Eric’s post Modernity attempts to subvert Christianity’s particularity, is an excellent set of observations and questions regarding the realm of a so-called “autonomous reason”; an appeal to a “wisdom” supposedly shared by all.
modernity itself claims that there is some sort of abstract, universal reason to which we somehow all have access. This is the ‘reason’ that, while it masquerades itself as tolerant in the marketplace and under the guise of democratic rationalities, is actually a very real kind of tyrant which demands allegiance to itself or else one is labled ‘sectarian’, ‘crazy’, or both.
My problem with this is NOT that I don’t agree with the premise, which is, that the claim that there is a universal “natural” reason is a false claim. I agree with that, I can even agree that it happens all the time, and that nearly everybody “ventures” into it. But I am slightly confused with Eric saying this:
This is why I don’t really have much to say anymore about coming up with policies for liberal democratic democracies anymore. I can discern what is good or bad, but I wouldn’t be able to appeal to the rational claims of modernity because Christianity is too particular, too specific to the claims that Jesus and his Church has upon me as a Christian.
I don’t consider Eric “sectarian” (as he indicates that he may well have had such accusations hurled at him—- sometimes he feels that I am accusing him of this —) because he can’t accept the claims of a “universal reason” to which all can agree. I’m with him on that one. But by appealing to another cardinal notion of Radical Orthodoxy (the “participation” notion) ; that “no reserve of created territory does not participate in transcendence” , I might argue that there is certainly “wiggle room” under the rubric of Radical Orthodoxy for a deeper valuing of a participation in “political debate” that wades close to the tide of modernity without being “swept away ” by it. Thus, when considering the realms highlighted by Radical Orthodoxy (language, friendship, politics, sex, embodiment, the arts), “each is seen as a legitimate vocation inscribed into the structure of creation that, when properly directed to God in Christ, engenders praise.” (from Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition by James K.A.Smith , p. 18)
When Eric writes:
The truth is that there is no such thing as a ‘universal reason’ in the sense that modernity claims there is. The fact that not everybody can agree on what ‘common sense’ is should make this point quite readily.
I recall a montage of footage clips from Fox News in the documentary film about Fox News, “Outfoxed” , where they show Bush and company calling upon the use of “common sense” to “naturally” arrive at a position which shows them to be right.
The question of “allegiance” and “democratic tyranny” here are resonate with me, especially as I recall the themes of Bell’s book Liberation Theology at the End of History and his description of “savage capitalism” (or was that Cavanaugh in Theopolitical Imagination ?)
Or is there really another way to live here and now that doesn’t involve the demands of a democratic tyranny (hah!) but the exhortations of the life of love in Christ? Is there a way to even articulate this so that people don’t think an answer to this must somehow equate to a bizarre ‘sectarianism’ like living in a cave, or living in mansion in Rancho Santa Fe waiting for Hale-Bopp to return? I know we can never control others’ knee-jerk reactions, but is there a way to articulate the Christian life in such a way that overcomes these misrepresentations in love?
Here Eric has asked the key question about the “wanderings” of various approaches to theology and embodiments in churches back and forth over the porous boundaries of “living in the world”. Among JKA Smith’s observations in his listing some key differences between Radical Orthodoxy and The Reformed tradition was this one:
RO’s early assertions about the role of the church (ecclesia) as the only true polis smacked of a kind of covert desire for a Holy Roman (or Anglican) Empire, whereas from Radical Orthodoxy’s side of the table, the Reformed tradition’s talk of “transforming” culture and sphere sovereignty sounded like a covert natural theology— or worse, an accomodation tactic that could underwrite cultural assimilation (ie. a theologically frieghted argument to underwrite capitalism).
–James K.A. Smith, Radical Orthodoxy and The Reformed Tradition, p. 20(I have another thought related to this whole issue that occurs to me as I quoted the above passage—deserves its own post. Besides in this post, I wanted to devote this post to how Eric’s post was chock full of excellent issues —deserving of posts of their own in their own right.)
Pingback: Applied Radical Orthodoxy? at Theoblogical
>>>>I don”™t always know what this [the terms of our engagment, lived out] looks like. I would probably lean more towards the vision of the suffering servant than those on pedestals. It would always be a suffering with along side others.
Sounds right on to me. Also sounds like what Gordon Cosby is saying in The Authentic Church as well, so maybe “you may have something there” 🙂
On my glancing notations about “abandonment”, I really am, when it comes to you, just pushing you for more; not neccessarily backing off; when we use the phrase “opting out”, even though it’s cleraly not opting out of life or something, and clearly opting out of a particular framework, it still may well meet with questions around “how do you mean that?” And that “opting out” is accompanied by “alternativeoptions” (which with you and your church and Pastor John, DOES in fact mean quite a lot of “action options” in “being with” the poor.
Dale
I don”™t consider Eric “sectarian” (as he indicates that he may well have had such accusations hurled at him””- sometimes he feels that I am accusing him of this “”) because he can”™t accept the claims of a “universal reason” to which all can agree.
I know ultimately you don’t, but a lot of your gut reactions and jests about abandonment, even if you’re just joking, are the first things on your mind. I’d like to believe you here, though. Really.
But by appealing to another cardinal notion of Radical Orthodoxy (the “participation” notion) ; that “no reserve of created territory does not participate in transcendence” , I might argue that there is certainly “wiggle room” under the rubric of Radical Orthodoxy for a deeper valuing of a participation in “political debate” that wades close to the tide of modernity without being “swept away” by it.
Let’s try a thought experiment. I’ll not talk about “Radical Orthodoxy” for the rest of the post to make a point. The language might be similar, but I won’t identify myself with ‘RO’. A lot of times in these discussions I get lumped in with the ‘RO’ people and equated with either Milbank or Jamie Smith — two people I hardly know; nor do I want to conflate you with Jim Wallis.
While ‘participation’ is certainly a kind of neo-platonic thing, the reason that Christians have latched onto some of the neo-Platonic language to help describe what they are talking about does not come out of thin air.
2 Peter 1:3-11 says, “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..”
Sure, “political debate,” to some extent, participates in God (because what ultimately doesn’t?), but I would say that the way it happens as defined by liberal democracy is that it does so very poorly. The point about the passage is participating in God’s divine nature through all those virtues listed above which give us knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, there might be wiggle room, but we really need to start from a place where we make these things central. Goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and finally, to love. These are the virtues of our participation. These are the terms that God has set through it’s Church, derived from the ten commandments to the two great commandments, from the beatitudes to the fruit of the spirit. These are our terms. When we go to Church, and when talk about national politics, the terms should be the same.
I don’t always know what this looks like. I would probably lean more towards the vision of the suffering servant than those on pedestals. It would always be a suffering with along side others. I’d highly recommend Dan’s latest post here not only for his positive affirmation of Wallis (an earlier work), but also because I believe Dan really knows what this looks and feels like:
http://poserorprophet.livejournal.com/79852.html
(by the way, you should probably be reading his posts over mine in general! 🙂
Thanks for this post and the affirmations 🙂
Peace,
Eric
Pingback: Overlapping Consensus at Theoblogical