former recognize the existence of “unwitting witnesses” to the Gospel. That is, while someone may think that his or her actions fit into, say, a secular-humanist narrative, it may be the case that his or her self-interpretation is not definitive–it may be the case, in other words, that Christians (“witting” witnesses) understand this person better than he or she does, precisely because we recognize the way that he or she fits into the story of God’s redemptive love for the world. Or, to take up Jamie Smith’s image, we might meet people on the road to Geneva who think that they’re on a different road…but that doesn’t change the fact that what they’re doing “points” in Geneva’s direction.

Yes, the “unwitting” , pure in heart pagan (who can only be a “pagan” because of inauthentic Christians and the attitudes of some Christians, and thus is actually only a pagan in “profession”, but is actually involved in a dialectic with the author of truth who is God, unbeknownst to them; how would a person who’s every example of God is that of people and groups who seem to the “pagan” to be a part of the world’s system that is offers no distinctive difference. Why would they NOT reject the “God” of that society? They are the ones in need of the church that is BEING the church, and faitfully living out of that story of God’s people.

More below

JKA:

what defines or marks or characterizes communities and practices is their teloi. So too, the definition of justice must be linked to a telos. It is not a matter of some sort of pragmatic evaluation of effects (for what would be the criteria for evaluation, other than the articulation of a goal we’re shooting for). The criteria for the distinction is teleological and related to different teloi (which is why I specified the matter of actions, practices and communities being oriented toward the specificity of the Triune God, not some bland theistic end).

precisely the basis of my argument in FAVOR of or in admiration and indebtedness to Sojourners and Jim Wallis

I would also like to just note that whenever I talk about this stuff, I have this gnawing discomfort about how apriori my position sounds, and yet I feel sort of compelled to articulate it in this way. So if this sounds triumphalist at times, I would like to at least note that, to contrary, I almost feel a bit helpless in having coming to these tentative conclusions

Jamie, I kind of take you in this way in every instance other than your withering critique of Wallis. I agree with you on MANY points, but Steve Bush seems to be articulating many things I have wanted to argue with you about.

I was not saying that particular _theories_ of justice could be authentic or inauthentic. I kept emphasizing concrete practices, institutions, and laws. And what would make them “inauthentic” is not that they are “non-teleological” (I don’t think any is!) but rather that they are directed towards the _wrong_ telos.

telos of Wallis = (or seem to ne to be =) JKA SMith /RO telos

All of this post I had composed BEFORE the response James KA gave in the Wallis editorial post here ….I think maybe all of this still holds….but I do deeply appreciate his talking about it.

I deeply appreciate knowing how he was somewhat “indebted” to Wallis and Sojo for making him more aware of his “a-social slumber”. I can concur with the idea that “indebtedness does not neccessarily translate to affirmation”, but I want to offer that I will then step up and say that there is much to AFFIRM with what Wallis is doing without giving him messianic status. I kind of feel the same kind of loyalty toward Stanley Hauerwas that would induce me to jump to hgis defense in the face of what I would consider critiques by others who don’t seem to know him. James KA telling me that he was also influenced by Wallis takes a bit away from my claim that he doesn’t know Wallis well enough. I guess the question of “how well” could be further argued ad infinitum. I have a sense that I’m in a good place to see the value in both RO and Sojo, and how a theologically neccessary dialectic is needed there.