thinking of naming a post on these themes :
“What has Columbia Heights (Sojo Headquarters) to do with Grand Rapids?”
Dale
Stay tuned.
Dale
I think what critics (including myself in this sense) of Wallis fear about his ambiguous language is that he easily opens himself up to being co-opted by the Democrats. What I mean here is that because of this, he easily opens himself up to merely be used as a way to put “faith” back into Democrats as a means for the ends of winning office in a coercive system of power that still ultimatel bifurcates people against each other agonistically.
Anyway. I’m still gonna read his book fairly soon, assuming I don’t take some other class where I have to read a bunch of books! (And actually, this is quite possible: there’s a good chance we’re going to be having a directed study in taking a Biblical Theology class ~ narrative stuff.)
Any ideas yet on the 2-3 pointed questions to Smith?