Customer Reviews

Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Over the last few years there have been many questions and conversations about Radical Orthodoxy. For many, it is a way of thinking that is as confusing as it is insightful. James K. A. Smith shows the promise of Radical Orthodoxy in this very accessible introduction.

Smith aims to summarize what the "theological sensibility" (most of the authors don't want to be considered a movement or school of thought) known as Radical Orthodoxy has been about. He also intends to point out deficiencies in "RO" and suggest avenues for future research. He does all of this from a Reformed point of view, one that is missing in much of RO's work. The book is divided into two parts. The first seeks to place RO within the greater theological and philosophical discussion. It does so by discussing other ways of thinking, outlining RO's main contentions, and giving a brief account of the history of philosophy as RO reads it. The second section more clearly articulates RO's contentions and points the way to future improvements. Chapters deal with politics, epistemology, ontology, and ecclesiology. Smith makes it clear that he finds RO's soteriology and understanding of sin particularly in need of repair.

If you are a student struggling with RO, this book is definately for you. If you are theologian interested in RO, this book will help summarize RO and give a brief critique. If you are involved in RO and want to see it move in different directions, this book is a useful part of the conversation. I highly recommend it.

I had the opportunity three years ago to read through John Milbank's Theology and Social Theory with a theology professor and a group of dedicated, intelligent seminarians. Without those resources, I would never have entered into the world of Radical Orthodoxy (RO). Now, for those who don't have the opportunity to study with Dr. Norris at Emmanuel School of Religion, James Smith has provided an entrance that is just as helpful (even if it lacks the entertainment value of a Norris class).

Smith, a theologian and philosopher claimed by the Reformed tradition, does a superb job locating RO's project, critique moves, and conceptual refinements among the trends of contemporary academic theology, taking care to include its relationships with oft-ignored intellectual movements such as fundamentalism and the emergent church. He notes the political, philosophical, metaphysical, and ecclesiological swerves that Ward and company make and gives ample attention to several critiques of the movement and to the content of their objections.

Most interesting is Smith's willingness to bring his own Reformed tradition, especially in the person of Dooyeweerd (sp?), into contact with RO and to let each correct the other. He thus presents an excellent model of what help theological traditions might offer one another.

The book itself had no major weaknesses that I could discern but invites much more work that would engage RO from other theological traditions. I can only hope that some Pentecostals and Episcopalians and Evangelicals take up Smith's challenge.

I read this book two years ago during the summer before my senior year of college, and I found it utterly fascinating. Even at the level of learning I was at then (three years of college philosophy and theology courses), the book was rather difficult at times, so it's definitely only for those at advanced undergraduate or graduate levels. That said, it's still infinitely easier to read that any of John Milbank's own writings, so anyone wanting a relatively easy introduction to the thought of Milbank and other RO thinkers should definitely start hear before picking up any of the source texts themselves.

For those unfamiliar with RO, it is a movement combining the best of contemporary Christian theology, Continental and postmodern philosophy, and ancient and medieval thought, creating a new "post-secular" theology that doesn't simply parrot the findings of the social sciences and secular philosophy, but recasts them in a distinctively Christian mould. For those who, like myself, have looked for something in Continental philosophy of religion that doesn't end up with results that look disappointingly unorthodox, RO definitely merits a look.

The Radical Orthodox are a hard group to nail down... which is half way the point. No where else will you understand their foundational ideas on different subjects. Typically, the R.O. books are only individual ideas.
Smith is objective, has honest critiques and does a great job of juxtaposing the R.O. concepts with other Post-modern theological movements. Its a little heavy for an 'introduction' but anyone with quality reading skills that understands theology will do fine.
Recommended for anyone wanting to understand what theological academia is really about.

t is always interesting to find "coincidences" in theological movements. That is, when group A arrives at a theological position/conclusion that looks eerily similar to what group B believes. It is even stranger to find that they never borrowed from the same sources or even interacted. Such it is with the rise of Radical Orthodoxy (hereafter RO) and its critique of modernity.

Introduction
RO is a group of theologians who saw the bankruptcy of modernity, and the inability of post modernity to answer the tough questions, thus positing a critique that seeks to avoid both secularism and pre-modernity. It is similar to a Parisian Augustine. RO is sensitive to post-modernity's critiques of secularism. The book offers a multi-angled critique of secularalism: epistemological, ontological, and ecclesiological.

Once Upon a Time there was Plato
RO's epistemological critique of secularism is a retelling of the story of Western philosophy. According to RO, philosophy took a fatal turn with Duns Scotus. Scotus posited a univocity of being stating there is only one kind of being in everything real, though infinite in the case of God and finite in the case of creatures. According to RO, this flattened ontology, removing the transcendent and giving us a metaphysics of immanence. Smith writes, "The created, immanent order no longer participates in the divine and thus is no longer characterized by the depth of that which is stretched toward the transcendent (93)." In other words, man is now able to interpret reality apart from God or any notion of the transcendent. This opened the door to secularism.
The antidote to Scotus, then, is Plato. If Scotus unhooked ontology, Plato (or his Christian disciples) can reconnect it. In short and in contrast with modernity, RO offers, not a univocity of being, but a participatory metaphysics. Popular opinion on Plato is that Plato denigrated the material in favor of the spiritual (I will resist applications to some Reforme--never mind). But RO suggests, on the other hand, that it is nihilism, with its denial of the transcendent that denigrates the material. But can Platonism make the claim that it values the material?
RO inverts Platonism on this point. Following Phaedrus, RO argues that when the material participates in the spiritual, the physical is rightly energized and affirmed. For example, the physical embodiment of beauty excites the soul's desire such that its wings sprout and are nourished." On one hand I agree. I value the material very much (almost too much), but is this an accurate reading of Plato? I really can't (and neither can Smith) follow their reconstruction of Plato. Plato spoke often of soma sema: the body is a prison for the soul. But we need not accept their reading of Plato to grasp their point.

Ontology: Unfolding Reality
This was arguably the toughest section of the book. And the most surprising. Smith reintroduced Dooyeweerd to the Reformed and academic scene. If nihilism/modernity flattened their epistemology, it also flattened its ontology. Secular ontologies, according to RO, "claim to fully define the conditions" for reality (187). This section will be shorter since the same critique of epistemology will be used for ontology. RO counters the secular ontology with a new move on RO's part: an Incarnational or participatory ontology. In rephrasing RO's ontology, Smith uses the arcane philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, particularly his modal scheme.

Jamie Smith attempts to meld Continental philosophy with Christianity to come up with a new take on theology coined Radical Orthodoxy. Smith's contention is that post-modern philosophers such as Derrida and Rorty are misunderstood by theologians and have much to offer modern theology. Perhaps he is right but he seems to spend more time critiquing the shortcomings of the underlying epistemology of evangelical theology (making some good points) and less time actually fleshing out an alternative view, at least one that is compatible with historical Christian Orthodoxy. Perhaps that is his point, that orthodoxy needs to be reexamined but he offers little in support of that thesis. Still, his books are thought provoking, well written and worth reading by anyone with a bit of philosophical and/or theological training, with a skeptical eye.

"Today, many are questioning this elevation of reason over faith."

Taking a page from radical Islam and its troubled relationship with modernity, Smith and his RO brethren dress up postmodernism and other abstruse products of the continental academy as "reasons" to no longer believe in "reason". Apparently not recognizing that their declining market/mind share is due to the stunning unbelievability of their dogma, they put their fingers in their ears and pronounce that their faith is too just as reasonable as secularism, materialism, and whatever else the evidence of 300 years of enlightenment has afforded humanity.

Not just that, but in the spirit of the Discovery Institute, which brands its press release flacking as "science", these hale philosophers re-brand their pining for the Holy Roman, totalitarian, and Apostolic church of old as "radical". Well, it is radical, in the same sense as the Taliban is radical- promising radical regression in human intellect and values. Just what we need in an increasingly global world where one unreasoning, intolerant, and bitter religion is quite enough, thank you very much.