Smith’s emphases on practices and on the noncognitive “imaginative” aspects of Christian formation become far more appealing when I think of the lives and faith experiences of persons living with profound cognitive disabilities. As a youth worker in a church, I’m thinking in terms of catechesis and formation for young people with cognitive disabilities that may inhibit their capacity to grasp many (if not most) of the doctrinal claims about Christianity. From my perspective, the promise of “practices” as Smith frames them is incredibly fruitful and encouraging because they make a concrete, substantive way for faith formation in the lives of persons who – if we theologians and pastors were left to our own devices – may not obtain a place in Christian fellowship.

I have not yet looked at Kelsey’s work, but I’ve heard it is a bit unwieldy! I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. In light of my question about Christian philosophy, I think the central question to the philosopher is how his/her project relates to the parallel theological project and why that is.

Thanks again Jamie!

I’m not putting that very well, but my point is that I’m not persuaded that Christian accounts must be derived from “doctrinal” accounts–precisely for the sorts of reasons I emphasize the priority of worship and practices in DTK.

But these are definitely issues I’m going to be teasing out in volume 2, using Wittgenstein and Brandom–which I guess won’t score me any points in your book! ;-) But when I “use” philosophical sources in this way, I’m actually just looking for tools to help articulate the understanding that is implicit in the riches of Christian practice.

And I just got Kelsey’s massive, two-volume tome and am slated to do a review essay by May, so I’m looking forward to interacting with that. One of the questions I’ll be thinking about is just what the difference is between a “theological anthropology” and a “Christian philosophical anthropology.”

I will read it when I get the chance. I like reading philosophers who also engage theology, so it should be interesting. And now that you mention that he might offer a via media between the two, I would be really interested in seeing how that is nuanced. I’m wondering if he kind’ve plays the mind/will off of the heart (this is how a prof of mine, who did his PhD on Sibbes framed the “Western model” i.e. mind/will together (the positive) vs. the heart (the negative) — it sounds like Smith might have more of a dialectic at play between these two “compartments,” so to speak. Thanks for the review.

First, I was confused by your comment about my use of “just” and I went back and looked and saw how that could be misunderstood. I didn’t mean it with the force in which you read it, as if all that human beings are are only liturgical creatures, but in the sense that human beings are liturgical creatures, that is “just” what they are (now that I rewrite it I see how odd of a usage that can be!).

Second, my noting Aristotle was not to highlight your continual use, but to note that where I expected to find doctrinal moves I found Aristotle. In other words, where he showed up where, in my mind, key places – but that is derivative to my main claim.

Last, let me try to clarify my main claim. I’m not against the idea of a Christian philosophy, and I’m not worried about (although I can see how that would come across), that you developed a philosophical account as such. My main worry is that, in my mind, an account of human formation, that is truly Christian, has to be driven by a doctrinal account – when yours is driven by a philosophical anthropology. So, I would say, you are making major doctrinal moves when you put your anthropology to work like that, because you are now functioning theologically (starting with anthropology as the ground for delineating an account of Christian formation has christological, pneumatological, and ecclesiological impact).

In other words, I think doctrine should drive the meta-level discussion, but doctrine does not. Instead, your structure and “engine” are developed and doctrine is made to work for that. So you can talk about Christ, the Spirit and the church materially, but that still isn’t offering a doctrinal account, because the formal issues are ignored.

I think distinctively “Christian” accounts of things must be doctrinal accounts, or, in other words, accounts where doctrine plays not only a material role but also a formal one. So a trinitarian read of anthropology (or a Christological one for that matter) is, I think, needed as a way to talk about the location and work that a given account does in an overall system. So, in response to your comment about Volf, if his account undermines creatureliness or if his account is superficial in any way, it is either a bad account or else is merely seeking to provide dogmatic location of the discussion for the purpose of turning to more robust accounts (yours for instance).

So, the worry I sought to assert is not with the various pieces (anthropology, practices, social imaginary) but with what drives the account and how it is ordered. I would expect, on an account that fails to do the heavy dogmatic work, a naturalization of certain issues as well as a shrunken account of doctrine (christology and pneumatology are put to work in an already established structure, for instance), and these were my frustrations.

I think your push back is an important one though. It is not all that surprising that I push one way and your push the other with our backgrounds, and so the one question I had is how a philosophical account like yours might interact with a theological account (I hear that Kelsey has just come out with a two volume theological anthropology called Eccentric Existence). I think your account will provide a more robust development of several key areas than most theological accounts, so I wonder if the interaction between the two would be doctrinal (on the theological side for the meta-level issues I described) and a heavily integrated account on the philosophical side (as one possibility). I think it is an important issue, because I think theologians can tend to ignore philosophers and philosophers can tend to do theology without feeling the need to actually do theology.

Thank you again for your gracious interaction. I do think it is an important book and I hope it is widely read and engaged.