Charlie has put up his blog entry on Chapter 10 of God’s Politics, “Blessed Are The Peacemakers”

I commented there, and gave a little on my take of what Wallis was saying. I agree with Charlie that it is on this subject where Wallis treads on the most precarious ground, teetering on the edge of succumbing to the use of “political” language in getting at distinctively Christian views. In fact, this is the crux of the issue of “ceding language to the state” that represents JKA Smith’s crtique of Wallis. But I have maintained that there has to be some ground where we engage with “the world” and “opposing theologies” (including the “secular” , “political” arena which , as Radical Orthodoxy points out, has its own distinct “theology”). I have been reading Hauerwas’ A Community of Character
, and Hauerwas hits on several angles of this issue as he pokes around the issues of the role of church in “the world”.

My call is for Christians to exhibit confidence in the lordship of Yahweh as the both of our existence and in particular of our community. If we are so confident, we cannot help but serve our polity, for such confidence creates a society capable of engendering persons of virtue and trust. A people so formed are particularly important for the continued existence of a society like ours, as they can provide the experience and skills necessary for me to recognize the differences of my neighbor not as a threat but as essential for my very life.

(Emphasis mine)
p.86 A Community of Character

“A people so formed” are important in order for there to be a clear alternative. It is not Jim Wallis that should be out there “advocating” for the non-violent contrasting ethic of the gospels, but the churches. But they have not, for the most part, been “so formed”. The churches have NOT been the source of education and formation in recognizing “the ways of the world”.

I have long considered Wallis and Sojourners as a kind of “curriculum” for the church in confronting the powers. There will always be critiques, but I simply do not see nearly enough “clear and distinct and uncompromising presentation of questioning the “realities” which the Bush administration (or other administrations) have presented to us for our approval, or justifications given for actions taken.

More from Haerwas

The challenge is always for the church to be a “contrast model” for all polities that knew not God. Unlike them, we know that the story of God is the truthful account of our existence and thus we can be a community formed on trust rather than distrust, The hallmark of such a community, unlike the power of the nation states, is its refusal to resort to violence to secure its own existence or to insure internal obedience. For as a community convinced of the truth, we refuse to trust any other power to compel than the truth itself.

pp.84-85 A Community of Character

More, which could be construed to mean that Hauerwas eschews the church “meddling in politics” of the state, but it seems to me he is rather putting the onus of responsibility on the church as thew locus and training ground for the development of a stance of “truth over fear”:

The first social task of the church is to provide the space and time necessary for developing skills of interpretation and discrimination sufficient to help as recognize the possibilities and limits of our society. In developing such skills, the church and Christians must be uninvolved in the politics of or society and involved in the polity that is the church. Theologically, the challenge of Christian social ethics in ,at secular polity is no different than in any time or place it is always the Christian social task to form a society that is built on truth rather than fear. For the Christian, therefore, the church is always the primary polity through which we gain the experience to negotiate and make positive contributions to whatever society in which we may find ourselves.

The key question here is one of navigation. The assumption here is to “negotiate a place”, not in the sense of compromise, but in carefully presenting the “alternative truth” in contrast to the many false and competing truths. And the “polity through which we gain the experience to negotiate society” and “make positive contributions” to society is where the church has been sorely lacking. Here again, as I wrote earlier here, Wallis and Sojourners have, through their own experiences of church and community seeking to understand and live a vision of The Kingdom of God, have been working for 30 years to encourage the churches to open their Bibles and read with new eyes, and recognize the temptations to power represented in Empire, which eschatalogically oppose the instances and reflections of God’s Kingdom . Do they do this “perfectly”? No. Is whether or not they succeed in “convincing the powers” an issue? Not really. Is this even possible? Perhaps not. In most cases, probably not. Right now? Definitely not. Could Wallis be more forthcoming about the underlying telos from which he works? Certainly.

What Hauerwas constantly stresses is how the church is neccessary for us to even be able to see how such truths can be lived. It is neccessary for the church to BE that alternative, over and against the “talking about it” and “confronting the powers” with the arguments. But there must be SOME avenue to explore those iossues with those who , in our view, “need convincing”. In the case of the Bush administration, it is for the sake of the world and the prevention of inevitable consequences of this hubristic stance they have taken. We can’t abandon our world to such chaos, and the ones who are blinded by their sense of might and lust for wealth.

Once again, the “curriculum” of such a people as the church needs a major revival of “Biblical proportions” (quite literally).