the church and postmodern culture: conversation: Applied Radical Orthodoxy the potential exists that one could acquire commitments which would result in the disentitlement of some or all of one’s religious beliefs. Acknowledging this possibility results in a fallibilism that renders one hesitant to make grand claims such as, “Only Christian theology now offers a discourse able to position and overcome nihilism itself.”

Steve Bush with some challenging assertions about RO. While I have often sensed the same “kerygmatic boldness” as a lack of proper humility* on the part of some RO-leaning-individuals (of which I consider myself one now) , I also have to question the sense of scolding Steve does with his statement:

a fallibilism that renders one hesitant to make grand claims such as, “Only Christian theology now offers a discourse able to position and overcome nihilism itself.”

I would disagree that this , although it seems to be a “grand claim”, is inappropriate. The question here for me is : WHOSE Christian theology? Jamie explores a lot of this in “The Fall of Interpretation” (which he also invoked here

the church and postmodern culture: conversation: Who’s afraid of doubt? Some reflections on purity and corruption I struggle to see where even the _way_ I put the issue could lead one to think that I’m after a “God’s-eye-view.” (I thought I pretty clearly disavowed that several books ago, in _The Fall of Interpretation_, in which I argue that our situation of finitude is a good, creational situation.)

Our inabilities to “own” or “sufficiently grasp” the totality of “Christian theology” or that to which it refers, is not the same as a faith that has confidence in the belief that “only Christian theology” provides us with the resources with which we can question the underlying “competitor theologies”, even those of the so-called “secular”. I totally agree with Jamie that the “theologies” (with a 1) are to be challenged. I think Jamie answers well some of those challenges that it is inappropriate or haughty to make these “only Christian theology” type statements. The test comes in actual practice, I suppose, as we return to the “dialogue” and feel ourselves secure in the belief that we can summarize another theology sufficiently with a few seemingly dismissive remarks. When pressed, I think Jamie has done a good and faithful job of “elaborating” when I have expressed misgivings and even offense at some of the things he has written about Wallis. In this, I am in a basic agreement with the sense that Steve has about the lack of humility. I would say that I too have sensed that in SOME (and I might say, a little too many or too often) claims or assessments by RO advocates; for these can become a barrier to presentation and reception of these theopolitical/sociological/philosophical insights offered by RO. *as I do here, (which builds on this post )and on several occasions before that, dating back to my earliest readings of JKA Smith’s blog postings about Jim Wallis as “Constaninian of the Left”.