Smith identifies what he sees as a tendency in Dooyeweerd:

Dooyeweerd sometimes seems to think that there is a “biblical-founded philosophy” that even employs a unique language, untainted by apostate ground-motives. Thus, he sometimes levels the charge of “scholasticism” or “synthesis” simply on the basis of language and categories employed.

IRO, p. 154, n35

And so I find yet another observation so astutely drawn by Smith that I dare say I could use to turn around his argument against Wallis, and identify that critique as too heavily weighted “on the basis of language and categories employed”. As we read on in that same note:

As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Dooyeweerd’s own language is heavily indebted to Neo-Kantianism and Heidegger’s phenomenology, but its fundamental religious orientation is different. Obviously then, one can—must–adopt an operative framework of philosophical categories and language that, at the same time, subverts the religious ground-motive that spawned them. Indded , the New testamant notion of Logos may do just that.

(emphasis mine)

JKA Smith is obviously an extremely articulate and thoughtful theologian, and one whom has brought to the fore and made accessible a view of RO that is extremely valuable , I believe. And I believe that he has more of an ally in the likes of Wallis than he is, maybe as of yet, or for some time to come, hesitant to say (or maybe perhaps has just not told us yet?) I see Wallis exactly in the previous quote from Smith’s note, and specificaly Wallis regarding the very critique Smith levels at him: that Wallis does indeed use the language of “democracy” to subvert it, as RO encourages. He subverts it by the very act of bringing to the table the visions of the prophets, and by calling to task the failure of this Administration (as with others, only this one seems particularly ruthless and determined in its willingness to subvert the very “lowest common denominator” of some very basic public trusts). He continuously questions the legitimacy and exposes the false “soteriology” of the American nationalism so rampant in our chruches, and invoked by Bush himself via his constant mis-appropriations of the language of theology to promote his empire.

To label Wallis “Humanist” for this is puzzling to me, and I will continue to question that even as I walk amazed and inspired through the theological exploration that Smith gives us in Introducing Radical Orthodoxy. It has already been for me an important theological work, and one which is valuable to the conversations that seem to have gotten more energetic since the Bush administration took office and the chaos of 9/11 and the Iraq war commenced.