At this American Public Media link, Speakingoffaith.org, James KA Smith is offering up his thoughts (in Audio). I thouroughly enjoyed it.
Eric’s Tasty Morsels of Thought – Cloudy day listening
On Eric’s post, where he posts about his just having listened to the audio, I left this comment:
Lots of Good stuff. First time I’ve actually heard his voice.
On his comment on Wallis, I’d also agree. “Tends to depend too much on marshalling the resources of the state”. I would just also add that in the process, he (Wallis) makes it more accessible (conceptually, intellectually, in terms of understanding and recognizing the “difference” that can be made by churches who take seriously the vision of the Kingdom of God as revealed in Scripture). But yes, I hope that he can be “re-hijacked” by a more thourough ecclesiological approach, and instead speak of the “church as politic” all its own, instead of trying so hard to speak to “Progressives” of all stripes (which he does a good job of—-I don’t know, maybe that’s HIS gift; to appeal to “social progressives” and through his connections and stories, lead them into the back yards of church projects that most faithfully embody the People of God.
But I listened to every bit of it, and wished there was more.
I just heard the opening of the show, which I didn’t hear last night (I just listened to the individual Jamie Smith segments), Jamie says:
There are days when the last thing I want to do is call myself an evangelical, and it’s usually after I’ve heard somebody on Larry King or read some editorial James Dobson wrote and think “[exaperated gasp]….”if that’s what evangeliscalism is, here’s my ticket, you can have it back”…..on other days though I want to sort of stand up and fight and say “No, we’re not going to let you have the term, it’s broader and more generous than that”
Here is a REALLY similar sensibility which has brought Wallis’ articulation of it into public eye: the idea of “a hijacked faith”. Wallis also specifies an “evangelical faith” that brings with it a BROAD view of Scripture. He calls for a more robust sense of what constitutes “morality”.
In the beginning of the interview, Jamie is talking about the way the media portrays evangelicalism (ie “The beast is rising out of Kansas” etc.) He says that what’s missing from that is a certain amount of charity; iow, why it is that so many basically good people are captivated by it?Iit’s coming from fairly sincere concerns about being faithful”
I agree totally. Which leads me back to the absence of such charitable treatment of Jim Wallis. Where is this sense of charitable discourse when it comes to Wallis? Why the absence of “as much as I appreciate A it is B that causes me concern” instead of “he’s just ended up a humanist”? As much as I have read of Wallis , I can’t understand how he arrives at that, or even think it. As much as I have read of Jamie Smith, I also know of the many points of intesection between the telos each operates from. The areas in whcih they are saying and expressing similar concerns is a place of much deeper importance than the issue of how such concerns should be expressed in the public square. If the “public square” has its own agenda (which I believe it does) and operates with its own theology (which I also agree that it does), then it seems to me that there are many well-meaning, sincere, even faitful Christians who may be more captured by its assumptions about “rationality” and “reality” and “public good” and “the world community”. MY sense is that there are also many, many public intellectuals in that category. The accusations of Statecraft and such being used right off the bat seem to be saying “You ought not listen to him, you ought to be listening to me”. There are more fundamental agreements to be recognized, and then the ways in which the church is a representastive/embodiment of THE altenative vision can be addressed with a more united front. I can’t help but feel that the visions of God’s Kingdom are much more “seeable” from the vantage point of the Progressive, Sojourners type Christian than that of the Bush-Nationalistic-Religious Right Evangelical Christian. The way to the eccesiology and Christilogy of Radical Orthodoxy is much more inviting and discernable to the Sojourners type than the Nationalistic Religious Right type (such as expressed by the leadership and many churches in the Southern Baptist Convention). With such in mind, I feel that these “political differences” are approachable between Progressive, SojoTypes and Radical Orthodoxy (not that RO-ers aren’t also , in many ways, “Progressive” in that they have a senibility for alternatives as embodied in the story of God’s people.
We need some of us to really commit ourseleves to be public intellectuals to help the church think more critically about her commitments and help evangelical Christians think a little more critically about what programs they’re buying into and who’s banner they’re flying under….and also speak to…..intelligently, generously, not-so-polemically
to Harper’s, the Atlantic Monthly, Wall Street Journal, those kinds of outlets , too…and I hope that our generation is going to start to take that more seriously.
So the above “public intellectual” has been, in the public eye, and for many “Progressives who are also Christians or sympathetic to Christianity (“God -fearers?”), Jim Wallis. I hear Jamie’s concern about “attempting to marshall the resources of the state” to”get justice done”. But I am not at all sure what Jim Wallis thinks of that prospect, particualrly under this administration. But he wants to mobilize people to care about the social issues. Jamie has told us that he himself credits Jim Wallis for “awakening” him out of his “social slumber”, as Wallis did for many. So it is on that score that I hope Jamie can begin to speak in a tone toward Wallis in public (as he has on the matters of his concerns over statecraft and “Constaninian of the Left?”) that is in line with this, as in his call for public intellectuals in the quote above, and be “Not-so-polemical” and before he declares that Wallis has “really just ended up as a humanist”, (see his blog post here) to perhaps have a two way rather than the one-way dismissal he projects in this post. I want to call for a more serious exploration of this, because I think he is wrong about Wallis in certain aspects (mainly in the way he deals with him in quick jabs rather than the more full-blown conversation about things like “how to have public conversation, and what these “Public intellectuals” need to be saying. I believe that Wallis has struck a chord, and to a certain degree, yes, there is a certain amount of “sloganing” and lack of sufficient detail about church communities and their neccessity as contianers of the kinds of people who feel called to this; indeed, a people amongst which they receive this call; among whom the spirit moves as in Pentecost.
“Chrisitans doing journalistic-like reporting about things, tend to not be very charitable toward popular expressions, of evangelical faithfulness”
So, in what I hope is coming from a very “appreciative of Jamie Smith stance”, I want to point out how these very valid and valuable observations about the tone of theological debate and the concern for “appreciation” has not exactly been his methodology with Jim Wallis, who has certainly enabled and encouraged a rise of some new “popular expressions” that express exactly what Jamie expressed (ie. “I”m not going to let [evangelicals] have the term”).
“Public air play individuals” seem to be his nemise; and Wallis has gotten some siginificant “aitr time” in high profile places (especially Jon Stewart). Jamie even mentions ain a somewhat joking fashion that “some of this is out of jealousy” when referring to his critique of Wallis as marshalling the resources of state, and the host points out how Wallis has been successful in “marshalling” media and PR. I can’t tell how seriously Jamie said that.
Progressive Evangelical Radio Program is desirable (Amen to that, but where does such an introduction to the public begin? What issues of language come into play? And would there be some “imperfection” and even “questionable rhetoric” that would be allowed? How does on illuminate the close proximities of “Progressive/Sojo” senisbilities with the Christian and ecclesial distinctives as emphasized by Radical Orthodoxy?
I am not willing to give up or forsake the telos of either. I want to continue to look to Sojourners, Church of the Saviour, Stanley Hauerwas and RO and company, and seek to find a church home where all of these currents are a part of both the structure and the leisurely chats.
Scott,
Whoa, I didn’t know that about you! That’s funny, because I’ve actually been on both sides: religious right RushLimbaugh-listening fundamentalist (late teen years), and then a super duper Al Franken-loving, Michael Moore consuming Bush hating liberal (last 3 or 4 years up until the end of 2004).
Maybe that’s why I’m now so critical of both! 🙂
Peace,
Eric
I think one of the difficulties is that RO is so difficult to read well. I’ve been struggling with Milbank’s writings since about 2001, and I just now feel like I am scratching the surface in the direction of RO. It took me about 2 years to read Theology and Social Theory well, and my background is in political science/social theory.
Here is something else I’ve been thinking about, and I’ll be interested to hear what you think. Before I converted to Christianity, I was a liberal, worked for the Democratic Party, stood opposed to everything fundamentalist or right wing. Since my conversion, I’ve found that the fundamentalisms of the left drive me nuts, and I am much harsher on them, than I am on right wing fundamentalisms. While I see both as wrongheaded, I tend to be harsher on the left because I expect them to know better. I wonder if this might explain some of Jamie’s frustrations? I see this also in many of my friends who grew up conservative and fundamentalist, they tend to overreact to the fundamentalisms of the right.
Just something I thought about while listening to the radio show last night.
Grace and Peace,
Scott
Don’t know what was going on with the comments. The home page was not even showing that there was one. I saw your comments in the admin interface. I didn’t get an email notification like I normally do.
I think maybe why we don’t see more examples of RO/Sojo “hybrids” is twofold:
1. There isn’t much knowledge of RO out there yet. Everybody thus far that I have asked whom I want to tell about RO is not familiar. Some of them know who Stanley Hauerwas is, especially those in the Methodist fold, but it is largely unfamiliar.
2. To those who have had some exposure to RO, Perhaps the kind of reaction and accusatory tone taken by many (or the reception of such by the newly exposed in a defensive way so that they take offense). I think what Jamie was talking about and I quoted concerning the need for “public intellectuals” is key here.
When he says:
We need some of us to really commit ourseleves to be public intellectuals to help the church think more critically about her commitments and help evangelical Christians think a little more critically about what programs they’re buying into and who’s banner they’re flying under….and also speak to…..intelligently, generously, not-so-polemically to Harper’s, the Atlantic Monthly, Wall Street Journal, those kinds of outlets
I can’t help but think that Wallis is WAY out in front of the pack on this. Yes, it is true that by virtue of being in the media-blitz on topics of political nature and the whole faith-politics frenzy, his message has been repetitive and somewhat “edited” and “sound-bitten”, but in terms of the “virtues” of public intellectualism that Jamie is calling for, I cannot help but say that this is the best stuff THUS FAR that has gotten out there. To me, that’s fine for the “public sphere”. It’s not all there is to say, but I do think that some useful and instructive stuff has gotten out. I mean, doesn’t this sound just like what Wallis has been saying?:
help the church think more critically about her commitments and help evangelical Christians think a little more critically about what programs they’re buying into and who’s banner they’re flying under
I have yet to see anything even approaching this on the scale that Wallis has achieved.
I must say that I’ve even begun to have some grand dream/schemes of my possibley having a role of being close to Sojurners for the expressed purpose of being called to help lift up a message of church-based representations of what their movement has been emphasizing for so long concerning the Kingdom of God.
I was noticing how Jamie’s whole interview on the program could have been mistaken for Wallis throughout most of it, if one was reading a transcript. Especially the opening clip they played where he said “there are days when …..and then other days where I want to say, “No, you can’t have the term” Seems he wants to say many of the same things.
I was really jazzed/enthused by the whole interview. I felt proud to have read his book. He really comes across and articulates very well.
I was particularly encouraged by his talking about the need for “progressive evangelical radio” and the call for generousity in the discussion. I think it can be accomplished if it doesn’t begin with such initial paternalistic sounding judgments. Regardless of the veracity of where such positions are coming from, it isn’t a good way to start. I consider myself very fortunate to have been reading Hauerwas and talking to you via blogdom when I began Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, since I may have tuned out under other circumstances due to the intiial “intro” of Jamie’s blog remarks about Wallis.
It’s a hard thing to accomplish. I don’t think most sojo types can understand from the outside of RO (or absent some familiarity gained with an open mind) the whole statecraft thing. I’m still learning myself. But I am totally into and with the ecclesiological emphasis, and that “justice” and such can only be marginally addressed by the state — but I am moving closer and closer to a more thourough sense of “the task of the church is to BE the church” in that this is the church’s role of witness. On the other hand, I am not willing to say that efforts to bring-to-light the insufficeincies of federal support programs and the glaring lopsided support for the corporations and the rich are efforts totally in vain. It is not so much the government I am thinking of as the targets of such “advocacy campaigns” of the Sojo activity, but the public, who represent a rather diverse mix of selfish/blind-nationalism to naive-propagandized-religiousrightTypes to “god-fearers” to Campolo-ites to CityofGod types to monastics (and “new monastics”)……there is a need, I think, for some good truth telling (like to combat Fox, not from the opposite extreme, but from a something unattached (which is where most of the problems lie)
I want to explore this. I intend when I head over to DC, what COS people may already be talking about RO (I’d be willing to bet –if I were a better — that there is a group or two or three in their community looking at these things—and discuss it with my Sojourners Web friend.
Dale
The way to the eccesiology and Christilogy of Radical Orthodoxy is much more inviting and discernable to the Sojourners type than the Nationalistic Religious Right type (such as expressed by the leadership and many churches in the Southern Baptist Convention).
I personally rarely see this at all, if ever. You are one of the only ones that I know of that are both open to Sojo and RO stuff. Most of the time us Christians who find more theological sympathies with Radical Orthodoxy or Hauerwas get reduced to “sectarians” or “theocrats,” like Bruce Prescott likes to level at us, rather perjoratively. It’s thoroughly frustrating, because they aren’t willing to see past their own modern definitions of those words (or why they think that way), let alone be open to a theology that takes a few steps back to get a better perspective on all of reality. It’s the same “fundamentalism of the left” that Jamie Smith talked about in his interview where the religious left has their own a priori definitions of things and simply can’t look anything like the religious right, but it is all enclosed within the same system.
I’m not exactly sure what it is about you that has allowed you to be more open to difference than others I encouter, but I really admire that about you and am thankful for it.
Peace,
Eric