Smith identifies this as a common thesis of the RO threads emananting from Cambridge, Amsterdam, New Haven, and Durham. It is , as he goes on:

an antithesis between the revealed wisdom of Jerusalem and the pagan logic of Athens — as well as a refusal to concede the criteria for responsible public discourse to the supposed neutrality of the secular……there is no “secular”, if by “secular” we mean “neutral” or “uncommitted”; …..Radical Orthodoxy is a recent, particularly intense call for the development of a theoretical framework and sociopolitical involvement that are distinctly Christian at their foundation.

IRO, p. 42.

I think my reading of Zinn (and of late, a little in Noam Chomsky, and also from Moyers when I catch him on NOW or on other presentations) has allowed me to see/realize how that plays out on the stage of presenting the case for war over the years (and pretty much consistently from the very beginnings of “The American project” and Columbus , and previous European colonizations), and setting it all in a “framework of ‘natural’ philosophy”. It is at this point where my reading of Yoder and Hauerwas have set this most clearly for me, where I can see the most antithesis between “the nature of the cross and its salvific, revelatory status, versus the appeal to the common expression of “natural” reason (ie. “the way things are” as a final assent to allow the legitimatizing of violence as a means to “maintain control” and thus control history. This , in fact, takes the whole of history out of the clutches of revisionist history (which is what all history other than the God’s story finally represents).

Smith, during this discussion, says:

Hankey and Hedley (who are ctitics of RO’s rejection of natural philosophy) are eager to defend secular reason as the common ground between the belioever and unbeliever

Now here is where I remain , so far, unconvinced of the rejection of appeals to “world based philosophy”: as a linguistic common ground for identifying “worthy” and “encouraging” ideals and passions, and using those “common markers” as “tutors” or “approximations” to invite “investigation of the community which supports each other growth or a process which leads to faith.

A few lines later, as I have been reading since the above paragraph was written, he says:

What Hedley protests is the loss of a reason uncontaminated by religion – a secular , neutral reason common to both believer and non-believer. For him , the RO position can only amount to the simple thesis that “everything is theology”

This debate seems to be closely related to the “fears of theocracy”. While there is certainly a brand of theocracy that I fear, I also regard the Kingdom as a version that is the only legitimate one. To regard a situation where “everythng is theology” as dangerous reveals the fear of a repressive, fundamentalsitic, taliban-like regime that will start lopping off heads and burning witches. I think of McLaren’s book on “A Generous Orthodoxy” (which of course, draws the ire of Al Mohler, whose theocracy I would certainly fear), and the implications of that for an incarnatate expression of that in polis form. (Interesting: I just looked in the index of IRO and there was no instance of the word “theocracy” listed. Am I way off base here? It sememed to me that JKA Smith’s “cartography” of RO was leading up to this, with all the talk of “particularity” and the rejection of a neutral and natural philoposhy.

Reading on…..