In Introducing Radical Orthodoxy ch.2, under A Reformed Rendition, on. pp.82-83

Smith talks about Reformed Tradtion’s Michael Horton saying that Turretin and Geerhardus Vos are the first post-modern theologians, “decidedely post-foundationalists” that “do not try to justify their claims by appeal to natural reason”. “Their method is NOT bringing a prior philosophical construction to the Scriptures; rather, their method— centered around covenant— grows out of the narrative and canon of Scripture itself.”

This surfaces for me the question of how “cleanly” we come to theology from ANYWHERE. It’s a problem with conservative social stances as well as liberal; from one school of philosophy as another. Who is really free of this, even when reading the “pure sources”? The lenses are themselves looking at the Scriptures.

It’s related to this note on p.154

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

I’d like to hear more on this very “slippery” question, one which the fundamentalists tend to resent and cry foul, but how much of a problem is this for RO? These observations seem to indicate that RO is cognizant of this (this is clear from their sociological insights), but how is this handled?

On apologetics:

How DOES one speak truth to power without “ceding too much to the state”? HOw does one avoid being “statist” and still speak to the state, in what I would call “accessible” language so that the state can best be “called to task” ?

Movable Theoblogical: Using The Language to Subvert the Ground of that Language

The previous quote in question also leads to questions 2:

Thus, he [Dooyeweerd] sometimes levels the charge of “scholasticism” or “synthesis” simply on the basis of language and categories employed.

When I realized that it was Jamie Smith himself who wrote the “Constanianism of the Left?” article, I found myself starting to wonder what I might be guilty of in my “political talk”. I too, have noticed the “lack of church” in Wallis’ language. But I remain uncertain as to how we talk about the church to the outside, so that they might come to a place where they can be called to it. At many times and for many people, the language of church can be intimidating and forboding, associated with very real experiences of division and personal oppression, from “bad religion; specifically , from “Bad Christianity”. I prefer to call it “bad religion”, since one CAN be “relgious” without taking on what would seem to be some “basic” , distinnctly Christian characteristics.

I’m even less certain about how any of this, whichever way one falls on those issues, makes Wallis a “Humanist”. I have seen NO indication of that. Critique leveled at him while he is attempting to provide some model of civil civic discourse on religion in America does not seem to occasion the label “humanist”. So how does Wallis “end up a humanist”? I think Jamie may have stated things a bit too strongly (but, again, it WAS on a BLOG, where RANTS can happen. At the same time, I feel that we can engage on this , given all the theological common ground; especially where it concerns insisting on a “Biblical orientation” that is in line with the teachings of Jesus. I just feel that it is worthwhile to presesnt the gospel to people where we perceive their rightful passions lay. It is there, most often, that people will feel the call of God: where our vocation and the needs of the world meet (Wallis said that).

I have thus far enjoyed very much my reading of IRO, but I doubt I would have read it if I had first known that its author wrote that post on Wallis (and also had I not had it highly recommended by blog friends, and read the interview with Smith where he said some things that made me want to know more.) I feel that many people who WOULD find much to appreciate in RO are also highly appreciative of Sojourners and Wallis, and so any caustions to be seen in Wallis’ use of language could be better approached than with what would seem to be extreme characterizations which ring as untrue to any of his theological friends. If I had missed reading IRO, it would have been my loss.