I mentioned my problem with James KA Smith’s short jabs at Wallis on a somewhat regular basis, the latest being in his slatest book Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? (I’ve been looking through the pages and cannot find it quickly, but it said something like Wallis representing a “Religious Left”, which is guilty of pigeonholing and characterization that leaves much to be said in all fairness. There are numerous points at which Wallis eschews typical “liberal” political platform items. Frankly, I don’t see how there’s a justification for drawing upon the language and insights of philosophy (as JKA does) than there is for drawing upon the language of “public square” debate. There is certainly, in my book, a role for the “mediator” between the church and the political sphere. Both will accuse the other of preconceived notions, but both , and in my view especially the Christian who is attempting to tell a story of a people of God who are indeed at odds with the status quo, and seek to stand in solidarity with the victims of all kinds of oppression. To tell a story that calls on a God of justice does not preclude the extension of the “political sense” of justice toward a more robust , “redeemed” sense of justice as portrayed in the Scriptures. I am always for efforts to show how God is moving amongst people who are actually DOING something and not simply “believing something” (which usually means just having an opinion). Clarence Jordan always stressed how the latin etymological root of the word “belief” is “by-life”, or what you live by. I know some people in that movement known as Sojourners. They have both lived it and have inspired other outposts of community life , and probably many other examples of other proponents of Radical Orthodoxy who have come to a deeply lived ecclesiology via the streams of “Progressive Christianity” whose variations of “Social Gospel” have brought to life missions who have served faithfully many who suffer in our attempts at being a nation called America.
Sure, the Progressive Christian movements can certainly use a heavier dose of what it means to be ecclesia; the people of God. So, too, can the Radical Orthodoxy writers who don’t believe that Sojourners isn’t onto something. We need one another. We all have things to teach one another , from “Liberal” to “Progressive” to “Radically Orthodox” to …(dare I say?) , “fundamentalist”.
I voice concern over such critiques of Walliis because I have a good deal of interest in what JKA writes. I have learned quite a bit from his Introduction to Radical Orthodoxy and this latest book (and I also have a copy of Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition, which I hope to get into at some point). And it’s not that I don’t agree in some part with a sometimes blurring of the line between Progressive Politics and Chritian witness. Sometimes it really is fuzzy. Sometimes we need to be bold enough to say “I believe in God the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth”— and then , in that witness, continue to embody that and witness to what that might look like in community.
I would think that you would realize that this is exactly what I meant. Those are the “people” I know; those PEOPLE have often written for the magazine and been involved with various campaigns to raise the church’s awareness about things it should have been caring about without the help of “para-church” organizations. Of course its the people.
Well, I put them in quotes because of just that; but it is the labels that have kept us apart in the first place; and which have been used to avoid each other. The quotes are there BECAUSE of the false barriers. Not false in that there aren’t real differences; but flase becuase they keep us from delving further into the what and the why of difference. I quote them because they are false; not the real story.
Eric,
well………
when you say:
Augustine: while he at times waxes a bit Platonic, he really isn”™t because his Christianity undercuts any kind of pure Platonism.
This is exactly why I think Wallis qualifies as an “undercutter” of national politics today; I believe that his take (or his underlying telos) trumps his use of language, which is “using tools” of the public debate. While I know that you know that I don’t lend too much credence to the ultimate value of public debate per se, it does seem to be a “starting place” where some political language can be parsed for what it may point to as an unspoken or un-conceived or unconscious yearning for “something more”; if this is where people are, why not “urge” them on to deeper things rather than simply tell them that their whole outlook has it all wrong (which it usually does, but it doesn’t quite get you to a very high level of trust to start out accusing the person well versed and “into” the language of liberal democracy of being blinded by enlightnement thinking (which , again, they often are, but it doesn’t endear them to hearing us tell them how we believe that God’s Kingdom is radically OTHER than what society has presented to us as TRUTH and THE WAY IT IS.
Jim Wallis, on the other hand, presupposes a kind of necessity to the public sphere. I heard him with my own ears say that we need the “™state”™ because there are things that the state can do that the Church cannot
I could agree with Wallis if he is saying, which he may well be, that it’s not becuase the church as it is so called-to-be couldn’t do those things that the state purports to do, but that in 99% of the cases, it simply DOESN’T do it. I would not trust in the church in America to do so. But those people who think, as “Sojo types” tend to do, that the church should be urging the government to do what they think the state is “called” to do (called , I suppose, by “the people”) , seem to me to be in much better shape in terms of having a clue about how society has gone wrong.
I think it simply takes a commitment of some kind of the Sojo types and the RO types (whatever all that entails) to have a better sense as to what each of them is about. As you know, I am yearning for a Wallis that talks more about the kind of community that the church should be that involves itself in being there for the oppressed, and being there for each other so that it might together enable one another to overcome our various addicitons to culture, and I yearn for a JKA Smith who does a little more “building up” (recognizing the positive contributiuons of a Wallis, who by his own admisison “awoke” him from his “social slumber”. It seems that was a good thing, and perhaps might ought to come out somehow in Jamie’s assesments of Wallis. I myself count Wallis and Sojourners as a pivotal influence in my being at a place where I could even grasp or appreciate the thoughts of a James KA Smith (another , of course, and probably biggest influence is the Church of the Saviour)
I’ll probably think of more on this…….but it’s great to see you back, and offering up your thoughts (which as usual, are thorough) So glad to read about your times you’ve had these past 3 weeks!
Dale
Frankly, I don”™t see how there”™s a justification for drawing upon the language and insights of philosophy (as JKA does) than there is for drawing upon the language of “public square” debate.
I saw your later post where you realized that Jamie didn’t actually make any mention of Wallis in this book but my pastor said something in a recent post instead 🙂 And, while I agree with him, I want to critique the selection I quoted above.
Actually, what Jamie does with philosophy and what Wallis does with “public square” language are very, very different. What Jamie is doing is much like what Thomas did with Aristotle; similar to what Augustine did with neo-Platonism. The paradox is that Thomas, while using a lot of Aristotelian language, isn’t really an Aristotelian: he doesn’t assume any kind of necessity for the language being used. Same thing with Augustine: while he at times waxes a bit Platonic, he really isn’t because his Christianity undercuts any kind of pure Platonism. Same thing, I would argue with what Jamie Smith is doing: he wants to see if it is possible to take Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard to church. But, does that make Jamie Derridean, Foucauldian, or a Lyotardian? Not at all. He doesn’t take their conclusions to their end by any means. And as much as he finds their tools useful, he has spilled a huge amount of ink in critiquing Derrida (see his papers and his book in the RO series).
Jim Wallis, on the other hand, presupposes a kind of necessity to the public sphere. I heard him with my own ears say that we need the ‘state’ because there are things that the state can do that the Church cannot. Sadly, this kind of assumption suffers from a severe lack of imagination. Sure, we as Christians can work with the state if need be to accomplish our ends, but it should always be on our terms, not theirs. Wallis, unfortunately (and any talk about “what he has done for so many” really doesn’t somehow fix what he currently does) plays on the same field as the state on its own terms. It’s not just what he did with God’s Politics; I see it in all the Sojo e-mails I receive all the time: instead of coming up with creative ideas about how the Church can be the Church, it is always how the Church needs to influence the state, presupposing that we need the state to make us whole or something. It’s highly frustrating. And no, I’m not saying we don’t need Wallis, and this is something that Jamie and my pastor nor I have ever said. You assume that we think we don’t need Wallis, but that’s a false assumption. Of course we need him!
Sure, you might say that Wallis is trying to do what Jamie does with philosophy, but it really can’t be shown. Yes, Wallis is still a Christian (of course!) but he concedes too much. He always shows himself, sadly, to face the nation-state so that the nation-state can somehow ‘secure’ who we are as Christians. Instead of showing himself to first face the Church.
Also, this is a bit problematic:
So, too, can the Radical Orthodoxy writers who don”™t believe that Sojourners isn”™t onto something. We need one another. We all have things to teach one another , from “Liberal” to “Progressive” to “Radically Orthodox” to “¦(dare I say?) , “fundamentalist”.
Actually, the RO writers don’t need Sojourners; what the writers need are the people within Sojourners We don’t need Liberals, progressives, Radically Orthodox, or fundamentalist; we don’t need abstractions. What we need, on the other hand, are people called by God, made in the image of God, to be the body of Christ called the Church as we look toward Christ by the Spirit. I know you put scare quotes around these labels, but it is not even these labels held at a “scare quote distance” that we need; rather, we need all people within the Church (and outside of it!) to bear witness to the Triune God.
Anyway. Hope you’re doing well. I’m barely catching up with everything. Our apartment is a mess!
Peace to you,
Eric