Radical orthodoxy rising on 'the third way'

John Milbank, founder of the increasingly-influential Radical Orthodoxy movement, is here receiving communion from a Catholic Ukrainian bishop, Hlib Lonchyna, at a conference in Lviv in 2006. Check out the Centre of Theology and Philosophy at Nottingham which he heads, and you can also read the paper, Paul against Biopolitics, that he delivered at the Lviv ecumenical conference. Technically, of course, as an Anglican, he was not allowed to receive communion at a Catholic service. But perhaps that is partly what Radical Orthodoxy is about - remaining orthodox while breaking some of the rules.

(Update: Peter Carrell has written an interesting post picking up on a comment on this blog.)

What it is mostly about, though, is giving the Church a new social, political and theological agenda based on traditional faith combined with rigorous intellectual application. More than just the Church's equivalent of the 'Notting Hill set', Radical Orthodoxy is building on the death of neo-liberalism and returning, in post-modern red Tory tradition, to a renewed social democratic gospel like that preached in much of Europe in the last century. Senior Tories are expressing an interest in it, and certainly it is a space left wide open for the taking by what was its traditional occupiers, the Labour Party. Some of Milbank's former students are being courted by impressively senior Christian politicians.

On the question of receiving Catholic communion, Professor Milbank explained to me: 'Normally if I am at a Catholic event abroad I do not partake in communion unless I am asked to do so. But in this case they asked me to.'

Although the Ukrainian Catholics are formally Catholic, they use the Orthodox 'Divine Liturgy' of St John Chrysostom and much of their Canon Law resembles that of the Orthodox. Their position of some tension, between Russia and her great Orthodox Church on the one side and Rome on the other, also gives them a special affinity with and understanding for Anglicans, themselves stretched often to their limits between Rome at one end and their Protestant brethren at the other.

But even more interestingly, there is a growing suspicion that, whisper it quietly, the Pope might not mind very much. For example, there was not a murmur from Rome at the intercommunion free-for-all at the funeral of Brother Roger of Taize, himself a one-time Protestant whose final denominational resting place was a little hazy but was probably RC. Tracey Rowland, in an interview about her book on the Pope and post-Vatican II theology, drew parallels between much of Benedict XVI's thinking and the ideas of Radical Orthodoxy.

Cambridge univ is today seen as one home of Radical Orthodoxy. That's where Milbank was when he set the whole thing off with his book on the subject.

So far, the movement has been pretty much unknown outside theological colleges. But with politicians starting to take an interest, it could be about to move into a bigger league. The last few decades have seen a massive evangelical revival across the globe. John Wesley's own evangelical revival was followed by the phenomenal success of the Oxford Movement, the Anglo-Catholic revival, and the enormous social success of the Gospel preached in areas of desperate poverty and illiteracy, led by political pioneers such as Wilberforce and the rest of the Clapham Sect.

Could the same thing be about to happen again, I wonder?

Comments

[William Tighe]

The "radically orthodox" are anything but orthodox on the subject of the "ordination" of women and the acceptance of same-sex "partnerships" -- as I myself can testify, having had an episode of what my sister-in-law terms "intense fellowship" over WO at a garden party at little St. Mary's Vicarage in Cambridge in November 1978 with John Milbank and his wife, Alison Legg. Subsequently, they sent me to a young Theology tutor at Westcott House, who has since risen to archiepiscopal eminence, who, they told me, would "set me straight" on the subject -- but, in the event, I remained firm in my opposition.

Now, there is absolutely no evidence that either Pope Benedict or Kyr Hlib would so stretch the boundaries of orthodoxy to comprehend WO or SS, and so I must conclude that Kyr Hilb fell victim to that common error of taking Anglicans who "talk the orthodox line" on certain subjects, but who are, in fact, gross errorists on others, at face value. And lest one think that I exaggerate, within the last few months I have seen a remarkable screed by Milbank online in which he expresses both explicit favor for SS and clear admiration for "It's all about me" +Gene of New Hampshire.

[Chris Gillibrand]

For those with a patient mind, and possibly a strong drink to hand, I would recommend reading After Writing, on the Liturgical Consumation of Philosophy by Catherine Pickstock, the most intelligent member of the school noted for its intelligence. The second half amounts to a philosophic treatise on the glories of the Latin Mass. I believe she remains an Anglican for reasons beyond me.

Milbank's The Suspended Middle is one of the best books on the controversy surrounding Henri de Lubac's work Surnaturel, a book which itself shaped the modern Catholic Church with its innovative (and wrong!) theories on the relationship of grace and nature.

[Bartholomew]

Could the same thing be about to happen again, I wonder?

Very doubtful in the context of European secularization; remember all those claims of imminent revival in the 1980s and 1990s? As Adrian Hastings once observed: "Evangelicalism looks like a tide always claimed to be just about to come in, yet never quite reaching the shore with the force proclaimed".

[Christopher]

Ruth, I think you are incorrect in stating that as an Anglican John Millbank may not receive communion in a Catholic church. It depends where he is. If he is in a place where there is no Anglican church and he believes what the Catholic Church teaches about the eucharist then he may receive. Where Tony Blair got into trouble with Cardinal Hume was that he did it in England.

A friend of mine got married in Thailand recently and at the wedding mass the priest invited ALL to communion, including Buddhists. My friend's English Catholic parents were especially pleased that the Buddhist bride took communion. That was certainly in breach of the rules. Michael Hollings at Southall would give communion to turbaned Sikhs if they presented themselves, turning no one away. Perhaps these are examples of Radical Orthodoxy - including everyone in because Jesus included outsiders in is perceived as a higher command than a man-made church rule.

[Robert Ian Williams]

How sad...another abuse.

The Church has the power to bind and loose and maybe it will reverse this rule ( only introduced in the 1970s) to protect Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

As for unbaptized persons being given Holy Communion...this is absolutely forbidden and the priest should be reported to his bishop and suspended.

[Tom Jackson]

"Perhaps these are examples of Radical Orthodoxy - including everyone in because Jesus included outsiders in is perceived as a higher command than a man-made church rule."

Couldn't agree more. I would take communion with Martians, Vulcans or even George and J Pearce.

[Todd Granger]

"Perhaps these are examples of Radical Orthodoxy - including everyone in because Jesus included outsiders in is perceived as a higher command than a man-made church rule."

And doesn't this attitude arrogate to the individual the wider community's ministry of discernment? (Which, incidentally, is precisely wherein lies the nub of the problems in the Anglican Communion, from a history of theological incoherence to WO to SSBs.)

[Michael Liccione]

Radical Orthodoxy is just liberal Protestantism trying anew to seize the moral and ecumenical high ground. Its plausibility derives from three sources: the impressive academic credentials of its advocates, the nostalgia of intelligent liberal Protestants for something more recognizably Christian than liberal Protestantism, and the PR appeal of its name.

In the end, it will prove to be just another fad.

[William Tighe]

The following article on the "Radical Orthodoxy" movement was published in the monthly journal *First Things* in 2000:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2542&var_recherche=radical+orthodoxy

Its author, Russell ("Rusty") Reno, was then an Episcopalian and Professor of Theology at Creighton University; however, be became a Catholic in 2005.

[alan]

As a mere atheist, I'm bemused by the above comments. Problems indeed.

[Rick Beekman]

Alan;
Amen On Your Comment!
Do Not Fret; Real Christianity Is Not A "Religion" Alan.

I was just as amused as you are!...Have a Blessed day..

[Kevin Dowling]

The Ukrainian Catholic Church is not only formally but also materially Catholic. It is of equal dignity with the Roman rite of the Catholic,and a Ukrainian Catholic can be elected Pope.

[Alex]

Hi. Can you correct a few things about this article which are factually incorrect.

1. Although Phillip Blond has labelled himself a "red tory", linking, him, Radical Orthodoxy or John Milbank with the current movements of the Conservative Party is both misleading and plainly wrong. David Cameron's Tory party is nothing more than neo-liberalism wrapped up in new clothes and is everything John opposes politically, a re-hashing of the grim Thatcherite monetarist politics that first caused him in desperation to write his Theology and Social Theory (read the introduction to the second edition). In fact, John is very much a Christian socialist and seeks to revive this tradition and has spoken on the BBC to this effect. Philip Blond - the only self-labelled red tory in the movement - does not see the current conservative party as anything like the insubstantiation of the kind of conservatism he is advocating - in fact the aforementioned neo-liberalism of this party could not be further from his stance. Making the movement look right-wing, or like party political lackeys is wrong.

2. Cambridge University is not the centre of Radical Orthodoxy although Catherine Pickstock is resident there. If anything, it is Nottingham (where John Milbank resides and co-directs the Centre for Philosophy and Theology).

3. John Milbank didn't write Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology. It was a collection of essays, co-edited by him, Graham Ward and Catherine Pickstock.

"Radical Orthodoxy is just liberal Protestantism"

This show absolutely that you know nothing about what you are talking about. Radical Orthodoxy is founded on a critique of liberal protestantism. Please read something before commenting in future. Its been going for ten years now, so I don't know if it can be considered so easily "a fad".

[Alexander Carpenter]

Ruth,

great round up on Radical Orthodoxy. And thanks for linking to the Spectrum Blog!

[Tom]

Having read a pile of RO books, I would like to agree with the characterization of it as "liberal Protestantism." It would probably be fairer to call it an anti-modern version of liberal Protestantism.

No doubt there are some intelligent people doing this work. But--and here's the important point--it really has nothing to do with Christian theology.

They've produced almost no dogmatic theology. "Theology and Social Theory" is Platonism. It is very interesting and imaginative, to be sure, but it has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Or at least so far as I can tell.

The RO movement writes fascinating books of leftist social theory. But where is the theology?

Connected to this is the painful fact that the movement bears no connection to living, breathing Christianity. It is a small intellectual movement with no meaningful consequences whatsoever. None. This is, um, a problem.

Sorry to sound so harsh. I rather like some of the RO books.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Christian Socialist is even more of a contradiction in terms than a Liberal Catholic!

[Fatpie42]

John D. Caputo wrote in his book "On Religion" that Radical Orthodoxy is very orthodox and not very radical.

Many are now saying that it is not actually orthodox at all. If it is not radical and not orthodox does it not become rather like a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal?

The proponents of Radical Orthodoxy seem quick to throw the term 'nihilism' around when describing modern society. Far from feeling liberal, such comments feel like they come straight out of the Mail.

[Alex]

John Caputo is a simpering wishy washy theological liberal, with less comprehensive or critical ideas than Radical Orthodoxy and even less of a constructive theological, social, economic or philosophical project and largely serves as an apologia for contemporary capitalism or a flimsy philosophical basis of the so-called emergent church, that is itself an escape route for guilty evangelical Americans. His work relies almost exclusively on a rather pedestrian reading of the work of Jacques Derrida. His The Weakness of God is a collection of sub-Derridian tropes, personal reflections and jokes that could have been dashed out by a parodist. His opinion of radical orthodoxy is then largely irrelevant. Caputo denegrates Radical Orthodoxy's position to improve his own, which he believes to be radical: there is nothing radical about repeating the sometimes actually radical insights of Derrida as watered down apophatic theology.

As for "many" saying it is not orthodox at all, for better or worse, both the need for a renewed neoplatonic metaphysics, the 'turn' at Scotus, the account of the churches relation to the world and between faith and reason chime very well with the concerns of the current papacy. The only major point of difference is that radical orthodoxy is probably more politically radical and (small l) liberal when it comes to matters of sex. If the papacy is not somewhat of a weather vane for orthodoxy, I cannot imagine what is. But I am certain it is not the views of someone like Caputo, who self indentifies as unorthodox and talks of most theology as 'rouged' theology, ie complicit with power, while endorsing the ultimate power of the highly destructive modern nation state and liberal democractic capitalism.