JKA Smith in Radical Orthodoxy and The Reformed Tradition:
Give the shape of this overlapping consensus bvetween Radical orthodoxy and the Reformed tradition, the pump was primed for a dialogue and engagement. These overlapping emphases did not, however, preclude areas of disagreement or contention. Indeed, precisely because of deep affinities, differences between the two traditions or movements seemed to crystallize.
We anticipated many key issues where we expected there to be disagreement and we hoped for a mutual interaction; in other words, we expected that Radical Orthodoxy could offer corrective lenses for some myopic aspects of the Reformed tradition, but we also thought there were ways in which Radical Orthodoxy could use a little reforming.
—Radical Orthodoxy and The Reformed Tradition, p.19
This gives me some thoughts about how this could be a blueprint for a similar exchange between two movements: Radical Orthodoxy and Progressive Christians(ala Sojourners, etc.) In fact, it is just this sort of exchange that I wish could happen, given the kinds of issues I seem to have with James KA Smith’s comments concerning the likes of those such as Jim Wallis and Sojourners. Progressive Christianity is like RO in that both are “movements” rather than traditions (like Reformed traditions). Sojourners also has a stake in a theology which is indebted to the social gospel of Walter Raschenbusch and the activism of the likes of Dorothy Day (Catholic Worker Movement) and Daniel Berrigan.
For instance, this quote from my last night’s post: Appealing to the “Rationalâ€
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
represents a collegial-sounding (truly) analysis of some differences, treated in an almost “peer review” type spirit. As Jamie Smith sums up in the introduction concerning such “differences”:
The chapters presented here already reflect the generous engagement between Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed tradition that took place at the 2003 Calvin College conference. If each constituency came to the table with interests, worries, and suspicions, we came away from the table with a deeper understanding of each other’s concerns and a sense of rapproachment. Thus the papers collected here (ie in RO and the RT) already reflect a depper sense of reverberation between the two traditions, even if disagreements remain (as will be seen in the chapters that follow).
—-RO&RT, p.20
I have stressed in many contexts the affinity (and JKA acknowledges “a certain attitudinal proximity” and also that he “share[s] so many of his [Wallis’] concerns and criticisms “) between Radical Orthodoxy and Sojourners (I and many other folks open to the kinds of crtique RO has contributed to a “Christological sociology” (my term as far as I know…I don’t think anyone else has used that exact way of describing a sociology that is unashamedly Christian; a passion also shared by Tony Campolo, who also firmly identifies himself with various movements of Progressive Chrsitianity)…..I and many others so inclined are able to hear such a critique because our sensibilities have been fine tuned to question the claims of those in power, and to see the need to be separated from our own addictions and alliances with the culture that attempts to subvert Christ. And these sensibilities have been formed in many ways by the resources and reporting done by Sojourners.
And, by the same token, Sojourners can identify with a call to be more church centered; to question it’s acticism when it exists for its own sake (which has indeed been a point of constant re-dedication and self-challenging within the Sojourners community for many years, as described in an early Jim Wallis auto-biography, with a title suggesting this call to “stay in the stream” of responding to God’s call rather than follow the streams of popular modes of activism: Revive Us Again (1983, Abindon Press, Journeys in Faith series).
It is in our worship that we come together to praise God and continually affirm our allegiance to his kingdom, denying the power of competing authorities. To be a community of Christians in our time is to be a community of resistance, but it is first of all to be a community of celebration. From our celebration flows our resistance.
—Revive Us Again: A Sojourner’s Story , Jim Wallis (1983)
There is much more on that in the context of the book, but there are also several times in the story when they realized how they had strayed as a community into a kind of self-sufficient, prideful haze, and they quickly burned out, and realized what had gone wrong was their lack of attention to the source, God’s call to be a people. (Similar stories of many other activist Christians were told in another great book Charles Marsh’s The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, From the Civil Rights Movement To Today)
I’m not suggesting Jamie needs to write a book, but to use this kind of exchange as a template for the way RO sensibilities and “Sojo” sensibilities can lift each other up (while still “duking it out” theologically with a mutual affection based on those “common concerns and criticisms” that might need some more highlighting so that the larger Christian community can be enlightened; even edified by the exchange, a nd the exploration. I know that there are reps on both sides, including James KA Smith and Jim Wallis, that have the pastoral/theological personal resources to do so (resources they have both gained in their own experiences of being based in the church).
I think these kinds of exchanges are hold possibilities for helping us move toward a church that is faithful to its calling; to be an involved, celebrating, worshipful, peaceable people. In fact, I see a lot of the Radically Orthodox AND the Progressive theology “hybrids” in much of what I see in the churches of “The Church of the Saviour Tradition”. They are the most radically ecclesial and radically involved body of believers I have ever encountered, and they have provided us with MANY stories of their journeys in seeking to experience Authentic Church (see my section on this,. where I step through a booklet by that name written by Gordon Cosby and Kayal McCLung…it is also mentioned in my blog header at the top of this page. This “Becoming” is what I long to explore in the company of and in mutual support and accountability with some other “Becomers” who long for “Authentic Church”)
Pingback: Generous Orthodoxy ThinkTank: Scholarly Popularizers and Academic Activists at Theoblogical
Pingback: Applied Radical Orthodoxy? at Theoblogical
Ric,
This is a great offer. I emailed you earlier when I noticed that your comment had been in my moderation que for a couple of days (WordPress had not emailed me for some reason). I also appreciate your commenting. I was wondering how you found this post recently, since it was done about 6 weeks ago. Was it on a search, or did you actually read back into my archives (which would be flattering to me , of course) , but also interesting to know what search brought up that post.
I was deeply appreciative of Jamie’s comment and expression of interest in some face to face dialogue around RO/Progressive issues. NOthing much has been said about this since my initial reply to Jamie, and I’m encouraged to see you bring this back to the fore.
I have heard and read often of Reba Place. Are there bloggers (maybe you have a blog?) that I can bring into my listings that I might read that do some story telling about what happens in that fellowship? Such things are needed in the blog world, and represents for me the best reason for churches to utilize blogs: to tell their story .
Dale
Amen to all of this. I am so tired of the pissing contests that take place between all these groups. I’d like to offer Reba Place Church and Fellowship in Evanston as a place to host this meeting. Steve Long of RO lineage is nearby at Garrett Seminary, and Brent Laytham of the Ekklesia Project is at North Park. Reba Place Fellowship has been closely affiliated with the Ekklesia Project and Sojourners. Greg Clark, philosophy chair at North Park, is one of the RPF members here and knows Jamie I believe. I myself am a supporter of Jim Wallis’s prophetic politics, an anabaptist RO sympathizer, an Ekklesia Project signer, and the pastor of Reba Place Church (Mennonite Church USA affiliated). We can house a dozen or so for no cost and provide meals for a little more than no cost. Who could you see representing Sojo/Progressives?
Jamie,
So glad to have you here. I am also very glad that it seems you receive my “persistent frustrations” as a good thing”“or a non-condeming thing; they are also a sign of my engagement with the things you have written that have been such a positive addition/appropriation to my own theology ( i guess you”™re right, they have been persistent, but only because it hits me like a kind of “family squabble” and I”™m wanting there to be more of my “Progressive-identifying” friends to be as enthused and intrigued about Radical Orhtodoxy as I am”” and a lot of that has to do with a most everything else other than those few times when you”™ve “jabbed” at Wallis. And I certainly don”™t claim to abstain from that as well as I might be calling on you to do).
There is no doubt that the barbs fly in all directions in these discussions (I know first hand what you mean about the “swooning at the feet of Jeffrey Stout”. I”™ve even become much less of a “swooning under the feet of Jim Wallis” person, too, and noticed more of an “inner wince” at some of the things he writes lately. But I also kind of expect/hope for a little “Call to Renewal” revolution for him re: “the centrality of the church” in his public writing/speaking once all the “God”™s Politics” stuff subsides (or better, even in the midst of that) I”™ve read in his earlier stuff how Sojourners community came to various points of rededication to “the beloved community” along their journey.
Your suggestion about the “real flesh-and-blood, non-eventish, closed-door but open-and-honest conversation around texts and ideas (well lubricated by Beglian beer and some good Riesling)”
sounds like a great idea. I”™d travel a ways to do that, for sure.
Hi, Dale: I was pointed to this post and thought I might chime in just briefly.
As always, I appreciate your sentiments here, and receive your persistent frustration with me as a bit of an invitation to keep trying to do better.
While I hadn’t thought of it until you pointed it out, I think you’re right that our RO/RT dialogue could be a model for a similar dialogue between “RO” and “Sojo”–or, if we could perhaps makes this a tad broader, between “ecclesiocentric politics” (RO, Hauerwas, Ekklesia Project) and “progressive Christian politics” (Sojo, and all the Princetonians swooning at the feet of Jeff Stout–which now seems to include a growing sector of the “emergent” conversation). I think the time is ripe for such a conversation–and I agree that it should be conducted in a tone of mutual respect and charity. But on that point, let me say just a little bit about my rhetoric:
Granted, at times the Canadian hockey player within rears his ugly head and I come out swinging more than is necessary. However, I should note that I find some of the rhetoric from the other side equally dismissive. For instance, while I think Jeff Stout’s _Democracy and Tradition_ is a landmark, challenging book, I find the circle of emerging theologians gravitating to Stout to have a kind of arrogant swagger about them when it comes to their dismissal of, say, a Hauerwasian perspective. When, for instance, the emergent conversation just takes Miroslav Volf’s (quite deplorable) critique of the Hauerwasian line as the settled truth of the matter, they’re not exactly being open to charitable dialogue. So while my criticisms of Christian Democrats could be seasoned with more charity, the same goes for the other side, I think.
That said, I think there’s a group of young(ish) theologians and practitioners who are primed for this kind of conversation: Tony Jones, Steve Bush, Geoff Holsclaw, Anthony Smith, you, me, and others. Can we pull it off somehow? Not the virtual substitute of an “online” engagement–but a real flesh-and-blood, non-eventish, closed-door but open-and-honest conversation around texts and ideas (well lubricated by Beglian beer and some good Riesling)? Can I get a patron?!
While it’s not exactly “Jamie Smith Meets Jim Wallis,” there is a conference in the works between Radical Orthodoxy and Process Theology. I know there are some Process guys who are super into politics (like David Griffin). I don’t know if they’ll talk on that level or not, but either way, it should be interesting. Last I checked, this is still pending.
Peace,
Eric