An excellent post from Jamie Smith that generates discussion that really gets at a long standing beef I’ve had with him,  even while I express my deep indebtedness to and appreciation for his introducing me, through his Introduction to Radical Orthodoxy,  to the world of Radical Orthodoxy and several excellent and valuable authors.  My beef with him centers mainly on his “treatment” of Jim Wallis in his writings (mostly on his blog and in other blog comments).  The post and comments here bring that to the fore , and get closer to what eats at me whenever Jamie snipes at Wallis.  (And it’s really “sniping” that I consider it,  since it doesn’t quite give much a positive picture of Wallis to the extent that he has articulated for many in evangelical/progressive circles what is lost in much of evangelical churches re: our approach/perspectives on social justice;  on how the church,  when it is being the church,  is impacting the conversation and the decisions made in the political process. 

I noticed how a little debate arose just within these comments about how well Brian McLaren fits this role ,  and people rise to defend him against what seems to be a dissing of the contributions he has made.  This is the crux of my concern over the critique of Wallis (even while agreeing with the seeming absence of the church as  the locale from which a “God’s Politics” is hammered out.  I agree that there is an absence and a lacking there,  even though it may be offered in Wallis’ defense that his audience here is the “public square”.  But as one who has come to believe that even IN the public square,  a robust Christian witness and language is needed,  I expected more of the earlier Wallis to show itself in God’s Politics,  as valuable as it may be to recognize that the Religious Right doesn’t do a very good job at expressing the gospel;  indeed,  it often caves to Caesar,  and doesn’t realize it.

But if we’re after “Scholarly Popularizers”,  there are many in the “progressive” fold who feel indebted to Wallis for his “Agenda for a Biblical People” and such as found in Sojourners and their activities over the years,  and so the way in which we critique people who do “venture out into the world that Jamie describes here:

We either have popularizers who lack the scholarly virtues of suspicion and humility in the face of complex issues, or we have academics who are far too content to speak only to the guild (and far too quick to criticize other scholars who would try to speak beyond the confines of academe).  As Sider notes, we need more who are willing to risk the ridicule and pitfalls that attend trying to do both.  I hope the next generation of scholars will take seriously this call–not as a call away from scholarship, but to a mode of scholarship that is engaged and finds audiences beyond the comfy walls of the guild. 

It’s important that the “scholarly” not be too harsh on the “popularizers” if they don’t want to be seen as “ivory tower” and as an “aloof scholar”.  The language of academe certainly can communicate in a condescending manner,  and then where are we left on this issue?  Has the truths seeking to be communicated from within academe been well communicated?

A Good comment from Erik in the comments:

I am all for “academic popularizers” (God grant that some day maybe I could contribute), but I think we need to challenge our pastors to continue to be pastor-theologians. This will involve an interdependent relationship between the “academic popularizers” and the preachers, and a mindset that is characterized by dialogue, equality, and partnership. I may be stating the obvious, but it just seems to me that if pastors aren’t involved somewhere in this, even so-called “popularized” academics could be seen as irrelevant to the church.

Link to Generous Orthodoxy ThinkTank: Scholarly Popularizers and Academic Activists

previous discussion:  Overlapping Consensus (July 16, 2006) and Appealing to the Rational