A WEEK WITH D. STEPHEN LONG- day 7

I enjoyed putting together the WEEK WITH... STEPHEN LONG. I hope you enjoyed it too. I caught up with Steve at the beginning of the week and asked him a few questions. So now I'm sharing them with you. Enjoy!!

shalom,
jonathon

Jonathon: Steve,thanks for taking time out to do this interview for the folks who check in and read The Phaith of St. Phransus. One of the newer and exciting movements in theology is Radical Orthodoxy. And I know that you have been a part of that conversation. In what way can Radical Orthodoxy inform how we "do church" as United Methodist?

Steve: Radical Orthodoxy, in its current form, may not be able to inform how we "do church" as Methodists. It tends to be more of an intellectual exercise, bringing back to theology the importance of philosophy and even metaphysics. It may have more to do with how we train clergy into the theological tradition. Our history as Methodists has been to think of the formation of clergy primarily in terms of the so-called "social" sciences. Thus we focus on sociology and psychology and neglect doctrinal, philosophical and metaphysical issues.

I often chide the church's leadership in that everyone knows her or his Myers-Briggs score, but few clergy would be able to explain the doctrine of the enhypostaton. The reason for this is that the church hierarchy sets forth psychology and sociology as useful and practical tools for ministry, but not doctrine. Whether or not pastors can explain how Christ's two natures are related in his single Person and how that Person is related to the Second Person of the Trinity is no longer recognized as "practical" for Christian ministry.

If Radical Orthodoxy can inform the church as to what it means to be church, it will be to recover from its loss of theological nerve and begin again to take seriously the kinds of knowledge Mr. Wesley himself told the clergy we should have in his excellent "Address to the Clergy." We need to recover a theologically educated clergy, and not just a clergy who have academic credentials from an education based primarily in the social sciences. We are losing a theological and philosophical articulacy today, and I think this is associated with a loss of obedience; for obedience is not a virtue of the will. There is no such thing as "blind" obedience. Obedience is a virtue of the intellect. As the Dominican Herbert McCabe argued, obedience comes from the Latin -- ob audire -- whether to listen. If we do not have an articulate and faithful telling of the Christian story, theologically and philosophically compelling, then we cannot have obedience. Radical orthodoxy could help the leaders of the Church become more articulate, better tellers of the story, instead of functioning primarily as bureaucrat managers or therapists, which is what an emphasis on sociology and psychology inevitably turns clergy into.

Jonathon: Can you think of some practical ways that the theology of Radical
Orthodoxy inform and get played out within the context of a local
congregation?

Steve: My initial response is: 'no, next question.' Radical orthodoxy is an elite, academic exercise. Even those within it call it a "sensibility." It is not really much more than a sensibility as to how one goes about the task of doing theology in the University, which I think is important because the modern secular University polices all conversations about God so that they are harmless. This often happens through university chaplains who are hired and paid well in order to make sure no outbreak of religion or piety occurs on campus. I am glad philosophy departments in secular universities are reading and engaging Radical Orthodoxy, even if it is primarily to point out its limitations. But what role does it have in the local church? That is more difficult to determine. At its best, what it does is confuse the assumptions that one either has to choose between an evangelical, orthodox Christianity and a progressive politics.

Radical orthodoxy would require recovering certain key liturgical acts. We would have to have Eucharist every Sunday. We would need to begin to confess, with the vast majority of Christians throughout the earth, the Nicene Creed. I think recovering something like Wesley's General Rules and viewing them as a basis for our common life would be helpful. These rules would have to be updated and they would have to be embodied and offer the Methodist people a distinct way of living, both as Christians and as Methodists.. They could be as simple as reminding the Methodist people that we don't play the lottery and as complex as setting forth certain economic practices in which we cannot participate at the risk of losing our freedom to come to the Eucharist table.

I tried to show the similarities between Wesley and Radical Orthodoxy in my John Wesley's Moral Theology: The Quest for God and Goodness. I think there are a number of important similarities.

Jonathon: Does having an emphasis on Trinitarian ontology affect how a church
"practices" its faith together? What might be the practices that would
reflect a more trinitarian idea of church?

Steve: I think I mentioned a few above. I do think we need a substantive form of catechism which teaches our people that our pledge is the Nicene Creed and not the pledge of allegiance to the flag. If we could simply accomplish that recognition, we will have gone a great way toward listening and responding well to the Holy Spirit in our midst. That would not, of course, mean that the Kingdom of God has come, but it would help us begin to see that all this discussion of diversity, open hearts, open minds, open doors (even though the doors remain locked after hours) is really just in service to the pledge of allegiance to the US flag and what it stands for -- e pluribus unum. There is really nothing at all radical to this. It just makes Christianity and the church ineffectual, a consumer choice among a variety of choices.

Jonathon: For those of us in the UMC who feel the need to be "bridge builders"
among conservatives and liberals- what do you see as the best "practices" or ways to engage that vision?

Steve: I guess it depends on what bridges you want to build. I don't know what people mean when they say conservative and liberal and the need to bring them together. Are they talking about the Republican and Democratic parties? Are they talking about communitarians and social contract theorists? Are they talking about orthodox versus 'progressive' Christians? Are we to build a bridge between those who think Christ was Incarnate and born of the Virgin Mary with those who think he became the Christ at his baptism? I want to know what bridge I'm building before I begin the labor. I worry about all this need to bridge differences these days; it too easily legitimates the dogmatic 'inclusivism' that says we are inclusive; you are not and therefore we exclude you exclusivists, all in the name of inclusivism. That is language performing a contradiction. I want to build a bridge that begins with orthodox, evangelical, catholic and anabaptism theology but moves away from the troubling right wing market fundamentalism. I want to build a bridge to those who have been really tending to issues of poverty, violence, life at the margins (and not those who have simply made a cottage industry out of talking about it) without leaving faith behind. I also want to build the bridge with faith that seeks reason, not a faith that is anti-intellectual or a reason that falsely thinks it has somehow moved beyond dogma.

Jonathon: I know you've been doing some work on Radical Orthodoxy in conversation with Wesley. Why are the two compatible?

Steve: This is simple: Christianity. I have no more stake in being radically orthodox than I do in being Wesleyan. Both are only useful inasmuch as they help order our lives to the Triune God and follow Jesus on the way that leads into truth and life. There are other less significant reasons I think they have much in common -- a Christian platonism grounded in a sacramental and metaphysical understanding of creation is a key one.

Jonathon: For the American church- how do we respond to social/polital issues in such a polarized time and not alienate one another? (We're so poloarized
even within our congregations)

Steve: I'm not sure we can. I think we simply have to embrace this alienation as God's judgment until someone comes along who can offer a compelling vision for our way forward. That has not yet happened.

Jonathon: Who have been your major influences to help inform your theology?

Steve: Of course Stanley Hauerwas. He went to Duke the same year I did and when I first met him I found him somewhat obnoxious. He offended my evangelical piety. He was my advisor and kept telling me to take theology courses even when I told him the courses I had to take were required for graduation! He grew on me over the years because of his profound piety and love of God. There is also Karl Barth, Henri de Lubac, Hans urs von Balthasar, Aquinas, Anselm, Julian of Norwich.

Jonathon: For those who want an "on ramp" primer to Being Methodist In a Postmodern Context, what books would be good to read?

Steve: Read anything Phil Meadows is producing. We need to get his important work out. I would also read the work of Michael Cartwright and Amy Laura Hall. I've already mentioned my own John Wesley's Moral Theology so I won't be so crass as to mention it again. Hauerwas's work remains an important development within Methodist theology; it seems to scare most people. Perhaps Bishop Willimon's work is a good place to start. I would also read Archbishop William's On Christian Doctrine. Anglican theologians are doing some really important work that we Methodists could benefit from greatly -- Milbank, Pickstock, Connor Cunningham, Michael Hanby. And of course the best presentation of RO in the US is James K. Smith's Introducing Radical Orthodox.

Jonathon: What might a "radically orthodox" United Methodist Church look like on Sunday morning?

Steve: I don't think I would ever use "radically orthodox" as marks of the Church. I would stick to one, holy, Catholic and apostolic.



Jonathon: In your honest opinion- do you think John Milbank indeed looks like
Harry Potter on steroids?

Steve: I've never known John to use enhancement technologies to get a theological advantage, but now that you mention it. . . .

Jonathon: Steve, thanks for taking the time out to be a part of THE PHAITH OF ST. PHRANSUS.