What do you think?
Rate this book
Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology
Radical Orthodoxy is a new wave of theological thinking that aims to reclaim the world by situating its concerns and activities within a theological framework, re-injecting modernity with theology.
This collection of papers is essential reading for anyone eager to understand religion, theology, and philosophy in a completely new light.
This collection of papers is essential reading for anyone eager to understand religion, theology, and philosophy in a completely new light.
285 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1998
15 people are currently reading
336 people want to read
About the author
John Milbank
57 books82 followersProfessor John Milbank is Professor in Religion, Politics and Ethics and the Director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy at the University of Nottingham. He has previously taught at the Universities of Lancaster, Cambridge and Virginia. He is the author of several books of which the most well-known is Theology and Social Theory and the most recent Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon. He is one of the editors of the Radical Orthodoxy collection of essays which occasioned much debate. In general he has endeavoured in his work to resist the idea that secular norms of understanding should set the agenda for theology and has tried to promote the sense that Christianity offers a rich and viable account of the whole of reality.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
Read
August 4, 2011I will write this review in topical format, rather than reviewing chapter-by-chapter. The authors in this book propose a new theological vision critiquing the modern project by drawing upon Patristic and Medieval sources.
Ontology
The authors suggest that Western Christendom experienced an intellectual fall from grace around 1300. This dealt with the nature of “being” (or ontology). Previously, for the “church fathers or early scholastics, both faith and reason are included in the more generic framework of participation in the mind of God” (Milbank, 24). This meant while faith and reason are distinct, there is no duality. Likewise, creation itself participates in God. God is transcendent and suspended from creation. The “suspension” analogy is apt. God is high above creation but he can (and will!) participate in it.
However, after Duns Scotus elevated being to the level of God, or that man and God participate in the same being in due proportion. In other words, God and man occupy the same reality. Because man and God now occupy the same ontology, ontology is flattened. The world is thus emptied of God. For the RO narrative, philosophy degenerates from this moment onward.
Revelation
Most people, conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic, regard the doctrine of Revelation as something like a deposit of divine truth accessible by reason and/or imparted graciously by God. This assumes, argues John Montag, a rationalistic view of knowledge that was foreign to the Patristics and Medievals. Anticipating objections to Thomas Aquinas and an alleged rational scholasticism, Montag argues that Aquinas saw revelation “teleologically” (Montag, 43). It is one’s perspective on things in light of one’s final end. Montag goes on to critique the distinctions between nature and supernature.
Aesthetics
The proponents of RO want a robust aesthetics—it is key to the Christian worldview. Central to an aesthetics is the sublime—the outpouring of God’s love in plenitude (210). The sublime enters the vacant space created by postmodern chaos and in this space places the love and beauty of God.
Sexuality and Embodiment
Central to their aesthetic desire and healthy creationism is a focus on the blessings of being embodied. Graham Ward notes that since all creation issued forth from the Word of God, all of creation bears Christ’s watermark (165). With talk of embodiment comes Christ’s command to take and eat his body—talk of embodiment leads to talk of the Eucharist. Jesus’s command is an ontological scandal—space and place are being redefined.
Conclusion
More could be said of their politics—the church is a counter-polis to the nation-state, the nation-state being an idol. They discuss the possibilities of epistemology and ontology after Wittgenstein. Finally is a rewarding discussion of friendship using St Anselm.
The authors urge a return to the robustness of the Medieval age. Of course, the hindsight of postmodernism will condition our applications of medievalism, perhaps avoiding some of the medievals’ faults (or perhaps not).
Ontology
The authors suggest that Western Christendom experienced an intellectual fall from grace around 1300. This dealt with the nature of “being” (or ontology). Previously, for the “church fathers or early scholastics, both faith and reason are included in the more generic framework of participation in the mind of God” (Milbank, 24). This meant while faith and reason are distinct, there is no duality. Likewise, creation itself participates in God. God is transcendent and suspended from creation. The “suspension” analogy is apt. God is high above creation but he can (and will!) participate in it.
However, after Duns Scotus elevated being to the level of God, or that man and God participate in the same being in due proportion. In other words, God and man occupy the same reality. Because man and God now occupy the same ontology, ontology is flattened. The world is thus emptied of God. For the RO narrative, philosophy degenerates from this moment onward.
Revelation
Most people, conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic, regard the doctrine of Revelation as something like a deposit of divine truth accessible by reason and/or imparted graciously by God. This assumes, argues John Montag, a rationalistic view of knowledge that was foreign to the Patristics and Medievals. Anticipating objections to Thomas Aquinas and an alleged rational scholasticism, Montag argues that Aquinas saw revelation “teleologically” (Montag, 43). It is one’s perspective on things in light of one’s final end. Montag goes on to critique the distinctions between nature and supernature.
Aesthetics
The proponents of RO want a robust aesthetics—it is key to the Christian worldview. Central to an aesthetics is the sublime—the outpouring of God’s love in plenitude (210). The sublime enters the vacant space created by postmodern chaos and in this space places the love and beauty of God.
Sexuality and Embodiment
Central to their aesthetic desire and healthy creationism is a focus on the blessings of being embodied. Graham Ward notes that since all creation issued forth from the Word of God, all of creation bears Christ’s watermark (165). With talk of embodiment comes Christ’s command to take and eat his body—talk of embodiment leads to talk of the Eucharist. Jesus’s command is an ontological scandal—space and place are being redefined.
Conclusion
More could be said of their politics—the church is a counter-polis to the nation-state, the nation-state being an idol. They discuss the possibilities of epistemology and ontology after Wittgenstein. Finally is a rewarding discussion of friendship using St Anselm.
The authors urge a return to the robustness of the Medieval age. Of course, the hindsight of postmodernism will condition our applications of medievalism, perhaps avoiding some of the medievals’ faults (or perhaps not).
January 13, 2016
EDIT: I am far more critical of the Radical Orthodoxy project than I was when I wrote this review. Their genealogical critique of Scotus has been refuted and some of the essays, if not bizarre, are downright troubling (Graham Ward). Further, Jamie Smith has decisively "cut Radical Orthodoxy to the bone." But here goes:
I will write this review in topical format, rather than reviewing chapter-by-chapter. The authors in this book propose a new theological vision critiquing the modern project by drawing upon Patristic and Medieval sources.
Ontology
The authors suggest that Western Christendom experienced an intellectual fall from grace around 1300. This dealt with the nature of "being" (or ontology). Previously, for the "church fathers or early scholastics, both faith and reason are included in the more generic framework of participation in the mind of God" (Milbank, 24). This meant while faith and reason are distinct, there is no duality. Likewise, creation itself participates in God. God is transcendent and suspended from creation. The "suspension" analogy is apt. God is high above creation but he can (and will!) participate in it.
However, after Duns Scotus elevated being to the level of God, or that man and God participate in the same being in due proportion. In other words, God and man occupy the same reality. Because man and God now occupy the same ontology, ontology is flattened. The world is thus emptied of God. For the RO narrative, philosophy degenerates from this moment onward.
Revelation
Most people, conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic, regard the doctrine of Revelation as something like a deposit of divine truth accessible by reason and/or imparted graciously by God. This assumes, argues John Montag, a rationalistic view of knowledge that was foreign to the Patristics and Medievals. Anticipating objections to Thomas Aquinas and an alleged rational scholasticism, Montag argues that Aquinas saw revelation "teleologically" (Montag, 43). It is one's perspective on things in light of one's final end. Montag goes on to critique the distinctions between nature and supernature.
Aesthetics
The proponents of RO want a robust aesthetics--it is key to the Christian worldview. Central to an aesthetics is the sublime--the outpouring of God's love in plenitude (210). The sublime enters the vacant space created by postmodern chaos and in this space places the love and beauty of God.
Conclusion
More could be said of their politics--the church is a counter-polis to the nation-state, the nation-state being an idol. They discuss the possibilities of epistemology and ontology after Wittgenstein. Finally is a rewarding discussion of friendship using St Anselm.
The authors urge a return to the robustness of the Medieval age. Of course, the hindsight of postmodernism will condition our applications of medievalism, perhaps avoiding some of the medievals' faults (or perhaps not).
I will write this review in topical format, rather than reviewing chapter-by-chapter. The authors in this book propose a new theological vision critiquing the modern project by drawing upon Patristic and Medieval sources.
Ontology
The authors suggest that Western Christendom experienced an intellectual fall from grace around 1300. This dealt with the nature of "being" (or ontology). Previously, for the "church fathers or early scholastics, both faith and reason are included in the more generic framework of participation in the mind of God" (Milbank, 24). This meant while faith and reason are distinct, there is no duality. Likewise, creation itself participates in God. God is transcendent and suspended from creation. The "suspension" analogy is apt. God is high above creation but he can (and will!) participate in it.
However, after Duns Scotus elevated being to the level of God, or that man and God participate in the same being in due proportion. In other words, God and man occupy the same reality. Because man and God now occupy the same ontology, ontology is flattened. The world is thus emptied of God. For the RO narrative, philosophy degenerates from this moment onward.
Revelation
Most people, conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic, regard the doctrine of Revelation as something like a deposit of divine truth accessible by reason and/or imparted graciously by God. This assumes, argues John Montag, a rationalistic view of knowledge that was foreign to the Patristics and Medievals. Anticipating objections to Thomas Aquinas and an alleged rational scholasticism, Montag argues that Aquinas saw revelation "teleologically" (Montag, 43). It is one's perspective on things in light of one's final end. Montag goes on to critique the distinctions between nature and supernature.
Aesthetics
The proponents of RO want a robust aesthetics--it is key to the Christian worldview. Central to an aesthetics is the sublime--the outpouring of God's love in plenitude (210). The sublime enters the vacant space created by postmodern chaos and in this space places the love and beauty of God.
Conclusion
More could be said of their politics--the church is a counter-polis to the nation-state, the nation-state being an idol. They discuss the possibilities of epistemology and ontology after Wittgenstein. Finally is a rewarding discussion of friendship using St Anselm.
The authors urge a return to the robustness of the Medieval age. Of course, the hindsight of postmodernism will condition our applications of medievalism, perhaps avoiding some of the medievals' faults (or perhaps not).
July 1, 2024
Still trying with Radical Orthodoxy, and I thought essays would be more manageable than a full-length book. And they are, but the same basic traits emerge: intriguing ideas hidden under a rubble of poor English and randomly-thrown-in ideas, some of which are patently false, and ultimately an appeal to factors that are non-philosophical.
Take the last paper, by Catherine Pickstock, supposedly a treatment of St Augustine's De Musica. The basic thesis - that particular musical performances are a participation in the eternal divine harmony - is not (of course) new, but it's RO's thing to try and rehabilitate this type of old idea in a new way (hence 'radical orthodoxy'). Pickstock claims to take from Augustine that harmony, and particularly polyphony, are uniquely apt to express this divine music. But of course it is unfortunate for this theory that harmony did not exist in Augustine's time, nor (a fortiori) that of the ancient Greeks, nor for several centuries after. Undismayed, she argues that harmony is implicit or even 'presupposed' in their concepts of music; which frankly is a bit far-fetched. Of course Greek concepts laid the foundation for what became harmony, but I'm not sure this was an inevitable development. At the same time she contrasts Western music with her notions (seemingly drawn from Western sources) of Indian. Here again, there is a difference but I'm not sure it will hold the weight she wants it to - aren't the concepts fundamentally the same, namely a kind of communion with the Absolute?
The argument illustrates what seem to be three other recurring features of RO work: grounding everything in the ancient Greeks, especially Plato (which is an odd thing for Christian philosophers to do); the apparent desire to turn an aesthetic preference into a moral absolute; and hardening slight differences into doctrinal divides (as Orwell accused Chesterton of making tea-drinking the subject of religious intolerance). And after all that, to what authority does Pickstock appeal to confirm her arguments?: 'the evidence of our ears'! Nuff said.
It's a pity, perhaps, but this is what philosophical theologians usually seem to end up doing: saying 'well, it just *is*', and throwing themselves on the sympathy of the jury. And this, of course, gets us no further forward; because the jury will sympathise only if it already did before the discussion started. And this because the things they want to prove - as Aquinas already realised 800 years ago - cannot rationally be proved. That doesn't mean they are false; it just means they are propositions of faith, not reason. Or to put it another way, they are not conclusively demonstrable; they belong to a certain thought-paradigm, and one may legitimately use that paradigm as a way of interpreting the world, but one may equally legitimately not. So whilst RO promises a reconciliation of the duality of faith and reason, in the end it does not deliver.
As far as the rightly much-criticised language goes, there is an interesting 'tell' here. Pickstock describes the following as a 'beautiful phrase':
'In music there is at once an objectively expressible proportion, and subjective selection and appreciation of this proportion as beautiful.'
Now, firstly, that is not a phrase: it is a fairly long sentence. Secondly (and with due regard to the 'subjective selection and appreciation') it is not beautiful, but rather difficult to follow and over-laden with polysyllabic, Latinate words - 40 syllables in total. It reads like - and probably was - a concise summary of a long and convoluted preceding argument which presumably elaborated on the precise intended meaning of the terms involved (especially 'proportion'). However, it is perhaps a beautiful *idea*, and in contemplating the idea Pickstock has lost sight of its expression. It is obvious that she has no ear whatever for language; perhaps her head is lost in the world of Platonic Forms and she is conscious only of the essence of an idea, not of the way it is expressed. That would explain why she seems, not just a bad writer, but one who seems genuinely oblivious to the very poor quality of her prose. She writes like someone whose first language is not English (I just find it so irritating when she uses phrases like 'to the contrary' instead of 'on the contrary).
But this is - of course - a serious weakness for a writer, whose purpose is after all supposed to be communication. This book makes huge claims - to 'reclaim the world' no less! I can't figure out how the RO school thought they were going to do that, without putting their ideas in a relatively intelligible (and preferably attractive) form. Here am I, a Christian and philosophy graduate, and I have only just got to this book 25 years after its publication - because the word just isn't out there. Unless you are part of the clique, you don't know about it. Were they expecting some popular interpreter to pick up their ideas and make them accessible? If so it hasn't happened, and was never likely to. So the responsibility rests with them for clothing them in the first place with this incredibly off-putting brand of academic-ese.
Similarly, a quote on the back implies that the book proves the vitality of Christianity in the face of 'claims about its imminent demise'. I'm afraid it doesn't do anything of the sort. It is in fact precisely the sort of super-refined product one expects of a culture when it has completely lost touch with the broader public, and thinks it need no longer concern itself with them. And the Byzantine Empire had its last, greatest flourish of artistic expression right before it was finally destroyed.
Take the last paper, by Catherine Pickstock, supposedly a treatment of St Augustine's De Musica. The basic thesis - that particular musical performances are a participation in the eternal divine harmony - is not (of course) new, but it's RO's thing to try and rehabilitate this type of old idea in a new way (hence 'radical orthodoxy'). Pickstock claims to take from Augustine that harmony, and particularly polyphony, are uniquely apt to express this divine music. But of course it is unfortunate for this theory that harmony did not exist in Augustine's time, nor (a fortiori) that of the ancient Greeks, nor for several centuries after. Undismayed, she argues that harmony is implicit or even 'presupposed' in their concepts of music; which frankly is a bit far-fetched. Of course Greek concepts laid the foundation for what became harmony, but I'm not sure this was an inevitable development. At the same time she contrasts Western music with her notions (seemingly drawn from Western sources) of Indian. Here again, there is a difference but I'm not sure it will hold the weight she wants it to - aren't the concepts fundamentally the same, namely a kind of communion with the Absolute?
The argument illustrates what seem to be three other recurring features of RO work: grounding everything in the ancient Greeks, especially Plato (which is an odd thing for Christian philosophers to do); the apparent desire to turn an aesthetic preference into a moral absolute; and hardening slight differences into doctrinal divides (as Orwell accused Chesterton of making tea-drinking the subject of religious intolerance). And after all that, to what authority does Pickstock appeal to confirm her arguments?: 'the evidence of our ears'! Nuff said.
It's a pity, perhaps, but this is what philosophical theologians usually seem to end up doing: saying 'well, it just *is*', and throwing themselves on the sympathy of the jury. And this, of course, gets us no further forward; because the jury will sympathise only if it already did before the discussion started. And this because the things they want to prove - as Aquinas already realised 800 years ago - cannot rationally be proved. That doesn't mean they are false; it just means they are propositions of faith, not reason. Or to put it another way, they are not conclusively demonstrable; they belong to a certain thought-paradigm, and one may legitimately use that paradigm as a way of interpreting the world, but one may equally legitimately not. So whilst RO promises a reconciliation of the duality of faith and reason, in the end it does not deliver.
As far as the rightly much-criticised language goes, there is an interesting 'tell' here. Pickstock describes the following as a 'beautiful phrase':
'In music there is at once an objectively expressible proportion, and subjective selection and appreciation of this proportion as beautiful.'
Now, firstly, that is not a phrase: it is a fairly long sentence. Secondly (and with due regard to the 'subjective selection and appreciation') it is not beautiful, but rather difficult to follow and over-laden with polysyllabic, Latinate words - 40 syllables in total. It reads like - and probably was - a concise summary of a long and convoluted preceding argument which presumably elaborated on the precise intended meaning of the terms involved (especially 'proportion'). However, it is perhaps a beautiful *idea*, and in contemplating the idea Pickstock has lost sight of its expression. It is obvious that she has no ear whatever for language; perhaps her head is lost in the world of Platonic Forms and she is conscious only of the essence of an idea, not of the way it is expressed. That would explain why she seems, not just a bad writer, but one who seems genuinely oblivious to the very poor quality of her prose. She writes like someone whose first language is not English (I just find it so irritating when she uses phrases like 'to the contrary' instead of 'on the contrary).
But this is - of course - a serious weakness for a writer, whose purpose is after all supposed to be communication. This book makes huge claims - to 'reclaim the world' no less! I can't figure out how the RO school thought they were going to do that, without putting their ideas in a relatively intelligible (and preferably attractive) form. Here am I, a Christian and philosophy graduate, and I have only just got to this book 25 years after its publication - because the word just isn't out there. Unless you are part of the clique, you don't know about it. Were they expecting some popular interpreter to pick up their ideas and make them accessible? If so it hasn't happened, and was never likely to. So the responsibility rests with them for clothing them in the first place with this incredibly off-putting brand of academic-ese.
Similarly, a quote on the back implies that the book proves the vitality of Christianity in the face of 'claims about its imminent demise'. I'm afraid it doesn't do anything of the sort. It is in fact precisely the sort of super-refined product one expects of a culture when it has completely lost touch with the broader public, and thinks it need no longer concern itself with them. And the Byzantine Empire had its last, greatest flourish of artistic expression right before it was finally destroyed.
November 19, 2017
An amazing collection of essays centered around the (loosely Anglican) Radical Orthodox theology. Difficult to summarize justly, some prominent themes include a rejection of the univocity of Being (a misstep largely laid at the feet of Duns Scotus which allegedly opened the door for voluntarism, nominalism, and modernity) and a return to Thomas' view of theology as the Queen of the sciences (without, however, rejecting wholesale everything that comes after Thomas). The ability of the Radical Orthodoxy to engage with postmodernism in a way that doesn't sell out Christian doctrine is intellectually satisfying while being mostly sound and sane (some of the things they say about gender are weird). Overall, this is some essential reading for intellectually serious Christians.
May 13, 2020
This was a collection of hits and misses for me. Some of the essays were of extreme value for me personally, while others were paragons of boredom. Hemming's essay on Heidegger is actually one of the best arguments for a developed Mariology I, a born and raised Protestant, have ever read. Hanby's essay on Augustine was devotional as much as intellectual reading. The last three essays on aesthetics, perception and music were all great. But, others were almost painful to get through. Ward's essay on Bodies was almost unnecessary, and I thought much more could have been done in Loughlin's essay on Erotics. But overall, a very good read.
March 11, 2010
This collection of essays has a couple of keepers (The City, or Displaced Bodies, for example), as well as some not so great contributions. While it was designed such that chapters could be independently read of one another, some should probably be read in succession to get the full impact. I don't know that I would call myself much of a John Milbank fan, but it presented new ways of looking at theology in postmodern times.
September 10, 2008
hard ones..
Read
June 20, 2017A mixed bag and another book I would have devoured some years ago. I can seriously see this book being read by some inspired friends and causing epiphany left and right for five weeks over cheap wine, the friends then never to speak of this book again all of a sudden. It is not something I can imagine ever takino down from a shelf to revisit, nor something to reccomend, lest one have to speak of the thing more than once in these couple of days we call 'Life.'
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews