Radical Orthodoxy is a response to the postmodern propensity toward secularism. In such a world Mibank, Ward, and Pickstock(MWP) write, "the theological is either discredited or turned into a harmless leisure-time activityof private commitment" (p. 1). Out of such secularism has evolved the notion of 'nihilism', that sense that nothing exists, can be known or communicated. Nihilism is steeped in individualism and is pervasive in the contemporary culture and runs counter to Christian orthodox beliefs that are fundamentally relational. The nihilist lives in the moment, for the moment, and most importantly, for self.
David Cunningham says, "the notion of a pure, isolated 'individual' is a highly disputable human construction. In God, there are no individuals; the Three dwell in each other so completely that we cannot divide them, one from another. And so we too are called to live lives of mutual participation, in which our relationships are not just something that we 'have,' but are what constitute us as human beings" (These Three Are One, p.169). I think this gets to the very core of radical orthodoxy.
MWP asserts that the basic tenet of radical orthodoxy is "participation" (p. 3). Implicit in such participation is relationship. All things, all beings, are related, one to the other. Radical orthodoxy does not dismiss the reality of the individual, but seeks to broaden the understanding that the individual is not all that is, but that the individual exists within a larger framework--God.
Radical orthodoxy recognizes God in all things, all beings, the "eternal stability" that holds all together (p.3).
MWP, are three of the scholars which lead this movement known as Radical Orthodoxy, as they seek to "reclaim the world by situating its concerns and activities within a theological framework" (p.1). They reject and warn against the nihilism of the secular world, and espouse a theological understanding that rejects independence and individualism (in the most concrete form). There theology locates all that exists within the essence of the Triune God. As such, all things exist in relationships that are intermingled, interdependent, intimately and intricately woven together.
MWP contends that Radical Orthodoxy is orthodox as it locates itself in the context of "credal Christianity" (p.2) and the patristics.
It is radical in its 1) emphasis on the patristics; 2) insistence on critical reflection of contemporary culture; 3) rethinking tradition; 4) refusal of the secular. (pp.2-3).
I understand Radical Orthodoxy in theory, but what are the practical changes that need to be implemented to support this response to the nihilism of postmodern secularism? Is it practical?
If the problem is the wider culture, how do we achieve the transformation of participation that for so long has gone the other way?
What does authority look like in such a model? It seems as though authority as a secular notion presents an over/against model; whereas, authority in radical orthodoxy is more democratic, ethical, consistent with the divine plan. Still, how do we implement this in a culture that is largely unchurched?
There is a chapter on Radical Orthodoxy in the Reno text ( our last text for the quarter). It provides an overview of Radical Orthodoxy and is much more accessible. I found it helpful.
Please describe, in about 250 words (more if you need), the minor character described by Chandler that best exemplifies your ideal approach to questions of authority, orthodoxy, faith or leadership in the Church of England circa the Oxford Movement. Make some brief connection to your own questions around authority, orthodoxy, faith or leadership.
Radical Orthodoxy
For April 26, 2004
(Heather presents)
introduction, 8, 9, 12
For May 3, 2004
(Jenni presents)
4, 6, 7, 11
In connection with Jeff’s song:
Jump, Little Children, official site
Jump, Little Children, another site
guitar players
One of the important points that Chandler makes in his discussion about the Oxford Movement is that it is both political and theological. We talked about that last week, and we talked at some length about the academy and its role in authority.
After reading the last four chapters for this weeks discussions, I am increasingly aware of something that Trevor hinted at last week and seems to be even more prevalent this week. The Oxford Movement was very much a "personal" issue for those who were involved. Aside from being political, religious, and academic, at the very core of the controversy were personal motivations, biases, and prejudices on both sides.
It seems to me whenever we talk about issues of authority in the Church or elsewhere, we would be remiss to not talk about the personal motivations of those who hold the authority and how that authority is used.
How is it used in the Oxford Movement to control the information, outcomes, etc?
It might be helpful to consider the situation around Newman's discipline by the House of Lords and the censure of Tract 90, or maybe the charges that were brought against Pusey for his sermon on 'The Holy Eucharist, a Comfort for the Penitent' (p.72). Chandler writes, "Pusey began to be the victim of injustice..." (p.73). Yet another example is revealed in the situation with Keble (p.79). Here, Chandler writes, "the new controversy had a personal element" (p.79).
I think it is worth considering how authority is used by those who have it. Clearly, those in authority can use it in unjust ways, manipulating it within the established structures to achieve whatever goal they have in mind. The structure of the Church, government, and other institutions oftentimes provides a shield whereby authority can be used indiscriminately and even unjustly.
Are there protections against this today? What are they? What do these situations say to us about authority constructs within the Church and issues of authority?
So, in case you were interested, you can read Keble’s sermon. Also, this is a great summary of the Oxford Movement. The Tracts of the Times are all available.
You can also see Keeble College, Oxford. It’s the prettiest, I think. The brick work is amazing.
Some general ramblings:
Knowledge was extremely important in 4th Century Alexandria. It was a culture that was rooted in philosophical and theological discourse, and it was believed that knowledge was key to personal salvation. Of particular importance was knowledge of God and God's ousia.
Arius was influenced by the great minds of the time, but stood apart from any one theology or school of thought. As pointed out in class last week, he considered himself true to the Catholic faith and sought to respect the Holy Scriptures (p.96). It is important to understand that Arius did not reach his conclusions apart from Scripture but in conversation with Scripture and through applying his exegetical method. Williams holds that the"Arian controversy is essentially about hermeneutics" (p.108).
One of the controversies that surfaced in last week's class was the issue of Catholic and Academy. We had a number of words on the board as we tried to flesh-out some distinctive characteristics of each. It seems to me that a consideration of catholic and academic and how it relates to the "orthodox" interpretation of scripture during this early period is important. It really is a question of authority. Who is interpreting? How? By what authority? Catholic? Academy?
Arius believed that God the Father was the Supreme Authority and Creator of all things. He stressed the unknowability of God. As such, God possessed free will and the Son was the product of that same free will. The Son in his truly human form was the product of God's creation and thus was believed to be dependent on the Father.
Though Arius' views were thought to be heretical, it suffices to say that he was not the only person in this early culture who had dissenting ideas about the ousia of God. He was one of many as we see from our reading. Williams gives us a sense of the conversations that were occurring during this same time period. It makes me wonder why Arius is the argument that is singled out, the argument that we are still discussing today.
It seems that the Arian controversy was as much a political struggle as it was a theolgical one.
I still wonder what the line is between responsible theological discourse and heresy and how politics gets played out in each? Who determines when the line has been crossed?
Though Constantine struggled to unify the empire, there were a lot of different voices about what that unification should look like. (I think it not so different than the situation that we find ourselves in today). In any case, Nicaea represented a defining moment in the life of the Church, out of which came an articulation of the theological precepts of our faith and a recognition of the need to constantly evaluate other understandings of orthodoxy against them.