Monday, October 31, 2005

Radical Orthodoxy



One could make a very strong argument that one of the leading academic camps today, which is doing the best ressourcement, a return to the sources, is the R.O. Consider their engagement with Augustine and Aquinas and how it relates to modernity. Some great ecumenical work is being done on a new blog entitled Radical Preaching. I highly encourage you to check it out.

Radical Orthodoxy Online

Rejecting Modernity: Radical Orthodoxy

FTs - The Radical Orthodoxy Project

CT - What's so Radical about Orthodoxy? Introducing Introducing Radical Orthodoxy and the project to "re-narrate" reality without the word secular.
RO theologians... seek is to re-direct Christian loyalties and re-form Christian affections away from the state (unlimited power) and market (unbounded desire), and bend them back towards the church which exists in the world, through God's Spirit, as the singular exemplary human community.
Radical, Orthodox

The New Orthodoxy?

RADICAL ORTHODOXY IN THE PARISH OR, POSTMODERN CRITICAL AUGUSTINIANISM FOR DUMMIES

God's Own Knowledge - A theology of sex shops, movies, and nothingness may be the biggest thing to hit Christianity since Martin Luther.

4 comments:

Derek Jenkins said...

In his article Radical, Orthodox, Lois Malcolm he says:

It’s important to note that in appropriating the Augustine-Aquinas tradition, Milbank radically redefines Aquinas’s "analogy of being," positing instead an "analogy of creation." According to Aquinas’s analogy of being, every individual creature finds its purpose or true "being" in the pattern that exists in the mind of God. For Milbank, however, it is our ability to "create" that defines us as God’s creatures, made in God’s image.

This seems to me quite the red flag. I am by no means versed in metaphysics but I do trust Balthasar here. A deep understanding of the 'Analogy of Being' is at the very heart of his understanding of everything. Isn't to 'radically redefine' that vision a departure, from the very beginning, of the heart of Balthasar?

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Refer to the comments in the this post - David Schindler on Balthasar.

Good question Derek - let me ask around about this and see what kind of response we get.

Unknown said...

Hmm... thanks for raising that issue, Derek. Honestly, the reading I've done in RO hasn't discussed Milbank's understanding of the analogy of being, so I can't verify that Malcolm's summary is accurate.

Having said that, I do know that Milbank does have some issues with Balthasar... it seems that he prefers de Lubac to the later disciple. So it wouldn't be a shock if Milbank differed with Balthasar on this point, as he's done so elsewhere.

Now having said *that*, I do think Balthasar is correct, so I'm curious to do see if Malcolm's summary is accurate, and if so, what ramifications that has for RO.

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

For Scott to Derek,

I am by no means the best one to comment. I am not a Thomist scholar, but I have wrestled for a while with Milbank. I don't think that Milbank reads creation over against the analogy of being. In
"Christological Poetics" in The Word Made Strange, Milbank does
devote a great deal of attention to human making. However, for human making to exist meaningfully, it must participate in the life of the Triune God. If I read him correctly, his radical redefinition of the analogy of being is more of a radical intensification. As humanity
participates in the Triune God, the Spirit inspires in humanity works that approach the love of God. I would call this a kind of co-operant making that avoids determinism.

Again, I hesitate to say too much, since I am fairly new to Thomistic
discussions. I hope this addresses your question somewhat. I will try to read up some on Milbank's argument and post later.

Grace and Peace,
Scott