Milbank went
further. He proposed a new Christian theology. Initially he called his views "postmodern
critical Augustinianism." ([11], p. 1) His new theology is critical in the sense that it
challenges traditional ideas and their underlying assumptions. Milbank's
theology is largely Augustinian
because Milbank thinks Augustine (354-430 CE) was a genius in developing Christian
theology and philosophy; Augustine faced opponents whose religion was paganism
(as Milbank believed in the 1990s he himself was doing); and Augustine believed
that reason and the sciences it produces are invalid unless based on Christian
theology. ([1], p. 47) Last, Milbank's views are postmodern in using some of the terminology and methods of French
postmodernist philosophers while attacking their nihilism. ([1], pp. 42-43) Milbank's
antidote for nihilism? Christianity.
Milbank and a
few like-minded Christian academics at Cambridge University continued
publishing articles and books. Their movement had no name until 1998, when
Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward published Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology,
an anthology of articles by Anglicans and Roman Catholics. ([4], p. 1) Radical
Orthodoxy (RO) is an ecumenical movement. It is open to any Christian,
regardless of denomination. ([1], pp. 64-65) A consequence is disagreement
among advocates of RO about such issues as the value of particular organizations.
For example, some members of the movement oppose the papacy of the Catholic
Church and prefer administration of the whole Christian church by bishops;
others support the papacy.
THEIR VIEW OF HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.
Leaders of the RO movement look back to Plato (424-347 BCE) for a fundamental element
of his ontology: This world is a projection from another dimension and thus dependent
on that dimension. ([1], pp. 48-49) The early centuries of Christian history
produced Christian theologians, such as Augustine, who are worthy of critical
study today. The assessment of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is mixed. On the one
hand, RO says approvingly, he shared the Neoplatonist view that everything's very
being, in this world, is an effect of God ([1], p. 14 and
19); but on the other hand, the early RO movement believed Thomas took steps
toward a split of the sacred and the secular, thus making the secularizing Enlightenment
possible ([1] p. 47 n. 56). Worse, Aquinas developed "natural
theology," which is the "science of God" formed through
observation of and thinking about nature (the effect) rather than revelation
from God (the cause). ([1], p. 51)
Advocates of RO
believe theologian John Duns Scotus (1265-1308) attempted to save faith by
splitting faith from reason, a split that led slowly but inexorably to a divorce
between theology and the secular sciences, which are the sciences of this
world, the sciences that claim they rely on a universal, religiously "neutral"
reason. ([1], pp. 93-94 and 96-100) Secularization accelerated in the
Enlightenment period, which gave birth to modern culture, and continues largely
unopposed today, in the postmodern period.
THEIR THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY.
"The movement," says a writer for Wikipedia,
"reclaims the original early church idea that theology is the 'queen of the
sciences'. This means that if the world is to be interpreted correctly, it must
be viewed from the perspectives of theology. Radical Orthodoxy critiques and
dismisses secular sciences because their worldview is considered inherently
atheistic and therefore nihilistic, based on acts of ontological violence (of
which the faith/reason, nature/grace separations are examples)." ([11], p.
2)
Theology should
apply to everything, RO's supporters say. ([3], p. 8) RO is "a massive
theological project [whose goal is] to re-narrate reality," notes observer
Ashley Woodiwiss ([5], p. 1) In philosophical terms, the branches of that new narration
are politics, ethics, epistemology, and ontology (metaphysics). Ethics among
the leaders of RO seems to be the standard Christian altruism, a focus on
sacrifice and love for others, primarily God and other humans.
1. POLITICS. RO rejects
classical liberalism, a product of the Enlightenment, "a worldview that
prioritizes individual freedom and thus values autonomy as a fundamental value,"
says advocate James K. A. Smith. Autonomy here is both political (a freedom of
action constrained only by the rights of others) and epistemological (relying
on "secular reason" unconstrained by non-rational commitments). Instead
of classical liberalism, RO offers the political alternative of submission to a
lord (God) and the epistemological alternative of gaining wisdom through
revelation from God. ([1], p. 60, n. 113)
RO "sees
the only authentic Christian politics to be socialism," Smith explains.
([1], p. 45, n. 50) Rejecting capitalism (the market), RO advocates "the
Christian enterprise of a 'universal gift exchange'," not "state
socialism." ([1], pp. 18-19) Leaders of the RO movement are not dismayed
by the nearly worldwide disintegration of secular socialism. "In the
collapse of socialism as a secular political force," says Graham Ward, a
founder of the movement, "I see Radical Orthodoxy as offering one means
whereby socialism can be returned to its Christian roots." ([1], p. 80)
2. EPISTEMOLOGY.
As part of its critique of modernity, RO rejects "modern dualisms, such as
the opposition between faith and reason," says advocate James K. A. Smith.
With the ending of modernity "there ends also the modern predicament of
theology. It no longer has to measure up to accepted secular standards of
scientific truth or normative rationality." ([1], pp. 70-71)
"By calling
into question the dualisms of modernity, [RO] eliminates a significant
distinction between the secular and the sacred, thus undoing the very notion of
secular reason. As a result, the modern distinction -- or better, opposition --
between faith and reason is called into question." Secularity is "the
belief in purportedly objective accounts of human life untainted by faith
perspectives." ([1], pp. 73 and 74)
"[D]istinctly
Christian thought is 'a thinking out of the resources of revelation
alone'." ([1], p. 51, Smith quoting Milbank) What is an example of using
revelation as a source of principles?
"Because God has become flesh and dwelt among us, we have
beheld his glory (John 1:14); thus is established the general
principle that God reveals himself in the sensible or material." ([1], p.
77, italics added)
RO emphasizes
"aesthetics and the arts as a medium of revelation and worship." The
arts lead "to a knowledge that is 'more profound and prior to
rationality'." ([1], p. 78, Smith quoting Ward) Why worship God? Operating
under the assumption that everyone has a natural yearning for the supernatural,
RO advocates believe "all human knowledge is subject, under [God's] grace,
to theological modification and qualification." ([1], p. 12)
Leaders of the movement
deny they reject reason. "The RO critique of reason is not a critique of rationality
as such, as if RO sought to reject theoretical or scientific investigation. Nor
does it entail ... a rejection of pagan learning," says Smith. ([1], p.
53) Instead, Milbank, founder of the movement, "indicts modern secular
reason for thinking
it is autonomous and neutral [that is, having no religious foundation] when
such neutrality is impossible." ([1], p. 57, n. 96)
RO advocate Catherine
Pickstock rejects the correspondence theory of knowledge. "[T]emporal
things are only adequately known when they are received as gifts [from God] and
offered back as praise of the divine. This [approach to knowing] contradicts
the idea that truth is primarily a matter of mirroring inert objects."
([4], p. 4)
Milbank's early
writings have led some academics to question "the universal competency of
secular reason." In a later phase, particularly with Milbank's anthology, Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology, the
movement went "on the offensive against secularism," says Milbank.
The RO movement argues for a return to medieval times, when "faith and
reason were inseparable." The major turning point, philosophically, came
with the work of John Duns Scotus, which eventually led to the separation of
reason from faith and the supernatural from the natural. Instead the RO
movement looks back to Thomas Aquinas and the earlier Church Fathers, all of
whom, Milbank says, held everything in life to be dependent on God. ([6], pp.
1-2)
3. METAPHYSICS
(ONTOLOGY). RO advocates a metaphysics of participation, which is the view that
the creator "participates" in the creature and thereby gives the
creature meaning. The postmodern belief in the independence of this material
world leads to nihilism because it cuts off the source of value, God. The
primal gift of God is existence; God gives existence to his creatures. ([1],
pp. 74-75) This is "incarnational ontology." This is not Platonic ontology.
([1], p. 76 and n. 47)
RO's ontology is
Augustinian. The divine purpose of a God of peace -- rather than Nietzsche's
violence of an aggressive omnipotent will -- holds the universe together. ([3],
pp. 2-5) Further, RO accepts the Neoplatonist view that meaning emanates from
the One because we emanate from the One. ([3], pp. 6-7)
IDEOLOGY. An ideology applies a worldview
(a philosophy or religion, which is meant to be universal in time and place) to a particular milieu. What is the
ideology of RO , a worldview that has an ontology of God causing everything, an
epistemology of revelation as primary, an ethics of altruism, and a politics of
socialism? Consider three elements.
1. THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO CONTEMPORARY CULTURE. RO's supporters reject the current culture, one still
influenced by Enlightenment ideas of secularity, individualism, and capitalism.
For radicals, rejection is not enough. "According to Graham Ward, Radical
Orthodoxy is really a form of Christian cultural criticism, clearing away the rubbish
of the Enlightenment" and moving toward a "fully Christianized
ontology." ([4], p. 1) "There is no ideology-free zone," says Ward.
([4], p. 2) "Against these efforts [by postmodernists and modernists] to
carve a place free from divine purpose -- 'the [realm of the] secular' --
Milbank argues for a conception of social reality governed by the supernatural
vocation of fellowship with God," says R. R. Reno, an observer of the
movement. ([3], p. 8) "Milbank, Pickstock, and Ward hope to articulate an
encompassing Christian perspective that will supersede and replace secularisms
both modern and postmodern." ([3], p. 2)
2. CREATING A
NEW CULTURE. RO rejects all secularity, where "secular" means a neutral
(nonreligious) viewpoint. RO sees secularity as ultimately (at the roots) pagan, which means religious but apostate from Christianity. ([1], p. 42)
"Radical orthodoxy," in summary, says James K. A. Smith, "is a
recent, particularly intense call for the development of a theoretical
framework and sociopolitical involvement that are distinctly Christian at their
foundation." ([1], p. 42)
After clearing
away the brush of Enlightenment culture, RO advocates hope to create a "post-secular"
culture, one in which no part of life is set aside from religion's influence.
Because an essential characteristic of modernist culture is the drive to expand
the realm of the secular, a truly post-modernist culture would be a
post-secular culture. To create that culture, RO supporters are critiquing
modernist (Enlightenment) culture in general and those streams of modern
Christian theology that have been corrupted by trying to adapt to modernist
culture. ([1] p. 33) "What we are seeing, then," says Milbank,
"is the stepping back of theology into the public domain and a
consideration of its relation to the whole of human thought and action."
Thus, RO does not carve the world into religious and secular. It banishes the
secular. ([1], p. 12)
3. SPECIFIC
STRATEGIES. The RO movement looks at the past, present, and future. For the
past, one goal is to retrieve the writings of Christian theologians who lived
before modern times, and then working from them to develop new doctrines or
continue with the old ones. ([1], p. 65)
Today, RO's main
contribution to fighting the nihilism of postmodernism is to "draw aside
the curtain that hides this procedure [achieving the postmodernist drive for
domination by using euphemisms] from the view of postmodern fellow
travelers." ([3], pp. 5-6) Further, the leaders of the RO movement believe
that theology should apply to everything in life and in the world. ([3], p. 8) "Radical
Orthodoxy is very clear: it wishes to renounce the compromises and
half-measures of [mainstream] modern [Christian] theology and recover an
Augustinian boldness on behalf of Christian faith and practice." ([3], p.
12) In particular, advocates of RO reject modern Christian theologians'
acceptance of the notion that philosophy is and should be autonomous in relation
to theology. ([1], p. 35)
What about the
future? From the beginning of the RO movement, its leaders intended to
influence politics. ([6], p. 2) RO, however, remains a theological,
philosophical, and intellectual movement. It is not a mass political movement.
CHANNELS OF ACTIVISM. Members
of the movement write books, such as Catherine Pickstock's After Writing: On the Liturgical
Consummation of Philosophy (1998), James K. A. Smith's Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a
Post-Secular Theology (2004),
and John Milbank's The
Radical Orthodoxy Reader (2009). They participate in debates, as
John Milbank did with Marxist intellectual Slavoj Zizek in 2009. ([6], p. 2) They
create churches such as the Holy Trinity and Saint Anskar Episcopal Church in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. (n. 2) They write essays for journals and publish their
own, The Journal of
Radical Orthodoxy: Theology, Philosophy, Politics. (n. 3) They
maintain websites listing resources for advocates of Radical Orthodoxy. (n.4)
CRITICISMS. Criticisms of
RO have arisen from both the religious and the secular
subcultures. In particular, RO has upset a lot of other theologians. A few have
suggested constructive criticisms to improve RO. Some criticisms have been
accurate; and some have been false. E.g., one philosophizer accused John
Milbank of being a follower of Karl Barth (he isn't) and a fideist (Milbank's
supporters say he isn't). ([1], pp. 52-53) Some criticisms leveled against RO contradict
each other. ([1], p. 64) Some critics of RO have misunderstood
it. ([1], p. 63, but also pp. 49-60). Perhaps that is inevitable since there
were multiple founders writing on a variety of subjects scattered through
essays and books over a decade.
Members of the
RO movement, as in any philosophical or intellectual movement, have been criticized for their
scholarly methods, writing style, themes, idealism, personalities, and incompleteness:
"Radical Orthodoxy remains loosely put together, defined by strong
intuitions and theological thought experiments and lacking a systematic
gestalt." ([3], p. 14) Critics say RO lacks an ecclesiology, that is, a
study of the church as a seedbed for theology. RO instead emphasizes tradition
but the movement has not yet identified the role of the Virgin Mary ("the
living heart of the Church," says one Catholic critic). ([4], p. 1)
Some have
criticized RO for not being in conformance with the critics' own denomination
-- for example, for not being Roman Catholic. Secularists have criticized RO for
not being secular, which of course is a main point of RO. ([1], pp. 49-50) Other
critics have challenged RO's reading of history, especially its interpretations
of Plato and Aquinas. ([1], p. 50) At least one reader derogates Milbank's
scholarship (selective reading of history), his nearly exclusive use of
Christian sources, and his attitude ("ill tempered"). ([7])
Criticisms of
style include use of post-modernist jargon. ([3], p. 2) "The literature of
the movement is often dense, abstract, complex, impenetrable, out-of-reach, and
off-putting." ([5], p. 2) (Such criticism raises the question of how RO
writers managed to be so influential if they were so obscure.)
The leaders of
the RO movement attract the most criticism. For example, some of Milbank's
critics attack his idealism. ([7]) The critics say leaders of the movement are
generally unable to talk with RO's opponents. ([7]) Critic Eugene McCarraher
attacks Milbank for being theocratic and for not addressing the issue openly
but evading it. ([7]) Also, McCarraher dismissively rejects Milbank's
admiration for medievalism -- an economy that consists of small-scale
enterprises and is cooperative rather than competitive. ([7])
Many of the opponents
of RO, but especially the ones in academia, apparently do not understand that
Milbank and other supporters of RO are offering a whole worldview, a positive
one. His opponents demand that he be "critical," in an academic
fashion, but the critics themselves offer nothing positive. ([7], for an
example)
The criticisms
have not stopped the movement. RO advocates continue their
theologically-inspired work in their chosen fields: economics (Daniel Bell and
Stephen Long), culture (Graham Ward), politics (William Cavanaugh), and theology
and philosophy (John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock). ([5], pp. 1-2)
TRAJECTORY. Movements change.
For example, as others outside the movement become aware of the movement,
praise and criticism can ebb and flow. One observer of the RO movement has sketched
the critical reaction to RO. She shows that, in the first stage of reaction,
the earliest reviews of a central work by RO founder John Milbank were
generally positive reports by readers who admired the wide range of his sources.
Within a few years, in the second stage, critics were questioning Milbank's
inferences from his sources. Soon after, in the third stage, critics were
speaking more harshly, for example, making accusations of
"falsification" of history. However, in a fourth stage, some
defenders of RO responded by asking the critics to suggest a better alternative
and to consider RO in the context of its time. ([8], p. 1 and p. 1, n. 1)
The nature of
the individuals in the movement can change too. The first members of the RO movement,
who gathered around John Milbank, were all Anglican theologians at Cambridge
University. Soon Roman Catholics joined. ([4], p. 1)
According to
some observers, the RO movement -- which is an intellectual movement and will therefore
always be narrow -- has been surfing on an already existing wave of religious
revival, especially among young intellectuals. ([6], p. 2) The future will tell
how much influence the RO movement has on other Christians and, perhaps through
inspiration, on supporters of other religions such as Judaism and Islam.
CONCLUSION. RO is an
intellectual movement that is bringing a thoroughly religious approach to
Christian interactions with secular culture. The movement is radical in several
ways. First, it is politically a movement that wants to make broad and deep
changes: rejecting the marketplace and building a "cooperative"
socialist economy based on mutual gift-giving. Second, the movement is radical
in that it traces its esthetics, politics, and ethics to the foundation of the
movement's worldview. Its metaphysics (ontology) is a belief in God's total
responsibility for creating everything that exists; and its epistemology is mystical,
a belief that reason, where it has any role at all, must start from principles
revealed in holy scripture.
The Radical
Orthodoxy movement is thus a philosophical and theological movement that is applying
an enthusiastic and coherent mysticism to our world.
Burgess
Laughlin, author,
(This post,
which is based on only a few sources, is an early sketch of one sub-movement in
the broader movement working for mysticism in our time. Corrections are
welcome.)
NOTES
[1]. This post, like most on
The Main Event is
mostly a record of my preliminary notes. For the description of Milbank's
TST:BSR, I have
drawn from secondary sources, several online book reviews. Note that in 2006
Milbank published a second, updated edition. I have not yet read either edition. [2]. Described at:
http://holytrinity-saintanskar.org/index.html. [3]. http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTTP. [4].
http://www.calvin.edu/~jks4/ro/.
WORKS CONSULTED, SO FAR
[1] James K. A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a
Post-secular Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2004, 291 pages. [2] "James K. A.
Smith," Wikipedia,
printed Sept. 2, 2012; 3 pages; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._A._Smith. [3] R. R. Reno, "The
Radical Orthodoxy Project," First
Things, Feb., 2000; printed July 23, 2012; 20 pages. [4] Stratford Caldecott,
"Radical Orthodoxy," Catholic
Culture, no date of publication, but original interview was in
2001, according to last page; printed July 30, 2012; 7 pages;
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4174. [5] Ashley Woodiwiss,
"What's so Radical about Orthodoxy?," Christianity Today, May 24, 2005; printed July 23, 2012;
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/mayweb-only/22.0c.html. [6] Melanie Newman,
"Lazarus-style comeback," Time Higher Education, April 16, 2009; printed July 31,
2012, 4 pages; http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=406157&oo=0. [7] Gene McCarraher,
"McCarraher on Radical Orthodoxy," Inhabitatio Deiposted by "Halden" on Feb. 1,
2010, printed July 31, 2012; 2 pages;
http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2010/02/01/mccarraher-on-radical-orthodoxy/. [8] Katie Terezakis, "J.
G. Hamann and the Self-Refutation of Radical Orthodoxy" (a draft of an
article to be published in The
Poverty of Radical Orthodoxy, eds. Lisa Isherwood and Marko
Zlomislic, 2011), no date, 23 pages. [9] The Journal of Radical Orthodoxy,
http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTTP/index. [10] "Holy Trinity and
St. Anskar Episcopal Church Welcomes You!."
http://holytrinity-saintanskar.org/index.html. [11] "Radical
Orthodoxy," Wikipedia,
last updated July 12, 2012; printed July 20, 2012; 4 pages;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Orthodoxy.
