In my previous post, I mentioned how the RO project has brought us some sociological/theological insight into the efects of the Enlightnement notions of “rationality” and “natural theology”. But RO and its insights are NOT widespread until of late (and even of late, it’s only a relatively small movement). My own theological education goes back some 30 years — including my college days— and even though it has included a siginificant amount of sociological critique from the prespective of a version of “Social Gospel”, the notions being adanced by the RO project cut against the grain of some of those “assunmptions”, and the reception of such insight is affected by the way in which potentially formative insights and habits are presented to those who could particpate in this discussion.
The discussion over on Generous Orthodioxy Think Tank in the posts this and especially this (the way the comments start….but there is a long thread here which deals in spots with the polemics) and here sets forth some of the issues at stake. The important piece that I see here at stake is the way to dialogue between RO and “Sojourners types”, since I must admit that I could get worried about a rift between RO and “Progressives”, since I find myself to be on board with both. The Church of the Saviour’s ecclesiology has been my “corrective” or “discipline” to keep me from the traps inherent in a “secular left”. The Church of the Saviour’s “Journey Inward, Journey Outward” ecclesiological stance is their structure for maintaining a balance between “activity and mission” and the journey as a people who are also on an Inward Journey and are DEPENDENT upon interdependence and a rdiacl notion of communitythat turns the individualism of this culture on its head.
I want “Sojourners types” to affirm ecclesiology and their existence in and dependence upon a People of God, a nd I want RO to affirm what is good and true in “movements” of the “Progressive Christian” types, even if and especially where they tend to cast their pearls before swine. The road to recognizing where this can and may occur is not going to be driven into them by haughty sounding , specialized academic notions that can only come across as “standoffish”. I feel fortunate to have followed a path to RO where I was “introduced” and “invited” to it rather than scolded and told I was “getting into bed with the state”. I now see more ways in which I have fallen prey to this over the years, but also know, from my experience IN IT, that there is more ecclesiological dependence amongst many in the “Progressive Chriatian ” camp than is suggested by some polemics.
Scott,
You wrote in your last coment:
I began to realize that the kind of vision put forward by Gordon Cosby would require a conversion to the church as the center of our lives, worship as our constitutive act, and the sacraments as the very essence of our being.
Amen! It does very much seem to be requiring of a conversion. It’s like we need to clear the slate and start from scratch. Church-as-is throughout most of America is drenched in same-ol-same-ol cultural expectations and habits. And individualistic; so many are extremely lonely in this “approach” to church. It’s very much a “program” that is pushed at us.
I’m planning a visit to COS in about 3 weeks for 2-3 days. I want to be sure I get to see and talk to Gordon.
Dale
When I was called into the ministry, I was in the process of becoming a high school social studies teacher. I taught for four years in a very poor, very urban, very multicultural area of Atlanta close to the airport. I was called to preach in a lily white suburban Atlanta church, but one that was located in an area that was “declining” rapidly. Most of our members drove into church and expected a full array of religious goods and services.
I was in charge of small groups. I began with Wesleyan Covenant Discipleship groups, but I discovered the Church of the Savior, and I was blown away by their mission groups. I saw that as a way for us to begin the transformation from a drive-in church to a church that participated and witnessed in her local community. During these three years, I read a great deal of Sojourners resources and COS resources. As the church rejected our vision, I began to realize that the reasons were grounded in a much deeper problem than just being connected to the local community. Our problems rested in our failure to worship the Triune God truthfully and in the Spirit, rather than just as a source of therapy for the individual. I began to realize that the kind of vision put forward by Gordon Cosby would require a conversion to the church as the center of our lives, worship as our constitutive act, and the sacraments as the very essence of our being.
Grace and Peace,
Scott
By the way, I did not take offense at your post, I just wanted to clarify a few points about the blog discussion.
Dale,
Sorry to be slow in responding, we are doing extensive repairs to the parsonage, and I had a long meeting tonight. I’m not offended at all. I just wanted to clarify some points.
I’m excited for a new theological conversation with someone who takes it seriously. I have not read Theopolitical Imagination, but I have heard it is great. Everything I read of Cavanaugh’s is excellent. I would say he is my favorite writer in terms of RO (largely because of his connection to Hauerwas and Yoder).
I want to go back and reread some of Cosby’s writing since I have not read much of his writing recently. When I first started wrestling with Hauerwas (Resident Aliens), I was drawn to the COS conception of the church and specifically with the mission groups. At the time, we were trying to reorganize a suburban drive-in church in Atlanta to be a community church in a declining and multi-ethnic neighborhood. I thought the COS model would have been ideal for our situation; however, it was just too radical for our people to embrace. That was a very painful time as we were so close to breaking through.
As I read more and began to explore Radical Orthodoxy, I was more and more drawn to their sacramentality and liturgics. I have come to realize it is the practice of the Eucharist that makes us into the Body of Christ.
How does Church of the Savior practice the sacraments and baptism?
Grace and Peace,
Scott
Scott,
I really like all of what you just wrote, and I want to also acknowledge how my carelessness in my comment, when I should have approached the whole response with an awareness that you well may be reading; it’s a good idea to keep this in mind with blogs, so that we have a motivation to be as charitable as we might be if we were conversing with someone face to face. I just got home not long ago with a whole bag of books I checked out from the Vandy Divinity library (Bell’s Liberation Theology After the End of History, Budde’s Christianity Incorporated, Cavanaugh’s Theopolitical Imagination, and Hanby’s Augustine and Modernity. Needless to say, I have been taken with the RO subject matter, and the focus on a healthy and robust eccesiology, and a deep desire that borders on “desperation” to find a place where this is seriously attempted. I am looking into making a visit to COS sometime in the next 4-5 weeks (I have a friend who is in the Sojourners community and works with their Web site, and I’ve been talking to him about all this too).
I look forward to many more conversations with you , Scott. I’m really glad to hear of your being influences by COS. I’d like to hear more about that. Especially as it relates to what RO is exploring.
Dale
Scott,
I regret now not coming back and adding “not that Scott IS the example, but that the way in which that first post came across is the extreme example. I actually thought of that right after I posted it and saw it show up on my site, and I didn’t actually go back in and post that—-I thought I was going to and then I failed to do so for some reason (distracted with somethign , no doubt). I also wanted to add that after you posted that first post to which all those people reacted, you toned it way down and I was glad to see that. I also know how easy it is to let oneself slip into that or come off sounding a lot haughtier and smug than one imagined.
I now am realy sorry I didn’t follow through with that. I apologize for leaving that up in the air.
Prior to engaging RO and the Ekklesia Project, I was very influenced by Sojourners and Church of the Savior. To me, the interesting questions to raise are how RO’s understanding of liturgy, high ecclesiology, sacraments, and Trinitarian ontology connect with the very embodiment of the church witnessed to by COS. It would be very interesting to read Cosby and Milbank together.
I actually posted that very same idea in a nearby post, wondering the same thing.
Dale
I’m not sure that I’m being critiqued fairly here. Certainly, I could have been gentler in how I responded to Steve’s paper. I should have thought through more about how things written on a blog are received differently than at a conference or situation where respondents can actually talk to one another, face to face.
I’m not sure how exactly I am reading a “standoffish dualism” into RO. I was responding to the type of dualism I see in Steve’s paper that accuses Hauerwas/RO of not being responsible in their social activism and then defines social activism solely as defined by the nation state. I stated numerous times in the conversation that I believe Cavanaugh and Dan Bell are absolutely correct on the way Christians as the church can engage the state in terms of social action. As I believe Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement also demonstrated.
I agree that there must not be a single harmonized expression of the faith, but instead there is room for difference. Difference, though, is not narrated harmoniously via surrender to the state, but in the richness of the outworking of the life of the church. It is at this point that I believe the Church of the Savior really provides an example of a practice-based ecclesiology. I see the COS bringing together a radically different collection of people and forming them into a united body that remains rich with diverse gifts and leads them into fascinating and very faithful ministries and communal practices.
Prior to engaging RO and the Ekklesia Project, I was very influenced by Sojourners and Church of the Savior. To me, the interesting questions to raise are how RO’s understanding of liturgy, high ecclesiology, sacraments, and Trinitarian ontology connect with the very embodiment of the church witnessed to by COS. It would be very interesting to read Cosby and Milbank together.
The danger of blogs is that we all too often are very quickly caricatured into a certain position that does not really do justice to our overall view. The danger I see in my denomination is posed by the church growth movement and our blind willingness to replace holiness with a comfortable conservative morality. With the rich resources available to us, I just don’t want us to settle into a comfortable liberal morality.
Please do not read me as an extremist. I hope that my work at radicalpreaching demonstrates a much richer appropriation of RO and Hauerwas than how I am being perceived on Generous Orthodoxy. I have given my life to the development of the type of church I see in Christian tradition, COS, and in the theology of RO and Hauerwas.
Grace and Peace,
Scott
I would agree with that. Yet, Scott is just the most extreme example of what I have seen. It seems to creep up in lots of places.
I don’t really know Scott Langford, but the way his first comment is on that one post, he not only misreads RO, but misreads simply being Christian in how he was responding to Steve Bush. I know that Scott has read a lot of RO material, but I think he’s reading into it a very standoffish dualism that shouldn’t be there. I think he needs a fuller understanding of difference into his conversations, to be honest.