Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology

by James K.A. Smith, John Milbank (Foreword by)

Although God is making a comeback in our society, popular culture still takes its orders from the Enlightenment, a movement that denied faith a prominent role in society. Today, many are questioning this elevation of reason over faith. How should Christians respond to a secular world that continues to push faith to the margins?

While there is still no consensus concerning what a postmodern society should look like, James K. A. Smith suggests that the answer is a reaffirmation of the belief that Jesus is Lord over all. Smith traces the trends and directions of Radical Orthodoxy, proposing that it can provide an old-but-new theology for a new generation of Christians. This book will challenge and encourage pastors and thoughtful laypeople interested in learning more about currents in contemporary theology.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Religion, Christianity, Nonfiction, Spirituality, Cultural

292 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2004

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

EDIT: I am now quite critical of RO. This is an older review.

Introduction
RO is a group of theologians who saw the bankruptcy of modernity, and the inability of post modernity to answer the tough questions, thus positing a critique that seeks to avoid both secularism and pre-modernity. It is similar to a Parisian Augustine. RO is sensitive to post-modernity's critiques of secularism. The book offers a multi-angled critique of secularalism: epistemological, ontological, and ecclesiological.

Once Upon a Time there was Plato
RO's epistemological critique of secularism is a retelling of the story of Western philosophy. According to RO, philosophy took a fatal turn with Duns Scotus. Scotus posited a univocity of being stating there is only one kind of being in everything real, though infinite in the case of God and finite in the case of creatures. According to RO, this flattened ontology, removing the transcendent and giving us a metaphysics of immanence. Smith writes, "The created, immanent order no longer participates in the divine and thus is no longer characterized by the depth of that which is stretched toward the transcendent (93)." In other words, man is now able to interpret reality apart from God or any notion of the transcendent. This opened the door to secularism.

The antidote to Scotus, then, is Plato. If Scotus unhooked ontology, Plato (or his Christian disciples) can reconnect it. In short and in contrast with modernity, RO offers, not a univocity of being, but a participatory metaphysics. Popular opinion on Plato is that Plato denigrated the material in favor of the spiritual (I will resist applications to some Reforme--never mind). But RO suggests, on the other hand, that it is nihilism, with its denial of the transcendent that denigrates the material. But can Platonism make the claim that it values the material?

RO inverts Platonism on this point. Following Phaedrus, RO argues that when the material participates in the spiritual, the physical is rightly energized and affirmed. For example, the physical embodiment of beauty excites the soul's desire such that its wings sprout and are nourished." On one hand I agree. I value the material very much (almost too much), but is this an accurate reading of Plato? I really can't (and neither can Smith) follow their reconstruction of Plato. Plato spoke often of soma sema: the body is a prison for the soul. But we need not accept their reading of Plato to grasp their point.

Ontology: Unfolding Reality
This was arguably the toughest section of the book. And the most surprising. Smith reintroduced Dooyeweerd to the Reformed and academic scene. If nihilism/modernity flattened their epistemology, it also flattened its ontology. Secular ontologies, according to RO, "claim to fully define the conditions" for reality (187). This section will be shorter since the same critique of epistemology will be used for ontology. RO counters the secular ontology with a new move on RO's part: an Incarnational or participatory ontology. In rephrasing RO's ontology, Smith uses the arcane philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, particularly his modal scheme.

[Mark Gring · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting read if you want to see some of the similarities and differences between Radical Orthodoxy (RO) and a Neo-Calvinist perspective regarding knowing, being, and sociopolitical engagement.
I appreciate James K.A. Smith for writing this book but I tend to read his work with a bit of caution given his general acceptance of a more "progressive leaning" perspective. But, being true to Augustine's recommendation, we take the silver and gold and leave the rest.

Smith does well in this book to details some of the major ideas of RO and to show how the early reformers and the Neo-Calvinists were already arguing for some of the very same things. He also gives an acceptable overview of some of the differences--I suspect more differences could have been shown but Smith maintains a safe distance with some of this. Milbank is good to acknowledge Smith's thoughtful scholarship in this work.

[David Mosley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book, both because of its critiques and in spite of them, has made me very interested in the project of Radical Orthodoxy. I'm now specifically interested in how it relates to reality as I have up to now understood it, and how it relates to my own background in the Restoration Movement. I recommend this book to anyone who is no longer satisfied with the sacred-secular divide and is searching for ways to express their belief in the sacredness of all things created by God (which is to say everything that exists).

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a fine overview, but I guess I'm just not convinced that RO is the way to go. There's a false dichotomy, it seems, between neo-Platonism and nihilism. I don't want to fully embrace either one, but RO says I have to.

[Stephen Hicks · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this work of Smith was one his more well-thought-out ones. In it he does a fairly detailed historical and philosophical survey of Radical Orthodoxy and then engages in what I found to be an even-handed critique from the position of the Reformed Tradition. I'll be the first to admit that my philosophical background is fairly narrow and moderately shallow, so there were things in this book that didn't register, particularly with the first chapter where he does a "cartographic" study of theological and philosophical thought within the church. I'm not familiar with all the different traditions and what they stand for, but perhaps other readers might profit from this study.

This work was very much an introduction as the title clearly states. He doesn't delve into great depths when ex-positing Radical Orthodoxy's positions, but does point to numerous sources for the adventurous reader. As I tend to appreciate adventures of a different ilk (usually not concerning theoretical philosophy), I found the depth of discussion satisfactory for my ambitions. His critique from the Reformed Tradition will require much more rumination on my part. Overall, I found this book insightful concerning who and what Radical Orthodoxy is and the core tenets of the school of thought.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really got psyched about it when I read it, but then I came down off it a little. It's a good book, but Radical Orthodoxy likes sounding real extreme, except it isn't.

[An Te · Rating 5 out of 5]

James K.A. Smith does it again. I've only recently been introduced to his work but he has delivers another captivating and enthralling book. This one's on Radical Orthodoxy (RO), a theological movement which seeks to reclaim the territory lost to the secular realm. The implications are manifold from worship to work. Anything God has made comes under the rubric of RO for it is a movement which seeks to recapture the goodness of God in every sphere (and at times where such spheres are illegitimate, in terms of their distinctness, in Smith's understanding of RO's stance. His analysis is coherent and convincing and there are many opportunities to follow up on further reading.

Here are some key proposed concerns of RO.

1) If we are desiring creatures, then our worship and discipleship should be directed toward forming and directing that desire to find its telos (goal/purpose) in God, countering malformations of desire effected by the state and the market. (Allegiance to God alone - soli deo gloria)
2) If the claims of secular modernity and its institutions are in fact theological and antithetical to the claims of the Gospel, then we must develop in the saints, through effective modes of Christian formation, a critical awareness of the pseudo-theologies lurking behind seemingly neutral phenomena. (Unveiling of hidden structures)
3) If we are working from a participatory or creational ontology, then our worship should reflect the rich sacramental and aesthetic heritage of the church, affirming that God meets the whole person in a full-bodied revelation. (Embodied worship of God)
4) If the church is a unique polis (community), the the saints should be formed in such a way that relativizes their allegiance to the state, market, or any other antithetical polis that seeks their ultimate allegiance. (All other gods bow their knees.)

These are pressing and gripping concerns for all Christians. I'm thankful James has written such a book on this fascinating movement. I look forward to reading more around this area. Highly recommended introduction to a theological movement which I think has the virtue of trying to reveal how we, the church, have got to this point and offers a dialectic to reclaim some of that. The mild concern I have with this is that RO simply re-configures ideas from by-gone ages but only re-work this material. I see the Holy Spirit as engaging with us all the whole as history enfolds before us. RO may regurgitate this material but it is certainly with God's guidance that RO's remit, which I feel is to shed light on hidden trajectories of how the church has become powerless and maimed in numerous areas of discourse, and provide positive means for a corrective. Guidance is needed from God to use RO well. But all in all, I think its fits in with an incarnation and historical nature of Christianity, that we examine how we have come to get to this present point in time. And it is often history which can help or prompt us into action.

Overall, I see RO overall as a movement inspired by the holy spirit and not the academy, per se.

[J.D. Carpenter · Rating 5 out of 5]

How should the Church’s message change in the wake of post-modernism? How should the Church interpret post-modernism? Indeed, is that term even an accurate depiction of the mid-20th century phenomenon? Has post-modernism exposed a weakness in modernity in which the Church is apt to respond?
James K.A. Smith eloquently maps the recent theological movement “Radical Orthodoxy,” led by figures such as John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward. His characterization of the movement is fair and charitable, taking seriously the claims of its central figures and resisting any straw-man depictions, yet he is right to cast a critical eye towards some of its claims. By drawing upon the Reformed tradition, he persuasively calls for the reform of an already cogent analysis of modernity and the Church’s relative position within modernity’s framework. This movement is radical because it illustrates the antithetical nature between modernity’s and Christianity’s claims. It is orthodox because it draws upon the rich Christian, creedal tradition, with specific reference to Augustinian and high scholastic thought. It is here, however, that Smith’s criticisms are well-put. He casts doubt on the success of Radical Orthodoxy’s attempt to reinterpret the Christian-Plantonic thought, which he worries still diminishes our immanent reality at the expense of God’s glory. Yet, Smith does not present a blind Reformed position toward Radical Orthodoxy either. Indeed, he posits that Radical Orthodoxy prompts an occasion for the rethinking of some Reformed claims - such as reconsidering Kuyperian political theology regarding just communities as more closely aligned to the Augustinian tradition by drawing upon the Hauwerasian definition of the Church as the true polis.
Overall, this is a sympathetic yet critical analysis of Radical Orthodoxy, steeped in Smith’s usual helpful metaphors and analogies.

[Will O'kelley · Rating 3 out of 5]

An excellent overview of the RO movement. This book was just as much a primer on philosophy and historical theology as it was a discussion of RO specifically. RO offers some helpful critiques of contemporary Christianity. At the same time, I'm not sure I would completely embrace the movement. Aside from my disagreement with some of the content of the book, my only other major critique is that Smith fails to dumb things down enough. The book is chock full of jargon and allusions to the works of other theologians. It's tough going for anyone who doesn't at least have a foundational understanding of theology/philosophy. I actually think this is a core problem with RO as well--it will only ever exist as a movement within the ivory tower unless it attempts to communicate to regular people who don't have PhD's.

[Vince Eccles · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ugh. Not a fan, but I just change the review from 2-stars to 3-stars.

I am well read in philosophy and theology. I thought it was time to read on the recent move in Christian Theology (last 3 decades) of Radical Orthodoxy (RO). I completely agree with the premise behind Radical Orthodoxy on the failure of modern secular thought to recognize its thin theological underpinnings. I am a scientist so I recognize the useful simplicity of the 14th century move to philosophical nominalize that underlies modern secular thought. It allows engineering and science to progress complex physical processes by breaking down all existence into individual things. One can study and define things in isolation, e.g. "Here is an electron and these are their properties." However, I also recognize tragic and misleading thinness of nominalize as a world view. The success of science and engineer fools us into thinking that we see the world as it really is.

Some one suggested that I read a different book by James K. A. Smith. Now I regret the purchase of James K. A. Smith's "Introducing Radical Orthodoxy". These are the reasons:

First, I am a Traditional Christian tied to the Nicene Creed of the Great Church that includes the great Trinitarian traditions of Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptics, Roman Catholicism, and (thoughtful) Protestants. I am NOT a fan of Reformed Theology (RT). I have read several great Reformed Theologians (Calvin, Edwards, Barth, Torrence, Piper) and feel that RT is a generally mean-spirited and overly-detailed theological worldview. Barth saves RT from itself. I do like Barth, but he doesn't make me embrace RT. Timothy Keller gives RT a kind voice. James Smith continues in the overzealous rigor of strict theological views that define RT insistent details that lacks the loving face of the Triune God.

Second, James Smith gives a scholastic presentation that reads like a very long rumination about the edges of the arguments between scholars. As a result of this rumination of details, the "Introducing" verb only appears on one or two summary pages in this book. This falls into the category of books that make me wish that the author would get to the important points and distill the book by at least 1/2.

There MUST be a better introduction into Radical Orthodoxy. I think I will put both recently purchased books by James K. A. Smith into the gift box at my local Christian Book shop. Maybe it will torture a budding Reformed Theologian into kinder theological traditions.

Ugh. I just moved my rating from 1-star to 2-stars. I reread Smith's chapter on "Participation and Incarnation". This is Smith's own adjustments to Milbank's over-reliance on a myopic interpretation of Platonist metaphysics. Smith re-introduces me to the thinking behind Liebniz's monad metaphysics. I have read about the monad metaphysics but generally it is not presented with any sympathetic understanding. This is a good presentation and made the book worth my time.

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I become increasingly interested in the project of RO, I have found this book to be a great explanation and complement to RONT. Smith is admittedly one of my favorite authors despite our confessional differences.

Pros for this book:
- Smith does a great job at making the RO material accessible. I think RO has yet to make it on the popular level (although, should it?) largely because the RO writings are so dense (looking at you, Milbank). Smith provides a truly great "Introduction" to the sensibility.
- Smith, as a contributor to RO and major player in the scene, also pushes back against some of the RO claims that I'm still not on board with, and admittedly For example, Smith asks a question that I believe needs to be asked, is a Platonic ontology necessary for RO's Christian "participatory ontology?" He invokes Nietzsche in critiquing both Evangelical and Platonic ontologies (that he believes culminates in a dualism), "And above all, away with the body!" (P. 198).
- Smith, perhaps because of his Reformed background, I think actually does a good job a helping translate RO into traditions, especially in the sense that he is helping deliver RO to a broader audience -- this is a sensibility for all Christians, and I think Smith does a good job at making this known.

Some cons:
- While I very much appreciate the treatment of RO's political implications, I wish Smith had devoted more space to it.
- Smith, in pushing back against the presumed dualism of RO's Platonic groundwork, doesn't really offer a helpful solution, or rather, doesn't offer a solution outside of the Reformed tradition. Sure, he makes appeals to Deleuze and Badiou, but I think he (and us readers) would have benefitted from exploring Merleau-Ponty's "phenomenal" body as a corrective to Platonism. To be fair, he does make this connection in his book "Imagining the Kingdom" years later, but he doesn't do it her.e
- I'm not Reformed, so obviously, there's some disagreement with Smith's approach, but that's perhaps unfair to write up as a "con".

I would wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone who is skeptical of the modern world and its fascination with a secular certainty, and also to anyone within the Evangelical tradition who has bought into a "baptized" bastardization of the modern project. This book, the entire movement of RO really, is essentially a movement of reform, a "ressourcement," and a return to participating in a more robust and beautiful understanding of life with God.

[Giovanni Generoso · Rating 5 out of 5]

Radical Orthodoxy is a movement that seeks to use postmodernism as a catalyst for returning to an unapologetically Christian view of reality. In short, RO proponents criticize modernity's epistemology, ontology, and metaphysic - using many of the postmodern arguments put forth by thinkers like Lyotard, Derrida, and Baudrillard - and present a specifically Christian epistemology, ontology, and metaphysic.

RO orthodoxy seeks to break ties with all things "secular," since the very idea of a "secular" is really just a Christian heresy. There is no secular, neutral, objective lens through which to view life. Everyone is "biased." In short, every person interprets reality through a lens that, in large part, determines what he perceives about any person, place, or thing. Thus perception shapes reality. The question is not, Do you have a lens? but, What has influenced (i.e. "shaped") your lens?

Even secular thinkers who boast of rationality, scientific achievement, and empirical exactitude have been shaped by a lens that is rooted in a faith-narrative. Everyone must place their faith in a lens. Thus, RO places a high emphasis on how "presuppositions" shape the way a person thinks. For the Radically Orthodox thinker, God is not so much a conclusion at the end of a deductive argument, but the proto-supposition (a lens) through which all other "things" are seen, experienced, known. On this paradigm, Classical and Evidential apologetics feed into an intrinsically anti-Christian (secular) approach to the world - they must, therefore, be rejected.

What RO is pushing for is an approach to life that seeks to let God's self-revelation (through His Word, Church, Sacraments, community of children, and most importantly, His Son) shape us into the people He wants us to be, the people who see the world through the lens He has given us. Therefore, RO is intensely theological insofar as nothing (not politics, not sex, not money, not food, etc.) has any self-defining categories apart from God's revelation. To think about anything (literally anything) apart from God is to fail to see the world through the lens He has given us, and to participate in a pagan ontology. Nothing can be seen, known, and defined apart from God.

Smith's book provides a wonderful introduction into this dialogue. His perspective is refreshing, engaging, and challenging.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great introduction to Radical Orthodoxy, a school of thought in desperate need of such an overview for the unfortunate reason that its principal practitioners make no sense. Seriously, Milbank is an absolute nightmare to read, but Smith clears it up somewhat. The most basic claim is a very interesting one, perhaps drawing on Prof. Adam Bronson's belief that all Derrida/Spivak/et al. really want is a philosophical grounding for moderate left pluralism. RO people agree with this criticism, hence recasting the "post-modern" as "hyper-modern" - the logical conclusion of secular liberalism. They link modernity with the secular, yielding the surprising but in some ways obvious claim that the post-modern will also be the post-secular. The downside, for me at least, is that Smith is Dutch Reformed or something and keeps banging on about his own pet theologians which, although they have some interesting resonance with RO, don't really deserve a place in this sort of intro.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

n typical Smith fashion, this introduction is very much a critical introduction. In the first part of the book he maps out RO, its historical approach, and its relationship to other current theological movements. In the second half he puts RO in dialogue with the Dutch Reformed movement, causing each to critique the other. The second part is by far the better, with chapters 5 (epistemology) and 6 (ontology) being the shinning pinnacle of the book. However, the shinning pinnacle is neither much brighter or higher than the rest of the book. Definitely a must read for anyone interested in theology and its current role in society

[Chris Comis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not as good as I thought it was going to be. I generally like Smith, and appreciate all that he's done to try and wed Kuyperian Reformed theology with Radical Orthodoxy, but he just failed to deliver any significant "ah-ha" moments for me here. It seemed like he was more interested in writing a scholarly report, full of academic respect and scholarly pats on the back, rather than really challenging any of the several theological traditions he mentions with any substantive critiques.

It was alright. Hope the next one in this series is better.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Smith offers a critical engagement with Radical Orthodoxy, a theological movement that offers a theological position described as, "postmodern critical Augustinianism." Smith interacts with RO as an ally and brings his own reformed theological heritage into the conversation. The result is an engaging interaction between two theological schools with numerous points of parallel as well as several areas of marked distinction.

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

Good introduction and overview of Radical Orthodoxy. Even if you do not necessarily agree with the tenants of this movement, which I do not, it is a good primer to this increasingly popular post-secular theology.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really helpful entree into the world of Milbank, Pickstock, and company. Added bonus: relates Radical Orthodoxy to the equally encompassing thought world of Dooyeweerd and his Dutch Reformed school.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good overview of the movement, and helpful topical bibliography for each chapter. Not intended as an RO original source. RO has really captured my imagination lately.

[Nate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of this interesting theological approach. I like how Smith interacts from a Reformed perspective.

[Aaron Cummings · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good food for thought.To measure this book by its title, Smith is a capable cartographer.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb overview, highly recommended.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent introduction and Reformed critique that is both knowledgable of its subject and sympathetic .