Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason

by John Milbank

This is a revised edition of John Milbank’s masterpiece, which sketches the outline of a specifically theological social theory.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Religion, Sociology, Politics, Christianity, Nonfiction

480 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 1993

About the author

Professor 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.

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Milbank could have taken a course in how to be understood by the common man.



Thesis: Milbank convincingly argues that secular modernity is built upon presuppositions that are just as religious as those of Christianity. Even worse, they rest upon a more shaky foundation of faith.



Milbank argues that modern discussions of "secular" reason are historically off-center. There was a time when there was no secular. The saeculum used to refer to the time between the Advents. Now it refers to the area off-limits to Jesus. It now has spatial, rather than temporal significance.



Milbank notes that "secular" disciplines such as sociology have their own religious presuppositions which they then import upon the theological. In other words, all disciplines have their own "story to tell." All of these stories are built upon religious presuppositions. It is Milbank's contention that the Christian story is the best one.



Milbank then critiques communism, capitalism, and Durkheimian sociologies. This was a hard section to read and I really didn't understand it.



Milbank goes through a thorough interaction with postmodernism, noting that postmodern scholars see an "ontology of violence." Given the modern reality, such ontologies are inevitable. This is arguably the most important section of the book since it sets the stage for Milbank's later works.



He ends with an Augustian discussion of an "ontology of peace."



Problems with the book:

I can read 5 or 6 languages and have read hundreds of books of upper level theology and philosophy and most of the time I had no idea what Milbank was talking about.

[Andrew McNeely]

There were several important theology texts that made quite the splash in the latter half of the twentieth century, John Milbank’s Theology and Social Theory (TST) being one of them. Although Milbank’s proposal in TST is dated now, it nevertheless remains an important work of theology, and it’s become a rite-of-passage every graduate student in theology takes on at some point. Yet as everyone here on Goodreads ritually repeats, this is a deeply challenging study, and at times inaccessible. That said, I thought I’d try to give a relatively in-depth summary of TST for those interested in engaging it. I will focus on the central components of Milbank’s argument, hopefully not getting too far lost in the weeds.

Let’s begin with the title which is somewhat misleading. Milbank’s theological proposal does not attempt to employ social theory or explore methodologically how theology can borrow from the social sciences (e.g., liberation theology); Milbank is actually suggesting quite the opposite: theology or social theory–two rivals offering competing metanarratives of reality. In so doing, Milbank introduces a one-two-punch. First, he develops a genealogical argument that delegitimizes all social theory, and, secondly, supplants social theory’s metanarrative of modernity with Christianity’s own vision–its own metanarrative–of the social (i.e., all of reality).

Very briefly, Milbank’s argument is the following. Modernity’s thought and practice is ultimately reducible to an ontology of violence. That is, Modernity tells a fundamental story–a metanarrative–that assumes a cyclical downward spiral of violence that can only be managed and constrained (“the priority of force…managed and confined by counter-force” [TST, 4]), yet never resolved or redeemed. In contrast, Milbank proposes a Christian counter-narrative, one that is fundamentally predicated on an ontology of peace and harmony. Theologically, this peace and harmony (i.e., salvation) is proclaimed by the Christian Church in the realm of Christian praxis that embodies this counter-ontology of difference-in-harmony which is God’s own Triune self. Thus, Milbank is suspicious of modern Christian theologies that present in terms of social theory because in doing so, Christianity allows itself to be “positioned” (i.e., compromised) by modern secular reasoning, which, again, is fundamentally an ontology of violence and nihilism.

Now for the longer story of Milbank’s argument. Prior to Modernity, Milbank argues, “there was no ‘secular’” (TST, 9). Instead, the “secular,” that is the secularization of Western culture, had to be imagined or invented and then legitimated by both political theory and theology. The secular was politically legitimated because the body politic became radically redefined by social and political theory. It was theologically legitimated because this social and political theory was made possible by a re-definition of God and God’s relationship to humanity.

According to Milbank, therefore, the secular cannot be simply understood as a natural reality that remained once Modernity shucked off the sacred and transcendent. (This is what philosopher Charles Taylor refers to in A Secular Age as “subtraction stories.”) As a consequence of this, the social and political claimed the existence of an autonomous realm called “the secular” as a purely natural sphere. Modern political theory invented the secular as a field of “pure power” (TST, 10) that contained autonomous objects and selves living by natural law, oriented toward self-preservation–the latter of which was justified by early modern theologians who sought to articulate an ethic of human production as if God were absent from the world.

Once the secular as a natural reality was uncritically assumed, it thereby warranted a social theory to account for the autonomy of this realm. Milbank introduces four elements that generated this social theory, each rooted in the Renaissance period. (1) The retrieval of the concept of dominium from Roman law, which articulated unrestricted power and active right over self and others. (2) This conception of dominium became easily bound up with a form of voluntarism that was mediated through late-Medieval nominalism to form a new political anthropology, which was in turn theologically buttressed by an understanding of the imago Dei. In other words, with God now viewed as the simple divine essence characterized by sheer absolute power and arbitrary will, utterly extrinsic from creation, humanity–by way of the imago Dei–thereby organized a body politic on similar, distant terms. (3) The undermining of traditional authority of the Bible in the Church by the rise of historical criticism. (4) A redefinition of time, no longer seen in eschatological terms, but now in a secular Machiavellian framework of time that is cyclical, which now made possible the interruption of the “fortunate moment,” a type of moment to be seized upon by the politically shrewd actor who can bend and leverage that moment to their own advantage.

According to Milbank, the convergence of these four elements in early modernity engendered the paradoxical modern conception of society as a natural factum–a brute given–undergirded by an ontology of violence and as an autonomous human artifact governed by natural law. The history of western modernity and the metanarrative it tells as brute fact is merely an outgrowth of the contingencies of social theory.

Milbank’s next objective is to demonstrate how this social theory has developed. Modern political theory brooks the power and antagonism inherent in society through social contract, whereas modern economics argues that conflict can be managed through economic transaction, which replaces a theology of divine providence with the hidden hand of the marketplace. Modern sociology, exemplified in the theories of Durkheim and Weber, was simply wielded to “police the sublime,” by which religious belief was reduced to a functionalist explanation of the relations between an individual and the social. Durkheim socializes, and thereby secularizes, transcendence and ecclesiology to an immanent community bound by ritual, whereas Weber conceives of religious belief as secondary to societal value in that instrumental rationality is the primary driver, disenchanting the sacred over time. For Milbank, modern sociology’s functionalist explanation of religion is simply “narrative redescription”–a metanarrative–that betrays its own baseless presuppositions of the “secular”–an invented myth to begin with.

Two long chapters follow, one on Hegel and the other on Marx. In both chapters, Milbank argues that Hegel and Marx can be useful in critiquing secular reasoning, but prove equally dangerous in jeopardizing Christian orthodoxy. Milbank lauds Hegel’s rejection of the Enlightenment’s notion of neutral, autonomous reasoning, and his championing of reasoning as historically mediated. Moreover, Hegel does not allow a purely secular account of society, one that is simply socialized. For Hegel, Geist (or Spirit) indicates that all social life is grounded in transcendence and therefore requires theological discourse. Hegel’s dialectic also proves useful for Milbank in that it offers a way of thinking beyond dualisms (i.e., nature/grace, faith/reason, sacred/secular). But Milbank levels several charges against Hegel as well. Hegel’s totalizing philosophy in Spirit’s self-revelation absorbs theology, undercutting the necessity of revelation as something gratuitous. Relatedly, Hegel immanentizes God to such an extent that it becomes identified with the historical unfolding of Spirit, threatening to undermine transcendence. Hegel’s dialectic, while useful, seeks to resolve all contradictions which leaves no room for mystery, paradox, and gratuity, which for Milbank is central to Christian faith. Lastly, Milbank argues that Hegel’s dialectic also absorbs difference into sameness, which can be easily translated into a violent, coercive framework. The Christian vision of peace, on the other hand, respects difference as divine gift.

Marx additionally receives mixed reviews. For Milbank, Marx is at his best when he acts as the “deconstructor of the secular” (TST, 177) who unmasks the supposedly neutral marketplace that conceals relations of domination and exposes how ideologies and institutions are formed by hidden interests like class and economic exploitation. This parallels closely, for Milbank, a doctrine of sin that pervades all of social life. Yet Marx goes awry when he interprets all of history as class struggle which accepts violence as ontologically primary and substitutes the Kingdom of God for a social utopia (i.e., communism). This is for Milbank a politicized parody of Christian eschatology.

Milbank ends Part III of TST with an extended exploration of Maurice Blondel, the French Nouvelle Theologie (in contrast to Rahner’s German version), and their emphasis on “supernaturalizing the natural.” Before I explain why this is central to Milbank’s study, skipping ahead to Milbank’s analysis of Nietzsche and the later French Neo-Nietzscheans (Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze) will better foreground how the Nouvelle Theologie’s ressourcement plays into Milbank’s theological out-narration of Modernity’s own metanarrative.

First, Nietzsche and the ontological violence he so forcefully asserts. According to Milbank, Nietzsche’s historicizing genealogy is undergirded by a “differential ontology” of violence that best represents Nihilism and the postmodern Neo-Nietzscheans (TST, 278). For Nietzsche, the will-to-power is the only inherently natural given that claims transcendental status and is not subject to genealogical critique. In other words, power and violence, according to Nietzsche, are both taken to be the foundations of all reality and therefore escape historicist analysis. But Nietzsche’s thought also acts as a pivotal moment which marks the end of Modernity’s penchant for foundationalist epistemologies and the start of Postmodernity’s skepticism of ungrounded metanarratives buttressed by themes of power and ideological strategies. Milbank finds this especially useful for his critique of Nietzsche in that he argues the latter’s “unfounded hierarchy of values” and elevation of “heroic” violence cannot be undermined by liberalism’s response, but instead requires a narration of “an alternative mythos, equally unfounded, but nonetheless embodying an ‘ontology of peace’… (TST, 279). Yet before articulating a Christian alternative mythos, Milbank takes on the French Neo-Nietzscheans.

Foucault unmasks the modern myth of neutrality by genealogically exposing that what passes as foundational truth-claims are always bound up with dynamic power-relations, which confirms Milbank’s contention that secular reason is not autonomous reasoning, but rather entangled with hidden theologies of coercion and violence. Yet Foucault’s genealogy, like Nietzsche’s, remains fundamentally predicated upon an ontology of violence in that all order emerges from conflict, and every truth claim is an effect of control and domination. Milbank accepts Derrida’s notion of différance which signals the impossibility of a final closure of discourse and demonstrates the instability of meaning through subconscious acts of “deconstruction,” in turn introducing an ethics of hospitality that gestures toward an openness to the “other.” But for Milbank, Derrida’s ethics can never allow for achieving a final justice because difference, according to Derrida, cannot be reconciled, and the endless deferral of language leaves no grounding in transcendence, which can only end in a repeated cycle of conflict and violence. Deleuze’s metaphysics of difference and becoming, for Milbank, is helpful in that it resists static notions of hierarchies, essences, and identity–all of which have been used to maintain social structures of oppression and marginalization. Yet because Deleuze grounds his “ontology of difference” in pure immanence, which is an endless field of flux, all that ensues is chaotic “becoming,” resulting in competition, struggle, and violence as basic to all of reality because diversity, according to Deleuze’s ontology, cannot be reconciled in a participatory divine plenitude of unifying peace.

Now for Milbank’s Christian counter-ontology to Modernity’s ontology of violence. Milbank argues that Christianity presents an anti-heroic story, one that is a refusal of violence and a narration of the “real social practice” of Augustine’s theology of the City of God, where “pure persuasion without violence” is offered as a counter-ontology (TST, 321). This is a Christian theology of the real and the social that does not need its own social theory to justify itself in the form of secular reasoning, be it through foundationalist apologetics, substance ontologies, and the desiring of competitive creativities that jostle for recognition. A theological metanarrative of this kind is fully grounded in the analogy of Being, a non-possessive desire founded in charity, and a Trinitarian ontology–all of which, for Milbank, presents the possibility of out-narration. He grounds this metanarrative in Maurice Blondel, the French Nouvelle Theologie, and in Augustine’s City of God.

The central move in Blondel’s L’Action that Milbank seizes upon is “that in concrete, historical humanity there is no such thing as a state of ‘pure nature’: rather, every person has always already been worked upon by divine grace” (TST, 206). What is, in fact, implicated in Blondel’s contention is a “supernaturalizing [of] the natural,” in which the finite is always mediated through, and participates in, the supernatural (TST, 209). In this way, there is an open-endedness to all of social and cultural life, undermining fixed notions of reality inherent in substance metaphysics. In other words, Blondel’s analysis introduces the following: action over substance, the incomplete nature of action, the experience of action which opens up a series of new syntheses that introduces new elements into reality, and the conclusion that the supernatural serves as the ground of every act deeming every action meaningful in the first place. The supernatural is the infinite ground that guarantees the character of meaningful action and discloses new reality. So what Blondel provides for Milbank is the claim that Christianity’s ungrounded-ness, so to speak, is purposeful because the eschatological character of journeying in via to God is a never ending pilgrimage, which is a more compelling story than Modernity’s metanarrative which hinges on strategies to manage and to control conflict and violence, be it the secular reasoning of liberalism or postmodernism.

Lastly is Milbank’s employment of Augustine’s City of God. Augustine argues that the city of God–the heavenly city–eschews the disordered loving and human standards of the earthly city. It is this model that Milbank believes serves as a postmodern counter-narrative, an out-narration, of Modernity’s metanarrative. Three elements from Augustine’s City of God are developed by Milbank in his counter-narrative: (1) creation is viewed as fostering differences-in-relation which thereby reflects a Trinitarian ontology–what Milbank argues is the Trinity rooted in charity-in-difference, a “‘musical’ harmony of infinity” (TST, 424). (2) the telos of creation is harmony, suggesting that difference and displacement, which constitute creation, all find their redemption not in violence but in peace and harmony. (3) Regarding moral judgement, categories of truth and error are surpassed, and all that remains is peace as the Good, Beautiful, and True, and evil as a privation of the Good. This framework of moral judgement, Milbank argues, truly encourages the desire for God and authentic harmony, relating all that does not live up to this vision as failing to properly relate to God’s ordering of a harmonic creation.

Thus, for Milbank, Christian theology is a social science that does not need to stoop to the level of secular reasoning, exemplified in modern apologetics, and should instead articulate a Christian narrative and embody a Christian praxis that out-narrates the metanarrative of Modernity. “It must articulate Christian difference in such a fashion as to make it strange” (TST, 381). Milbank presents four ways of achieving this task: (1) replacing the secular understanding of “reason” for a patristic understanding of logos. (2) Articulating a Christian ethic based not on social theory, but in the historically embedded practices facilitated by Christian community. (3) Presenting a re-narration of the Christian story in the context of creation, as Augustine managed to do. (4) Participating in Christian self-critique of the Church, recognizing where it has failed to embody and mediate this salvation and, instead, abetted the rise of secular Modernity.

I’ve likely misconstrued some of Milbank’s emphases, and I’ve undoubtably glossed over the subtleties that render this study so complex, but I hope this is a helpful starting point.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first thing to say about this book is that it is a heavy, amazing, profound and deep piece of theological engagement with philosophy, sociology and cultural ideas. The second thing to say is, it is an incredibly challenging read. I put this up there with David Bentley Hart's Beauty of the Infinite as books which stretched me more than any other. Milbank demonstrates a familiarity with Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Durkheim, Marx, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Delueze, Foucault and much more. The audience for this work is other professional theologians, of which I am not. There were times as I read where I thought I should give up and find something easier.

It reminds me of the first time I read The Silmarillion, Tolkien's history of Middle Earth from creation to the Third Age. Anyone who enjoys The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings ought to also read The Silmarillion. That said, its much different. Its like the Old Testament of Middle Earth. It is filled with names upon names upon names. I was lost. Then the second time I read it, I decided not to try to keep up with all the names. Instead, I wanted to get the plot and the themes. By the third time through, it became my favorite Tolkien book.

Now, there is about a .0001% chance I ever read Theology and Social Theory again. But I thought of my experience with The Silmarillion as I read. There may be some readers who are familiar with the nuances of Durkheim and Weber or Nietzsche and his interpreters. I imagine those readers would find Milbank's work even richer (and perhaps they'd be able to critique it too). The rest of us can settle into the fact we will never have that depth of understanding, yet if we focus on the themes of the book, there is much that we can learn.

Milbank demonstrates that the secular is not a neutral ground (and he echoes and cites Charles Taylor, someone I have read*). The problem recent theology has run into is that it tries to present theology in terms inherited from other fields. Thus, social theory is the ultimate arbiter. Milbank calls on theologians to not take this path. The reality is that these social theories themselves are not given or proven but are up for debate as to whether they can deliver what they promise. Further, historically they grow out of forms of Christian thought and to this day they remain similar as far as it takes a level of faith to accept them. In other words, there is no proof that tells us naturallly found truths are all there is. This is a philosophical statement and thus up for debate.

Now, somewhere a Christian apologist is drooling. Being familiar with Christian apologetics, it would be tempting to enlist Milbank in the crusade to defend the faith. Certainly there is some overlap, perhaps some apologists have even learned from Milbank. To the overconfident materialist or naturalist, pointing out that, against his insistence, some truths cannot be found in science alone, is worthwhile. We all do begin with assumptions and presuppositions. Yet, Milbank is not an apologist. The biggest difference is that many Christian apologists seek to meet their secular interlocutors on neutral ground and prove faith is reasonable (the evidence demands a verdict, after all). I imagine Milbank would say that they are still making something else the ultimate: this supposed neutral territory where we can reasonably weigh our ideas. One of Milbank's points is that no such territory exists.

Throughout, Milbank is critiquing secular social theories. In the end, Milbank's call is for Christians to tell an alternate story. The only coherent secular story ends up being nihilism, which Milbank seems to say (again, he's writing some heavy stuff and maybe I misunderstood) really only Nietzsche consistently put forth as many of Nietzsche's interpreters try to add things on that do not really work. At the root of the nihilist story is violence, the world rests in violence. I think the idea is that difference leads to conflict and violence. How do we exist in difference without violence. Well, we don't. There is no greater reality than that the powerful survive and the weaker do not. The option here is difference, violence and power.

Conversely, the Christian story deals with difference in a totally different way. The root of Being is God as Trinity. So there is difference seen in Father, Son and Spirit. Yet this difference is not inherently violent but is held up by love and peace. Evil, Milbank argues, though in line with the best of the Christian tradition, is not even a real positive thing. It is a negative, not adding anything new but merely corrupting what is already good. Evil, and violence, are overcome in the Christian story of ultimate Being creating a world filled with love and peace.

Honestly, the last chapter is worth the price of the book. I may go back and read that three or four times.

As a take-away on a very practical level: I work in campus ministry and there are all sorts of ideas floating around. Debates are sometimes enjoyable but rarely does anyone change their mind. Yet most people do not deal with the logical implications of their views. Telling the Christian story includes critiquing the other stories. Not critiquing from that non-existence neutral place, but just asking people if how they act really lines up with what they really believe. Can their passions and desires and hopes and dreams truly rest on how they view the world working? On the flip side, we are called to tell a better and more compelling story that invites people into a way of life geared towards love and peace. Through that, we discover this is not just a way of life but ends up being the way most in line with how we were created to live in the first place.

*As a sidenote, it is awesome when Milbank cited authors I was more familiar with. He mentions Taylor a bit, and also Rene Girard as well as Alasdair MacIntyre. All four of those writers have written some of my favorite books of all time, books that stretched and challenged me. It is cool to get a glimpse of the academic world where there is not just awe in their brilliance (which is how I read them) but critiques of their ideas (which I don't fully get as its all a bit too nuanced). It also makes me wonder who the popularizer of someone like Milbank is? After all, James KA Smith wrote a book summarizing Charles Taylor (as have some others) and I've read a few books on the thought of Girard. I suppose the place to go would be other books on Radical Orthodoxy?

There's always more books...sigh...

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

Milbank has achieved something of a totalizing meta-critique of secular reason and modernity, identifying the latter with a certain 'perverted' theology (e.g. according a positive status to evil) mixed with pagan thinking. Above all, Milbank endeavors to restore mythic narrativization qua religion as an impetus in its own right that cannot be reduced either methodogically or substantially to the category of the social.

Accordingly, in the wake of generalized nihilism and the apparent triumph of the post-tructuralist ontology of violence that that only recognizes forces and glorifies every moment as equally worthy of affirmation as any other moment, we need to be able to 'narrate' a counter ontology in which genuine peace is not only possible, but also infinitely within reach, if only we open our hearts towards a non-foundationalist participation in God's creative overflowing, exemplified by charity as the virtue of virtues. Now, such a counter-ontology does not and cannot strictly claim to be more rational than the ontology of violence, as Milbank himself fully admits. At a certain level, one simply 'narrates' how things hang together in the broadest possible sense and hope for the best. Yet it does entail that the Catholic Christian tradition, specifically Augustine's vision of a reciprocal exchange between the whole and the part such as the whole is fractally recapitulated in every part (thus refusing the classical antinomy between the polis and the psyche) presents a world in which genuine peace and not just a perpetual suspension of warfare, can be realized.

Milbank's clever meta-critical perspective is not without its faults, however, as Milbank himself often lapses into treating the religious as motor that drives all difference making. Everything is confused theology. In this regard, it is tempting to see Milbank as turning Feuerbach on his head. Milbank is also not very forthcoming about his own theological and christological vantage point from which he prosecutes the critique, at times presenting the Thomistic tradition as the 'kernel' of Christianity in opposition to which all other traditions are heterodox and pagan deviations (see the passages where he simply dismisses the problem of evil) Nonetheless, Milbank is to be commended for reckoning seriously with the postmodern challenge to any and all self-legitimizing traditions and discourses (e.g theology, philosophy, sociology) to double down on their particularity.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Milbank provides a new and refreshing argument with age old (but necessary) results. Christianity must cease taking its cue from the "secular science" and, rather, work within the Christian tradition itself for means of addressing the world. This was the thrust of recent theological movements such as the "Yale school" like Lindbeck and Frei, and was further popularized by Hauerwas, with Barth's rejection of liberalism being the progenitor. (Of course, Christianity has long before Barth understood this). Milbank, however, not only argues positively for Christianity working on its own terms, but also critically demonstrates that the "secular" is actually defined and traces its origin to (heretical) theological claims. Thus the modern social sciences (politics, economics, sociology, dialectics, Marxism, nihilism, etc.) are rooted not in a separate secular sphere, but in heretical (pagan/gnostic) religion. Fantastic read, although there is significantly more critical than constructive theology involved. In fact, until the last chapter, one wonders where the Christianity is in the book. But this is a necessary emphasis for Milbanks argument

Addendum: Much that has been influenced by and continues the conversation of this book - going under the name Radical Orthodoxy - is fantastic theology. However, it sometimes becomes unnecessarily dense. If theology is to serve the church it must translate into not just the thought of the church but also the life of the church. And at times I feel that RO fails simply because of the over-technical density of the works. Its critiqques are extremely important, but it would be better if they were communicated for the common people rather than require a degree in theology to understand. (I have a BA in Theology, much of this was incomprehensible to me)

[Christopher Gow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glad to be done with this. (It only took about 1.5 years) Some of it is stunning, much of it is incomprehensible.

Characteristic quotes that express both aspects:
“All theology has to reconceive itself as a kind of ‘Christian sociology’” (383)

“vertical self-transcendence is simultaneously horizontal self-transcendence forward in time.. we add to ourselves” (211)

“The antique antinomy of polis and oikos is overcome because every household is now a lebensgesellschaft” (407)

One could say that Christianity... seeks to recover the concealed text of an original peaceful creation beneath the palimpsest of the negative distortion of ‘dominium’ though the superimposition of a third redemptive template” (423)

[Daniel Klawitter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Freaking brilliant. Far smarter than any of the "new atheist" authors, this is heavy, heavy stuff, but serious as hell (or heaven). The Radical Orthodox movement begun by Milbank has produced some of the most penetrating philosophical/theological insights of the last two decades: authors who use the lingo of postmodernism to critique it (and often nation states as well) from a specifically liturgical/sacramental standpoint. Moving beyond the cliches of "conservative/liberal" to an indictment of modernity itself, this book is a recovery of Augustinian illumination and a vigorous defense of the best elements of the Xian project. A deeply learned critique of nihilism.

[JR Roach · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating, enthralling, challenging, confounding - a wonderful journey whether you end up being convinced or not.

[Martin Riexinger · Rating 1 out of 5]

A grandiloque intellectual fraud.

Milbank argues that Christian teologi has succumbed to seculsr "social theory" in stead of developing and propagating its own coherent vision of the world and society. On such as basis af just, Christian socialist order could be erected.

When it comes to finding the reason for this state of affairs he dives deepbinto the High Middle Ages, when he accuses Duns Scotus to have undermined an analogistic vision of the cosmos with his nominalism. Ironically, the same idea can be found among Guenonian traditionalists, where it, however, is supposed to support right wing elitism.

In most chapters tries to analyse the effects of the secular paradigm on different currents in philosophy, sociology and theology. Although Milbank, and the whole school of "Radical Orthodoxy" he inspired is Anglican, he refers surprisingly almost exclusively to Catholic theologians.
When it comes to Weber, Durkheim and Marx he tries to detect the metaphysical assumptions underlying their approaches - which as such is ok - but he hardly engages with the topics of their research. He critivizes various theologians committed to social justice that they drew their inspiration from social theory, Marxism or other, in spite of developing a decidedly Christian vision.

In the last chapters he finally develops his own "metanarrative" based on a revived Augustinianism (hence "The Other City"). It is supposed to be based in the church and the household, and the between the secular and the divine will disappear. The awareness of being part of a harmonious divine order will motivate humans to participate in God's charity by alting charitably in all their work.
How this is supposed to work out practically is, however, not explained by Milbank. Although he suggests that many elements of medieval society came close to this ideal. In this respects this work, although much more erudite when it comes to its objects of critique , resembles that of Islamists like Mawdûdî or Qutb, who claim that the infight in the vision of the divine, holistic order will make humans act in accordance with God's wiil. Unlike the latter Milbank does, however, in no way advocate violence against the obstinate.

In my opinion it is exactly the lack of practical considerations that lets his aggressive polemics against social theory appear so shallow. Problems like the dispersal of knowledge in society, conflicts between producer and customer demands etc. can hardly be overcome by ontologi, and exactly these are issues sociology (and even more economics address).

One more remarkable point is that Milbank only refers to the Bible in instances where the theologians he discusses do.

[Earl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Milbank has really done a good job at surveying the history of sociology and secular culture, offering different readings of well-known theories. My only concern here is that he already interprets them according to the Radical Orthodoxy agenda, and uses quite complicated language to explain an "alternative history of theory" that seems to be incomprehensible. A dense text, I think, which needs to be further supplemented with his other works.

[Gerhard Burau · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uff. . .The following is an inductive summary partially powered by AI. You are welcome!

Part I: Theology and Liberalism
In Part I of "Theology and Social Theory," John Milbank argues that the modern understanding and practice of politics, was not pre-existing but a product of the synthesis between religious and political thinking (Grotius, Hobbes, Spinoza). The relationship between religion and politics, examined in two chapters, reveals a complex interplay. Chapter 1 focuses on the theological construction of secular politics, contending that the new science of politics in modernity, particularly with Grotius, Hobbes, and Spinoza, created a new autonomous object—the political—defined as a field of pure power. This invention is seen as a theological achievement with roots in voluntarism, shaping concepts like unrestricted private property and absolute sovereignty. Chapter 2 delves into the 18th-century interconnection of theology, morality, and political economy, challenging the notion that Scots political economists were responsible for separating economics from morality. Milbank emphasizes a continuity in grounding morality in the historical limiting of self-interest and explores the Machiavellian dimension in the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, revealing an intricate relationship between economic and politico-military interests. The concept of the 'secular' is portrayed as intricately related to shifts within theology rather than complete emancipation from it, contributing to a nuanced understanding of the formation of modern political and economic thought.

Part II: Theology and Positivism
In Part 2 of "Theology and Social Theory," the author, John Milbank, argues that from Malebranche to Durkheim, sociology was primarily a sociology of religion. He contends that sociology, particularly in Durkheim, has connections to both Counter-Enlightenment and Enlightenment but remains rooted in the positivist tradition. The author explores how early positivist thinkers like de Bonald connected sociology to conservative Catholic thought in the 19th century. Additionally, Milbank discusses the transformations of the "fait sociale" from Comte to Durkheim, highlighting the hybrid nature of Comte's positive science and critiquing Durkheim's displacement of Christian readings of history in favor of a 'social science.' The chapter also delves into the Neo-Kantian method in the sociological perspectives of Simmel and Weber, critiquing Weber's sociology of religion and challenging the liberal Protestant metanarrative. In Chapter 5, Milbank critiques functionalism in sociology, advocating for a nuanced, context-specific analysis of religion's functions and cautioning against simplistic causal diagnoses. The chapter explores the tendency to police the sublime in sociology, keeping religion conceptually at the margins and limiting its influence by confining it within predefined boundaries. The author challenges functionalist explanations and argues for a more narrative-driven understanding of Christian origins and religious beliefs, emphasizing the historical over the sociological.

Part III: Theology and Dialectics
In Part 3, Milbank argues for a reevaluation of these thinkers' perspectives and advocates for an alternative approach that incorporates Christian principles, ethical critique, and a theological interpretation of history within the Church. The common thread is Milbank's emphasis on the limitations and shortcomings of existing philosophical and theological frameworks, proposing a more integrated and nuanced understanding informed by Christian values. John Milbank critiques Hegel in Chapter 6, arguing that Hegel's dialectics fail to overcome liberalism and maintain entanglements with Greek and Cartesian-Kantian philosophy. Hegel's metaphysics lacks thorough questioning of Kant, hindering a genuine Christian critique. Milbank suggests Hegel's embrace of dialectics forms an uneasy alliance with Christianity. In Chapter 7, Milbank challenges Marx's view of religion as illusion, questioning concepts like fetishization and alienation. He advocates for an ethical critique of capitalism within a religious or ethical framework, emphasizing social roles, virtues, and economic equality. Chapter 8 critiques the Integralist Revolution in Modern Catholic Thought, opposing Rahner's naturalization of the supernatural and advocating for a theological interpretation of history within the Church.

Part IV: Theology and Difference
In Part 4 of "Theology and Social Theory," Milbank challenges postmodern thinkers who embrace absolute diversity and arbitrary power, arguing against the notion of difference as a purely relativistic and nihilistic concept. He critiques Nietzsche's and Foucault's views on Christianity, disputing the necessity of violent struggles and proposing an alternative history rooted in Christian theology. Milbank engages with the concept of difference in the context of virtue, particularly in Chapter 11. He challenges Alasdair MacIntyre's reliance on dialectics and virtue as a foundation for social order. Instead of rejecting difference altogether, Milbank argues for a more profound connection between Christianity and social theory, presenting Christian virtue as a unique alternative to classical virtue grounded in the Christian mythos. Milbank employs the idea of difference to support his call for a counter-history rooted in Christian theology. He sees this counter-history as an alternative narrative that challenges and counters postmodern claims, emphasizing stable meaning and rejecting nihilism. In Chapter 12, Milbank uses the concept of difference to frame theology as a distinctive Christian social science. He asserts that ecclesiology, the study of the Church, serves as the foundation for this social theory, providing a unique perspective on historical events, ethics, ontology, and the fate of the Christian "counter-kingdom."

[Alp Eren Topal]

I have high expectations from this book. Yet the preface to second edition was kind of disappointing with regard to Milbank's language. I do not essentially dislike the postmodern style filled with "nietzschean this, dostoyevskian that, foucaldian those..." etc. yet Milbank uses these kind of shortcuts so much in the preface to be able to explain his position with regard to criticisms that half of the time I was lost as to what he is saying. After a point the intensity of the jargon oversaturates and hollows out the meaning.

Yet, merely the first 3-4 pages of the introduction were enough to clear away the bad taste; let's see how the rest of the book flows.

[Noelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Generally sort of mind-numbing. Perhaps it was over my head. Regardless, i didn't buy his argument.

[David Mosley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A challenging work that reminds its readers theology should not be subsumed within or under the social sciences but is the science by which all others ought to be measured.

[Reinhardt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A difficult but important book. Realistically, I should have given up reading this in the preface. The second edition has a new preface where Milbank interacts with some of the criticisms and offers some clarifications where he was misunderstood. I could barely keep my head above water. I was drowning in foreign concepts and ideas from people I had never even heard of. At this point, I should have called it a day, but I didn’t; I pressed on.
The book has almost a mathematical quality. It is essentially a book full of proofs. To be fair, I couldn’t follow all the proofs. I couldn’t independently verify if they were true. But taking it as a mathematical book, I assumed the proofs were valid and I could rely on the results.

In this broad sweeping text, he takes on sociology, political economy, postmodern philosophy, and theology. It could quite easily be four books (or even more). He begins with his critique of the foundations of sociology. He explores the work of Weber, Durkheim, and several other foundational sociologists. In essence, he shows that sociology has no real standing to critique religion. The sociological frame is, in essence, a religious frame. It takes a number of assumptions by faith.
He then moves to political economy, addressing both capitalism and communism or liberalism (classical) and Marxism. He explores the underlying ontology that both are built on. He comes to the conclusion that both are built on an ontology of violence. By that, he means that scarcity and completion are fundamental to both ideologies. The only difference between them is the distributive function. I was a bit more comfortable here as I have a bit more background in political economy and Marxism. He takes Marxists’ concepts of reification, fetishization, and alienation as theological concepts with insight, but they are torn from the underlying positive grace frame that can realize the opposite.

In the course of this, he has a chapter on Hegel, who he takes to be broadly correct but missing the gift of creation from a loving creator, which is missing in Hegel’s analysis and thus he falls into the ontology of violence. His dialectic also puts evil into a productive frame as part of the dialectic, whereas evil is a lack rather than a contribution to the synthesis.

One section of the book is dedicated to the postmodern philosophy of difference. Here things get really abstract given the obscure texts that form the foundations of postmodern philosophy. The theology of difference vs identity is itself a difficult concept. Essentially, postmodernism reduced to a meta narrative that disallows other metanarratives. I think in subsequent years since this book was first published (1990!), postmodernism has lost a lot of its explanatory power and has been relegated to one ideology among many, but its status as a meta ideology is greatly diminished.

He dedicates a couple of chapters to Plato and Aristotle. The massive insights from these two giants are always remarkable. Truly, philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. He explores the virtue ethic and how Aquinas deftly repositioned Aristotle’s virtue ethic and gave it a legitimate philosophical foundation. Rather than taking on Aristotle uncritically, Aquinas carefully recast Aristotle’s insights and reformulated them on a Christian basis.
He concludes with an extensive look at Augustine and some Aquinas. He draws ideas from The City of God. The fundamental underlying ontology is an ontology of gift/grace/peace. Violence and conflict are not at the core of being, rather it is a distortion of being.

Clearly, I missed important ideas. I was, as a college freshman, reading about topological quantum field theory. Most of it went over my head, but I gleaned some very valuable insights.

[Adam Carnehl · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this enormously significant and impressively learned volume, John Milbank basically dismantles the modern secular view of human society and restores, elaborates, and defends the classic, Augustinian view where the Church as microcosm politically, ethically, and aesthetically instantiates Kingdom living in the here and now. It is not an easy book, in fact, even Milbank explains how it is essentially composed of four separate "treatises" that lead him down the path of one major argument against modern secular reason. Milbank explains that, since the Enlightenment, the Christian Church has made concessions to non-Christian accounts of humanity and social organization. These concessions have led the West to adopt the views of Comte, Marx, Durkheim, and Nietzsche, and thus a certain "modernity" that led to the horrors and inequalities of the twentieth century and the utter social-moral fragmentation of postmodernity. Christians must live peaceably now in the Augustinian pattern of the Civitas Dei which can positively affect the Terrena Civitas. Indeed, there is no other way to "change" the world than for the Church herself to practice Christian love and forgiveness as a community of various linked-together people in the here and now. Milbank argues for a middle way between radical collectivism that tramples the individual and extreme individualism which privatizes salvation and lifts it from the reality of creation.

[Stewart Lindstrom · Rating 4 out of 5]

More or less finished with this behemoth of a book. Milbank is an engrossing writer, but the breadth of his allusions and the scope of his intellect can make him difficult to read. This book starts with the simple thesis that secular reason is no more neutral than any other frame of reference, belying a preference for ontologies of conflict and violence over the Christian ontology of original unity and peace. I have yet to make it through the last chapter, but all in all, I'm blown away by this work. Towering stuff, but what are its practical applications? It doesn't take a genius to see that in 2023 the neoliberal secular order is crumbling. But what kind of structure can be put in its place? Milbank urges us to look at once backwards and forwards, envisioning what a truly modern Christendom might look like, based in the works of Nicolas of Cusa, Malebranche, and Meister Eckhart.

[Kenneth Mattebo · Rating 4 out of 5]

It´s in the end when you want a great option for new paths of thinking theologically that you can get disappointed. Oh, and yeah, some bundling together of authors to fit Milbanks grand narrative that seems to maby be a bit overplayed (so the experts say). But the main thesis is spot on and relevant: The secular does not have ontological status. It is a parentheses in the great story of God creating and rescuing. This book will challenge for a long time.

[Ken Reese · Rating 4 out of 5]

The point is great, but it's hidden in academic reference. You need to be willing to work at the text.

[Sara-Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

gosh

'if we think seriously about time and creation, and follow in the tradition of Augustine, we shall conclude that knowledge is not a representation of things, but is a relation to events, and an action upon events. Our judgment of 'truth' of events, according to Augustine in the Confessions, is essentially an aesthetic matter. We recognize beauty or not, and the measure of truth is likeness to the form of the divine beauty of which our soul has some recollection. Augustine is basically right: truth, for Christianity is not correspondence but rather participation of the beautiful in the beauty of God. However, abandoning Platonic recollection, one should re-conceive the mind's kinship to beauty as the capacity of a particularly strong 'intensity' to become the fulcrum for events, and to shape events in an 'honest' and 'decorous' fashion.' 427

[Joseph Sverker]

One surely should say something clever when reviewing this book because if anything it is erudite and very scholarly. The thing is that I struggled quite a bit with this book. I didn't feel like I quite understood the structure and the way Milbank went with his argumentation. Much felt like presentation of his interpretation on many social theorists and I think that was one reason why I had problems in getting in to this book. I have not read much social theory and I was not acquainted with the theories. The emphasis is very much on social theory and I'm not so sure he does that much of theology in the book. It come in the last 100 or 150 pages and there are some interesting ideas there, but they are a bit too loosely tied with what went on earlier in the book, at least to my mind. But that is probably because my mind is not expansive enough.

[Frkevin Gregory · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably one of the most important books I read in seminary. Too bad it was not reading in any of my classes.

It is a challenging book, well worth re-reading from time to time. It's true that you would benefit from some familiarity with the subjects he addresses. But that should not take away from the groundbreaking significance of this book. Milbank provides a foundation for theological pursuit that is both traditional and intelligent. It an approach to theology that shows the depth of theological inquiry and its prowess as well.

I am looking forward to Milbank's further explorations on the topic, a two volume set. The first volume is already published.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty amazing, I must say. I couldn't run down everything I liked and disliked, but the basic principle is right on. Theology is not and need not be a marginal and independent science. I think maybe Milbank went a little too far in exposing the sacred origins of the secular (or rather, I don't think most secular thinkers would care.)

I've since been undertaking more books from the R.O. camp and find them a very refreshing change for theology and helpful for my own attempts to reconcile my faith with my interest in "secular" philosophies.

[Kessia Reyne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would much rather read someone else talking about John Milbank's ideas than to read John Milbank writing about John Milbank's ideas. Confusing to the point of being abstruse.

Still, cutting through the thick hedging of unexplained references and long strides of logic, he has some valid points to make about the construction of secularity, the ontologies of peace and violence, and the idolatries of our age.

[Wayne Larson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A dense and difficult book, but well worth the trouble.

[Andrew Boyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Woah.

[Christian]

Didn't finish it.

[Larissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Impossibly hard to read prose with so many name-dropping instances to confuse even the pros. That being said, a significantly influential book with thought-provoking ideas.

[Daniel Crouch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Milbank is dense—my goodness, the man knows a lot. But putting in the work is worth the fascinating message he delivers, even if some of it is a little passe at this point.

[Jj · Rating 4 out of 5]

but i've got the 1st edition cover - much better