June 2005 Archives

This from Robert Parham on Bush's speech

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

The president’s leadership crisis is of his own making. He misled the country into a war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and continues to misstate the depth of the problem in Iraq.

The president’s failure has profoundly negative consequences for Americans and Iraqis, especially Iraqi non-combatants who bear an enormous death and injury toll. Both are now bound together. Both governments are in an intractable position with no clear path forward toward peace and justice.

I don't see Bush EVER admitting wrong. It might "send the wrong signal". I myself believe that the voting public sent the wrong signal to the world , and this crew is NOT going to have any hand in attempting to better relations. And "Jesus" is the farthest thing from his mind ("He's "got a job to do" ya see; he's gotta "step back from religion")

Charlie blogs God's Politics (you can see the whole list of his chapter by chapter summaries at BookGarden.org

Interruptions: June 2005

In this chapter Wallis takes on US imperialism, or as some put it our ambition for empire. Not since Rome has a nation Lorded it over others as America does today. Add to this ambition language about God and we have a problem

Here is where I see JIm Wallis and RO in a lot of agreement and seeing the "theology" behind the "secularity" (thus, not a secularity but an idolatrous relationship to the world, one which sees ALL "others" as "collateral damage" to our "interests") ("our" referring to America)

We spent last night in Cincinnati with Janet's folks , and are up and about ready to hit the road again this morning back to Nashville.

I was happy to include amongst my "vacation happenings" some more reading and jostling about with RO, Eric, and Charlie. I am happy whenever someone "stops by" more than once to comment, and feel like (almost) someone has dropped by my house to see me. OUr blogs are a lot like "hangouts", and the line between "turf" seems to blur. The "social space" we have here is something I would like to delve into more deeply, being the "Sociology type" that I am (and Tony Campolo fan, as most recently Hauerwas, who provide us with a good bit of "distinctively Christian" sociological insight.

Talk to you all later (we'll be home late afternoon, and return the van by 3pm CST. Better get going.

Daniel Bell suggests that

in a globalized world, it is no longer states that wield imperialist power, but rather capitalism and the market....an empire of which states are only colonies

This is exactly the kind of "anti-Christ" at work in the world that I have been thinking about while on vacation. Of course, I see the mechanism that is the Bush administration, and that network of neocons as effective (somehow, effective) and deceptive workings in this wielding of power. But Christians have had apallingly little to say by way of resistance (Smith asks why later on)

Smith goes on to say (or is it still his summary of Bell? Perhaps either is true):

"Capitalism is the new empire the gospel must oppose because it demands an allegiance that rivals allegiance to Christ."

"Discipline is aimed at the formation of desire" , and capitalism is a "discipline of desire" that is "a form of sin, a way of life that captures and distorts human desire in accord with the golden rule of production for the market."

(I'm interested in seeing more of this
Liberation Theology After the End of History by Daniel Bell (Tony Campolo often nade reference to Bell and this work)

What possibilities remain for the "healing of desire"? Smith asks. (10 pages left....but good question.....

Capitalism , then, is not merely an instrument or tool that can be put to work as a servant of other substantive construals of the good; rather, it proposes its own account of the telos to which human desire ought to be aimed (consumption and accumulation)

Smith asks,

Why then has the church failed to resist capitalist discipline -- oe even worse, howdidthe church some to serve capitalist discipline? The church and individual Christians have bought secular economic's myth of religious neutrality. By granting the very notion of a secualr, autonomous temporal realm, the church left it to supposedly secular reason to describe the realities of economic organization.

This is good stuff. It cuts to the heart of something that has really been eating at me lately. What to do about this? Again, we MUST have that sense of polis as in an "alternate mode of living". The Church of the Saviour talks about it all the time. They delve heavily into and confront the issue of money and its deceptive, ensnaring power.

I believe a similar (or simply another aspect of the same power) that keeps us from relationship. We flee instead to consumeristic modes of relating (and ultimately, to no one). But to resist this empire, we have to have the people of God (most of all to hold us to it; to hold us accountable, and to model for one another that another economy of money and economy of relationship exists. Something like it happened around a time called Pentecost.

This is the area where I feel most trapped, and rebelling, but still wondering what kind of community will finally be there to enable me to do it.

Some notes from Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, Chapter 7, Cities of God

For RO, there is a"symbiotic, reciprocal and neccessary relationship between theory and practice". p.231

Ward sees promise in the "collapse of socialism as a secular political force"; the offering of a means, via RO, whereby socialism can be returned to its Christian roots.

"Only theology-1 could properly ground socialism"

Here , once again, as I began to write last night, is the place where Jim Wallis has been FAR ahead of the rest of the pack. Smith wants to pick on Wallis'use of language, but it is in the practice and the accompanying theological-1* education that practice is given fertile ground and actually made more possible.

* theology-1 (don't know how to do superscript for the 1) or theological-1, (p.177-179 IRO) in short, 1 is the fundamental Christian confession affirmed by the Church, embodied in Scripture,etc......2 refers to the ongoing work of specifically theoretical,"second order reflection". Here, again, it seems that Smith has been far too harsh with Wallis for the sake of his language scruples, which seem very much on the order of a 2, and Wallis operates his 1 as very much grounded in what I consider to be an extremely healthy and rich, Biblical, explicitly Christian telos

I find it hard to imagine how "non-academics" are going to even understand what RO is saying. It is in the likes of Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo that the very possibility of a radical rendering and understanding of theology can be envisioned at all (at least this has been the case for me. Wallis has been like a mentor in the process of placing real issues of governmental "consequences" up against the vision of the Kingdom of God; a vision so rarely advanced in the church in America; the church largely unaware of its falling in line with Constaninian forces, and how it has altered its original Biblical grounding in favor of "values" that come from capitalist forces, driven by the biggest benefactors of such a system). It was via such people as Tony Campolo that I was able to appreciate the message of Sojourners. To call Wallis to task because he is attempting to suggest that the "values" which the Religious Right posits as the essence of faith are severely limited (and often driven more by hate and fear than by faith) ---to call him to task for this is puzzling--- Wallis (and others like Campolo) have offered more of a "socialist revision of America"(which Ward encourages) and really have been one of the very few who get that suggestion "out there" at all. I would never have been available to hear nor appreciate the theology of RO without the likes of Wallis).

The "values" talk Smith eschews seems to me to be a reaction rather than a real issue. What are "values"? Is it not "what is important"; is it not "driving principles"; underlying notivations; the "root driver of practice"? This is simply another example of "hijacking" and "spoiling" of a word and a concept that has much more to do with the extremely narrow usage and manipulation of that word for political gain. This is "Constantine"; not the attempts to counter the manipulative usage of "religion" by the state (which , in the Western world, as we all know, has caused theologians to name this process of defining reality (and thus "rationality"; "common sense") as being "of Constantine".

"Values" has become an abhorrent concept to many that are tired of its being invoked to butress whatever the hell those in power want to hold up as desirable and "secure". But it really IS , by definition, "what is important". It is the "grounding" of any "system of thought". RO has "values". That doesn't mean that anyone who dares to challenge or define or explore what those entail is "giving in" and ceding the argument or somehow participating. Could we not take this argument all the way to "Christian" itself? (the Religious Right already has)

I just typed about 3 MovableType text box screenfuls of stuff on the final chapter of IRO (Cities of God) and while typing, the whole window went poof, gone into oblivion. That's the end of my Wifi stay as well. I gotta go run my errand. Will try again later. The jist of it is a mention of Tony Campolo as an explicitly Christian sociology with what I consider to be a healthy theological-1 telos.

Also, a further butressing of my contrar- to -Smith/RO sense that Wallis is MUCH more theological ally than "detractor" or "Constaninian" than Smith STILL seems to bewillingto allow. Mostly, though, and most primarily interms of practice. (which seems to be the most important thing, IMHO) Smith's assesment , his responses not withstanding, seem to be WAY too harsh for someone of Wallis' hsitory and leadership in presenting to the public an intellectually accessible assesment of the dangers of Empire and Constantianianism, as well as what I feel is a pretty damn healthy telos (damn maybe not the best choice of words, so maybe "rad" is better)

More elab later

I'm here at Coffee and Cream at Lakeside OH (no, not at a Methodist conference...the East Ohio Conference is here this week)....for you non-UM folks, Lakeside is a UM founded place, and so some UM conferences hold their annual meetings here).....but, the most "blessed" thing here (in my world, is Wifi connectivity, and only 10 or so minutes from our place.)

So,I've gotabout an hour and a half from now to do my morning coffee and RSS rounds.

via Jesus Politics

GW, speaking to the Southern Baptist Convention via satellite, praises a church that was given a "faith-based intitiative" grant. Unfortunately, the recipients of that message were saying to themselves, uh...George....they're one of those "other" Baptists. We don't do that sort of thing...uh.....I mean...uhhhh..... that wasn't us (they are CBF, and give no money to the SBC). George can't seem to help himself, stickin' his foot in his mouth on a regular basis

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

Speaking live via satellite at the SBC annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn., Bush repeated themes of three previous appearances at the convention, including thanking Southern Baptists for their prayers, support of troops and opposition to gay marriage, abortion and cloning.

He also defended his “faith-based initiative” to make it easier for religious organizations to qualify for government grants to provide social services.

“America’s faith-based institutions change hearts every day,” Bush said. “And we depend on the work of these organizations to bring hope to harsh places. Yet for too long, governments have discriminated against faith-based programs--just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall.”

Bush said that is why he signed an executive order that faith-based groups providing social services are entitled to the same access to federal money as other groups.

“I am proud that we have now opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes our faith-based charities,” the president said. “For example, my administration awarded College Park Baptist Church in Orlando, Florida, $5.8 million to build 68 homes for low-income seniors.”

Pastor Ron Crawford told EthicsDaily.com the church was recently awarded a contract through HUD to build a second facility for persons who are disabled or near the end of life. The first, also built with HUD money, is 22 years old.

The church Web site describes College Park Baptist Church as “a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship church” located in the Orlando suburb of College Park. The site links to CBF and other moderate Baptist entities but not to the SBC.

Several days ago, Eric had emailed Jamie Smith (aka known as James K.A. Smith, author of Introducing Radical Orthodoxy (which I am reading) and told him about the discussions Eric and I had been having. Jamie offered to answer 2 or 3 questions if we wanted to pose some. So , the comments section of this post, we did so, and Eric sent them off. The reply came, and Eric posted it here, and several comments there have ensued (including me).

Jamie Smith also posted about it on his blog here

The dialogue on this has been great.

From the balcony of our rental condo....there's Lake Erie behind the trees

We are renting a van and heading to Lake Erie (that's one of the "Great Lakes" for those of you geographically-challlenged). We have a place rented for a week, and I have a laptop borrowed from work, so I'll have at least a dialup way to blog and I expect to post a few pictures during the week, and finsih up Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, and continue on in Hauerwas's Community of Character. I've also been reading Hauerwas' postscript to Performing the Faith, where he responds to Jeffrey Stout's critiques of him in Democracy and Tradition.

It's been a rather hefty week at work, gettin' home late most days the past two weeks (like 6 or 7). The week could not have come at a better time. It would really be cool if they had broadband where we're going, but that's probably too much to ask. But the laptop has an 801.2b card, so if there's anyplaces that do, I'll be able to use that. Otherwise, assuming the phones work, it's dialup.

tb

This was sent to me by a colleague, whose grandmother sent him this (so I don't know the origin of it) But hilarious!

"Who's On First" -- new version

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.

George: That's what I want to know.

Condi: That's what I'm telling you.

George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes.

George: I mean the fellow's name.

Condi: Hu.

George: The guy in China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The new leader of China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The main man in China!

Condi: Hu is leading China.

George: Now whaddya' asking me for?

Condi: I'm telling you, Hu is leading China.

George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?

Condi: That's the man's name.

George: That's who's name?

Condi: Yes.

George: Will you, or will you not, tell me the name of the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he's dead in the Middle East.

Condi: That's correct.

George: Then who is in China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Then who is?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Look Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi?

George: No, thanks.

Condi: You want Kofi?

George: No.

Condi: You don't want Kofi.

George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?

George: Milk! Will you please make the call?

Condi: And call who?

George: Who is the guy at the U.N?

Condi: Hu is the guy in China

George: Will you stay out of China!

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi.

George: All right! With cream and two sugars.

via Jesus Politics (Buy a flag and declare war on Satan and his lies of liberalism and secularism)

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

The site also carries a pledge to the new flag: “I pledge allegiance, to the Christian Flag of the United States of America, and to the Lord, who made us great and free. I purpose, to band together, with all believers, to protect the truth and liberty of God.”

The traditional Christian flag was conceived in 1897 at Brighton Chapel in Coney Island, N.Y. Today is one of the oldest unchanged flags in the world and is displayed in sanctuaries and classrooms in an estimated 244,000 churches.

The first pledge to the Christian flag was written by Methodist pastor Lynn Harold Hough in 1908: “I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One brotherhood, uniting all mankind, in service and love.”

Unlike the Christian flag, which belongs to all Christians regardless of nationality or denomination, Eldreth’s National Christian Flag is unapologetically American.

emphasis mine, and lots of other Christians who serve first not the kingdoms of this world, but THE KINGDOM. Leave it to a Southern Baptist. Sheesh.

I am starting in on Stanley Hauerwas' essay The Church as God's New Language , from the Hauerwas Reader , pp. 142-162, referenced in a footnote in Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p.39 n32

In the note Smith quotes Hauerwas from another essay in Modern Theology saying: "not only that Barth's Dogmatics should be read as a training manual for Christian speech, but also how that speech shapes the speaker in a manner appropriate to that which the speaker speaks"

(I actually wrote this post yesterday, and just saw that I had yet to move it into Publish from Draft. Although I have taken what might seem to be great pains to press this point,and posted on simialr things just a while ago, I found this post to be reflective also of some different ways I have wanted to pose this. All of this has me "revved me up" for this RO/Wallis confrontation, which is a confrontation that I think for me is certainly good, and one in which I hope can end up showing a great deal more congruity of Wallis with RO than not. I WANT it to be so. That is probably apparent. But since RO draws on Hauerwas, and I love what I read from Hauerwas, and also feel like I owe a great deal of my own theological sensibilities to Sojourners and Jim Wallis, I want this to be a comfortable blend. I also want to remain a learner, especially where it concerns theology and the church, and so here I stand, ranting, refecting, and reacting. I hope it is useful.)

"Radical Orthodoxy, although it opposes the modern, also seeks to save it. It espouses, not the pre-modern, but an alternative vision of modernity" Milbank, The Programme of Radical Orthodoxy in Radical Orthodoxy? A Catholic Inquiry

Also, Smith says that

RO's project is aimed at the aimed at unveiling the ultimately religious stature of this modern vision, thus alerting us to the ways in which these core values or doctrines of modern life are, in the end, competitors of the gospel of Christ.

As I said in my earlier post, challenging Smith's crtique of Wallis as possibly representing a "Constaninanism of the Left" and seemingly concluding that Wallis has "ended up as a humanist", I do not wish to call into question the legitimacy or importance of Smith's deep investment in the RO position. As I have said many times, and am in fact indicating by my continued interest and reading in this topic, I am , so far, in complete agreement on most everything presented in IRO. IN fact, had I not known of the above mentioned article by Smith on his blog, I may never have noticed the challenges that this posed to my own agreement with RO and my sense of identification with the Sojourners narrative. Although it is a challenge, I am not convinced that there is nearly the amount of discongruity as Smith posits. MOst pointedly, I entirely disagree that Wallis is any sort of humanist, except that he is very "ecumenical" in his reaching across the aisle of modernity and bringing his "distinctively Christian worldview" to bear on the "public discourse", in which he is advocating for a more prominent role for progressive Christians in the discussion about how politics and religion should and do interplay.

This assement of RO as "seeking to save modernity" rather than to be "pre-modern", it wished to posit an "alternative vision of modernity". I believe strongly that Wallis does the same.

Smith's critique of Wallis saying "religion must be disciplined by democracy" is out of proportion to what I am reasonably certain Wallis meant when he said "religion". First , Wallis would never say "Christianity must be disciplined by religion", but can and did can say that "religion" must be. There is a definite distinction in what Wallis says about "religion" and what he believes about the specific distinctiveness of the Christian faith. It is very clear to me that here is is addressing, or proposing, a common set of "ecumenical ground rules" or "values" that can be shared across faith traditons, within the Christian faith, and across all other faiths. This "democracy" is NOT the American Democratic system, although it is also calling those whose "faith" might be more in a "civic" sensibility than a faith-based one, and yet they too (and perhaps especially they) can agree upon some of these "basic values of democracy") These would be "honesty", "integrity", "refusing to compromise the public trust" ; the assumption that elected leaders will "work for the common good". I believe that in the God's Politics discussion he has been having over the past 5 months, that he is addressing a challenge to the Religious Right concerning their uncritical acceptance of a deceptive government and disingenuous leaders. He is also appealing to "people of good will" to "stand up to the abuses of government so blatantly abused by the Bush administration. It is calling for a "coalition", not in a theological compromise, but simply for a "decent and effective democracy that simply makes a valiant effort to consider the needs of a broader range of persons OTHER than the extremely rich.

I hear Graham Ward, in True Religion saying similar things , such as:

RO's radical critique of modernity, therefore, does not commit adherents to being intellectual luddites, nor does it require a rejection of the "fruits of modernity", such as advances in science and medicine or the undoing of forms of insitutionalized repression

In Introducing Radical Orthodoxy ch.2, under A Reformed Rendition, on. pp.82-83

Smith talks about Reformed Tradtion's Michael Horton saying that Turretin and Geerhardus Vos are the first post-modern theologians, "decidedely post-foundationalists" that "do not try to justify their claims by appeal to natural reason". "Their method is NOT bringing a prior philosophical construction to the Scriptures; rather, their method--- centered around covenant--- grows out of the narrative and canon of Scripture itself."

This surfaces for me the question of how "cleanly" we come to theology from ANYWHERE. It's a problem with conservative social stances as well as liberal; from one school of philosophy as another. Who is really free of this, even when reading the "pure sources"? The lenses are themselves looking at the Scriptures.

It's related to this note on p.154

Dooyeweerd sometimes seems to think that there is a "biblical-founded philosophy" that even employs a unique language, untainted by apostate ground-motives. Thus, he sometimes levels the charge of "scholasticism" or "synthesis" simply on the basis of language and categories employed.

I'd like to hear more on this very "slippery" question, one which the fundamentalists tend to resent and cry foul, but how much of a problem is this for RO? These observations seem to indicate that RO is cognizant of this (this is clear from their sociological insights), but how is this handled?

On apologetics:

How DOES one speak truth to power without "ceding too much to the state"? HOw does one avoid being "statist" and still speak to the state, in what I would call "accessible" language so that the state can best be "called to task" ?

Movable Theoblogical: Using The Language to Subvert the Ground of that Language

The previous quote in question also leads to questions 2:

Thus, he [Dooyeweerd] sometimes levels the charge of "scholasticism" or "synthesis" simply on the basis of language and categories employed.

When I realized that it was Jamie Smith himself who wrote the "Constanianism of the Left?" article, I found myself starting to wonder what I might be guilty of in my "political talk". I too, have noticed the "lack of church" in Wallis' language. But I remain uncertain as to how we talk about the church to the outside, so that they might come to a place where they can be called to it. At many times and for many people, the language of church can be intimidating and forboding, associated with very real experiences of division and personal oppression, from "bad religion; specifically , from "Bad Christianity". I prefer to call it "bad religion", since one CAN be "relgious" without taking on what would seem to be some "basic" , distinnctly Christian characteristics.

I'm even less certain about how any of this, whichever way one falls on those issues, makes Wallis a "Humanist". I have seen NO indication of that. Critique leveled at him while he is attempting to provide some model of civil civic discourse on religion in America does not seem to occasion the label "humanist". So how does Wallis "end up a humanist"? I think Jamie may have stated things a bit too strongly (but, again, it WAS on a BLOG, where RANTS can happen. At the same time, I feel that we can engage on this , given all the theological common ground; especially where it concerns insisting on a "Biblical orientation" that is in line with the teachings of Jesus. I just feel that it is worthwhile to presesnt the gospel to people where we perceive their rightful passions lay. It is there, most often, that people will feel the call of God: where our vocation and the needs of the world meet (Wallis said that).

I have thus far enjoyed very much my reading of IRO, but I doubt I would have read it if I had first known that its author wrote that post on Wallis (and also had I not had it highly recommended by blog friends, and read the interview with Smith where he said some things that made me want to know more.) I feel that many people who WOULD find much to appreciate in RO are also highly appreciative of Sojourners and Wallis, and so any caustions to be seen in Wallis' use of language could be better approached than with what would seem to be extreme characterizations which ring as untrue to any of his theological friends. If I had missed reading IRO, it would have been my loss.

via Jesus Politics

This is the lie that it is the basis of the national mythos; the "glory" and the patriotism that masks the real sounds and the real consequences of war: the unending cyle of violence and renewed oppression to see that the vanquished do not seek and achieve revenge, but it is a fool's game, as we read here:

(DV) Hedges: War -- Realities and Myths

The vanquished know the essence of war -- death. They grasp that war is necrophilia. They see that war is a state of almost pure sin with its goals of hatred and destruction. They know how war fosters alienation, leads inevitably to nihilism, and is a turning away from the sanctity and preservation of life. All other narratives about war too easily fall prey to the allure and seductiveness of violence, as well as the attraction of the godlike power that comes with the license to kill with impunity.

As the Radical Orthodoxy theologians would tell us, our trust in the "assumed truths" , based on "Enlightenment" wisdom, "national interest" (which assumes also that WE are the only "nation" woth being "national") and becoming over the years, "the way it is" and "what everone knows", and evil holds sway until the gospel enters in, and exposes the foolishness of it all.

Smith identifies what he sees as a tendency in Dooyeweerd:

Dooyeweerd sometimes seems to think that there is a "biblical-founded philosophy" that even employs a unique language, untainted by apostate ground-motives. Thus, he sometimes levels the charge of "scholasticism" or "synthesis" simply on the basis of language and categories employed.

And so I find yet another observation so astutely drawn by Smith that I dare say I could use to turn around his argument against Wallis, and identify that critique as too heavily weighted "on the basis of language and categories employed". As we read on in that same note:

As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Dooyeweerd's own language is heavily indebted to Neo-Kantianism and Heidegger's phenomenology, but its fundamental religious orientation is different. Obviously then, one can---must--adopt an operative framework of philosophical categories and language that, at the same time, subverts the religious ground-motive that spawned them. Indded , the New testamant notion of Logos may do just that.

JKA Smith is obviously an extremely articulate and thoughtful theologian, and one whom has brought to the fore and made accessible a view of RO that is extremely valuable , I believe. And I believe that he has more of an ally in the likes of Wallis than he is, maybe as of yet, or for some time to come, hesitant to say (or maybe perhaps has just not told us yet?) I see Wallis exactly in the previous quote from Smith's note, and specificaly Wallis regarding the very critique Smith levels at him: that Wallis does indeed use the language of "democracy" to subvert it, as RO encourages. He subverts it by the very act of bringing to the table the visions of the prophets, and by calling to task the failure of this Administration (as with others, only this one seems particularly ruthless and determined in its willingness to subvert the very "lowest common denominator" of some very basic public trusts). He continuously questions the legitimacy and exposes the false "soteriology" of the American nationalism so rampant in our chruches, and invoked by Bush himself via his constant mis-appropriations of the language of theology to promote his empire.

To label Wallis "Humanist" for this is puzzling to me, and I will continue to question that even as I walk amazed and inspired through the theological exploration that Smith gives us in Introducing Radical Orthodoxy. It has already been for me an important theological work, and one which is valuable to the conversations that seem to have gotten more energetic since the Bush administration took office and the chaos of 9/11 and the Iraq war commenced.

the majority of modern Christian theological and eccleasial projects operate as colonies of the Tubingen empire

assume the neutrality of other sciences, receive the objective findings of such neutral sciences, and then seek to correlate the claims of Christian confession with these facts -- thus furnishing , indirectly, an apologetic demonstration of the truth of Christian revelation.

I suppose that the framework of the "just war" theory could fall into this "trap" where the underlying assumptions of "neccessary violence" and "defensive neccessity" would override any radical Christian notion of lovingone's enemies, or not returning evil for evil.

In particular, the broad shape of what it is to know, or questions of being, are determined by the neutral discourse of philosophy and metaphysics; Christian theology then builds on these neutral or natural axioms and offers a theological supplement of what it means to know Christ, or what it means to say that God "is".

A "theological supplement" of what it emans to know Christ. That's kind of scary.

the church , as a transnational body, must necessarily both transcend the boundaries of the state and also be a fractive force within the state precisely because it asserts difference — an antithesis.

IRO, p.134

Cavanaugh, and to some degree, Hauerwas, is concerned about the church ceding politics to the state, such as :

New Christendom ecclesiology (of Jacques Maritain) did nothing to subvert the state's soteriological pretensions.

And who is known for this today, in Washington, and among those sounding just these type concerns? I would say that Jim Wallis does just that, making known a very RO political approach.

I would say that the problem of communicating this problem of the "state's soteriological pretensions" is definitely one of extreme importance to the task of the church to be an alternative and prophetic voice. To use the language of "state" to appeal to the "real principles" that are most truthfully realized in a Christian view of society and history, the "people" must be brought to awareness through accessible language. As walls come down as Christ transforms, eyes are opened, and the realizations of the miracle that is the Kingdom are recognized. A miracle in which we are all invited to participate.

Just found this blog via AKMA

Shovelware by Mark Dery. I read a couple of books by him way back at the outset of the Web, when I was doing some heavy research into online community. His books were Flame Wars and Escape Velocity, both on tech-head culture and online discourse. He interviews Erik Davis (who authored TechGnosis in 1998. I have all three books, but not the latest from Dery, A User's Guide to "The Pyrotechnic Insanitarium"

It's been a while, but I remember I was impressed with his sociological narrative. I'll have to check this one out (anbd the blog as well)

This post from Pastor John Wright is extremely truthful. It explains in an insightful way just how we arrive, I believe, at such monstrous self-deceptions (monstous in their consequences for "others", and so ultimately, to ourselves.

Pastor John Wright

The story is drawn from a Harry Potter tale:

Dudley is obviously being malformed because his parent's "opinion" that there is no finer boy than him anywhere is based on an attachment to their son that does not truthfully reflect Dudley's character. His behavior becomes seen as "natural", even admirable, because the parent's love, in itself commendable, is separated from what is really good and true...

I was struck with something of the "American mythos" tonight, watching National Trerasure (with Nicolas Cage) as I recognized the nationalistic (and ultimately idolatrous) reverence for the "Declaration of Independence" and lines like "The Declaration of Independence is not a bargaining chip", as if it were the most ultimate of all values. So many have that sensibility that summons goosebumps at the "history" of it, and the canonical like stature with which the "signers of the Declaration" are held (and Nicolas Cage "shivering with awe at the thought of how "the last time this (the Declaration) was in this room, was when it was being signed".

When the war began, it was meant to seem 'natural.' The US populace chuckled, "little tyke" and said, "he just wants to get his money worth, just like us." The commitment to a fictious entity called "the United States" became separated from what was good and true, just as the Ba'athist commitment to a fictional entity called "Iraq" had also become separated from what was good and true. The mindless cycle of violence that seems so 'natural' has based in the webs of deceit on all sides. Attachments had arisen that had been corrupted, malformed. The result, just like Dudley, a malformed people unable to see their own real character continues -- and sin marches on by what it is not.

Believe me, the mythos is powerful. Only in recent years has the heroic and almost "kairos" quality of the American "moments" begun to fade into relative insiginificance; paled before the glare of truth, exposed in its hubris, and allegiance to what many other empires have fallen for: the deception that they can control history. This is something I've caught from Stanley Hauerwas, and it makes a lot of sense, this "nonsense" of the gospel that is "foolishness" to the Greeks (the Greco-Roman culture; this alliance of knowledge -- or the academy-- and military might to "assure" the access to the right balance of power). The "wisdom" they manufacture for our consumption and assimilation is the darkness that keeps us from recognizing.

All of our perceptions, judgments, character, knowledge are embedded in our attachments. That is why all our attachments must be ordered continually in repentance in desire for God, in whom all Truth and Goodness converge in Harmony and Peace. With our attachments ordered from God, we then may have our eyes cleared to see truthfully, so that our commitments, our attachments, might lead us to see what is really natural, rather than the sinful lack that surrounds us. That way, maybe we won't raise new Dudley's, or war-making regimes within the United States.

Go and read the whole post. Much more in there about the "misbehaving" U.S. that all its subjects think is so adorable, man-tough, and "plain-folksy" and just "common sense" (I can still heart Bush echoing his lines: "A common sense policy")

I have metnioned in a few posts here lately as I sit with Introducing Radical Orthodoxy about how I am anticipating a discussion about just how an apologetic is best carried out in light of RO's seemingly basic principle of always being "distinctly Christian". I know and believe that the church's best "apologetic" is in its being the church, but what of the seekers and the curious? Are they allowed to ask us, in ways which are "not yet Christian" or "radically not getting it" (which , of course, they aren't yet).....how do we make our story intelligible to them in ways which will not actually turn them away; not becuase they are rejecting it (which they might and often do and will at later points), but because they are associating certain theological language and certain "examples" (or lack therof) of theological talk with very little noticable difference on behaviour, selflessness, compassion, and next to no "oppostion to oppressions of various types"; nare even a drop of oppostion to unfettered capitalism and materialism. I think of how Jesus, upon hearing Nicodemus' quesitons, said "You are not far from the Kingdom of God".

I also have this concept of the Cosmic Christ which I apply to a stance which to some appears highly "universalist". The idea that Christ reveals himself across cultures and , ultimately, faiths. It is , at the core, the same Christ, the same faith, but embedded in "foreign" cultures and "traditions". How else would Christ reveal himslef to them than through means in which they can only identify as having spoken to them through those voices under whom they have learned? It was the story of Gandhi that started me thinking about this, and how he more faithfully lived as Christ taught than many Christians do. He also did so in a tradition wqhich was premodern, I think, even though he was very much out of that tradtion inhis early adulthood until he began to see the injustices and lack-of-being of empire.

Matthew Fox wrote the book The Coming of the Cosmic Christ which got me into more of Fox's exploration of non-modernist thinking from the pre-Western theologians. I also just noticed (as a link to this RO discussion) that one of these books is Sheer Joy: Conversations With Thomas Aquinas on Creation Spirituality. The linkages to RO concepts here abound, just as I had been long detached from Fox's writings (another title, Breakthrough: Meister Eckhart's Creations Spirituality in New Translation is related as well)

Also from M. Fox: Western Spirituality: Historical Roots, Ecuemnical Routes, (a collection of essays by some Western theologians who reach outside of modernist-dominated theological trends to traditonal voices), and Creation Spirituality. (IN all, I have 12 of Fox's books---I'll have to snap a picture of that "stack")

So this neo-univeralism may be a problem for RO. I don't know, but I expect that there will be confrontations with that idea to be found. But the larger quesiton of apologetic (the "intellectual" meeting that we want to pull toward less modernistic grounds into "our territory", and how and where we engage the world is an interesting exploration ahead.

This question, asked as a prelude to dialogue, engagement, or often confrontation between modes of thought and ontologies, is a good way to describe what much of my journey through the first two chapters of Introducing Radical Orthodoxy

Movable Theoblogical: The Church IS a cultural critique

I want to return to the previous post (linked above) , and especially to the comments where Eric responded (who was one of those whose reading of IRO and linking to the interview of Smith was a big factor in my becoming attracted to RO) about my concerns over Smith's polemic in criticism of Jim Wallis.

Today as I read in chapter two, I came across this footnote in note 80 on p.83), citing his frustration with Michael Horton on his polemics against Frei, Lindbeck, and Hauerwas. It seems that here is an excellent parallel to my own feelings on his own critiques of Wallis. He says:

Me thinks he doth protest too much, because , on the one hand, he senses how close his proposal is to their project but, on the other hand, feels some need to say that he is not one of them.

Bingo! I can relate, big time. I , too, sense how close my "proposal" or "approach" is to the RO project and to Smith's narrative on it, and yet, Smith feels some need to say that Wallis is "not one of us". Further, the latter part of chapter 2, Smith makes a case for the conversation between Reformed Traditions and RO, saying that "RO can profit from an engagment with the Reformed" and also going as far to say "The Reformed traditon has a long history of reflection on a number of themes on which RO has only begun to reflect". Bingo again. So too, has Sojourners had a long history (including their forebearers in earlier "social movements of grace" a reference to his phrase "socialsim by grace" on p.80, just before his discussion on the Reformed tradition's contributions).

I will be posting more on this---- I also want to explore the role of apologetic in RO as Smith sees it. I tend to see more from Milbank that tends more toward an appreciation of (what do we now call "secular" in this discussion?) .... the "non-religious(?)" or "non-overtly religious(?)" society, particularly those who have what I would call a "less selfish" concept of justice; IOW, ones who see some merit in considering the "other", and thus have a keen sense of injustice done to groups of people, in the name of the "common good"; or "some concept of what it means to "do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE them do unto you". What would RO's engagement with people such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn be like? I see much conguency in RO with the attention Zinn pays to "alternative readings" of history and the recognition of the forces that "Manufacturing Consent" that Chomsky narrates.

But even more than this, the question that is the title of this post is the one with which I read RO, for it is those sensibilities that I have gained from the likes of Sojourners that I first heard in Smith's articulations* of what RO is attempting to do that have brought me to the RO table to see what lies within that communion of saints.

And so there is a dialectic that can also be found between the movements like Sojourners, and the conversations with theology and its "distinctively Christian" view of the world chaaracteristic of Radical Orthodoxy.

I am trying to identify what longer tradition is that to which Sojourners woudl find its lineage. Wallis often has said that he is a 19th century evangelical, born in the wrong century (referring to how many early ebangelicals were among the church-base for some siginificant social revolutions, such as abolition (Finney) and Civil Rights (MLK). In contrast, God's Politics came about as a response and a critique of American churches and their "Constantinian" tendencies (the fact that Smith seems was wanting to put Wallis in that category is one matter in which I still have much to say by way of response, and call for clarification). GP was also a critique of the severely truncated "values" concept being trumpteted about by the Religious Right. Wallis also expalined how his oppostion to a "Religious Right" does not then make him a proponent of a "Religious Left". Wallis is NOT a theological liberal. While he is identified in the media as a "social liberal", this is not the way he ultimately sees himself. He sees himself as much more of a "truly orthodox" Christian which involves a radical questioning of the entire system of economics and militarism, and the injustices and inequities that cuases, and fights against these and FOR a radical reading of the Kingdom of God.

I also see an affinity in RO AND in Sojourners for a theology very much like that of Matthew Fox's Creation Spirituality, and its emphases upon the pre-Western mystics and on historical and contemporary eco-theologians suach as the Rhineland mystics and present day folks such as Wendell Berry (a theme also shown deep respect and adoption by Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren).

I am hoping Tony Campolo is not out of the theology writing loop for too much longer. I am much indebted to him as well for his Sociology of Chriastianity (he doesn't have a book on that but he touches and expounds upon such themes in all of his books and most of his apeeches and even many of his sermons).

*also becuase of what Eric has derived from it that he has hared with us in the blogosphere, as well as Jonathon Norman (who happens to live right here in Nashville -- I'm gonna have to look up the dude)

the church does not have a cultural critique; it is a cultural critique. Its politics is an ecclesiology. Central to the project of RO, then, is a radical consideration of politics -- and the political nature of the church and gospel-- in a way that does not simply concede political expertise to the secular but rather attempts to unfold a distinctively Christian politics, such that even this "socialism by grace" is not confused with its secular parodies.

Here is a key place where the contributions and spirituality of a Sojourners movement and Jim Wallis are most assuredly Radically Orthodox. The "careful language" of his God's Politics tours were a little bit of a letdown for me, especially knowing of the very definite Christian distinctiveness of Wallis' sense of mission and call. It is here where I can see the source of Smith's critique, and yet I also feel that the tone of the critique was unwarranted, since Wallis merely failed to be "bold" and "distinctive" about the specifically missional base of the God's Politics movement.

Wallis certainly not at all a "humanist". This is a thoroughly unjust judgment. From the above quote, Wallis and Sojourners have had a large impact on making such a Christianity visible. I, for one, don't feel that more overtly Christian language would have hurt the impact of the God's Politics movement at all....but I can see the possibility for it having an unduly adverse affect upon certain people who have been negatively impacted by what I can only call "bad examples" and "dark spirituality" that is dogmatic, self-absorbed, and thouroughly cultural at its base.

Against this, and FOR a hopeful Kingdom-driven vision, Jim Wallis and Sojourners have fought and lived by example for 30 years, and the stories are widely available in many books over the years, many of which have done a great deal to open my eyes, and remap my "canons" of Scripture; the gospel is "radically different" to me now largely due to Wallis. I believe that RO has a deep ally, in practically every way that they describe their own emphases. Who knows, Wallis himself may well be intrigued with someting he reads about this "new movement" seeking to recast and reform the idea of Christian orthodoxy, and invite a James K.A. Smith to a conversation for Sojourners magazine, which would be of great interest to many of its readers, particularly where it involves such things as included in the quote above.

As I've pointed out earlier, if I took Smith's final sentence in that post about Wallis, I woudl be apt to TOTALLY MISREAD and NISUNDERSTAND and even perhaps DISMISS radical orthodoxy:

Instead of Wallis' leftish civil theology, I'll continue to believe that our most important political action remains the act of discipleship through worship.

That seems to imply, as I read it, (and less so now , especially after informing myslelf a bit more with some details and background on RO via JKA Smith's book), that RO may well be another escapist, behind-closed-doors of the snobbish elites in cathedrals ignoring of the task of being-in-the-world. But you see, I READ a little and found out that wasn't so. There's 30 years of history of works of mercy, authentic church, community and forgiveness, refusing to "simply concede political expertise to the secular", and enlisting the support and inspiring similar alternatives to the "worship at the altars of National security" (one of the chapters in Revive Us Again) , and the list could go on.

From this example of the ease in which we can pounce on first (and often insufficient) impressions, I propose a better dialiogue and appreciation of the cultural critique that Sojourners has made accessible to the the frustrated American church goer who feels that the church must have a deeper , broader, more "Christ-centered message" for the world than the oft found religiosity blended with nationalism that is offered today. If it were not for that, I don't know where my own journey would have veered. I certainly would not have been reading in this book, and saying "amen" to quotes such as the one with which I began this post.

This is why a movmement that is so contemporary is nevertheless deeply committed to tradition, convinced that the insights of the Spirit given to the early church have much to say to the contemporary church -- and to the world.

Is this implying something about a lack of legitimacy of "ongoing revelation" or just that the early church is most able to help us now, being in that they were pre-modernist, and therefore free of the modernist assumptions? I can go along with the idea of an advantage to pre-modernity (not falling under the weight of the dualisms and fallacies of modernity). Sounds also a lot like some of the stuff I read from Matthew Fox in the late 80's early 90's, where he kind of introduced me to several pre-moderns who were not so "Western" in their thinking. I still like to use the concept of The Cosmic Christ to talk about how it is that Christ reaches across cultures and traditions and "reveals" himself in non_western, non-"Biblical" cultures (maybe even some non-Biblical cultures are not as overlayed with the many modernistic overlays to the Bible such as in the "American Bible" that JIm Wallis so often mentions.

But as for early church, I could do with some more learnings on those dudes (and even some of the non-dudes, like Teresa of Avial ,Julian of Norwich, and Hildegard of Bingen). Al of these were expounded to me by Matthew Fox, and earlier , Elizabeth O'Connor (that Church of the Saviour Narrative writer) had quoted from them in her book "Our Many Selves".

So I have some history in being made aware of the blessings of the non-Western, non-modernist mind. I can dig it.

Some summaries and quotes from Chapter One in defining and describing "What is RO?"

While RO may have a program, we should not therefore conclude that it has a singular agenda built "on a discrete edifice that purports to be a stronghold". Rather RO describes a certain spirit that is "a call to look again at things one has too often assumed". As such, it is not a system, method , or formula but "a hermeneutic disposition and a style of metaphysical vision".

quoted phrases from Pickstock's Radical Orthodoxy and the Meditations of Time

It is orthodox insofar as it seeks to be unapologetically confesisonal anbd Christian; it is radical insofar as it seeks to critically retrieve premodern roots.

I would also ad that it is radical becuase it is totally "other"; different from the mainstream; often "unknowable" in any substantial way by the uninitiated, a nd certainly unintelligible or "foolishness" to them. So radical is less for me "pre-modern" and much more so "of a different order, such as Milbank's postulation of an "ontology of peace".

Smith says that Catherine Pickstock, as well as Milbank and Graham Ward (who also has been quoted saying some intriguing things --intriguing in a good way, not a "curious" or "suspect" way----)
all are "wary of designating RO as a school or movement in any kind of institutional sense.

Pickstock emphasizes that "radical orthodoxy has never been seen itself as an exclusive movement, but rather as a loose tendency"

Ward describes it as "a certain theological sensibility, as sensibility shared to a greater or lesser degree with several other contemporary theologians"

Smith summarizes it as: "A "hermeneutic disposition and a style of metaphysical vision; it is not so much a thing or place as a task"

Smith concludes:

Basically, RO can be taken as potentially embracing all those who espouse a basically orthodox theology, but do not regard themselves as simply ecclesiastical or political traditionalists. The point, however , is to work out just what this position involves in the face of modern and postmodern thought.

The label Radical Orthodoxy is effective in naming a certain spirit of theologically driven cultural engagement.

Chapter Two looks like I may have several more comments to make, as it promises to explore what the engagements look like.

My reading of Introducing Radical Orthodoxy (IRO) has been a bit on the defensive. But I think that is a good tool for really engaging with the subject. Here, it has been James A.K. Smith's article he wrote after Wallis visited the Calvin College campus (I've said this earlier, but I wanted to re-state it a little differently now that I've read a little more than a quarter of IRO.

The title of JKA Smith's post (he signs his blog posts as Jamie, so I'll start calling him Jamie, too, since I'm starting to forgive him for what I took personally from that article. (Part of that forgiveness is that I still want to know WHY he thinks Wallis may be guilty of Constantinianism of the Left, which is what he names the article with a Question mark ( Constantinianism of the Left?) . I want to know because from what I've read he's got to have a good reason for it, although I'm expecting to disagree with it. I have suggested several angles , based on what I've read (since in my reading I can't help but notice something that I feel Wallis does well, or opposes within the Sojo or Call to Renewal movements, and so I challenge some of the "accusations" of this RO proponent with the values and emphases of the RO movement itself.

So, after intially getting a little hesitant to keep returning to the argument about Wallis, I have decided that it's been a good place to stand to observe the RO survey as a skeptic, but certainly a sympathetic skeptic, who has seen prior signs of some theological insights that may gell and flourish within my "pre-existing" but "radically open" theological self-identity. Jonathan's interview with Smith, Eric's pointing to that, and Eric's own enthusiasm for the intense RO class he is taking (taught by his pastor at a university), brought me to buy this book, which I did just prior to realizing that "Jamie", who wrote "Constantinianism of the Left?" was James K.A.Smith. My reacton to that was shock , surprise, and then eventually, curiositt, as well as the sheer intellectual/spiritual/theological thrill of the prospect of playing my hand (in relation to what the part of me that is "Wallis influence") alongside what I read.

This world -oriented procalamation is essential to RO, for RO is not intended to be just an interior - albeit prophetic - monolgue within the church. Rather , it is intended to motivate a kerygmatic engagement with contemporary culture

RO is advocating a distinctly theological engagement with the world-- and the academy that investigates this world---undergirded by the belief that the way to engage the contemporary world is not by trying to demonstrate a correlation between the gospel and cultural values but rather by letting the gospel confront these (apostate) values

OK, here we're getting to the crux, I think, of Smith's problem with Wallis. And I say, hold on. While I am intrigued and even open to the direction I see this headed, give people a chance Jamie, to look through this lense. I hadn't really considered, at this depth. these somewhat meticulous angles on theology engaging with culture (which amounts, as I understand it so far, as "letting the gospel do its own confronting".) I'm not sure what that means yet, but that aside, I am yet to see anything that seems to justify calling Wallis a "Contantinian of the Left".

This seems to be in need of the kind of discussion Hauerwas has given us about how the Bible should be taken away from North American Christians until they learn how to read it, which is in community and within the story which a tradition reads it from. How do we "let the gospel confront those values" (ie. "values of the world; cultural values"). Isn't just "letting the gospel" confront it sounding like saying nothing and letting the gospel "stand for what it is"? Isn't this a problem with the Christian Right assuming that "the gospel is what it is and says what it says", and then "what it says" is in actuality nothing more than a baptized Americanism; a "true Constantinianism"

So what exactly does a "theologically funded reflection on the world" look like? (ceding thepoint that there is more detail ahead in the book, but I'm just letting you in on my impressions as I read) It ssemes to me at this point that although I can not and don't want to disagree with that, since I know it must be out there somewhere , or within revelation, just who IS "funding" this at bottom? Whose framework is this? I have the same feeling (although less scary) anout this as I do when I hear somebody say they have a "Biblical worldview". Most people I hear saying that have a pretty modernist and Constantinian worldview that they claim is THE BIBLICAL view. Although I would sooner trust one of the RO originator folks with determining what that is than the likes of say, Al Mohler (who certainly has one, or so he says) or Jerry Falwell or George Bush for that matter ---or Osama Bin Laden----I am curious as to how this study will construct that "currency which funds" this enterprise.

The "box" is the predefined boundaries Milbank to which Milbank is referring in this paraphrase from Eric (see his blog for the actual quote):

Eric's Tasty Morsels of Thought - 'Policing the Sublime' through a false metanarrative
On a piece from Milbank's Theology and Social Theory

What Milbank is saying here, I think, is that even though modern American sociology allows for a sublime (religions, belief in the divine, etc.) one can only be allowed into civic discourse with the pre-given whole of the social when one concedes to a certain meta-narrative. What this means is that even though there are many stories, or narratives, allowed within the modern liberal nation state, they will only be considered "legitimate" by the nation state as long as they interact with everybody else through participation in the metanarrative of the state, and that is one that is defined by "formal, economic terms."

What this brings me back to, is the very Hauerwasian call that it is our job as Christians to be the Church. Our society, our politics, is our faith, and I don't think we should allow another discourse outside of ourselves to prescribe not only who we are, but how we are to be. My aim in referencing Islam is only to acknowledge that it is one of the few large bodies of people that I can think of that currently embodies this pre-modern mindset, and it is ultimately, through the retrieval of Augustine and Aquinas (and other patristic figures) where Milbank wants to go in being the Church in an effort to not be anti-modern, but to save modernity through the works of mercy.

(Although I haven't gotten to any of Milbank's actual conclusions in this just yet, the works of mercy is where Pastor John Wright always points to as ways to be Christian. And, I think Bonhoeffer would say that if nothing else, these acts of obedience to Christ put ourselves in positions where faith is possible.)

This seems also to be at the heart of issue I having with Smith's analysis of Wallis. I don't see Wallis as being guilty of:

"conceding to a certain meta-narrative" , but working against that. I don't think it shoud be considered a violation of theology to find some common concepts in order to communicate with the commons. I strongly sense that Wallis is bucking against the "conceding" and instead challenging the "framework" that has been set up for narrating in the public about religion (in fact, he's done this for years, and I think it is a valuable clarification to be made. I also see him as doing quite a bit of "extending" of the comparatively limited concept of "justice" as a "naturally known philosophical concept", and attempting to expand the "publicity" of a broadened sense of "justice" and , in this politicaql environment, "values". As I have pointed out earlier, "values" is not a concept Wallis was stressing; it was made an issue by the religious right. It is BECAUSE this group is claiming to speak as the church that Wallis has taken to questioning this whole framing of the debate.

It seems that we have seen a shift in that whole meta-narrative to begin incorporating the themes of ultra-conservative church simplifications for political gain, and the acquisiton of power.

I hear Wallis saying just what Eric (via Hauerwas) says here: "I don't think we should allow another discourse outside of ourselves to prescribe not only who we are, but how we are to be"

He says this in his protesting what he calls the "hijacking" of the faith. What is being hijacked is the public perception of the faith. Wallis knows that noone can have their faith "stolen" (unless by distortion and covert manipulation of the truth in order to "control" us) What is really hijacked is that public conversation, skewed as it has been by the oversimplificaitons of the Right, and the cynical usage of faith-based-issues by the White House. I would certainly call all of this a refusal by Wallis to allow "exclusion" of many deeply committed Christians and churches. Yes, these individuals and churches continue to practice their ministries and works and to pray and explore all of this, but I don't think that the issue of having a voice is a desire we have becuase we're beholden to modernity. We find that we are in many ways, but I can't see that it is in this matter where it is happening.

Now I'm wondering here, as I make this supposed connection between what Milbank is saying, and also drawing from Eric's paraphrase, as to whether or not I have either Eric OR Milbank right on this one. It's a connection I made when reading Eric's post.

Otherwise, I'll have to go see if the Gorillaz CD is rad or not. (see the end of Eric's post)

Though seeking to retrieve premodern resources for theological reflection, RO is not simply a nostalgic preoccupation or a simplistic return to old paths. Rather, it seeks to rethink tradition as the very condition for theological refelection -- something that evangelicals would do well to consider. Even its crtique of modernity should not be construed as a simple antimodernity; rather, "Radical Orthodoxy, although it opposes the modern, aslo seeks to save it. It espouses not the pre-modern, but an alternative version of modernity"*

* this quote is from John Milbank's Programme of Radical Orthodoxy

Here I feel a bit more bold to feel that is permissable to bring up my lingering hesitancies about RO (or at least Smith's version of it as I receive it so far) because of the ringing , stinging ctitique that Smith leveled at Wallis in his blog post (and its scathing title: Constantinianism of the Left?) after hearing Wallis at Calvin College. As you may have noticed, I have been regularly challenging that, even as I proceed throughout the book, and seeking to, at various junctures, illustrate where I think Wallis is actually a better theological allie and resource for RO as he is a threat or an example of modernity , or Constaninanism gone leftist.

If RO truly seeks "to save modernity", I am still wondering (and I realize I have much more to go via Smith's IRO) where the point of meeting and dialogue is supposed to occur so that such a "conversion" can take place. I know that I will be firmly allied with MANY tenets of RO (as I get this feeling via what I heard Smith say in the interview by Jonathan, the content of which has drawn me to Smith in the first place (in addition to the posts Eric has made about what he is reading in his RO class (also here) which he is auditing and "reading along") I am certainly in step with Smith's views on the primacy of peace as an attributre of the Christian community, and of the realities of empire. I'll probably be making a more extensive journey through Fors Clavigera (James K.A. Smith's blog) after I complete IRO.

I have decided that I should use my misgivings about the Wallis critique as a point of dialogue with my reading of Smith's take on RO. I love the exploration of the many facets of RO, such as the characteristics of modernity and "secularity as neutrality", which I agree wholeheartedly is nothing of the sort --- although some "secular notions" (themselves a representative of someone's "orthodoxy") are more cognizant of this than others). I also like the idea of distinctiveness or "particularity"; that the church should be "unapologetically Christian", although this has yet to be fleshed out in terms of how this impacts "witness" or our presentation of the gospel to the world. This of course is most fully encapsulated in the idea that "the call of the church is to be the church", and so grounded in the nature of the life of the community, but what of the dialogue that seeks to "save modernity"; to confront the unquestioned and/or unconscious acceptance of its influences. How does one do this and avoid the kind of polemic that Smith has levelled at Wallis? I object to the polemic not becuase I don't believe there is ever any justification for strong rebuke, but simply becuase I do not believe Wallis actually represents any kind of a Contantianian sensibilities, but is actively engaged in confronting the American church with the dangers of such. Not in any sense of that word.

Are there others out there who are a bit bothered by this charge made by Smith? I want to provoke a closer examination of this, because I want to see what I have seen so far in RO succeed as a framework and as an "ethic" of sorts, but I am concerned about the esoteric nature of such an extent that it encourages such a , well, anal insistence on "not saying certain things certain ways". I know that language is important , but there are many "approaches" of deep integrity to the gospel that do not study such "aspects of modernity" so closely, and so are unaware of how deeply concerned the people fortunate enough to have been exposed to the RO survey of modernity are about the entrapments that exist in the political process.

But I believe that Wallis is well aware of these. Even though he may using some language that may make it seem "compromising", I do not think his aims are compromising, nor his methodology. My only concession thus far is that he COULD be more careful, but couldn't we all? I still think Sojo's ministry over these past 30 years is "credential" enough to at least warrant a sense of appreciation from the RO theologians, rather than such a scathing inditement, seemingly bordering on calling him a heretic.

At the close of Chapter One, Smith envisions the "working out" of Radical Orthodoxy in prac