tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post6104344076348422747..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: God's politics? A response to Jim Wallis (Part Two)Ben Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-53849920885532837312008-07-31T17:21:00.000-04:002008-07-31T17:21:00.000-04:00Chris Green, you wrote:"I think Wallis' mistake - ...Chris Green, you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"I think Wallis' mistake - and Richard John Neuhaus's too, et. al. - is to think that Christians can get involved "as citizens" . This is toxically mixed with the belief, which you rightly fingered, in the fundamental utility of God and church. Until we embrace and celebrate inutility, then we have no chance of engaging politically as Christians. God is not useful. Worship is not good-for-something. The liturgy is not an instrument."<BR/><BR/>This is exactly right. The "inutility" connects up closely with Yoder's critique of the "compulsion of purpose." Engagement in our national citizenships should only be done in excess of purpose -- free and gracious -- in the way that our life is given to us freely and graciously in Christ, the Spirit and the church.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the good words. I'm now off on holidays -- also from blogging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-6726399086761009092008-07-31T16:03:00.000-04:002008-07-31T16:03:00.000-04:00Doug, Thanks for this; it's proving helpful as I t...Doug, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for this; it's proving helpful as I think through what it is I am to do as a Christian living in the U.S and also as a pastor and professor guiding and instructing others. <BR/><BR/>I think Wallis' mistake - and Richard John Neuhaus's too, et. al. - is to think that Christians can get involved <I> "as citizens" </I>. This is toxically mixed with the belief, which you rightly fingered, in the fundamental utility of God and church. Until we embrace and celebrate inutility, then we have no chance of engaging politically <I> as Christians</I>. God is not useful. Worship is not good-for-something. The liturgy is not an instrument. <BR/><BR/>Along these lines, I'm thinking about Yoder's statement: "The world exists for the church" over aginst Bonhoeffer's "The church is only herself when she is for the world." I think that in spite of the fact that they seem antagonistic to one another, they do in fact voice the same truth. <BR/><BR/>We might say that the church is only herself when she is for the world - as the church. The church is wider than the world, after all. <BR/><BR/>I would add this: it is not only the church's litrugical life that matters, but also her charismatic life. One does not stand without the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-49455736127008442192008-07-31T13:47:00.000-04:002008-07-31T13:47:00.000-04:00excellent, thanks!Though my particular congregatio...excellent, thanks!<BR/>Though my particular congregation is pacifist, you are correct that working out these things would be challenging. I hope, too, I was clear that I did not think you were suggesting the "same old thing," but I get anxious about blunting calls to justice such as Wallis'. Were I to have my congregation read your posts (oh, I milk Faith&Theology!) they might find the conclusion <I>sounds</I> familiar, though of course it isn't. Once again, the task becomes making theology unfamiliar for me :) Thanks for your time and thoughts.Erinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13301222412563398458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-68745685536037029792008-07-31T12:47:00.000-04:002008-07-31T12:47:00.000-04:00A final quick comment, triggered mostly by Erin's ...A final quick comment, triggered mostly by Erin's comment, but getting to the question of what the socio-political witness of the church looks like "beyond itself" as it were.<BR/><BR/>1. We could get our congregations to stop thinking that what "really matters" is our nation (whichever that may be)-- its wealth, its image, its pride, its power, its geopolitical role. It is these that "crucified the Lord of glory." The service the church owes to the world is not its attempts, big or small, to steer the helm of national or geopolitical history, but to enact the justice of the crucified Sovereign: mercy among, with, and to the "least of these" in our neighbourhoods, cities, etc.<BR/><BR/>2. Activism consistent with the way of Jesus Christ is very often concretely possible, and often brings about some positive change. However, such activism must be free of the "compulsion of purpose" (Yoder) that often leads to high expectations, anxiety, enmity and coercion. Our activism must be the free action of those whose hope is in God, not in the possibility of "changing the system."<BR/><BR/>3. We could call the members of our churches to refuse to go to war on behalf of our nations, no matter how "just" the cause may seem, precisely because it fundamentally contradicts the politics of the Table. Those who celebrate the Eucharist must cease from war. I wonder, Erin, how much that would be "the same old thing" in your congregation, unless it is one already in the pacifist tradition.<BR/><BR/>In many of these respects Wallis himself has been an example for us. I fear that his book, God's Politics, represents a significant shift toward worldly politics as usual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-42240595307025005952008-07-31T12:34:00.000-04:002008-07-31T12:34:00.000-04:00The old Protestant distinction between faith and w...The old Protestant distinction between faith and works is a distinction of salvation, not a distinction between right Christian belief (orthodoxy) and right Christian action (orthopraxy). Its not exactly correct to accuse political theology of the "old Protestant" distinction, when we're talking about orthodoxy and orthopraxy, which Gutiérrez speaks of both needing each other. <BR/><BR/>I think your gripe, Lee, sounds rather Niebuhrian and more to do with much of political theology, than just Harink. As for this overall gripe you have, Lee, I would add, that if there is something wrong with the Church in America, it hasn't just been affected by the state, but also the surrounding economy as well. It would be irresponsible to think both do not play a role in our daily lives -- how we understand people and how we relate to one another.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, for all those having a hard time seeing the vision, the constructive work, Harink and Ben and Halden talking of the Apocalypse here:<BR/><BR/>http://inhabitatiodei.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/nature-grace-and-the-prevenience-of-the-apocalypse/<BR/>http://inhabitatiodei.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/the-apocalypse-of-christ-as-reverse-recapitulation/<BR/>http://inhabitatiodei.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/possibilities-and-problems-of-new-testament-apocalyptic/<BR/>http://inhabitatiodei.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/the-aesthetics-of-the-apocalypse/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-51429800285162463072008-07-31T08:24:00.000-04:002008-07-31T08:24:00.000-04:00For some reasons it is unacceptable to make a dist...For some reasons it is unacceptable to make a distinction between the church and the political but allowable to make a distinction between Wallis's beliefs and practices. Put differently, many who are criticizing the theology that undergirds Wallis's thought here seem to be suggesting that they agree with his practices hence the old Protestant distinction between faith and works slips itself in. Regardless, I will take Wallis's practices any day of the week over the current theological trend of the church as polis which will forever be stymied attempting to discover how to act true to itself. I suppose I am more attracted to Wallis since I agree more with his practices than with what I see in the turn to political theology which seems at its best potentially prophetic and at its norm fatalistic, coping, and unfortunately irresponsible in the projecting of its disfunction on a capitulation to the state, etc. It almost is as if something is wrong in the Church there must be some state-craft involved, or the aims of the nation-state merged with the church, etc.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03181484602851078213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-74720570170169879082008-07-31T03:37:00.000-04:002008-07-31T03:37:00.000-04:00Thanks for your posts, Mr. Harink, they are very h...Thanks for your posts, Mr. Harink, they are very helpful to me as I consider church life. I take your comment, "My problem with Wallis is that he thinks he can trace God’s work in the world without reference to the church and to the crucified Christ. His talk of the ethical and spiritual values of Jesus and the prophets is simply<BR/>inadequate." -to be the crux of the issue. <BR/><BR/>My problem is a practical one and not a formal criticism. Your conclusion is "How then do people get truly political? They believe the Gospel, they are baptized into the body of Christ, they worship the triune God, and they participate in the eucharistic life of the congregation." <BR/><BR/>Now this is the conclusion for Christians, I agree, but I believe the American church hears nothing new in it, in contrast to Wallis' ethics and calls for justice. It sounds too much like "what we've always believed." As a pastor, certainly it is my responsibility to repristinate and expand on how those things you write are lived and expressed, but I guess I wonder what the dangers of the instrumentalism you see are, given the desperate need for justice, for the practical relief of suffering and oppression in the US.<BR/><BR/>Is there a way to reformulate your thesis in terms that encompass and <BR/>describe the justice elements that challenge America yet keep the focus on the church? Could you perhaps expand on the dangers of instrumentalism that lead to the very injustice Wallis works against? Again, practically speaking I feel I must continue to support and present my congregation with Wallis' material because he says something they need to hear in a way that they can begin to hear. I am sympathetic to Wallis's position of having to speak to America in its vernacular and I wonder how a church pursuing just goals should interface with a host nation, particularly over matters of social justice. Thanks for the reflections, they are challenging!Erinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13301222412563398458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-19412143443790520312008-07-31T00:34:00.000-04:002008-07-31T00:34:00.000-04:00Coming as I do from a society which has known more...Coming as I do from a society which has known more than its fair share of sanctified patriotism, and a separatism which has produced a sectarianism of the worst kind, I was not advocating the former, nor was I accusing Prof. Harink of advocating the latter. However, pious statements about the church "only being under God" may be true in a spiritual sense, and I have affirmed such in the light of "For God and Ulster" theologies, but the question is, how does that work itself out under different political regimes?<BR/>We may be inspired by the New Jerusalem of Revelation, but that isn't a current political entity... It is prefigured in the church, and out of it the river of living water flows... But do we simply sit back and wait for the trees on the riverbank to bring healing to the nations?<BR/>Do we call our people out from the political machinery, or do we really equip them at the Table and through the Word, to go to the table of political discourse? Do we equip people to engage with the idolatry of nationalism, and the many other idolatries practiced (and spiritually endorsed) in the Western capitalist world, whilst still serving within national institutions, or do we simply make pious statements from a distance.<BR/>As I have said, the international versions of Wallis's books all acknowledge the fundamentally American nature of his source material. As Eugene Peterson is fond of saying, "All discipleship is local." I wonder if Wallis would take a different approach under a different regime? <BR/>I do thank you for these posts. They challenge a glib acceptance of Wallis' approach, which, as I have said, are perhaps too positive about the "manifest destiny" of the USA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-48365275241425055122008-07-30T23:48:00.000-04:002008-07-30T23:48:00.000-04:00I appreciate the clarifying of the critique of ide...I appreciate the clarifying of the critique of ideas and not of the person. Could you please describe for me what the politics of the Triune God looks like in concrete terms , just as Jesus dared to describe the reign of God in concrete terms? All language is language in context and Wallis has written his book in the context of his being in Christ and his contribution to the church and society. Many assumptions are made from the words on the page - when the book is not written as an academic piece but as a prophetic voice.reg51https://www.blogger.com/profile/09378340344473926277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-52012613066531093812008-07-30T21:23:00.000-04:002008-07-30T21:23:00.000-04:00Thanks for the reflections Douglas. As fate would ...Thanks for the reflections Douglas. As fate would have it Jim Wallis is here in Adelaide today promoting his new book (through World Vision) and I am on my way to a church leaders lunch to hear him speak! Having not read his recent books I will keep your reflections in mind when reflecting on what he is saying.<BR/><BR/>thanks,<BR/><BR/>Mark.Mark Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04596400696901765347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-12676984824027687812008-07-30T19:53:00.000-04:002008-07-30T19:53:00.000-04:00To George Hunsinger: George, thank you for your co...To George Hunsinger: <BR/><BR/>George, thank you for your comments. They do set a context for the discussion which should not be ignored. I am glad that you have noticed that I am challenging the “views” of Wallis, and not Wallis himself. I have engaged in a discussion of ecclesiology, in which Wallis’s book figures as a particularly good example of an ecclesiology which I find fundamentally problematic. I have not once questioned his personal integrity, his passionate and costly commitment to the things that he stands for, and indeed any number of good things that may have come about through his social and political activism, things which I would have no reason whatsoever to condemn, and many reasons to applaud. In some respects the Sojourners community itself, which is one of Wallis’s gifts to the church in America, is a much better ecclesiological argument than the book under discussion.<BR/><BR/>You are certainly right that Wallis “is not an armchair academic who takes ill-advised and uncharitable potshots at others.” Whether I am an “armchair academic” (if I am the one you have in mind here) I must leave for those who know me well enough to judge. But I certainly do not see my posts as “uncharitable potshots” at him, nor do I think I have been “slinging around excessive and unnecessary accusations.” If you read my posts and subsequent comments carefully, you will see that I have addressed his ideas, his vision of “faith and politics,” his proposals, and so on. I have pushed hard against those, but I neither feel, nor intended to communicate, any uncharity toward him as a person or a Christian. When, for example, I challenge his proposals as idolatrous, I have no intent to say or imply that he is an idolater. On the one hand, how could I? I don’t know him personally. On the other hand, what I do know of him suggests exactly the opposite. <BR/><BR/>I have posted my response to Wallis’s book as a vigourous critical challenge to a certain way of thinking about the church and politics in America. That seems to me a valid thing to do in the kind of public academic forum that this blog intends to be. I do not see why Wallis himself could not read those posts, strongly disagree, make a vigourous counter-critique and challenge of his own, and still “be my friend” as it were. I am glad to see that you still consider me your friend.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-2432687856941159252008-07-30T19:33:00.000-04:002008-07-30T19:33:00.000-04:00Hi George,I'm not sure you're being fair. No one ...Hi George,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure you're being fair. No one is being ad hominem here, or dissing Wallis' record as an activist, or denying the risks he has taken as an evangelical fronting up to the Religious Right. Nor am I, at least, when I question Wallis' ecclesiology, suggesting that the measure of a Christian is his theological "correctness". You know the story about the conversation between Barth and Martin Niemöller:<BR/><BR/>Karl: "Martin, I'm surprised that you almost always get the point despite the <I>little</I> systematic thelogy that you've done!"<BR/><BR/>Martin: "Karl, I'm surprised that you almost always get the point despite the <I>great deal</I> of systematic theology that you've done!"<BR/><BR/>Heck, I've walked with militant socialists on CND marches, and stood with atheists at anti-war rallies - and I'd be happy to attend a Gay Pride parade with Jack Spong. And in an important sense I'd want to say that they all got the point - but I'd still want to argue theology with them! <BR/><BR/>That's all that's going on here. Perhaps you think that it should be a <I>private</I> conversation. But then it's three years since <I>God's Politics</I> was published. It's not as if Douglas is out to steal its thunder, but to critique it now that the storm is over. And, I trust, to make Wallis' great work even greater.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-23639976460828166182008-07-30T19:26:00.000-04:002008-07-30T19:26:00.000-04:00Woah. Wooooah. Slow down. Since when was theologic...Woah. Wooooah. Slow down. Since when was theological discussion and analysis an attack that hampered protests against torture? I don't think any of this means I wouldn't march with NRCAT. In fact, I do have a criticism of NRCAT (I voiced it very quickly in my own thesis), but I have still marched with NRCAT and wouldn't be where I am now in terms of putting a theological voice against torture if it wasn't for NGOs like NRCAT (which I have voiced my thanks for as well).<BR/><BR/>The point is, a good critique is a critique that explores what the text does put forward. So if Harink is dishonest about what Wallis does say, call him for that. If Harink is wrong in his conclusion for what Wallis should be moved towards, call him on that. But to say we shouldn't talk about what people have said, goes against academic rigor and the basis for theological discussion. If anything, this is a way for Wallis to become better if he does come around sometime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-85804423727248383552008-07-30T18:45:00.000-04:002008-07-30T18:45:00.000-04:00Thank you, George, for your defense of Wallis. I h...Thank you, George, for your defense of Wallis. I have the same reaction when Reinhold Niebuhr gets gleefully dumped into the ashheap of history as a hopeless liberal (see comment on Harink's first thread for this). Just imagine the civil rights movement without his Moral Man and Immoral Society (among others), a book still underappreciated for its radical stance against Empire! Sometimes I fear that too many theologians are so frustrated, so resentful of our near impotence in the face of the walls which surround us, that they attack in bitter self-condemnation those who have refused to sit still and give up the fight. To which I say: no more friendly fire! Aim higher, and fight the powers that be, as Walter Wink or Stringfellow might have said.Clark Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00301060530118112301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-19653602258592558962008-07-30T18:02:00.000-04:002008-07-30T18:02:00.000-04:00I am sorry to see my friend Doug Harink attacking ...I am sorry to see my friend Doug Harink attacking the views of my friend Jim Wallis. I don't have time to respond to Harink, but Wallis can take care of himself.<BR/><BR/>I will say this. For 30 years Jim Wallis has been in the forefront of progressive Christian activism in the United States. He has been on the right side of virtually every issue, and he has been a powerful leader in helping evangelicals break from the more unfortunate political aspects of their backgrounds.<BR/><BR/>I would submit that Wallis is a responsible Christian activist and a theological journalist in the best sense of those terms. He is not an armchair academic who takes ill-advised and uncharitable potshots at others.<BR/><BR/>It would be hard to think of anyone in U.S. church circles who has so consistently spoken out for the poor, for justice and for peace. <BR/><BR/>Wallis has joined with me in every (modest) political effort I have ever organized against torture, against aggressive wars, and against nuclear idolatry. In most of those efforts Hauerwas and Woltersdorff have joined in.<BR/><BR/>Those who do not have anything like Jim Wallis's outstanding track record -- which includes many acts of civil disobedience leading to time in jail -- might want to think twice before they start slinging around excessive and unnecessary accusations.<BR/><BR/>If you still want to join in the chorus of naysayers, you might stop and ask yourself some searching questions about what exactly you yourself have done in your life for justice and peace? What price have you paid? Indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-27579488853562250852008-07-30T17:50:00.000-04:002008-07-30T17:50:00.000-04:00This is good, challenging stuff douglas. Thanks fo...This is good, challenging stuff douglas. Thanks for sharing!poorpilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124243181725208962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-41040789681420184532008-07-30T16:57:00.000-04:002008-07-30T16:57:00.000-04:00Thank you for all of your thoughtful responses to ...Thank you for all of your thoughtful responses to Part 2. Again, some of you have engaged some of the criticisms of my post in ways that I myself would have responded, indeed, often more adequately than I could. Ben Sternke, Zac and Kim F. have each grasped my point and worked with it. Bruce Hamill is right to note the connection with Bernd Wannenwetsch. The quotes from Vinoth Ramachandra provided by mattn are excellent and right on target. I have read some blurbs about that book, and look forward to reading it sometime.<BR/><BR/>I’ll respond to a few individual points:<BR/><BR/>To Tom Allen: I would not agree with you that “America does not have any real tradition of radical…or prophetic…left-wing politics or theology.” I think there has been plenty of that in America, not least from African Americans. But whether it has had, or should have such politics and theology is, to my mind, beside the point. Or rather, proves my point that for Christian theology to hope for such is still to hope for the wrong thing in any theologically primary sense. Like Wallis, you seem to think that we need a “left-wing” as the proper Christian response to the right-wing. I would say that we need a faithful church, living and acting as the body politic of the crucified and risen Messiah. Other bodies politic are not evaluated by the church on where they stand on the left-right spectrum, but on how they measure up in relation to the cruciform politics of the Messiah and his people.<BR/><BR/>To Virtual Methodist: Ben and Kim have said what I would want to say. One point raised by Zac is worth emphasizing. In Jer. 29 the prophet writes his famous letter to the exiled Jews in Babylon, that they should “seek the shalom of the city” in which they find themselves. However, they are not told that to do so they should become patriots of that city, but that they should go on being faithful Jews, settling down and propagating, and praying on the city’s behalf. Jeremiah does not prohibit various modes of participation in the life of the city (cf. Joseph, Daniel), but the witness and blessing of the Jews in that place is not tied to such participation, but rather to faithfulness to the God who has “sent” them there.<BR/><BR/>To Evan: The best things Wallis has to say about the church are on pp. 152-154. Here some significant distinctions are made between church and nation, and the witness of the church to the nation. Ah, but these are not Wallis’s words! They come from a “Confession” instigated by Richard Hays, George Hunsinger, et. al. For a much closer representation of Wallis’s own thoughts on “how should your faith influence your politics?” you need to go to Chapter 5 with that title. In that chapter, and particularly on pp. 68-71, Wallis slides with great ease from one of the following terms to another: God, faith, religion, religious congregation, church, spirituality, moral and religious values, spiritual values, concluding that, “Applying spiritual values to politics will be the key.” Parts III, IV, V, and VI, then are all about how “spiritual values” are “applied” in various spheres of social and political life. Where do those “spiritual values” come from? From beliefs, faith, religious congregations, churches, etc., all quite generically and/or pluralistically understood. Does Wallis get caught up in “religion”? Yes he does. Does Wallis aim to say anything about the church? You bet he does; the church is one instrument, among other religions and religious organizations, which yields up the kind of “spiritual values” which should guide America in the way of “God’s politics.” As Kim has pointed out, the indefiniteness about all this “religious” stuff which pervades Wallis’s book gets pulled right into the heart of his talk about God, church and faith.<BR/><BR/>As to whether I think God’s work in the world is limited to what God does in and with the church – no, that is not what I think. My problem with Wallis is that he thinks he can trace God’s work in the world without reference to the church and to the crucified Christ. His talk of the ethical and spiritual values of Jesus and the prophets is simply inadequate.<BR/><BR/>Two comments to Kim: You wrote: “Christians have nothing to bring to the table that does not come from the Table…” Exactly! And beautifully stated! Then you go on to say, “when we enter the public square, if we are faithful…” I would say, simply, that the Table is the truly public square, for here all (from “every tribe and language and people and nation” – Rev. 5:9) who confess that Jesus is the exalted Sovereign of all nations are granted citizenship and share in the peace and well-being, the goods and services, that this Sovereign offers.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for the excellent discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-28615385008723623842008-07-30T14:54:00.000-04:002008-07-30T14:54:00.000-04:00"If "God's Politics" has (in Douglas' rhetorical t...<I>"If "God's Politics" has (in Douglas' rhetorical title) no "whither", perhaps it's precisely because its lacks this ecclesial "whence"."</I><BR/><BR/>...exactly my point. What else might "he really hasn't said anything much about the Church at all" mean? <BR/><BR/>There's no question that this is Wallis' problem- what concerns me about Harink is how easily the <I>religious</I> has been equated with the <I>ecclesial</I> in his critique of Wallis. Or conversely, to take it down the road that you have, how closely the Church is bound to God Himself in confident claims that any other account of God's work in the political realm is the work of an idol. Reminds me somewhat of the nixed <I>ecclesia christi est ecclesia catholica</I>. That the Church is the space that God has created as a unique and exclusive redemptive public in the world does not preclude God's work outside of it or bind God to it. An ethic concerned only with this extra-ecclesial work would be incomplete and even err in its incompleteness, but so would any of us if we dismissed such an ethic as saying something about the Church when its very problem is that it says nothing about the Church.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-60063882457247238882008-07-30T13:37:00.000-04:002008-07-30T13:37:00.000-04:00Pace Virtual Methodist, Douglas' ecclesiology is n...Pace Virtual Methodist, Douglas' ecclesiology is not in the least sectarian. His post ends with words resonant of the Book of Revelation - and appositely so, as for St. John God calls a priestly people <I>from</I> the nations to testify prophetically <I>to</I> the nations for the healing <I>of</I> the nations: this is an ecclesiology of <I>witness</I>. And that is how Christians fundamentally engage in politics: as militant <I>witnesses</I> to Christ and his peaceable kingdom. And just as for St. John the liturgical and the political are knit together in a seamless robe, so (I think) for Douglas Christians have nothing to bring to the table that does not come from the Table: when we enter the public square, if we are faithful, we will interrupt the discussion on justice and peace - "Which justice? Whose peace?" - otherwise we allow Caesar, not Christ, to set the terms of engagement.<BR/><BR/>And pace Evan, that Wallis "really hasn't said anything much about the Church at all" - well, if God is the God of Israel and the Church, then presumably unless ecclesiology is built into "God's Politics", we're talking about a different God, i.e. an idol. If "God's Politics" has (in Douglas' rhetorical title) no "whither", perhaps it's precisely because its lacks this ecclesial "whence".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-85962086629156138202008-07-30T13:25:00.000-04:002008-07-30T13:25:00.000-04:00I agree with Ben S. regarding Virtual Methodist's ...I agree with Ben S. regarding Virtual Methodist's accusation that Prof. Harink is advocating a church seperatism/sectarianism. If you read his book, Paul Among the Post-Liberals, you will see that he is doing just the opposite of advocating an ecclesial sectarianism. Through using Yoder's term, "Diaspora Judaism", Harink does advocate a "welfare of the city" approach to ecclesio-political engagement with the world. <BR/><BR/>However, as Ben S. already pointed out, this engagement is always grounded, not first in the foundational narrative of the "city" (with its language and culture) in which the church finds itself in, but in the disruptive event of the Apocalypse of Jesus and how that event calls the nations to a new peoplehood.Zachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18004622931726551015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-76524552546041289322008-07-30T12:46:00.000-04:002008-07-30T12:46:00.000-04:00I wrote a paper a while back that echos some of th...I <A HREF="http://scottlenger.com/christianity/jim-wallis-an-evangelical-ethic-of-social-justice/" REL="nofollow">wrote a paper a while back</A> that echos some of the points you raise, and it's encouraging to see these views affirmed elsewhere. <BR/><BR/>I was going to add that his phrase "change the wind" may suggest a perspective that is <EM>at times</EM> critical of nationalist identity, but after reviewing those passages (20-24, 30, 276) it seems that even that idea is approached throught the lens of "<EM>American</EM> politics."<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, while his approach is less than ideal, I think his argument "don't go left or right, go deeper," can offering something of a starting point for Christians in America to become less tethered to their American political identity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-62222413441195496142008-07-30T10:32:00.000-04:002008-07-30T10:32:00.000-04:00Great second post- I have one comment that connect...Great second post- I have one comment that connects somewhat to my thoughts on your first post, where I'm suspicious of whether Wallis is even talking about the Church in what he says.<BR/><BR/>In your quotes from Wallis the word "religion" pops up a lot... "religious faith", "religious congregations", "the democratic discipline religion has to be under", "religious people", etc. For what it's worth, I think your characterization of his talk about religion is quite accurate. <BR/><BR/>Where I think there's a disconnect is when you make the shift in your critique from talking about <I>religion</I> to talking about the <I>Church</I>. Nowhere (that I noticed) do you actually present Wallis commenting on the Church, and yet you connect these dots in order to describe his instrumentalist ideas about religion as idolatrous ideas about the Church. If it were me writing this piece, I would criticize Wallis for getting caught up in "religion" in the first place, rather than talking about the true body politic of the Church. Because, really, what of it if he instrumentalizes religion? Are the religions of this world any more sacred than the nations themselves? If we really understood the Church to be a public radically secure in the redemptive politic of the Lord God, then our problem with Wallis should be that he is a religious commentator and really hasn't said anything much about the Church at all... not that he has made the Church into something idolatrous or especially American.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-22383499545845958572008-07-30T09:39:00.000-04:002008-07-30T09:39:00.000-04:00@ Virtual Methodist:I don't believe Mr. Harink is ...@ Virtual Methodist:<BR/><BR/>I don't believe Mr. Harink is advocating "privatised religion writ large." Just the opposite, it would seem, from the last sentence, where the church ought to be "speaking the word of truth to the nations for their judgment and healing."<BR/><BR/>The kind of political discourse that Mr. Harink's article condemns is the kind that places the church as the servant of the state, serving the state on the state's terms. Seeking the "shalom of the city" is a good thing, but whose shalom is it? The "liberty" of America is a far cry from the "liberty" of the gospel, just like the Pax Romana was a far cry from the shalom of Yahweh, and this is precisely the point of the critique.<BR/><BR/>You wrote that the church ought to be "critically engaged in whatever political system the church falls under." The key point of difference in outlook seems to be the word "under." I think Mr. Harink would argue that the church falls "under" only God, not man-made political systems.Ben Sternkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921199096964917724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-55160684583403186972008-07-30T09:04:00.000-04:002008-07-30T09:04:00.000-04:00Reading this reminds me of a quote from Faiths in ...Reading this reminds me of a quote from Faiths in Conflict? Christian Integrity in a Multicultural World by Vinoth Ramachandra. Ramachandra writes, “By claiming the ultimate loyalty of its citizens, the essentially religious character of the modern state is revealed. The state now becomes the sole sanction for violence. Martyrdom is redefined as laying down one’s life for one’s nation. Blasphemy, the worst sin in a religious milieu, has been transformed into treason. The nation-state offers protection from other human beings on its behalf. Usually the threats from which the state offers protection are the results of its own activities. It demands access to our bodies, and our money to fuel its war-making machinery”(Ramachandra 1999: 151). <BR/><BR/>Ramachandra goes on to write, “Both religious and secular nationalisms provide an overarching moral framework, locating the individual in a larger collectivity. For secular nationalism, emotional identification with the geographical area of one’s birth and the people of that locality is not only natural but is assumed to be a universal moral good” (Ramachandra 1999: 151).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-56341130648165417192008-07-30T08:34:00.000-04:002008-07-30T08:34:00.000-04:00Whilst I agree with your critique on the latent id...Whilst I agree with your critique on the latent idolatry of "America" within much of Wallis's work, reference to the international versions of his writings does show an awareness of his Americo-centrism. What I do not agree with is your ultimate conclusion which is ultimately privatised religion writ large ie. church separatism. Where is the concept of the Christian as salt in that? Where is there any seeking the shalom of the city? We should be critically engaged with whatever political system the church falls under. We should not unhesitatingly bless it, but our engagement should be a blessing to those around us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com