punchworthy

A blog whereby I motivate myself, and my readers, to punch me in the mouth.



  "Punchworthy feeds our deepest Freudian wishes!" --Entertainment

  "The consumate rocker's rocker. Charming, personable... a sucking void of inescapable inner turmoil."
  --Newsweek
  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

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.

8 Comments:

At 7:16 PM, Blogger caparoon said...

So.. anybody bothered by the response to unanswered question #40? The bit where he says The Way is Christ, but equally The Church?

C'mon, Kids.. let's tangle it up!

 
At 8:06 AM, Blogger Bill Lewis said...

Yeah, my initial reaction to that is "whoa, back up from that slippery slope!"

I think there is, for example, a place for the debate on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection - whether we call our theology post-modern or not. The resurrection, along with forgiveness of sin, is the main focus of gospel preaching throughout the book of Acts (for crying out loud). We can debate it, but to imply that it's relevance is dubious is... well, dubious.

Conservative? Liberal? Maybe we need new terms for theology. I'm leaning toward an ancient/future perspecive, personally.

 
At 10:25 AM, Blogger caparoon said...

I'm trying to quash that reaction. It's definitely there, though.

I'm afraid that the thing is, I am reacting to one particular statement, and not putting it in the context of the whole. Which, especially with something like this, is critical.

I can definitely see, for instance, saying, "whether or not you believe the historicity of the resurrection is not really the point--whether you are successfully living the faith is." Now, how you can successfully live the faith without believing the resurrection.. I have no idea. But that still doesn't make it the point. : ] (also, he's not saying there's not *a* place for it--just not within postmodern theology)

 
At 8:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what's awesome?

pie.

 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger caparoon said...

This is what it's come to, folks. Dave is having to comment on postmodern theology posts. He's obviously filling a gap, unnaturally, because the parts of God's universal order who were intended to fill up this space on my blog are not operating as intended.

Dave, I know that you didn't go to bible college, but were instead a creative writing/education major at a state school. Which means that your seemingly comic response to this is actually a *serious* attempt, on your part, to participate in the discussion, based on the *literary* form of postmodernism in which you were schooled. Thanks to you, my friend, for your valient attempt. Everybody, let's respond in kind, and agree that "pie", as used by Dave herein, really means "jesus"!

(Dave once told me that his favorite postmodern work was "Grover: The Furry Monster at the End of This Book".)

 
At 7:07 PM, Blogger caparoon said...

Holy cow! It's "people I never heard of commenting on the blog" week here at Punchworthy!

Explain yourself, Anthony Paul Smith, who appears to know (at least of) Chris Simpson (since I don't think I ever mentioned the full name), and who claims both to be going to Nottingham and also (per his blog) to be from Kankakee (where I lived for two years)!

(if you prefer, just comment back and let me know not to publish your reply when I get the email notification)

(I am going to enclose everything in parens from now on..)

(best,)
(-j)

 
At 7:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Caparoon --

I actually think that the whole "resurrection doesn't matter" is really dangerous, not only for what it says (that's dangerous enough), but what it is sourced from.

It comes from the idea that miracles don't happen. It comes from a view of God which says "I didn't get the pony I prayed for as an 8-year-old, therefore God is incapable of doing miracles".

The resurrection is the key to the faith. "Living the faith" is irreconcilable with not having the faith. Faith is part of living it. If someone were to live the whole Christian walk, but still not have faith in the resurrection of Jesus, I don't see how they could be said to be "living the faith". It's really a new religion that just looks a whole lot like another one.

Sorry I haven't had a chance to read the book or the articles (they are 404'd now), but this is my initial reaction from going to a seminary that at least from what you're saying (and the little I've read about it) seems very much along these same lines.

Christianity is ultimately about the resurrection as a historical event. These modern movements attempt to remove resurrection from a historical reality and conceptualize it in some way.

And why are they doing this?

In almost every case it is because they view that modern science precludes us from believing in miracles and the supernatural.

 
At 2:25 PM, Blogger caparoon said...

crev,

I can totally understand your reaction, considering, especially, the college that you're going to. (and sorry the articles are 404'd--I took them down for concerns of publishing material I don't have rights to)

But I don't think anyone is saying that the resurrection doesn't matter, or that miracles don't happen. Certainly no one on this blog, anyway. And I don't *think* that's what this particular school of thought is saying, either. I think what they are saying is that, for these purposes, it is not the point.

If you'll go to the university and/or other places and look at what they're talking about, they are seeking to take the discussion OUT of the arena of "modern science". This is postmodernism, so it's a whole different ball of wax. If there really is a ball of wax, at all.. : ]

"Christianity is ultimately about the resurrection as a historical event" .. I hear a lot of that. Sometimes even out of my own mouth. But I'm not sure, at this moment, exactly what we mean by it--or at least what you mean by it. Does it in some sense, for instance, mean the same this as "Christianity is ultimately about our being transformed into the likeness of Christ"..?

I doubt that anyone is still reading the comments on this one, so it may just be me and you at this point. If we get any depth here, I'll probably have to boot it out to the front page again and start over.

I'd like to say, also (this not really directed at you, specifically) that I'm kind of disappointed that people all seem to *react* to this line of thought, rather than grappling with it. Too many guns at the knife fight, I think.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home