James KA Smith in Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism made just one little swipe (at least just one direct swipe) at Jim Wallis, characterizing him as “theological left” and similar but on an opposite pole to the religious right. I have massive problems with this on many levels. Not the least of which is that the efforts of Sojourners and Jim Wallis have carried out an invaluable ministry for the church, introducing many people to a gospel that stands as a glaring alternative (and a shining one) to the narrow, “issue-centered” extremely accomodating stance of the Religious Right. Jamie seems way too comfortable with the characterization of Wallis as “Religious Left”. While I can see and find agreement with Jamie’s critique of language, I think he grossly oversimplifies and mischaracterizes Wallis and his fellow “Sojourners types”. Jamie has even admitted that Wallis awoke him from his “social slumber” of his fundamentalist roots. And the story is the same for many many people. I feel that Smith’s rhetoric on this Wallis issue is more of a divider than he realizes. If his own theological path owes something to the ministry of Sojourners, I think it warrants more of a balance in his assement of Wallis. He acknowledged the influence of Wallis only in a blog comment, not in any writings that I have read. I feel that there is some amount of commonality between the “Sojourners types” and the “Radical Orthodoxy types”, and they need to exhibit and proclaim more of a united front in terms of peace, environment, justice for the poor, etc in order to strengthen a movement to get this madness that “leads” our country today out of power and expunged from the national consciousness. I say this not because I believe that ANY opposition is the right opposition, but because there is still a place for “conversation” ; that the people of God still need to have a way of identifying for their “secular friends” the “reason for the hope that is within them”. Yes, more needs to be done toward this end by EMBODIMENT; by BEING the Church. But there’s nothing wrong or “unorthodox” about attempting to name what we see as important characteristics of the Kingdom of God in contrast with the “way things are” that so many in politics are using as moral justification for their stances.
I agree with RO in the emphasis on a “robust theological language” that is unashamed of the language of faith. But there is such a thing as baggage, and to insist that outsiders “listen to us” without showing a willingness to hear them so that we might have some place from which to “name” what they are striving for from the perspective of a redeemed people; I don’t see how this can advance the witness of the church. Jamie once said on a radio interview that the “religious left” is guilty of “not wanting to even sound like” the Religous Right. But I see the exact same aversion to “Progressive” language used by Sojourners from the proponents of RO, even Hauerwas. But when I read these writers, I know that they have their own “redeemed version” of just what things such as justice and peace are meant to mean, even though they have been “hijacked” by various groups.
More on this later. I’m gonna have to sart packing to head back to Nashville.
