Comments on: Desiring the Kingdom: A Reply to Anderson

By: Final Thoughts on Desiring the Kingdom | Mere Orthodoxy

Final Thoughts on Desiring the Kingdom | Mere Orthodoxy — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:18:55 +0000

[...] Matthew Lee Anderson @ 2:18 pm | Categories: Theology (Church) | 0 Comments` I am grateful that Professor (or is it Agent?) Smith took a little time to address some of the concerns I raised regarding his excellent book. He would have been justified to take the [...]

By: Desiring the Kingdom: Final Thoughts » Evangel | A First Things Blog

Desiring the Kingdom: Final Thoughts » Evangel | A First Things Blog — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:06:53 +0000

[...] am grateful that Professor (or is it Agent?) Smith took a little time to address some of the concerns I raised regarding his excellent book. He would have been justified to take the [...]

By: James K.A. Smith

James K.A. Smith — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:40:00 +0000

Collin: regarding the “primitive”–no, quite the opposite, I’d think. I regularly criticize “primitivism” (for example, in Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?) precisely for not affirming that the Spirit works in time and history. At the heart of “catholic” faith is an affirmation of time and history that takes tradition seriously.

What I do reject, however, are whiggish notions of the Reformation which claim to have delivered us from the naive superstitions of historic Christian worship. (Certainly the Reformers didn’t think of it that way.) So I don’t have any enthusiasms about “progress” in Christian worship. But I don’t think that’s the same as wishing we “behaved and believed from a pre-modernity outlook.” (Nor, for the record, would Milbank, Pickstock, or others–but I’ll not speak for them here.)

By: Collin Brendemuehl

Collin Brendemuehl — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:22:41 +0000

James,
When I read your work on RO, though it’s been a couple of years ago, I got the impression that you would like to see a church which behaved and believed from a pre-modernity outlook.
(I’m using the term “primitive” in the sense of being unencumbered with the baggage that time has added to church life.)

By: Albert

Albert — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:59:17 +0000

Hmm. Regarding Scripture and worship, I had thought, from Anderson’s review, that perhaps you were trying to argue for the priority of worship over Scripture in the sense that Scripture is for worship (and indeed life) rather than vice-versa; and perhaps you are arguing that.

But I’m not sure the best way to go about that is to argue for the chronological precedence of worship to Scripture because you’ll inevitably run into the (true) Protestant argument that the apostolic words and letters were normative and authoritative for worship before the canon was assembled. Then, one would have to enter the unfruitful haze of trying to figure out which practices chronologically preceded instruction; for example, Jesus inaugurated the Lord’s Supper by speaking while he was breaking bread, etc.

Thar be dragons…

Anyway, I look forward to actually reading the book!

By: James K.A. Smith

James K.A. Smith — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:47:26 +0000

I don’t mean to be coy, Collin, but I’m not sure what “the primitive state of the pre-modern church” refers to (is there, then, an “advance” state of the “modern” church?). Nor do I think I have an “RO outlook”–at the very least, I have no particular interest in the “RO brand,” as it were (I don’t think the term “Radical Orthodoxy” even appears in Desiring the Kingdom).

Do I hold in high esteem historic Christian worship? Yes. Do I think that entails some winsome nostalgia about the good ol’ days? No.

By: Collin Brendemuehl

Collin Brendemuehl — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:14:59 +0000

Would it be correct to conclude that you generally hold in high esteem the primitive state of the pre-modern church, consistent with and following your RO outlook?