Hey Andrew, thanks for a great introduction to radical orthodoxy.

From what I understand of this movement, its thinkers place heavy emphasis on the epistemic consequences on the fall. Sin affects the way we reason, as well as what we reason about. Therefore, apart from grace, we cannot think correctly about things theological, and according to some, anything at all.

Hence, modernity (the attempt to reason about all things, including God, without grace) is a hopeless doomed task because it ignores this fundamental truth about human nature. (This explains, I think, the draw of this line of thinking for Reformed thinkers.)

I wonder, however, if radical orthodoxy ignores the doctrine of creation also found in the creation. Humans, although fallen, still continue to bear the imago dei.

In other words, the Christian doctrines of the fall and creation are in tension here and one's evaluation of radical orthodoxy will depend largely on one's views about both theological teachings.

If we are willing to agree with radical orthodoxy that the fall, in fact, damaged us epistemically, we have to determine how much. If the damage is fatal/complete (as radical orthodox thinkers claim), no truth can be found outside of Christianity and if it is, it is always twisted to serve sinful ends.

Hence, the ghettoisation you worry about.

I also think that there's a tension here with another Christian teaching--that of the Holy Spirit's work outside the bounds of the church, i.e. "common grace" or "previnient grace." Even if the fall is cognitive, and complete, couldn't God work outside of the bounds of the church to reveal truth/beauty/goodness?

I find it interesting, that even if conservative Christians (including Adventists) will find radical orthodoxy suspect, pragmatically/functionally speaking, this is the way we relate to society/culture! Secularism=bad/no truth; Church=goodness/truth.

Secularism=bad/no truth vs. church=goodness/truth.

Isn't it interesting how this relates to what Jesus said:

"The time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem...for the father is seeking those who worship him in spirit and in truth."

While the church, as Paul states in Ephesians is the pillar and ground of the truth, it must always stand in tension with what Jesus is stating...that no organization can ever claim a monopoly on truth and upon God's activity in reaching and drawing people to himself/to truth, in whatever way he chooses. That includes "secular" vehicles and disciplines.

Black and white thinking like the above can breed fortress mentalities that fear contact with anything beyond its walls, or arrogance that looks down on anything "out there." Both are extremes.The middle ground seems to me that we need to share the gospel with openess and great humility.

Thanks for the post...

Frank

I get the radical part, I think. What about the orthodoxy? How seriously can you take biblical studies, for example, if you are rooted in continental philosophy? How important is belief versus liturgy, social change, and community?

Andrew

Thank you for this excellent analysis and appraisal! I wlll repeatedly read it.

I admit that I physically winced when I read that RO turns to premodern modes of thought in order to be truly postmodern! But I think I get it.

Your critiques of RO interest me, especially your remarks about imperialism. How RO relates to recent complaints about "Constantianism," etc. is of related concern.

As Johnny said, there was a discussion of RO and Process Thought at the American Academy of Religion meetings in San Diego last November that I missed.

I have looked for the papers the Center for Process Studies web site. At the time the RO papers weren't posted, however.

Roland Faber is the person who most relates process though to Continental thinking in our area. Because each has its own terms and he is fluent in both "languages," I find it interesting to listen to him.

I'm glad to make you acquaintance and hope to hear more from you!

Thanks!

Dave

Zane, thanks for giving me something to think about- I’ll need to look into RO and creation a little more closely (although as you suggest there are subtle differences here between “original RO” and the “US toned-down” version when it comes to this... I’ll do some more reading

Frank, you’ve touched a nerve! I too find this dogmatism a little too much for me.

Tim, maybe I didn’t make myself clear. The orthodoxy comes from RO’s engagement with patristic theology, or as they might put it “original orthodoxy”! RO uses continental philosophy in order to bring up a contemporary problem and then turns to pre-modern theology to address it (although I may be slightly guilty of oversimplification here...)

We need to remember however, that continental philosophy/post-modernism (in its academic/philosophical guise) need not be seen as an automatic enemy of religion. In fact, what is often seen as (culturally) post-modern- secularism, anti-theistic science, and relativism- are in fact thoroughly modern and part of the enlightenment project. Maybe we need to be asking how orthodox our faith is now, as it has been subjugated by 300 years of enlightenment/modernity (although that really is another article!).

David, thanks for the appreciation (and for an interesting guest lecture exploring the problems of Cartesian foundationalism at Newbold 10 years ago!

I know what you mean about the idea of turning to pre-modern thought- I had a similar reaction the first time I read RO. I was with the author as he read Derrida and Marion against modernity, but almost had a heart attack when he turned to Aquinas and Augustine!

I think RO raises a valid point: what does post-modernity’s critique of modernism mean? Does it mean that modernity took a wrong turn when it branched off from pre-modernity? Has it reclaimed and re-engaged with tradition for our day? As I alluded, I personally think that they don’t take Post-modern criticism seriously enough. For example; RO likes to use Jean-Luc Marion’s idea of saturated phenomenology ( what is often called a “phenomenology of givenness”) to overcome the difficulty’s of the traditional metaphysical treatment of presence (in order to resurrect-perhaps rephrase is a better term- some pre-modern theologies). However, this does not take into account Derrida’s critique of platonic metaphysics. I think RO is selective when it comes to choosing which of these critiques it engage with.

Concerning the idea that RO may be imperialistic, it has to be stressed that in the relatively limited output so far it has managed to avoid this by holding pre-modern theology and post-modern criticism in tension. However I still believe that it is in danger of going down that route if it is not careful, or if it is miss-appropriated. I’m concerned that its militant dogmatism may develop this way if its not too careful. A lot depends on which how it continues to develop.

Thanks for all the comments, Andrew

Andrew:

You write: "At the heart of RO is the belief that the divide between the sacred and the secular ... is the false result of the enlightenment and the modern project. ... The RO project reacts to the sandy foundations of modernity and its philosophical worldview."

And Wikipedia notes: "RO thus claims that secularity does not actually exist- all reality begins with God ... and only a theistic ... view of reality is valid."

So my question, in light of these comments, is: what is RO's epistemology? It would almost seem that it accepts Divine Command Theory as normative. If so that seems like a very difficult position to defend.

Rich- thanks for the question, I'll try to be back to answer that a little latter as I'm going to be out most of the day(different time zones/etc!)!

Rich, thanks for the question which I’ve tried to answer (I hope you’ll forgive my resorting to technical jargon...)- I’m not sure how helpful this answer is, however, I don’t mind trying again!

With regards to secularism- by trying to make RO approachable I may have been guilty of over simplifying RO.

RO is “post-secular” in that they do not believe that there is a secular if by secular we mean neutral or uncommitted (“the secular is not areligious, just differently religious- a religion of immanence and autonomy” -Milbank). Before the “myth” of the secular (neutral, autonomous, reason) it was believed that no realm stood outside the realm of creation and its creator (and therefore outside of the realm of theology).

Regarding epistemology (and I have to note that the following refers to “original RO”, not “reformed RO” where J K A Smith, who does argue for the possibility of autonomous philosophy against Milbank, deals with creation in a subtly different way). According to RO philosophy took a wrong turn with Duns Scotus (who interestingly was one of the main protagonists for a return to Divine Command Theory) and his theory of univocity (where he states that there is only one kind of being; infinite in the case of God, finite in the case of creatures). This according to RO flattened ontology removing the transcendent and giving us a metaphysics of immanence, which in turn means we no longer participate in the divine. This splitting of creature from creation is what causes the creation of the “secular”.

The response to this a rediscovery of phenomenology, in particular Jean-Luc Marion’s idea of saturated phenomenology (or the idea of the givenness of phenomenology). Instead of a univocity of being, RO offers a participatory metaphysics. This participatory epistemology is founded on a participatory ontology, in which things are understood as having a participatory relationship with their creator. Things are “suspended” from the creator. This preserves both their distinctiveness and from the creator and their dependence on the creator.

(if you are interested I can try to explain how “reformed RO” ‘tweaks’ RO by reference to Dooyeweerd and Leibniz to allow a place to autonomous philosophy in creation... although even my head spins as I try to keep track of all of this! Also as I mentioned in a previous comment, I’m not entirely persuaded that this phenomenological turn answers all of the post-modern critiques of modernity's epistemology.)

It is quite a bit longer, and dates from 2000, but I found http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2542 to be a very helpful, more or less jargon-free, sympathetic yet also critical overview of RO.

Isn't the post-modern critique of modernity that it takes contingencies as necessities? That we have no choice but to perceive "reality" from particular points, heavily influenced by language and other contingencies? This seems at least a double-edged sword, and it strikes me as perverse (Perverse Orthodoxy?) to use such arguments as motivation to settle on a neo-platonic metaphysics as truth. Or am I missing RO's sense of irony? But Andrew has already expressed this worry several times, so my thought would be to develop RO as a forthrightly pragmatist project. Pragmatism, a la Rorty, would be a good fit because it recognizes contingency (ie, the post-modern critique) but pushes ahead anyway and takes a stand on a particular position. Or in Rorty's terms, it creates a new vocabulary, but one that is aware of its own contingency. At this point you've kind of given up on Truth and Reason, however, and seek to persuade by appealing to common values and visions of the sort of world one wants to live in. Or would that be a terrible fit?

Andrew:

It's good that you don't mind 'trying again' :-). I did find what you wrote interesting and helpful, but I'm still not sure what RO's view is w.r.t. Divine Command Theory. RO seems to involve returning somewhat to an Augustinian perspective, but what I've read of Augustine vis-a-vis DCT it's unclear to me whether it was foundational in his world view.

And you write: "things are understood as having a participatory relationship with their creator. Things are “suspended” from the creator. This preserves both their distinctiveness and from the creator and their dependence on the creator." which would infer perhaps RO does not subscribe to DCT.

Anyway, let me recast the question a bit, in Euthyphro-like terms. Which way do you think RO would answer the question:

- is something right because God decrees it, or does God only decree those things that are right?

Thanks in advance for your response.

- Rich

Andrew

I tried to catch up on my reading in regards to Radical Orthodoxy. I found some very interesting reviews. Nevertheless, this assignment, to say the least, is daunting in view of the jargon. When a thread is met with silence by bloggers like Elaine and Tom (both of whom I consider among the more knowledgeable of the whole lot), I wonder what's going. Reminds me of the observation that seminary (university theology dept) culture produces graduates who learned to attend seminary.

Joselito
Thanks for trying to keep my feet on the ground...

I’m not interested in RO or here simply as an exercise in academic posturing though... I’m here because of pastoral concerns. After my MA I worked for 5 years as a minister in western Europe, a place where only 3-7% of the population attend a church regularly. I watched as my church, shaped by modernity, completely failed to engage the (largely) post-modern community.

I’ve seen (and been part of) different attempts to reverse the trend (life development, small groups, church planting, alternative worship, etc) but despite some of the positive noises coming from the administration and the church media, my experience (and that of my colleagues) was that it has made no discernible difference.

My interest in RO (and other post-modern engagements with religion- I’m only discussing RO because it came up on another thread), is that I felt that theology was missing in our response... we sort to change how we did things without asking why we did certain things. I think our practices as a church should flow from our theology, not the other way around. And I also wonder if part of our problem in my context is our modernity saturated theology.

As a post-modern (both culturally through my context and academicaly/philosophically with my study interests) I am simply trying to bridge two cultures and do theology in the middle. This is why I feel that philosophy/theology, although it may seem like an alien world sometimes, is an essential area to try and comprehend.

It may seem as though I have a philosophical head, but I also have a pastors heart!

Rich,
Sorry, I seamed to have skipped your question in a rush to explore epistemology! No I don’t see much evidence in my reading of RO of it subscribing to DCT, Sorry I need to slow down and reread what I write before I post It!

Tim
I looked at the article- I’ll need to read it again (my head’s not cooperating at the moment!), however here are a few quick comments.

It was interesting to see what he had picked up early on about RO. I do have number of issues though. I’m not convinced by his definition and treatment of post-modernism (for example his labeling of it as nihilism- whilst it can’t be denied that nihilism exists in some post-modernism, it really is the minority view and easily countered). Also his concern with Milbank's views on atonement are interesting, although it might sound radical, it is actually historically orthodox (before penal substitution swept the evangelical world!) As I said, i’ll reread it when the room isn’t spinning round in my head!

The idea of RO and Rorty’s pragmatism... well that one will have to sit on the burner to be mulled over for a while... I think I can see where you’re trying to take it though. I do think that RO may be changing. In its US appropriation it is less dogmatic and I believe starting to take other post-modern criticisms more seriously. Definitely one to watch though!

A quick observation about RO’s irony. I found it ironic that a leading proponent of RO, a ordained anglican priest (from the anglo-catholic strand), despite arguing that we are now post-secular and that theology was dominant, decided to give a seminar I gatecrashed in his “civvies” of shirt and tie rather than wear his clerical collar!

Andrew,
Mad props for the links your post is getting!

I want to back Andrew's observations about the study of philosophy/theology. The reason that some of the terminology of RO thinkers sounds so foreign to many of us is that we come from a tradition that tries to do theology in a vacuum. (In doing so, are unknowingly influenced by the philosophy of our culture and read it into the Scriptures.) For the most part, although perhaps less so on this blog, we are unaware of the philosophical ideas/debates that RO thinkers are trying to engage and their importance.

Secondly, we have no idea how to effectively engage the the thinkers of our society whose ideas eventually trickle down to become expressed at the popular form in movies, books, etc.

Some of my friends in graduate school are a bunch of Jesuits at the first stages of their education. I was fascinated to learn about their curriculum. They are required to receive the equivalent of an MA in philosophy and do 2-3 years of field work all before heading to the seminary where they start studying theology! (After this, many of them go onto study for their doctorates.)

I'm not saying that Adventist theologians should try to emulate this model, but that there are some traditions that take the study of philosophy very seriously. The language of RO might naturally be more intelligible/interesting/relevant for those that come from those traditions.

Andrew and Zane

Thank you both for graciously responding to my nudging. I agree that dominant philosophies, whether we are aware of this or not, saturate the popular culture. More than 300 years of Spanish colonization in my country had resulted in the conversion of more than 80 per cent of the population to Roman Catholicism. There's a Pontifical University of Sto. Tomas that was founded as far back as 1611. Either the state universities or one of the Catholic schools are generally perceived as the best places for the education of the children of the country's cultural elites. It's ironic that those educated in the best Catholic tradition are also among the most secularized. Is there not something similar going on among the cultural Adventist elites? Progressives?

BTW, besides the commentaries/reviews of RO (which are all fascinating reading), I went to the website of The Centre of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham, and found an excellent piece by John Milbank titled "Faith, Reason and Imagination: the Study of Theology and Philosophy in the 21st Century".

http://www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/papers/Milbank_StudyofTheology...

Milbank describes their curriculum which is Theology and Philosophy, in contradistinction to Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology. Surprisingly, I found him not so difficult to understand after all.

I'll get back later so we can all share what we learned about RO that's relevant to Adventist culture.

Joselito, thanks for the link to a great essay. What I really respect about Milbank and other "continental" theologian/philosophers, which is evident in the essay) is their grasp of the history sweep of the discussion. Wow!

As for the relationship between higher education/secularization (I'm not sure what you mean by "secularization" here, but assuming you're seeing this as a negative trend?), I'm not so sure if the trend you notice is worse than a violent kind of fundamentalism if those are the only two choices.

Hopefully, there are other options that lie somewhere in the middle...(and perhaps articulated by Milbank when he contrasts nihilism and fideism in the article you link?)

Instead of secularization, disenchantment was the term Max Weber used (in German, of course). It means de-mystification or de-sacralization. Whether or not the more educated are also the less religous is debateable. They are less superstitious, I think. Religious institutions and constituted religious authority exert less control and influence over the secularized. I don't view this negatively though. Increased differentiation and division of functions between the religious and non-religious may describe what is meant by secularization. When choosing a health care provider or physician, do you ask: Does s/he pray? Or, is s/he professionally competent?

Are progressive Adventists also the most secularized?

Fundamentalism, says Peter Berger, comes in two forms: reconquista and totalitarian models. In either case, fundamentalists tend to be imperialistic or exclusivists in their approach to missions.