I am starting in on Stanley Hauerwas’ essay The Church as God’s New Language , from the Hauerwas Reader , pp. 142-162, referenced in a footnote in Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p.39 n32
In the note Smith quotes Hauerwas from another essay in Modern Theology saying: “not only that Barth’s Dogmatics should be read as a training manual for Christian speech, but also how that speech shapes the speaker in a manner appropriate to that which the speaker speaks”
Sent Jamie those questions early this morning. His response:
We’ll see in a few days! 🙂
Cool, I’ll send this to him later tonight.
Ok, then, fire away!
Dale,
Yes, you’re right, it’s Smith’s perception and my own as well, but not yours, as has been made abundantly clear! :).
So:
1. Pertaining to language, how DOES one speak truth to power without “ceding too much to the state” in such a way that they 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”? Is this even possible, or are we called to speak differently?
2. How is it that Wallis ends up “humanist”? We understand your perception of the telos of Wallis’ language (with which Dale is in disagreement), but into what particular definition of a “humanist” does this tie?
3. In light of your mention of Reformed Tradtion’s Michael Horton saying that Turretin and Geerhardus Vos’s “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” on page 82-83 of IRO, who is there who is really free of “prior philosophies” in coming to the Scriptures? (the opposite end of the pole being “natural reason”)
Okay, good 3rd question. How about forming it like this:
1. Pertaining to language, how DOES one speak truth to power without “ceding too much to the state” in such a way that they 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”? Is this even possible, or are we called to speak differently?
2. How is that Jim Wallis ends up “humanist”? We understand your analysis Wallis’ perceived telos of his language, but into what particular definition of a “humanist” does this tie?
3. In light of your mention of Reformed Tradtion’s Michael Horton saying that Turretin and Geerhardus Vos’s “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” on page 82-83 of IRO, who is there who is really free of “prior philosophies” in coming to the Scriptures? (the opposite end of the pole being “natural reason”)
I also am not sure of who/what the “perceived” relates to; from your latest clarification, it seems that it is Smith’s perception , so would this be correct as you had originally put the question:
How is it that Wallis ends up “huamnist”?
We understand your perception of the telos of Wallis’ language (with which Dale is in disagreement), but into what particular definition of a “humanist” does this tie?
So, maybe I’ll combine the first two into one like this, so we get two somewhat complex, but pointed questions:
1. Pertaining to language, 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”?
2. How is that Jim Wallis ends up “humanist”? We understand your analysis Wallis’ perceived telos of his language, but into what particular definition of a “humanist” does this tie?
Okay:
Clarify for me the “We understand your analysis Wallis’ perceived telos of his language”
Jamie Smith says this:
2. I couldn’t help but concluding that, whatever Wallis’ earlier stance might have been, he’s really just ended up as a humanist. 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. So there’s all kind of bluster about morals, faith, religion, and “values,” but this is all aimed at the end of just creating a kinder, compassionate American civil theology.
“Telos” is the goal towards which something goes towards. Our end or goal (telos) is ultimately found in participating in God through the revelation of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Smith’s critique is that because Wallis uses certain language, he perceives (as do others) that Wallis’ goal certainly doesn’t feel like he’s really calling us back to the Triune God but instead toward “a kinder, compassionate American civil theology.”
Does that help? I could very well be muddying the waters thus far!
Perhaps this:
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 oand 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.
The question: Who is there who is really free of “prior philosophies” in coming to the Scriptures? (the opposite end of the pole being “natural reason”)
All three of those are good, only I wonder if the first two aren’t too similar, unless you have some particular interest in a distinction.
The third, yes, I would certainly want to know that. Clarify for me the “We understand your analysis Wallis’ perceived telos of his language”
I don’t want to “hog” all the questions, if you had any……
May I propose a third since you are obviously troubled by this as well?
3. How is that Jim Wallis ends up “humanist”? We understand your analysis Wallis’ perceived telos of his language, but into what particular definition of a “humanist” does this tie?
Dale,
Okay, so are these your two questions thus far?
1. How DOES one speak truth to power without “ceding too much to the state”?
2. 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”?