The following comment by Pastor John Wright on Eric Lee’s blogpost gives me occasion for several thoughts about this issue of language, and whether or not the issue of what has “currency” with those who need to hear it is an issue to give us pause to consider the communication value of what we seek to “expose” or to “reveal” as the “definitions” composed ultimately by the nation state. I am in complete agreement on the importance that this happens. I find myself asking “how, then, do we speak to ONE ANOTHER about this? Are not many of these “Sojourner types” very much members of the body of Christ? They are NOT members of the “nation state”, or to be implied as such. They are brothers and sisters in Christ. Does this not raise a context that is different than the stance toward the nation-state, which is , to simply put it, doubtful or convinced of the inability and unwillingness of the nation state to participate in anything of ultimate value?
Eric’s Tasty Morsels of Thought – Food for thought
Pastor John quotes from a James Kalb article at the New Pantagruel
In the meantime, the task of those who see liberalism�s radical defects is to understand it for what it is, resist it, keep alive what they can for better days, take advantage of the rights or favors liberalism grants, appeal to whatever resists or escapes technocratic rationalization, and make the case, in season and out, for something more worthy of humanity.”
The bolded part (my bold) is one place where I can see an “opening” that seems similar to the assumption of activist progressives. “Whatever escapes technocratic rationalization” seems to identify the “justice” issues to which the ones speaking out and seeking “national recognition and mobilization” are appealing.
but the freedom that he (MLK) called for was ultimately a freedom defined by the liberal social order that he hoped — and succeeded for some — to move the African American Christians into.
Ultimately? The “actual result”? It seems to me that King may well have been killed becuase his “next move” was the poor people’s march, and this got the attention of some of the most powerful, and they decided it was time for this thorn in the side to go. It seemed that the intent of this campaign was a more radical challenge; and because it was cut short (and not really taken up by the Civil Rights movement with any sustained energy), it was also cut short of an even deeper connection to the church.
Does one abandon the idea of a Kingdom telos by seeking a “support” or “hands-off” from the state? Does any implied “we want and expect you to support us” aimed at the state so clearly “acquiesce” and as such, “cede to a defintion provided by the state” if the telos of such a “conversation” is to seek to “pull it off” by a combination of whatever social and spiritual forces can be marshalled? King continued on in the marches and confrontations, with or without the assurance of state/nation support. He “attempted” to pose his questions and demands to the states (as in Alabama, MIssissippi, etc.) without a real confidence that they would say “Oh, OK, you’re right”, and also had the same attitude toward the federal government, although he seemed to “expect more” from them since they were less attched to, and thus beholden to, the “southern way of life”. He marched on, even though he had no “guarantees” from the feds.
Then again, Pastor John raises this excellent question:
Why settle for Law when the Spirit can transform the hearts of people to love? Why resort to legitimate state violence — the same violence in the Alabama National Guard that came down upon the civil right marchers, the same violence that destroyed Viet Nam? Can we really suppose that the nation-state will use its coercive violence just for causes we want, and not for those of its highest bidder or patrons?
I agree. That’s certainly one of those “balancing” issues in this matter, at least for me.
I also agree here:
The conditions of “liberal dialogue” are already stacked against those who speak from within the life of the church catholic.
Quoting David Schindler
“My contention is that liberalism just so far draws us into a con game: inviting us to dialogue within the (putatively) open and pluralistic market of religions, all the while that it has already, hiddenly, filled the terms of that dialogue with a liberal theory of religion. The liberal appeal to religious pluralism hides its own “monism”; the liberal appeal to religious freedom hides its own definite truth about the nature of religion.”
This speaks to the reasons why we are to let our “scepticism” flow from the standard of the church; the storied people. Against that, the above forces work against the spirit to maintain the status quo. I belive that in our case today, with the Bush administration, it is to return to a previous status quo (dismantle additional “checks and balances” and put in their place lip-service and back-room sell-offs to the highest bidders. In other words, the private market; the “market” of the elite, in which they buy their way to what they consider paradise: unfettered and unaccountable plundering, for profit.
Pastor John , referring to the quote I opened with from his comments:
Maybe this is what King was doing. My admiration and thankfulness for his life and witness is profound and genuine. But I do think the terms for his later corruption by the US society are placed within King’s positioning himself within the presuppositions of the liberal political order. It is not just the fact that he did not address the source of freedom, but the freedom that he called for was ultimately a freedom defined by the liberal social order that he hoped — and succeeded for some — to move the African American Christians into.
Having read Pastor John and seen (albeit secondhand , via Eric and John’s blog) the witness of their church, I do not ascribe any amount of intended negative critique, but the bolded area above can be taken as such, and this is where I belive that both Pastor John and Jamie Smith are not as “careful” as I want to be (which , of course, doesn’t mean that they SHOULD be, but I WISH they were, or PREFER that they were) —“careful” as to the value of “positive communication” with the liberal nation-state Christians who are not seeing the more nuanced connections that have been recognized and expunded upon by the “RO-ers”. What I mean by “positive communication is some language that might be considered “evangelistic” in its goals (or maybe a better term is “formative” or “instructive”, in the sense of a call to continue deeper into discipleship). One of those directions, I believe, is this very issue. I agree with the base of the critique of falling into line with “such and such as defined by the liberal nation state“. So I mean “Evangelistic” as in opening a door to a deeper , more “redeemed” definition and perspective of liberal nation-state “values” (if you will). The problem is “currency” in language. This seems to require an additional level of discipleship. KInd of like continuing Seminary education (which is kind of like what churches need to be doing anyway….preparing the laity to be members of the body of Christ, which involves, by definition, participation in the Kingdom in soime specific way: their call. The call of a particular group of people within a particular body to enagge in a particular ministry, for a particular time. If we use a language that has no “currency”, then our language is not useful, except to preach to the choir. So what do we do with the “members” who are not in the “choir”? (I know that the implication of that saying is that the “choir members” are those who are the “dedicated” members who come to church an addtional night for choir practice and come early for church to “warm up”. Here, though, I am referring to the whole “third langauge” issue. I tend to want to believe that those such as King and , today, Wallis (here and I am comparing their “stance” and use of language, and nothing about “equating” their witness or its value), have a “faithful grasp” of the deeper, more “redeemed” definition of “freedom” and of the “real meaning” of democracy, as appropriated by the liberal AND activist church.
I surely see the problem of such an “activist” church without the proper grounding and depenedence upon the body and the community and the accountability to that structure, and without the constant calling of that gathering to worship, fellowship, mutual accountability; what The Churcfh of the Saviour calls the Inward Journey
At the end of the day, despite my desire to “attenuate” or “qualify” this particular case of Dr. King and the state, it seems to me that Pastor John does a much more “balanced” job of raising this critique/awareness of these nuances in King’s case than JKA Smith does with , say, Jim Wallis. That in itself makes me a bit more willing to receive insights from Pastor John than I am from JKA. (I haven’t dismissed JKA by any means. I’m justr naming what for me is a reality of “persuasion”: the more we feel “appreciated”, the more likely it is that we will respond positively to “correction” or calls for a different kind of maturity that is born from new insight into “the world” (like Hauerwas puts it: “the church is to show the world how it is the world”….something like that).
