More , on what constitutes Constantianism, from Anthony
Musings of an Emergent Postmodern Negro: Martin Luther King Jr….Constantinian Christian?
For me, whether or not a particular Christian project is constantinianism hedges on its relationship and perspective on the Eschaton or full manifestation of God’s kingdom of earth. The issue remains primarily for me an eschatological issue. Does your project see itself as building the kingdom of God on earth? Does your project see its organizations, embodiedments, or even political entities as the only faithful embodiedment of the Eschaton? Does your project conflate the kingdom of God with your political agenda? Is your project assumed to be the only “totalizing” system that fully embodies the kingdom of God? Questions like these are my point of departure about what does or what does not constitute “statism” or constantinianism.
These seem to be faithful, honest , and theologically pertinet questions about how “statist” our concept or implementation of the Kingdom is.
Then, this question, re: another hero of mine, and one very much on my own list of influential/formative saints in my life, MLK Jr.
Were Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and those in the prophetic black Church during the Civil Rights movement Constantinian Christians because they used the mechanism of the “nation-state” to bring about a more just society? Were they “statist” Christians?
If so, then I wonder, I really really wonder: What would James Smith and those in the Radical Orthodoxy camp have told black Christians in Montgomery, Alabama, during Jim Crow? What would Smith and others say to young black Christians who wanted to see change in the society? “Go to church and worship Jesus”? “Wait for white Christians in power to become virtuous Christians on the issue of race and class”?
What’s up?The reason I ask this is because there is much I agree with in Radical Orthodoxy — their critique of liberal individualism, the pathologies of capitalism, and so forth. I suspect it’s for these same reasons that I see Radical Orthodoxy books on alot of emerging church bloggers’ reading lists.
But I am still torn about this question: What would America be like now … What would many churches be like right now without the prophetic witness of Christians like King towards both the State and the Church, had they simply remained in their respective church buildings worshipping King Jesus? I think that is a question that
Radical Orthodoxy needs to answer.
By the way, I just posted a lengthy post on my blog where I specifically tried to answer some of the questions about King and our catholicity as Christians. I copy-and-pasted Pastor John’s e-mail to me in there.
Here is the post.
I still ask some of the same questions you are asking, but I guess I just have absolutely zero faith whatsoever in the state and its structures and all that. Last year burnt me out and I don’t want to go through that ever again with putting my faith in something so flawed.
I feel some of the same “zero faith”. My sense is that people like Wallis aren’t seeking dialogue so much “on the state’s grounds”, rather, to raise the issues of confusing nationalism with virtue; or letting our vision be limited by what the state says is “virtuous” (which is mostly BS stuff like “our way of life” etc.)
I’ve had my own version of “withdrawal/burnout” since Nov.2, so that makes a lot more sense why you have warmed up to RO as quickly as you have (plus you have a pastor who can help initiaite that type of analysis and the vision of a church that escapes some of the “modernist” pitfalls.
I’m still at work, but I wanted to respond to this before I head to my brother’s house for dinner and try to help him get some stuff working again on his computer.
BTW, I said I ,would have dismissed Smith, had I not heard about RO from you, and been reading Hauerwas who says similar things. But I did and have, and so I won’t. Thanks for posting this comment.
Dale
…Smith would have been on my dismissal list…
I guess I just don’t want you to make the mistake of, in your perceived dismissal of Wallis by Smith, you end up dismissing Smith in return 🙂
You and I have both had to deal many years with the baggage and weight of modernity, which is what I think you and I are trying to work out right now. I still ask some of the same questions you are asking, but I guess I just have absolutely zero faith whatsoever in the state and its structures and all that. Last year burnt me out and I don’t want to go through that ever again with putting my faith in something so flawed.
That might help explain where I’m coming from in all this critique of Wallis, Sojourners, etc.
Thank you for continuing the conversation.
peace,
eric
Additional clarification:
this: I am saying that to so sharply criticize Wallis is like inviting this to happen sucks at saying what I meant to say. What I really mean, or MEANT to mean, is that the motivation for Wallis’ activity in the public sphere is to raise awareness of the disconnect between what government SAYS it is doing and CLAIMS to be doing, and what it is actually causing/achieving. And to add some value for churches in there, Wallis is one of the most consistent public voices for explaining /revealing the Constantian trends in our American spirituality. He constantly affirms that there is an “alternative vision” and questions the government’s claim to be concerned with “our way of life”, or even its claim of the value of “way of life is”, or its consequences in terms of the instiutionalized selfishness that this encourages. Without this, there would be far fewer people looking at the church and looking at the United States of America and asking questions as to how we’ve so easily melded these together. So, for me over the years, this constant challenge is being layed before the halls of government (and whjy does it have to be “the state” who is the addressee? It seems that most of the time Wallis is speaking to the churches and communities that claim Jesus as their King (and “Jesus as the Reason for the Season”)….Sojourners has been tireless in doing their research and reflection on what they identify as Biblical mandates and how these are being missed by the churches when they look to the civic for guidance, for the Kingdom has a quite different vision for history than does the leadership of American government, or the powers that be. So, wrongly or rightly applied and explained, the goal of such is to poin to t a better way than materialism and capitalist markets as primary indicagors of success, and instead to Biblical notions of what constitutes community. I think this is testimony that seeks to steer Christians away from false idols and the chaos these engender. I think that the spread of that awareness is a good thing, and there have been a whole lot of people influenced by that in the past year, and also before that. Bonhoefer himself found himslef often consumed by the orgainzing and the meetings to discuss the Confessing Church’s stance toward the Reich Church, and these came in waves in response to each additional encroachment of the Reich into the vision of the people’s concept of church. He was very much concerned to let it be known that the church was very much about peace, and therefore repudiated the affiliation of “love of Germany” and therefore support for Hitlers’ offensive (what they too also characterized as “pre-emptive action”) with the church.
(I’m hoping I will run across that quote we’re looking for in the process of the rest of my reading of the Bonhoeffer Bio)
Eric asks:I’m curious, where exactly does Bonhoeffer make this “abandon the world to chaos” comment? I’d love to read it in its entirety.?
I want to clarify something on that. I am not accusing you of doing so. I am saying that to so sharply criticize Wallis is like inviting this to happen . I don’t think it’s so theologically unacceptable to call the state to account, and to attempt to help people visualize what the state is actually up to rather than what they SAY they’re up to. It’s not such a bad thing to take the effort to communicate concerns, and to say something of what I would venture to say that most churches who practice acts of mercy also want said. It may naive to think that the government will listen (and I am not so sure that Wallis EXPECTS them to, or even be that helpful if they do, but much of this needs to be said if not only to make a clear distinction between that government’s view of what “justice” means and what justice in the Kingdom of God means.
I seem to remember that it was Hauerwas that quoted Bonhoeffer with that. I believe it was in Performing The Faith I’ll try and
find that, too. That argument stuck with me , though, and it seems to lead me toward a deeper appreciation and less critical “allowance” for such “statism”. I’m not saying “statist” sarcastically either. To a large extent, there is “statism” in this, but I take a less offended view of that. Smith says that Wallis’ view of “getting one’s hands dirty” is “getting into bed with the state”.
But there’s a difference in being willing to present your case and seek to expose deceptive practices, especially for the sake of churches so that they might un-learn their assumptions about the righteousness of the state and how often that public percdeption gets exploited for still more underhanded and cynical political purposes.
Your response to this:
But we can’t expect people to just all-of-a-sudden abandon their own language and ingrained preconceptions about “the way it is”.
with this:
Well, why not? I know it’s hard, but Saul became Paul in an instant, and many other people have amazing conversion stories that seem
to defy the “it’s hard” excuse. I know it’s hard, but what it takes more than anything is an open heart and a willing mind. raises a
couple of issues. One, sure, “lightning bolt” conversions happen, but not usually (not with me, not you, nor hardly anyone I know). Thus, that seems a bit unreasonable to “expect”. If we expect that, then we are likely to be impatient. It’s taken you 8 years to get where you are. It’s taken me 30. Lots of story gets built up over time. Lots of narrative that comes to mean a lot to us. When some of those narratives have led us to eye-oening experiences and new understandings, the sound of folks downplaying and dismissing and downright condemning the veracity or the “purity” of that experience is not taken in a positive light. So much so, that if it were not for you and to some extent , Pator John and Stanley Hauerwas, Smith would have been on my dismissal list, without my having had the chance to learn some of the things I could and HAVE learned from him.
Where does Smith think some of the folks who are “ripe” and “open” to RO kinds of thinking coming from? The whole “dissent/nationalistic questioning”, bringing to awareness a predisposition to questioning those in power becuase power tends to do that to people, and the power that is passed on tends to become ingrained as “truth” to those who inherit it. The ability to step outside of that; the awareness it takes to be at a place where an RO theology can sound like good news to someone, this is something to be valued, and Sojourners certainly got me to that point (not alone, since there was also Church of the Saviour and my own Seminary experience, etc.), and in terms of bieng able to communicate that, Wallis reaches far more people. Of course, making a message “accessible” can also “water down”. But I don’t want to complain too much about how many people have been getting an imperfect message (imperfect in that no book, no sermon, no series of articles can contain it all. We have to allow for “steady realization” in many cases (in most cases, I would say) , each step along the way preparing someone for fuller “revelation” if you will. The fault in “faulty or partial or incomplete revelaiton” is not with God, but with the human subject, and their propensity to accomodate bits and pieces to their preferences.
I’ve got more on this, as usual, but it’s thundering and raining like hell here and the power has already gone off 5 or 6 times, and
it just recently has been staying on, but here comes some more rain, so I guess I’ll post this now.
I figured that…I did a double take whenb I read that, and thought “that must have been a mis-type)
but at the same time, I’ll be stand side-by-side with them at a “right to life” march or ever condone the Eric Rudolph’s of the world.
Oops, that should have been “I won’t be found standing side-by-side with them at a ‘right to life march’…”
But we can’t expect people to just all-of-a-sudden abandon their own language and ingrained preconceptions about “the waY it is”.
Well, why not? I know it’s hard, but Saul became Paul in an instant, and many other people have amazing conversion stories that seem to defy the “it’s hard” excuse. I know it’s hard, but what it takes more than anything is an open heart and a willing mind. I’ve shared with a bunch of people including friends at work and others in church who still cling to a language of “rights” about its true origins in being a liberal discourse, and they find it rather interesting, and they ask me more about it. What you do is not just critique, but offer an alternative, an alteras civitas, the Other City, in the way of the language of “Gift.” The abortion debate is a great place to start because I agree that abortions should never ever happen, but at the same time, I’ll be stand side-by-side with them at a “right to life” march or ever condone the Eric Rudolph’s of the world. Instead, I offer them the language of Gift and point them to links like this one on Abortion, Theologically Understood by Hauerwas to show them that there is indeed a better, and hopefully, a more faithful way to understand the world and our participation in God’s Kingdom, the civitas dei, or heavenly city.
It seems to me that RO is a bit impatient with others.
That’s unfortunate. I would hope that RO is impatient with secularity and not with people.
As per the “abandoning to chaos” comment, I really will have to disagree. I don’t think I’m abandoning anything worth saving to chaos (people, creation). This is something that God will have to judge, and for those around me who know me to discern whether I’m neglecting those around me. Frankly, with all the homeless, drunk, hungry, naked, and near-imprisoned people in our local church congregation, I don’t really feel compelled to take time to “defend” language. And we have a small congregation, even.
I’m curious, where exactly does Bonhoeffer make this “abandon the world to chaos” comment? I’d love to read it in its entirety. I’ve been using the Amazon “search inside this book” tool on the words “chaos” and “abandon” in all of Bonhoeffer’s main works that I could find, and I can’t find anything that looks like that. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places or it was worded differently?
peace,
eric
BTW,
I don’t know how much I can help with:
“Then again, I’ve never been to seminary, I only have a computer science degree, and so therefore I really don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m also relatively young, so maybe I’m also just stupid… I have no idea. You’ll have to help me out with that one. ”
Because I could say: I’ve been to Seminary, I only have a Sociology degree, I’m middle aged to old, and also possibly just stupid, stubborn, and set in my ways. So, I don’t know.
I don’t really see it the way you described it in the quote above. I tend to forget about it. You’re articulate and passionate about exploring the depths of things, and I like that. If I didn’t consider it “intellectually” challenging as well, I wouldn’t bother much with it. But it goes beyond “intellectual” of course (which is much of what RO explores in the world of philosophy and the influences of various schools of thought and their movements).
Dale
“If in our witnessing to the alternative heavenly city, the City of God, as we participate in what has already begun in Christ from the Father by the Holy Spirit, we focus upon “winning” the definitions of words and “defending” some said words, I think we have begun to tread a bit into the City of Man.”
It doesn’t have to be considered a “focus”; just one task among many. I tend to look at such “tutoring” as a gift; that some are called to do this (not exclusively, but find it fulfilling to be a “teacher” in this sense) and this is something on the order of what I see Wallis doing in the “public square”. Many people have “come to this debate” out of a spiritual hunger. The extent to which they still have a foot or another part of them “in the City of Man” is a very real and crucial thing, but if they are heading toward the City of God, this is better. It’s not “arrived”, but it’s a place from which they can see more clearly just how temporal, incomplete, and insufficient the ways of the world are. Many people find out what drives these ministries of mercy after they are drawn to them by the impressive sacrifice and good work. The “JOurney Inward” they discover amongst those people is what will capture them and not let them go back. If they “retreat” back into old ways, they are constantly pursued.
Eric
This is part of the problem, as I see it, with RO as it is “implemented” by its proponents. I have a reaction when you say:
“I’m not so sure such things as “freedom” and “liberty” were ever particular Christian virtues, except for as far as the freedom we have in Christ. As per “rights,” I really think there is nothing there. I could be wrong here, but as far as I know, that is a particular Enlightenment development that was never Christian
that’s where I apply something like “abandoning them to the chaos”, since people need to have some sense of invitation to explore. If their errant concepts deceive them (which I believe they do), it is a witness in the realm of dialogue; I mean, “true dialogue”, to seek to know what it is people are searching for, and what concepts, “values” (as abused as that is, what I mean by it is a person’s sense of right and wrong and what’s important) guide a person.
Enlightenment developments may be off the right path, and deceptive as to what constitutes reality in the Kingdom of God, but this is the legacy we are left with , and, like Paul, shouldbe ready to “manipulate” these “lesser” concepts in order to point to the best expressions of the underlying concepts. Of course, freedom and liberty (particularly as expressed by Mr Bush) are entirely obscure, and kind of designed to be that way, to “cover” for their “practices” which care very little for its effects upon people, who , wrongly, place trust in them becuase it seems to be the only “insititution” to trust with the “justice” of our society (there’s another term in-need-of-redefinition/redemption). I agree with what you said about “rights”. I’m reading Hauerwas, ya know. Again, it’s taking that and attempting to help people see how those concepts fail us. But we can’t expect people to just all-of-a-sudden abandon their own language and ingrained preconceptions about “the waY it is”.
It seems to me that RO is a bit impatient with others. YOu know that I am with RO on “concept of real;ity”, the centrality of the church, the lack of ability of “liberal democracy” to offer any kind of final solution; often, any kind of effective solution to much of anything (this realy came home to me in Zinn’s stories in A People’s History. I can read that book and see some “answers” far beyond and deeper than the “institutional” and “democratic” responses that Zinn offers, because I know that what is really needed is beyond the capability or puirposes of capitalistic, democratic governments to provide.
The Church of the Saviour’s attitude toward this is something like “yeah that’s great, but look at what we’re doing”. They don’t come off as saying “you’re feeding the system” or “you’re really one of them”, but constantly affirm that God is active and they are responding as God calls a particular group of people to set up some kind of structure; a “form” or “system of collaboration” based on gifts, to meet some dire need, and thus provide an alternative. They simply show a faithful response. And they derive these responses from within their absolutely radical concept of church which is actually the center of these people’s lives in every way. It’s their “social life”, but its centered on listening for God, and on finding God in their midst.
Don’t we , in the end, have to approach this kind of like “children’s church”? Isn’t this like handling children, having to find a way to help these things of the Kingdom make some kind of connection with them? I am firmly in the camp that the church has to SHOW this; to BE this. But I also think we have to work hard to be “open armed” and “inviting” of people’s questions and ready to “give a reason for the hope that is within us” when people complain, “Hey, that’s just not the way things are” or “that just won’t work”, or “you’re threatening to upset the apple cart” and “you’re causing division” (like the Religious leaders accused Jesus of doing)
Dale
…nor am I satisifed to judge that attempts to find some “identifiable terms” on which to dialogue, and perhaps reveal some openings for things such as “freedom” and “liberty” and “rights” to be seen in a new and different and “redeemed” light. If we can’t engage the part of the other’s ideals that speaks o their heart, in ways which engage them, then they won’t even be around for what we have to say about that.
I’m not so sure such things as “freedom” and “liberty” were ever particular Christian virtues, except for as far as the freedom we have in Christ. As per “rights,” I really think there is nothing there. I could be wrong here, but as far as I know, that is a particular Enlightenment development that was never Christian. The problem here is that (aside from language of “rights”), the other things, which were never central to begin with, have been completely co-opted by the Empire, so it makes it exceeding difficult, if not impossible to redeem that language. Mainly, if you don’t stand upon the stage of the nation stage, then you aren’t going to get listened to anyway.
Again, I’m not exactly sure if our call is redeem language for the sake of a Wallis-ian “ending the monologue because the dialogue has started” or if we are simply called to be salt and light and witness to the Kingdom of God by participating in it. Just like we don’t have to elect a bunch of seemingly “progressive” Christians (whatever that means anymore) so that we can “take back” the United States (and not sure here where exactly “we” would be taking it to — that whole telos thing again).
If in our witnessing to the alternative heavenly city, the City of God, as we participate in what has already begun in Christ from the Father by the Holy Spirit, we focus upon “winning” the definitions of words and “defending” some said words, I think we have begun to tread a bit into the City of Man.
Then again, I’ve never been to seminary, I only have a computer science degree, and so therefore I really don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m also relatively young, so maybe I’m also just stupid… I have no idea. You’ll have to help me out with that one. I hope I don’t come off as disrespectful in my tone above. Like you point out, and I concede, face-to-face conversation is clearly ideal here, so unfortunately this is the best I can come up with at the moment.
Thanks, Eric, for continuing to engage me on this.
When you say “I wish Jim Wallis would recognize that the “common ground” needed here is not the “bread” of the nation state, but like Cavanaugh said, the “bread” is the Body of Christ.”, I don’t see Wallis as identifying the common ground there. He clearly wants to represent an alternative, and has been critical of both kinds of “liberalism”; the “classical” and the “constitutional (from Pastor John’s article in Conflictig Allegiances. I realize that people can say they believe one thing but unwittingly act out or fulfill
another agenda (like the Religious Right does). There may be “purer” ground for Wallis to tread (and I don’t say that sarcastically; I am pretty convinced of the truth of what RO has recognized here, but I cannot see my way to justify the level and tone of the critique, nor am I satisifed to judge that attempts to find some “identifiable terms” on which to dialogue , and perhaps reveal some openings for things such as “freedom” and “liberty” and “rights” to be seen in a new and different and “redeemed” light. If we can’t engage the part of the other’s ideals that speaks o their heart, in ways which engage them, then they won’t even be around for what we have to say about that. Also, a scathing critique does not seem to take into account what I have been emphasizing here: that the alternative structures DO NEED building; and that when two people deeply formed in evangelical/reformed traditios, both havig a dedep sense of the alternative/opposing vision of the Kingdom of God vs that of violence and capitalism and all the lack-of-community and fellowship that this causes to be institutionalized, it tears down the body of Christ, and this is just a big a concern as language or theological correctness or how one maps the “stage” and whose proper role it is to speak to who, how, and when; not that the latter things aren’t important. But the works that need doing should exist as equal weights to the realities which move us to othose works, and those who see the value of the works and the mercy that is needed , and see similar efforts as valuable and needed as Wallis and Smith both do (ie. Smiths’ article where I said “Good answer” and in which he described some innner city programs , and those of “Sojourners types” that have been advocated, organized, prayed for, and collaborated on for years by those same types….all these are worth a hard try at seeking a unity in order to increase that work. I would concede that liturgically, those two are quite different, but therein lies both the chalenge and the blessing of ecumenicism.
I would certainly also be interested in hearing Pastor John’s take on the MLK stuff.
Sup well, bro.
Dale
I don’t have a whole lot of time (I’m meeting a couple of people for dinner), but I wanted to get out a couple of thoughts before I sup.
I understand that you feel that Smith’s talk is “dismissive.” I agree, but I think he’s dismissive of Wallis’ assumption of the nation state as the bread for which we are to be leaven. If Smith were dismissive of Wallis the person, I doubt he would keep criticizing him so much! 🙂
Sojourners has formed me as well. I’ve been on a really bumpy theological ride over the last 8 years of my life. I’ve gone from one end of the liberal political spectrum (fundamentalist theocratic) to the other (liberal mainstream church/state separation, etc.), only now to reject the entire foundation upon which it is all built. Sojourners was instrumental in the flip to the liberal side of the fence, and they dabble every now and then with publishing some good things (Cavanaugh’s views show up every now and then, for instance).
As far as the “common ground talk,” I think it’s probably clear by now that the common ground will never be the nation state for Jamie Smith — in fact, as I’m just 30 pages away from finishing Milbank’s monstrous Theology & Social Theory, that is the entire argument of Radical Orthdoxy: that we remain distinctly Christian and not give up any of our discourse to the state, to “social science,” or any other secular discourse, and in so doing, we plunge ahead to define ourselves not by what we are against, but what we are for. I wish Jim Wallis would recognize that the “common ground” needed here is not the “bread” of the nation state, but like Cavanaugh said, the “bread” is the Body of Christ.
Unfortunately for both of us, Jamie Smith is a [too] committed academic, so I wonder how much actual conversation we’ll have with him outside of his own books. I’d be interested to see how much time he’s going to spend in his RO~Emergent book about the Sojourners-leaning theology and stuff. Maybe, since he has the manuscript finished, we should ask him to send us some pre-release copies — I already have the pre-published version of my pastor’s next book 😛
Speaking of Pastor John, I don’t think he’s back yet from Germany. If he is, he’s probably sleeping and trying to stay away from his computer. He was over there long enough just to adjust to their timezone and to leave again. So, not sure when I’ll have an answer to assenting (or not) to sharing his thoughts about RO, King, and matters of “race.”
Eric,
It seems to me that once one crosses over into “surely we don’t want them in chains” immediately poses the question of “how bad” is “bad enough” to like, “have a reaction”?
I really wish you and I (to start) could someday soon get the chance to talk at length about this. As great as blogging is, and as good an outlet it is for me to articulate, often better than I can when “on the spot” in person, I know that you and I would certainly gain a lot in this discussion by face to face listening and that look that we would both recognize as ” I really want to know I’m understanding this”. I held those posts this weekend for almost a week, and then I posted pieces of what I originally wrote, not wanting to just “keep up an argument” for argument’s sake, and give any sort of an indication that this is making me easperated or anything toward you. Be assured that I’m not. Actually, I’m more concerned that you think I’m attacking you in any way. I also happen to think that this stuff is worthy of continued exploration.
Something I’d like to drive home, I guess, is that Sojourners is obviously a formative group for me. People who are “close” and have a long history are apt to be a bit less “eager” to make the kind of statements that Jamie makes about Wallis and Sojo about those with whom they have shared a lot of resonate theological moments. YOu may not think that Smith is being dismissive, but , on the other side of the fence, these statements certainly are. However much truth there is to the base accusation (I do believe there is SOME, and recognize that much more readily AFTER having read Smith, and Hauerwas. But like I say with the post on Hauerwas’ treatment of Rauschenbusch, a critique of a much more charitable and understanding nature goes a long way to dialogue and to a much needed collaboration of gifts and ministry that the church so badly needs right now (well, all the time, but particularly now with the massive nationalism going on. It’s actually really scary how similar the German Nationalistic Chtristians seem to the Religious Right’s activity today–they even had an event in 1934 that reminds me of the “Justice Sunday” the RR just held)
I latched onto Hauerwas’ chapter on Rauschenbusch (in this earlier post) because Wallis is very much of that “Chicago School”; he even went to Seminary in Chicago (albeit at Trinity Evangelical)
I don’t even reject your arguments as to why you think Smith is right about Wallis. I just wonder how Wallis reading those comments by Smith will play on the start of that relationship. I’ve said earlier that there is so much to be done, and Wallis and Smith have ionvolved themselves in such similar innner city ministries, it’s a shame to characterize the way that Smith does. There’s too much that seems more important that they share. And this is not just empty “common ground” talk. Their concept of “telos” is likely to be far more similar than Smith is letting us see, becuase of his scathing tone. He can put it a lot better. I wish he would. I’m kind of afraid to ask him directly. He kind of shrugged off his calling Wallis a humanist when we asked him. Said it was just “rhetorical”. The latest article just seems to confirm that he’s content with that. THat makes me sad, becuase he’s a smart guy, and I like his theological leanings. So would Wallis. If they were friends, it would be different. That’s what makes his judgments kind of un-Christian (arrogant).
I’m sure I’ve said mumerous things on this blog that you had second thoughts about, and have said so before, and been great at “yeah, but” or “but remember” , and that’s allowed you into my theological journey in a siginificant way, and it is this kind of care that Smith needs to keep in mind. His argument for me is becoming clouded by his attitiude.
Dale
“Does your project see itself as building the kingdom of God on earth?”
I think that is the wrong question to ask, and it is a rather large distiction. We don’t “build” the kingdom of God — we participate in the Eucharist together in the in-breaking of the Kingdom given to us from the Son, from the Father, by the Holy Spirit. So, therefore, we as Christians participate in the Kingdom of God.
If we were to “build” the kingdom, then that language and attitude towards are place as Christians places all responsibility in our hands, and I think we might be edging towards Pelagianism here, and well, edging toward a kind of humanistic hubris.
As per the RO ~ King thing:
I’ll need to find an e-mail that my pastor sent me about RO & King, permitting I have his permission to share his thoughts with me to others. I sent him Ant’s post and a few others about RO, Jamie Smith, and King.
Although my pastor, who knows RO though rather well (he’s read most of the books in the series and knows a good handful of them), doesn’t cover the topic, I would hope it would be rather clear that even though adherents to RO and other ebbs of thought in Christianity that critique the Enlightment are well, critical of this individualist liberalism, I think not one of them would dare argue that people should still be in chains! It’s kind of a weird logical fallacy that y’all are playing with in your suspicion of RO, inappropriately and wrongfully arguing that we’d somehow want to go back to slavery, just because we question liberation theology itself. We still cannot treat our brothers and sisters in Christ as gift if we have them in chains.
It needs to be thought of another way. I’ll see if Pastor John will let me share his thoughts on this one.
peace,
eric