Turf Wars: Radical Orthodoxy against...?
I am confused about an aspect of Radical Orthodoxy and I put it here (hopefully) to get some clarification (Some Guy, I'm glancing in your general direction.)
I should say that I'm confused by a quote from Jamie Smith's "Introducing a Radical Orthodoxy." He writes (p. 71): "Thus, RO is advocating a distinctly theological engagement with the world--and the academy that investigates the world--undergirded by the belief that the way to engage the contemporary world is not by trying to demonstrate a correlation between the gospel and cultural values but rather by letting the gospel confront these (apostate) values. If, for example, we want to think about th enature of society, 'only (Christian) theology'...can provide a proper account of the nature of social relationship." And here's where I get confused: "Thus, the regnant sociologies currently on offer...--which deny creation and reject revelation--must be confronted on their own turf" (emphasis mine). Huh? Who is the 'their' here? The turf of secular sociologies? Or is it the turf of Christian theology? My understanding of RO (and the context of the paragraph and page) would lead me to the latter interpretation, but the sentence's grammar suggests the former. Thoughts?
I should say that I'm confused by a quote from Jamie Smith's "Introducing a Radical Orthodoxy." He writes (p. 71): "Thus, RO is advocating a distinctly theological engagement with the world--and the academy that investigates the world--undergirded by the belief that the way to engage the contemporary world is not by trying to demonstrate a correlation between the gospel and cultural values but rather by letting the gospel confront these (apostate) values. If, for example, we want to think about th enature of society, 'only (Christian) theology'...can provide a proper account of the nature of social relationship." And here's where I get confused: "Thus, the regnant sociologies currently on offer...--which deny creation and reject revelation--must be confronted on their own turf" (emphasis mine). Huh? Who is the 'their' here? The turf of secular sociologies? Or is it the turf of Christian theology? My understanding of RO (and the context of the paragraph and page) would lead me to the latter interpretation, but the sentence's grammar suggests the former. Thoughts?
posted by Aaron Perry at
11:20 AM
3 Comments:
Here is SGFMB's considered thought: Ask Smith. He's on ceta-l.
Hi, AP,
Thinking of Milbank's Theology and Social Theory here...
Perhaps what is meant is that all disciplines must acknowledge their own "religious" underpinnings. In other words, sociology just doesn't offer a world without metaphysics it offers a different kind of metaphysics. Thus, I see RO attempting to deconstruct modernity and its hegemonic truth claims. They are making ideological attacks on the ideological attackers. Maybe this is "their own turf": ideology critique? What do you think?
I haven't read Smith's book, but this seems like a possible answer to your question.
i think that that is too much put into the sentence.
to be honest, i think it's a confusing sentence that no one caught, or assumed the grander context of which would strongly override the natural meaning of the sentence...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home