Which comes first: The Christian or the Egg?
I've been reading James Smith's "Introducing Radical Orthodoxy." It is a very helpful introduction to a very complex theological attitude. (I think attitude, perhaps affinity, is a good description; Smith may use them--I can't remember.) I find myself with one question, though. Let me summarize the RO critique of modernity first: it says that its politics (liberal) is based on a theology which "unhooks" the creation from the Creator thereby creating an autonomous and independent reason. The corrective is to emphasize the createdness of creation and to recover the theology of everything because creation is always "hooked" to the Creator. Moreover, this is known in the Christian story. So, the Christian critique is always and (I think) only from within the Christian narrative.
Now, I have two questions: How does one account for the success of the modern period? Smith quotes Pickstock as saying something like, "Now that the modern project has so miserably failed, we should move on." I find myself saying, "Huh?" So miserably failed? Not likely.
Second, what do we do with the social sciences at all? I understand the critique from within the Christian narrative. This is all well and good--but it remains a critique and not a construct. Do Christians need to restart the failed projects of physics, math, sociology, medicine all over again from within the Christian narrative? If yes...well, forget it, that will never and should never happen. But if no, then how much critique does RO hold? It emphasizes the need for everything to be theologically informed--great! But for a Trinitarian God, isn't the world already theologically charged, regardless of the creation's effort to ban Him from the playground?
Let me be the first to admit that I do not have this affinity down, yet. But this has been going around in my mind.
Now, I have two questions: How does one account for the success of the modern period? Smith quotes Pickstock as saying something like, "Now that the modern project has so miserably failed, we should move on." I find myself saying, "Huh?" So miserably failed? Not likely.
Second, what do we do with the social sciences at all? I understand the critique from within the Christian narrative. This is all well and good--but it remains a critique and not a construct. Do Christians need to restart the failed projects of physics, math, sociology, medicine all over again from within the Christian narrative? If yes...well, forget it, that will never and should never happen. But if no, then how much critique does RO hold? It emphasizes the need for everything to be theologically informed--great! But for a Trinitarian God, isn't the world already theologically charged, regardless of the creation's effort to ban Him from the playground?
Let me be the first to admit that I do not have this affinity down, yet. But this has been going around in my mind.
posted by Aaron Perry at
11:18 AM
10 Comments:
hey tim,
i think that the two points from your opening paragraph are incongruent. how does one practice something Christianly, if it has already been conditioned by the modern liberal narrative? if that conditioning need not have too great an impact so as to spoil the discipline, then...i hear all of what RO has to say adn then say, "What more have you done but operate out of a hermeneutic of suspicion?"
it does not sound ridiculous that there could be a Christian mathematics, because if all of creation is Spirit-charged, then there is only Christian mathematics. but this means that one can jump into the discipline and from within the modern liberal narrative that has brought leaps and bounds jumps in mathematical knowledge behave Christianly. these two narratives are not mutually exclusive. again, i get the point, agree with it, and just point out that it's not as big a deal as some seem to think it is.
re: modern liberal state and violence: the conclusion obviously follows when the power to destroy has been exponentially increased during the last one hundred years beyond hte ability of the last 4000. so, yes...more violent and destructive. pickstock's critique, though, still seems strange to me. i think it is more than fair--if ending all violence was the goal and one should critique on the terms of one's interlocutors. however, it seems rather idealist to commit something to being a failure when the goods discovered and invented and which need to be distributed are part of the "failure" itself.
my urge to construct is most certainly "modern" in some sense, although it is also premodern. (augustine managed to be thoroughly suspicious of the libido dominandi and yet helped us to work out just war theory!) it need not be "systematic," necessarily, though. RO is a critique, however, if it wants everything to be done from within the Christian narrative and does not take into account the Christianization of so many other narratives. you cannot "start over"--nor need you if the Spirit is present in history. i am all for engaging Christianly in all disciplines--as you know. but need one convert the discipline to engage Christianly in it? (hence, the chicken and the Christian question.) if yes, then we're after an impossibility outside God's kingdom. if no, then it remains a critique, a chastening--and a very valuable one. so, is it unfair to want a construct? no, that's the only way to live. you cannot live critique.
ap-- come back to farmstrong. jd
jd: on my way. i've been checking it out and enjoying your poetry.
question: have you read "Eat this Book" by Peterson?
Was he calling modernity a failure in a given context or is he making an overall broad statement.
"I think that RO would reply that the practice of their actual critique keeps your critique from sticking."
I'm rubber your glue... :):)
"They, like myself, do not go along with your already-not yet eschatology"
Are you saying that there is no part of the Kingdom that is "not yet"
"They don't want Christianity to simply be spinkles on top of social theory or science thereby baptizing what modernity has putatively accomplished."
So I would think they are extremely passionate about evangelism Yes??
What amazes me about RO? is that they replace the grand, meta-narrative of modernity (as if there is one) with a grand, meta-narrative of Christianity. Problem. There is no grand, meta-narrative of Christianity. Tim talks about this "practice." Whose practice? In what time? In what place? Like the grand, meta-narrative of modernity (which, by the way, is only placed on modernity by post-modernity. Modernity does not see itself as some grand, meta-narrative) the grand, meta-narrative proposed by RO is one that does not exist.
The Christian tradition is one of difference, discord, fighting, bickering, etc. etc. and still finding unity in this. RO does not seem to acknowledge this. They appeal to this "source" of tradition which does not really exist. Christianity is not a unified tradition.
And lastly, I am just asking what Christian sciences look like? I think that really, if RO was consistent with itself, it would say that we need to get rid of all of these sciences from our "language" and reformulate them from the ground up in Christian terms. But then, this is impossible because the forms of the discipline are already steeped within certain structures asking certain questions that if not dealt with or asked, would destroy the discipline.
Sorry. I have a little hostility toward RO.
I am enjoying this :) I have nothing to add... Just wanted to say that I am here and am quite enjoying the discussion... Bring it on lads!
Nate: Your "lastly" critique is what I was attempting to get at in the original post.
I think in many ways this conversation exemplifies the problem with blogging conversations: An issue is raised and responded to. The response contains different issues that are responded to in the second response, which is still attempting to be faithful to the original issue. Anyway, just my opinion.
Re: Grand narrative: As a religion, Christianity will always have violence until Christ's reign is fully present--because he himself is present. This is BOTH a what and a when: The church lives his kingdom in better and worse ways (the what); yet his kingdom will come (the when). Until I stop seeing relatives die of cancer, I will not stop asking the when question, nor will I, only by grace, stop living the what.
But as this kingdom is God's kingdom, then it is a grand-narrative because there is only one Lord and, thereby, one story.
Now, have I succumbed to my own frustration and opened up several cans of worms after the words on blogging conversations? Yep! :D
hey tim,
i did not mean to put a heavy in the discussion with mentioning cancer or death. but it remains an enemy--currently mocked, but it still appears to have victory. the resurrection has already defeated it but we still die.
i can accept your understanding of death as gift in some circumstances. i think of Revelation and the nature of the souls of the saints who are in white robes, yet who still call for vindication. i also think of C.S. Lewis who said that if two people were fighting in a war and found themselves to have killed one another that upon arriving in the afterlife might enjoy a good laugh together. there is something very serious, lighthearted, and Christian about that picture, i think. so, most certainly, Christians do see death and disease differently: enemy to be mocked is much different than the circle of life!
yes, in this aspect, the Christian comes first.
i think that death can be grouped together with enemies that are mocked: just as Christ made a spectacle of the powers and Paul boasts over death, "Where is your sting?" i think this to be very Christian.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home