Radical Orthodoxy

Brant and I are almost, but not quite, have a substantive discussion in the comments section of my "label thyself!" post.

So I decided to try and fan the tiny flame of that conversation into a raging conflagration of gabble right here in a post of its very own!

It is, I'm almost sure, doomed to failure. But what the heck.

To start, we were discussing Brant's coolness or my lack thereof as relative to our claims of "neo orthodoxy". And then I brought up "radical orthodoxy". And then I posted this link. And then there came a rather lengthy chat about how neither one of us really knows anything. Up to and including whether or not the "h" in "Barth" is silent. (we think it is)

So I turned to someone who is supposed to know something, though I'm pretty sure he would deny it. He's my friend Chris, who's a professor of theology and philosphy (which is why he's both qualified as an expert and as someone who would deny his own knowledge). He is also the person who introduced me to radical orthodoxy, so I thought maybe it would be cool to put up some links and stuff about it, and what his impression was of the First Things article (linked above), and then maybe he could try and guide--or at least comment on--the ensuing melee.

I pitched this idea to him, and it went something like this:

me: {basically what I said in the paragraph above}
chris: Blach
me: Oh, come on. It'll be fun.

First off, Chris linked me to these folks: http://theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/
They are a think tank associated with the University of Nottingham, from where, not coincidentally, he is getting his doctorate. They recently organized a conference in Grenada where Chris was invited to speak, and they also asked him to contribute a book to the "Interventions" series (you can find that through the link. he will be addressing the philosophy of Caputo). (and no, that is not a form of martial arts)

He also pointed me to this book, and gave me a couple articles (here and here) on the topic. These are things that he makes his students read (poor kids)--the Milbank is a tougher read, but it's all very interesting.. if this is the kind of thing you're interested in.

Regarding the First Things article by Reno, my non-resident expert comments, "I'm not too impressed w/ the first things article after reading Milbank's Being Reconciled, which it reviews. I think it doesn't see the book for what it is: a collection of essays and part of a larger multivolume work and therefore not putting out definite statements in the normal systematic manner. Milbank has a strange meandering style."

So. Like.. um.. what does anyone think of that? Or something.