Some notes from Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, Chapter 7, Cities of God
For RO, there is a”symbiotic, reciprocal and neccessary relationship between theory and practice”. p.231
Ward sees promise in the “collapse of socialism as a secular political force”; the offering of a means, via RO, whereby socialism can be returned to its Christian roots.
“Only theology-1 could properly ground socialism”
Here , once again, as I began to write last night, is the place where Jim Wallis has been FAR ahead of the rest of the pack. Smith wants to pick on Wallis’use of language, but it is in the practice and the accompanying theological-1* education that practice is given fertile ground and actually made more possible.
* theology-1 (don’t know how to do superscript for the 1) or theological-1, (p.177-179 IRO) in short, 1 is the fundamental Christian confession affirmed by the Church, embodied in Scripture,etc……2 refers to the ongoing work of specifically theoretical,”second order reflection”. Here, again, it seems that Smith has been far too harsh with Wallis for the sake of his language scruples, which seem very much on the order of a 2, and Wallis operates his 1 as very much grounded in what I consider to be an extremely healthy and rich, Biblical, explicitly Christian telos
I find it hard to imagine how “non-academics” are going to even understand what RO is saying. It is in the likes of Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo that the very possibility of a radical rendering and understanding of theology can be envisioned at all (at least this has been the case for me. Wallis has been like a mentor in the process of placing real issues of governmental “consequences” up against the vision of the Kingdom of God; a vision so rarely advanced in the church in America; the church largely unaware of its falling in line with Constaninian forces, and how it has altered its original Biblical grounding in favor of “values” that come from capitalist forces, driven by the biggest benefactors of such a system). It was via such people as Tony Campolo that I was able to appreciate the message of Sojourners. To call Wallis to task because he is attempting to suggest that the “values” which the Religious Right posits as the essence of faith are severely limited (and often driven more by hate and fear than by faith) —to call him to task for this is puzzling— Wallis (and others like Campolo) have offered more of a “socialist revision of America”(which Ward encourages) and really have been one of the very few who get that suggestion “out there” at all. I would never have been available to hear nor appreciate the theology of RO without the likes of Wallis).
The “values” talk Smith eschews seems to me to be a reaction rather than a real issue. What are “values”? Is it not “what is important”; is it not “driving principles”; underlying notivations; the “root driver of practice”? This is simply another example of “hijacking” and “spoiling” of a word and a concept that has much more to do with the extremely narrow usage and manipulation of that word for political gain. This is “Constantine”; not the attempts to counter the manipulative usage of “religion” by the state (which , in the Western world, as we all know, has caused theologians to name this process of defining reality (and thus “rationality”; “common sense”) as being “of Constantine”.
“Values” has become an abhorrent concept to many that are tired of its being invoked to butress whatever the hell those in power want to hold up as desirable and “secure”. But it really IS , by definition, “what is important”. It is the “grounding” of any “system of thought”. RO has “values”. That doesn’t mean that anyone who dares to challenge or define or explore what those entail is “giving in” and ceding the argument or somehow participating. Could we not take this argument all the way to “Christian” itself? (the Religious Right already has)
I think your comment here has probably best put into words one of my biggest growing critiques of RO: RO really should engage with it’s Christian brothers and sisters in the Sojourners and other similar groups.
I was actually thinking about that in the same way. I would love to hear an exchange between those two (Wallis and Smith). I really believe they would enjoy each other quite a bit. I wouldm’t be at all surprised to see Sojo do an interview with him. There is, as I know you have also seen, quite a bit of common oppostion of the same forces.
I think it’s spent enough time with Leibniz, Derrida, Hegel, Marx, and the big bad guy, Duns Scotus! It really is time to stop dismissing anybody who doesn’t have a chair in academia.
Amen, brother. Also has kind of bugged me too.
Granted, Jamie Smith did engage with us, and I think he of all people would actually be more willing to do so than most of them because he has some more Evangelical roots himself (as you may have noticed in the footnotes of IRO).
Agreed. I get that same impression
But, I really think there should be so much more of this. We’ll see what he puts into this RO/Emergent book. Considering Wallis affirms Emergent (I heard that somewhere), maybe there will be some good helpful conversation in there.
Wallis was at the Emergent conference last year in Nashville, as was Tony Campolo. Actually, Brian McLaren is Wallis’ pastor.
all of us here on the ground aren’t talking to Hegel, Weber, and Marx! We’re talking to Christian Evangelicals, fundamentalists, liberals, conservatives, and whatever else! We’re less interested in speaking with dead people! 😛
Definitely. Thanks for these thoughts, man!
(But I hope he doesn’t piss me off again 🙂
You, my friend, are hilarious! I couldn’t help but laugh at that. The way you ended your last post was great, too, btw.
Actually, I think your comment here has probably best put into words one of my biggest growing critiques of RO: RO really should engage with it’s Christian brothers and sisters in the Sojourners and other similar groups. I think it’s spent enough time with Leibniz, Derrida, Hegel, Marx, and the big bad guy, Duns Scotus! It really is time to stop dismissing anybody who doesn’t have a chair in academia.
Granted, Jamie Smith did engage with us, and I think he of all people would actually be more willing to do so than most of them because he has some more Evangelical roots himself (as you may have noticed in the footnotes of IRO). But, I really think there should be so much more of this. We’ll see what he puts into this RO/Emergent book. Considering Wallis affirms Emergent (I heard that somewhere), maybe there will be some good helpful conversation in there.
Yeah, totally, thanks for putting this into words. The problem is that, while yes much of this archaelogy of secularism/nihilism is immensely helpful and necessary, all of us here on the ground aren’t talking to Hegel, Weber, and Marx! We’re talking to Christian Evangelicals, fundamentalists, liberals, conservatives, and whatever else! We’re less interested in speaking with dead people! 😛
I wholeheartedly agree that language is important. That’s one reason why , I think, I took such offense at the accusation of “humanist”, and Jamie seemed to shrug that off as “rhetorical flourish”, but that in itself seems to disrepect the idea that language is important. I intended to press the point that Jamie’s rhetoric seems too harsh for the “crime” (even IF Wallis is guilty, which of course we all knowby now that I DON”T think he is) Wallis doesns’t seem to me to be of any sort of “in the same ballpark” or “utilizing” the same “mode of thinking”. The fact that I can so deeply appreciate so much of what is written in IRO, and so feel so deeply indebted to Wallis for much “formative” changein my own “telos”, seems to indicate to me that there is a pretty deep congruency of thought.
That said, I can totally succumb to the need for and the neccessity of “sharpening”. Maybe I feel that Smith didn’t do the kind of well-rounded analysis of Wallis as he does with some of the theologians with whom he contrasts with RO in the book. I just kind of wish he would indicate some appreciation for the positive direction that Sojourners provides; what Smith calls “redirection” of society or sociality. Perhaps that is a perogative of the blogger; but it’s also true for the one who wants to “sharpen right back”.
Why can’t “values” be alternatively “redirected” to it’s “fullest sense”. The whole problem is that it IS DEFINITELY VAGUE(and somewhat intentional by some who want to continue to receive “absolution” for aa continued devotion to something other than a thoroughly Christian telos), and it is that “vagueness” and constriction that I have to belive that Wallis is correcting; and a much needed corrective at that.
I appreciate your pushing me on this. I hope you don’t tire of it. There is much to be “added” to my own “telos” here. I am thankful for just about all of what Smith has taken me through in this “excavation”.
I owe this to your own energy and exploration and sharing those “morsels” with all of us. I’m just a long-time “member” it seems of the extended Sojo family, and I have to feel a bit more attachment to the “narrative” that I’ve been getting from Sojo over these past 20-25 years, and how much they’ve done for me by way of “shepherding”and “encouraging” me through the various darker times in the history of this church in America under whose roof I have been raised (and you noted that you see that “loyalty” there…..I appreciate that, and want you to know that I will, in the best sense, take this to heart)
And BTW, I’m still not completely done with IRO…I’m to page 246 of 262. And I too look forward to that upcoming book of Smith’s. (But I hope he doesn’t piss me off again 🙂
I think it just dawned on me that you’ve been attacking a straw man this whole time. Jamie Smith never attacked or criticized Wallis’ practice outside of his use of language (that is, language is also a practice).
Smith never criticized the good stuff that Wallis does do. It was all based on language, which is quite important. One can live rightly, but still be too influenced by those you’re trying to define oneself against that one ends up sounding like those very same people.
It’s unfortunate that you’ve had to read through IRO with a bit of cloudy lens, but I’m still glad you started reading the material.
Despite your claims about “values” being important, the truth is, they actually aren’t when they’re removed from the particularity of the Christian witness, as Wallis continues to do. I can understand your defensiveness on this matter because of how Wallis has indeed shaped you positively, but I think that only goes so far until one tries to defend vague, particularity-void “values” language. I think we all need correction, and I’m not sure I understand why Wallis is devoid of any need of sharpening like the rest of us.