I don’t have much detail on what the heck JKA is saying here. He seems to like making somewhat esoteric, veiled references to what he apparently thinks Wallis and Sojourners represent.
RCA: Perspectives: As We See It: How to Get Your Hands Dirty
Is there only one way to get your hands dirty? Supposedly so, to listen to the conventional Right and Left on the American Christian scene. On the one hand, our brothers and sisters on the Religious Right try to convince us that in the name of “liberty”–which is a “gift from God”–we need to be willing to get our hands dirty and undertake military action. On the other hand, “progressive,” Sojourners-type activists disparage the ecclesial- centric politics of Stanley Hauerwas and others as “purist” and “quietist”–as if committing to the church as polis is a way of staying “clean.” On the matter of “dirty hands,” then, Sojourners’ Jim Wallis and National Association of Evangelicals President Ted Haggard are on the same continuum: both think that getting one’s hands dirty means getting into bed with the state. (I promise not to run with the metaphor.)
But is pulling a trigger the only way to get your hands dirty? Is playing by the rules of party (and partisan) politics, even of liberal democracy, the only way to really care about justice? Is that the only way to “do” something about oppression and injustice? Dirty Hands Aren’t pacifists who minister to the wounded and open up their sanctuaries to care for victims also getting their hands dirty? Could we not say that those who celebrate the Eucharist as politics also have blood on their hands?
and what the heck does this really mean?
celebrate the Eucharist as politics
I must cede right up front that I am not extremely “eucharistic” or liturgy-centric. I think my Baptist upbringing is to blame for that. I realize there is a lot to learn on that score. But I’m not sure what this really means. I understand that the Eucharist can be political in its results, meaning, etc. But then how does Eucharist act AS politics?
I also cannnot agree with the notion that Sojourners “gets in bed” with the state. I mean, merely agreeing to confront/dialogue/debate with the aims/claims/purpose of the state on “it’s own turf” does not neccesarily “cede ground” or “jump in bed”. There is certainly no semblance of “cooperation” or “agreement” or telos here. Wallis is also under no illusions about the “righteousness” of the “political liberals” , usuaully ensconced in the Democratic party. He has long been critical and confrontive with administrations of the Democratic party (such as Johnson in Vietnam) and Carter in Timor.
The whole problem here is that Smith is not presenting these as questions aimed toward dialogue on these issues, but in what I would characterize as “jabs” approaching what has been called “drive-by”. And in this particular case, I would tend to belive that Wallis and Sojourners, as they always have, would welcome the issues being explored, as Smith has so ably demonstrated that he is capable of doing. I raised the question last week that I feel the time is long overdue for such a discussion to take place. Thus far, I am aware of three people who have raised some “well……..” kinds of questions about Jamie Smith’s criticisms of Wallis (Charlie, Anthony, and in response to Anthony, Jonathan…..see the question raised by Anthony and reply by Jonathan on Jonathan’s Blog I have “mirrored the comments below )
from the comments and link mentioned above: http://stphransus.blogspot.com/2005/05/jim-wallis-and-jesus-jim-wallis-and.html#comments
Anthony Smith said…
phransus,
I found this quote interesting:
“I think the only hope for justice is a robust church, which requires an ecclesiological account of the formation of disciples.”
I do heartily agree with this up to a certain point. But I would add that it is easy for my man to hope for a robust church. There are many people languishing in poverty and poor healthcare…right now. Waiting for a robust church isn’t going to help all that much. I am wary of constantinianism myself…lord knows I got Hauerwas, Milbank, and Yoder on my brain…but I always find it odd the people yelling “Constantine”! Its normally the people who ain’t languishing!
Ant
9:28 PM
St.Phransus said…Outstanding point!! I just finished reading an article on the emerging church critiqued as a bourgois movement. It plays into that same kind of system.
The funny thing is, the same guy who wrote the article criticizing Wallis is the same one who is criticizing the Emerging Church… hmmmm. I need to sleep on that one.
thanks ant.
10:11 PM
St.Phransus said…“I think the only hope for justice is a robust church, which requires an ecclesiological account of the formation of disciples.”
Maybe the entire premise lies with the word “HOPE”.
Just a follow up.
peace
Eric,
It seems to me that the “getting one’s hands dirty” is reference to a critique of pacifism that says that “dirty work” has to be done; a jab at the perceived “passive” and “unengaged” characature(sp?) that many have of pacifists or “non-violence” proponents. (the one that Smith identifies with the sense that the Religious Right uses it)
He then says that Wallis fits his description of the “alternative” to “escapist” ecclesiology, which he says that “Sojourners-types” disparage (and citing Hauerwas as example of one of the disparaged); meaning that Wallis perceives the corrective to be “getting into bed with the State”. And what I will again insist is that Smith is doing quite a bit of extrapolation that only one who considers themself as “advesary” could achieve with a clear conscience, since Wallis is in no way of the “type” that Smith constructs here. Yes, there are “Progressives” and even “Sojourner subscribers and readers” who may fit this type, but Smith passes judgment by naming them “Sojourners-types”, another patently unfair and inaccurate characterization. I am about to post something I was holding from earlier that mentions how Wallis was one who warned about the “Progressive/activist” tendency to eschesw the church and thus surrender the means to the resources for the task of ministry to the world. THis is not an a-eccesiological philosophy or theology. It’s not that I don’t get what Smith is saying; he just lumps Wallis in with some pithy and narrow confinements, and I think he shortchanges Wallis very extremely.
I would PREFER a more eccesiologically cenetered language from Sojourners. But I also place enough value on their faithful work in works of mercy that I “err to the preference for good works” over the accompanying language and “proper theology”. I belive that the “theology” is more tied up and inseparable from the works than Smith is allowing to be indicated here. I feel for those who truly fit the case of “burning out” on good works becuase they are not based in and dependent upon a church community from which and among whom they receive their calling. Likewise, I also think that one can indeed be leftist and “Constantinian” by being motivated from “liberal statist persuasions” instead of working out of a telos whose motive and source is the Kingdom of God. I belive that Smith hastily places Wallis in the former camp without much qailification. I thnk Hauerwas demonstrated in his chapter on Rauschenbusch that much , much more can be derived from a man’s story (such as Rauschenbusch) than giving him a black hat or a white hat; and much of theological substance and faithful obedience can be perecived in a story lovingly told, and fairly treated. I would see in Smith’s attitiude toward Wallis a similarity in the rhetoric and lack of understanding and animosity that exists between Christian camps in the church today, and that’s the way it is perceived by those who feel some appreciation and indebtedness to the messages that Wallis has transmitted to many a disillusioned ex-Church or “potential” church goer in regards to the relevancy of a church to a “life as it should be”.
Dale
I thought I had explained that part you bolded in the comments section of a previous post. Either I didn’t do a very good job or maybe I forgot to comment on it.
I’d say just e-mail Jamie Smith. You have as much access to his e-mail address as I did (and do). If it’s really frustrating to you about what you perceive as “jabs” (I don’t, I think he’s being rather truthful), then I say you ask him what he really means when he says that Wallis gets his hands dirty by “getting in bed with the state.”
Just a thought.
peace,
eric
Anthony,
What an excellent and insightful remembrance of that story. I’m putting that on my NetFlix list to see it again for the 2nd time (I actually saw the second half of it a second time not oo long ago, but I remember seeing it soon after it was released.)
Dale
Dale,
I read Smith’s piece here. I found his interpretation of the movie Mission interesting. It just so happens I love this movie. It’s actually one of my favorite movies of all times…its definitely in the top 20. What I found interesting about his interpretation is how he characterize the Jesuit priest played by Jeremy Irons as one how simply stays in the village and oversees Eucharist with the natives. What he fails to mention is the priest’s confrontation with those in power before he goes back to the village. He doesn’t simply stay in the village and watch innocent folks die. He goes to the heart of the beast and attempts to make his case for justice towards the natives. Eventually, as the movies goes on, it doesn’t work. DeNiro, being a recent convert to that particular Jesuit order, decides to take matters into his own hands, or as Smith describes as getting you hands dirty dies as well in the process of protecting innocent natives from the guns and cannons of the oppressor. What I saw in the movie is probably a brilliant performance of both just war and pacifism.
My point is this. Irons’ character didn’t just sit in the village and serve Eucharist…he did what he could with what he had that was commensurate with the gospel as he understood it. He knew that violent conflict between the natives and the Powers wasn’t going work. They were simply outnumbered. But the issue is this…the Jesuit priest was not afraid to use the powerful to bring about a more relatively just situation for the natives. He attempted to deter those in power with the use of powerful rhetoric and a demonstration of how the local communities built by the Jesuits had come along in their development.
This makes for an interesting discussion. Thanks for putting this on the table. Now…I am about to watch the movie for the 100th time.
Holla back,
Anthony