Comments on: ‘Radical’ orthodoxy

By: Nate

Nate — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 05:52:19 +0000

I agree with Milo. I’ve read James K. A. Smith’s introduction to RO as well as a couple of volumes in the series, and I can’t seem to recognize anything of that in these comments here.

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:34:57 +0000

I’ve read the RO volume, thanks.

By: milo

milo — Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:31:38 +0000

Have you actually read anything written by the theologians in the Radical Orthodoxy movement? There is absolutely nothing in your comments that suggests that you have read anything other than shoddy secondary critiques. If you are going to criticize it perhaps you should learn the first step to literary criticism: actually reading the text. A good place to begin is with Milbank’s Theology and Social Theory and then move on to the Radical Orthodoxy volume. Just reading the first few pages would have heped you in clearing your confusion in how they are using the word ‘radical.’

By: Edmund

Edmund — Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:35:45 +0000

When I say there will ‘thankfully’ be no return to ‘cathedrals and the liturgy’ I mean this in the following way:

Cathedrals to me represent a monument to the pre-modern ordering of the world, in which the ‘great and the good’ (i.e. a rich elite) financed the building of huge monuments ostesibly for God but arguably as a show of their own earthly might. Jesus’s response to such buildings, if Mark is remotely accurate, was one of disapproval and contempt:

‘As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”‘
(Mark 13:1-8 NRSV).

Then there is the liturgy, to me a collection of sycophantic nonsense for the patriarchal god of a past world. Seeing the liturgy as a solid basis for life in the (post)modern world is fatuous. And again, I bring up the reported words of that man from Nazareth, who the liturgy is supposedly about/for:

“When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:7-8 NRSV).

By: chutney

chutney — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:25:48 +0000

Who said anything is wrong with them?

By: joe

joe — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:50:08 +0000

what is wrong with cathedrals and the liturgy??

By: Edmund

Edmund — Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:23:56 +0000

Chutney, you are absolutely right. Radical Orthodoxy is a sham. It attempts to appropriate postmodern theory and then completely contradicts this by affirming that ‘the Church’ (whatever that means) shows the ‘True’ narrative. It seems to think ‘pre-modern’ is essentially the same as ‘post-modern’. In other words, modernity was a nihilistic tragedy and we’d do better going back to the middle ages. To be post-modern is in their reasoning to reject modernity, and I’ve read Milbank claim only Christian theology is truly post-modern as it seeks reflection *after* secularism. True postmodernism (if that is not too anachronistic a term) is always an internal critique of modernism, not a fullscale rejection. It is modernism undoing itself, yes, but not the negation of all that modernity brought, which includes the ‘death of God’. Postmodernism bears no relation to ‘credal Christianity in the patristic matrix’ or whatever it is Milbank and co claim to believe. There will be no return to Cathedrals and the liturgy – thankfully – just as there will be no return to other premodern delights such as feudalism, rampant patriarchy, crusades, illiteracy, and so on.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 04:49:37 +0000

Having only recently begun an exploration of the R.O. thing, at first blush it seems to be a “counter assualt on the intellectually barren philosophical culture base of our present society.”

Which is a tedious way of saying that presuppositions govern everyones thought and language, and presuppositions are received on authority, not empirically substatiated. R.O. seems to be reiterating this – but in a very complicated way. However, the audience to whom they are speaking has a fairly complicated thought structure, so perhaps this is unavoidable.

I agree that ‘fundamentalism’ (note the quotes) is often an escape from confronting real and difficult questions, but it seems that R.O. is tackling the philosophical arena where very few of us mortals really spend any conscious time.

It may be that their influence will be remedial over time, but that seems unlikely, if I read my Bible correctly.

As for “your” Jesus… well, the minute your relativize Him, you don’t really have Him, do you? The question isn’t “has Jesus come into your heart” but rather “have you come into HIs kingdom?”

If we could change just that about evangelicalsim, now that would be radical.

By: Philocrites

Philocrites — Tue, 09 Sep 2003 23:10:10 +0000

Modern theology 101.
Prof. Chutney is teaching a crash course in twentieth-century theology over at My Irony. The introductory lecture compares and contrasts philosophy, theology, and mythology. A brief second lecture dismisses a lot of post-WWII theology as stagnant &#151…

By: chutney

chutney — Sat, 31 May 2003 21:58:20 +0000

Should be fixed now (I hope).