Eric made an attractive and thought provoking reply about what Radical Orthodoxy is to a commenter on his blog, and I thought it a good explanation, for one who may have been reading some “radox-like” thinkers, but not yet familiar with the “school of thought” (at least I may be learning how some of my previous reading would fit into or compare with this realm or category of theological path (would that be “pathology”? Probably not an endearing way to describe it—-heh heh….sorry)
Anyway, here’s Eric’s summary, from his blog entry on the reading he’s being assigned for the class:
Radical Orthodoxy fascinates me because yes, I am a Christian, but also very much because I don’t buy the myth of modernity any more. That’s not to say that I’m entirely anti-modern or want to just return to a pre-modern way of life, but I think, as RO tries to do, that we can use the language of postmodernity to hearken back to the old school, pre-modern Augustine to find out what that message is for us today.
That means breaking through the modern notion of such distinctions as natural/supernatural, public_faith/private_faith (but not to be confused with the fundamentalist Christians who want to control others with their public faith), theology/philosophy, etc., etc. That is why it is “radical.”
It does not seek to coerce with worldly politics or bombs (it is wholly non-retaliatory and peaceful, just as Jesus showed), and it does not seek to accomodate itself to the market for the sake of the nation state, which ultimately controls the market anyway. It seeks to cut through all the shit and to start asking questions about our current predicament in history that haven’t been asked since the dawn of modernity.
If you want to start getting into RO, I highly, highly recommend reading James Smith’s Introducing Radical Orthodoxy first. It’s the most accessible, language-wise. It took me about 90 pages into Theology & Social Theory to finally get into the flow of the murky sogginess that is Milbank’s writing style.
I would say it is essential to understand Plotinus’ “univocity of being” as well. I don’t think I would have understood it at all if it weren’t for the class, because I have no classical training in this stuff to begin with. But! I hope to make a post on the univocity of being vs. an alternative (i.e. Christian) ontology of participation in God. It’s absolutely essential to understanding RO’s critique of the modern and the archealogy in which it engages. Ultimately, it points back to the Triune God, our creator, redeemer, and sustainer.
I just wish I had more time to read through the texts of the class; I’m still woefully behind, although I’m still grasping the concepts that Pastor John is laying out in class.