James KA Smith and Steve Bush carry on quite an exchange , and I find quite a bit of hefty theological stuff here, and so off we go (with a few sometimes pithy remarks of mine interspersed, just to let you know how I’m responding to this (in case your’re intrerested)

Generous Orthodoxy ThinkTank: What is Constantinianism?

Hmmm…I’m wondering if your original post, Steve, might have been an oblique response to some of my comments re: Wallis. In any case, I think your account of Constantinianism is a bit thin. Let me briefly try to expand on this

it believes that the mechanism of the state should be marshaled for achieving authentic social justice

the key here is “authentic”. The question of whether or not someone believes that “authentic” social justice is being pursued or expected is key. Wallis gives every indication, in church settings, that his efforts at what Smith/Bell call “statecraft” are not expectant of the state being a “partner” or an instigator of the kingdom. It seems clear to me that Wallis simply wants to witness to a possibility that this society is meant to aim at a deeper justice; at the very least, to implore the state to be an ingredient who wishes to contribute aid rather than impede justice.

it believes that authentic social and political relationships are possible outside of the ecclesia.

and here, Wallis is NOT what Smith accuses him him of being. Not by a long shot.

Both believe that there can be some kind of scaled-down version of Christian morality and justice that can be somehow enacted outside of the community of the Spirit.

well…..I think it’s more like being less destructive and more like , well……Non-destructive and “curbing” of tendencies toward greed. Like, for instance, the Bush administration’s policy preferences of “hindering” regulations of all sorts, originally designed to “curb” profit-driven carelessness, in defense of public health and safety. Or advocacy for the environment, so that it does not fall victim to even worse abuse; the tendencies are being “stepped up” under Bush to “roll back” certain “limits” to profits, as a favor to the corporations who think that they finally have “their man” who is “not afraid” to “ram through” irresponsibility and call it “economic common sense”. All these things make it somewhat of a “worthy cause” to call for some truth telling.

It just means being committed to the global community which is the church as the site where such change is really possible

amen, and I continue to affirm and notice (if you take the time to listen) that Wallis ALSO believes that the church is the only legitimate polis for such a politic that truly embodies , encourages, and experiences justice.

Now, this stance does not rule out certain strategic, ad hoc ‘alliances’ (that’s not quite the right word) in the civitas terrana in order to have clean drinking water, elevators that don’t kill people, etc. On this score, I’m happy to concede that we all find ourselves as pilgrims.

A rather clear way to being to appreciate Wallis from Jamie’s point of view ( I already assumed and noticed an abundance of this in Wallis, as well as his firm ecclesia underneath and in non “secular” appearances, MUCH more overt. )

But on this score, I’m much more sanguine about our involvement in local, regional politics than big, national(istic) agendas. I find myself much more committed to our public library than the State Department. I think this is because at the federal level, the religiosity of what’s involved is so ramped up.

Again, as in many cases, I find myself in what seems to be total sync with Jamie Smith.

and also here:

if genuine, authentic, “true” justice is love of God and neighbor, and such authentic, Triune-God-directed love is possible only because of the regenerating work of the Spirit who sheds love abroad in our hearts (Rom. 5:5), and if this is true only of those who are “in Christ,” then it seems to me that justice is only possible [not guaranteed! _possible_] in the regenerate community that constitutes the ecclesia. That this might sounds scandalous to “generous” ears does not immediately mean that it is false.

but……how do we get from “there” (a “detached”, “natural” “decent” view of justice) to the “redeemed” and salvific type of justice?

“Yes indeed Steve!” on this one:

I don’t see much acknowledgement or response in RO of the reasons people give for rejecting Christianity, and so I don’t think this has been sufficiently done.

this has long been at the root of my “cosmic christ” conviction; that Jesus often works outside the box, in those whose “reasons” are honorable for “rejecting Christ” (which is not rejecting Christ at all)

Subscribing to a particularist conception of Christian justice, as I think we must, doesn’t mean that Christians cannot see value in, converse with, and endorse, on a selective basis, judgments derived from other, non-Christian conceptions of justice

.

Yes! And again, I certainly prefer Christian concepts