Festschrift for New Colleague

One of my new colleagues Pål Repstad (see picture) turned 60 last week and the institute surprised him with a Festschrift and a party.

Pål is a sociologist of religion, from whom I have already learned a great deal.  You can read about the book and the party here.

One of my most pleasant discoveries has been that interdisciplinary dialogue really is as popular here (and in Scandinavia and Europe more broadly) as I hoped it would be. 

For example,  Milbank's attempted isolation of theology from the rest of the world in Theology and Social Theory is simply not taken seriously.  I have yet to come across a non-British theologian who accepts this aspect of Radical Orthodoxy... perhaps they will come out of the woodwork in response to this post?

Why do you suppose Radical Orthodoxy is more popular in some parts of the US than it is here?

Comments

[Tony Mills]

Well, my first thought is because all of Europe is filled with hedonistic pagans, but there may be a better response...

Oh, here it is. I admit that I have not read Milbank, but I have read David Hart, who apparently studied under him, and I think borrows much from him in his book "The Beauty of the Infinite". I also know Robert Jenson's work, who also likes Milbank a lot, especially the book you mention. One of the things that they have in common with/borrow from Milbank (from what I can tell) and that I really like is the idea that Christianity is set apart as an alternative culture to the worldly and governmental authorities. Is that what you mean by Milbank separating theology from the rest of the world? Or does he actually have a methodological claim on top of the material claim, namely, that not only are we to be alternatives to other cultures, but that in doing so we are not to engage in their disciplines? I know it would help if I had read Milbank directly, but I really want to know more about Radical Orthodoxy and what the concern is with it.

[Daniel Eller]

Hey LeRon and Tony,

Being that this subject is of great importance for the current dialogue between the social sciences and theology (an area that I am more than mildly interested in), let me just give a brief response to your second question… and indirectly respond to Tony.

This may be a gross oversimplification of Milbank’s “genius,” but it seems as though Milbank’s desire to move past Nietzsche has left him with a pragmatism that lacks the necessary language games to move “forward” in human rationality—as science and certain forms of reflective theology pose to do.

Milbank states that “no claim is made to ‘represent’ an objective social reality; instead the social knowledge advocated is but the continuation of ecclesial practice, the imagination in action of a peaceful, reconciled social order, beyond even the violence of legality (Theology and Social Theory, p.6).”

My fear with Milbank is the same as that of Richard H. Roberts who states, “ Sociology and the social sciences may also be classically construed as the critical representation and clarification of the patterns of social organization necessary to the sustenance of humane societies, rather than (as Milbank would have it) the partner in the promotion of an allegedly necessary and totalitarian violence of order… both theology and the social sciences should be concerned in their distinctive ways with life and with how things are (“Theology and the Social Sciences” [emphasis mine]).”

Given these assumptions on my part, it does not seem surprising that many within the US are drawn to radical orthodoxy and its epistemological “trump-card.” The problem seems to be one of consumption and hermeneutics, a problem which too often plagues much of US Christianity... it is one thing as a theologian to state theology’s task, but it is something completely different to conclusively name the task of the "other" (i.e. sociology or any other social scientific study) and to incorporate that task into one’s self… as radical orthodoxy appears to do.

dan

[LeRon]

Dan and Tony,

Yes, Dan, you are right on target... the problem is isolation of social theory as "other." And, Tony, he does indeed make an explicitly methodological claim.

Social theory, in his view, is intrinsically atheistic and agonistic, but Christianity discloses a wholly new narrative of peace that is “beyond even the violence of legality.”

For him Christian theology should have nothing to do (either apologetically or argumentatively) with the agonistics of social theory. Rather, it should reconceive itself as a kind of “Christian sociology,” which explicates the socio-linguistic practice of the church and constantly re-narrates this practice as it has historically developed (1991, 6, 45, 301).

Several theologians and sociologists of religion have criticized Milbank for failing to account for shifts in postmodern social science, in which one finds less anxiety about “policing the sublime” and more openness to dialogue with theology and ethics (e.g., Flanagan, 1996, 59-60; 2001; Ayers, 1996; cf. Baumann, 1993).

It is important to note that some of the theologians who identify with Radical Orthodoxy are more open to social scientific insights in the ongoing reconstructive process (cf. Ward, 2005).

Milbank, however, seems unaware that his own proposal is inherently agonistic (us versus them), and deeply shaped by his own context. In "Being Reconciled" Milbank is critical, as are so many other contemporary theologians, of the medieval invention of a forensic reading of the atonement in model (2003, 103).

Yet this reading is part of the “socio-linguistic practice of the church” as “it has historically developed.” Having (allegedly) eschewed argumentation, he can offer us no reason why this part of the narrative is problematic, nor why he finds Augustine’s version of the story compelling.

Ironically, the reaction (in Europe) to the blatant antagonism and naïve isolationism of this approach among many theologians has been a new openness to interdisciplinary dialogue.

Of course much of the writing in RO is quite lovely, and many of the material claims made by authors like Hart and Milbank are insightful.

But this way of doing theology can too easily, in my view, lead to an isolationism which is not actually reformative for the church and the world.

LeRon

[Tony Mills]

Dan and LeRon, thanks for the insights and explanations. Of course I look forward to engaging Milbank and others myself, but it's too bad he is so isolated/isolating.

2 years ago when we discussed Hart's book on beauty one of the major critiques leveled by my colleagues and professors was the violent rhetoric he employed to counteract the violent rhetorics of certain postmodern thinkers. They did not see this as an example of the rhetoric of peace which he claimed for the gospel. Certainly this was intentional on Hart's part, but it would seem that a rhetoric of peace should be more...peaceful. This does not mean, of course, that we need to buy into everything social theorists say, especially those more agonistic grammars of violence. Do you think we can be more critically engaging without either full acquiescence to agonistic rhetorics or full abandonment of dialogue? Is RO typically afraid of the former to the extent that they opt for the latter?

[David Worley]

LeRon, Tony, & Dan- I am late to the discussion and little insane from several major projects that are due on multiple fronts. But, since I am addicted to this blog I figured I need to check in this morning for my "hit."

This discussion is way outside my knowledge base but does touch on a place that I wonder about quite often, thus please excuse this question if it is ridiculous. Does post-liberalism have any cross-over with Millbank explicitly or implicitly? Specifically I am referring to the theological line originated by Lindbeck (Nature of Doctrine) and popular at places like Duke Divinity. What similarities are there between Radical Orthodoxy and contemporary post-liberalism (if any)?

[Matt Westbrook]

Daniel,

Can you give me the full citation for Roberts that you mention?

Much appreciated.

[Daniel Eller]

Hey Matt,

sure. I see that I forgot to include that in my comment. The easiest place to find it would be in David Fords edited work "the Modern Theologians." It is found on page 370, or something, in the third volume... but you can just go to the table of content in any of the additions and quickly find it.

hope that helps...

dan

[Tanden Brekke]

Hey LeRon,

I just found your blog and it has been great to read.

With Milbank, I have never read his stuff but after reading a few of the posting I think I have a basic understanding of what he is saying, but on the other hand i could have it all wrong. So here are my thoughts:

1) most of us who are not currently in higher education have very full lives. Work, family, paying the bills, being invovled in the community, takes all of our time. so at 9:00 pm we are not really looking to read about what the latest sociology and the social sciences have to say. And if we do ever enter what they are saying we feel so overwhelmed because we have not been keeping up and they are evolving so fast that it makes our heads spin. So for someone to come and tell us that all that does not really matter seems very attractive.

2) we also have been told our wholes lives that our salvation depends on us believeing the right things. when you take serious the social sciences things get complicated very fast. And that creates a lot of anxiety because we feel like our salvation is on the line and we have to have all the right thoughts to be truly saved. so what Milbanks does is assures us that we really don't need to take the social sciences seriously because they don't matter the only thing that we need to think about is theology. And that we can think about once a week at church.

thoses are my two thoughts. one of the things that would make Milbank less attractive would be to assure christians that salvation is not dependent on having all the right thoughts and then we might be more comfortable with a messy complicated not yet figured out faith.

I hope this makes sense, this is my first time responding to a blog.

thanks,
Tanden

[Geoff Holsclaw]

now I want to be a dissenting voice, 1) because it is always fun to be the 'other' in a conversation, 2) b/c I'm from the US and 3) find RO rejuvenating.

I would say that Milbank's main complaint has less with being 'inter-disciplinary' where a true dialogue is happening, but rather that social/physical sciences claim either a neutral or a transcendental status. This creates a one-way street from the suppose neutral science from which we are then allowed to theologize. milbank thinks that this brings theology in too late, that theology has to play by the rule of another game.

This I feel is true even of postmodern philosophy and science. As I said about Badiou, relational mathematics bites both ways, and you decide before hand whether God exists or not. Likewise, even John Caputo, for all his disclaimers, is still pulling a Kantian (quasi-)transcendental move when he leads us into thinking that the purified faith of Derrida (the religious) precedes the corrupted faith of Augustine (a religion).

I also feel that labeling someone isolationist is unfair. Would we call a persecuted people who are seeking to preserve their identity 'isolationist', or would we call them 'survivalists'. While very different I admit, being a 'confessional' christian in the academy, finding room not merely to speak religious platitude, but to say "Jesus Christ, the hope of glory" is very difficult.

(but I do agree that the RO rhetoric is unbecoming)

(but I disagree that everyone loves RO in America...I feel many are ambivalent)

[LeRon]

Hi Geoff,

Yes, actually I find RO rejuvenating too, and am attracted to much of its rhetoric and many of its insights. Also, I didn't mean to imply everyone in the US likes RO, but that it has had more of a hearing there than elsewhere (besides UK).

I even agree that theology should not play by rules set up by another discipline.

What I don't like is the way Milbank ignores "other" approaches to the social sciences that are not atheistic, etc.

I am more hopeful articulating the particularity of Christian belief in public discourse, and not just "in" that discourse, but as a way of transforming that discourse.

Thanks for pushing for clarification!

LeRon

[James K.A. Smith]

I must say, LeRon, I'm a bit surprised to hear you talk about "Milbank's attempted isolation of theology from the rest of the world in Theology and Social Theory." I just have trouble making sense of that as a description of the book I read. You then suggest that he ignores "other" approaches.

Milbank's argument was genealogical, and so he was tracking the history of social theory, which continue to shape regnant paradigms in the social sciences.

For an example of a practicing sociologist who basically makes the same arguments, without ever mentioning Milbank, see Christian Smith, *Moral, Believing Animals* (Oxford UP, 2003).

[LeRon]

Hi Jamie,

I wondered if you would join this conversation!

I know how much you appreciate RO, and I've tried to emphasize there are parts of it I find attractive too... but on p. 381 and following, where he makes the comments about eschewing argumentation and having nothing to do with social theory, he is not still doing genealogy, is he? He's setting out his own position, yes?

I'm not disputing that social theory emerged in agonistics to theology (it had good reasons to be agonistic in the early modern period, but that's another story).

I'm disputing the claim that theology should today define itself agonistically, just when so many social theorists are open to engaging theology, the sacred, etc. Why be so antagonistic?

If we listen to sociologists, many of them say they find Milbank's depiction of them wholly unfair. So, do we just say, well they don't understand themselves... they are really rooted in violence and theology has NOTHING to do with them?!

I'm guessing you'll disagree, but this would be to emulate the worst of the Reformed tradition, not the best, which looks toward transforming culture, not ignoring it.

OK... how did you like that rhetoric!? ;)

LeRon

[James K.A. Smith]

I'm going to chalk up your caricatures to a desire to bait a conversation, which is fine. But on the run, I'd say just a few things:

1. Milbank's own work clearly shows that he's not out to have "nothing to do with" social theory. He is engaging it, and critiquing it--hard to see how that's ignoring it. What he refuses to do is engage it on the terms set down by a "secular" standard of reason. If you think that's an outlandish picture of social scientists, I'd invite you to take a look at a few issues of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Modernity is alive and well there!

2. Social theorists are always already closet theologians of a sort. So it's never a conversation between "social theory" on one side and "theology" on the other; it's always already an engagement between (oft times) different theologies. Unlike Milbank, I don't think theology is all in all; but I do think there is social theorizing and social science that is funded by the roots of Christian confession, and there is social theory/science that is funded by other "theologies" (again, see Chris Smith on this as well). So the regnant paradigm in social theory/science doesn't get to define what counts as social science. And for the record, Kuyper and Dooyeweerd were saying this long before Milbank & Co.

I find that here, as in the "theology & science" conversation, there is way too much deference to the "science" side of things.

3. Milbank's point in the last chapters is that we lack the dreamed-of universal criterion necessary for "debate" or "arguments" at this point. This is why the linch-pin is his account of persuasion (and here, cp. David Bentley Hart in _The Beauty of the Infinite_, as well as MacIntyre).

4. Your final point is indicative of what I think is a long-standing but mistaken assumption in the Reformed tradition: that culture is "out there" and thus something that the church has to "transform." My current project ("Desiring the Kingdom") is going to explicitly contest the so-called "transforming culture" paradigm as problematic--and will do so on Reformed/Augustinian grounds. But that only constitutes "ignoring" culture if you think that 'the world' has the corner on the culture market--which I don't.

I guess on your terms you think I exemplify "the worst" of the Reformed tradition; in my account, your desire to "transform" culture indicates a lack of imagination about what constitutes "culture," and too often looks like license for assimilation.

[LeRon]

Hi Jaime,

You do know me well... I was baiting you. I've found that these blogs are really boring and no one responds unless I try to be provocative! ;)

I agree with your points 1-3 completely, in terms of your reading of Milbank. But I would say more about his WAY of doing these things.

1. These are not the only social scientists out there. Some are post-modern, as you know. I agree with the critique of the modernists, but would spend more time trying to engage the post-modernists, many of whom reject the modernist dualism of sacred vs. secular. Our new doctoral program has full-time sociologists in it, and they are certainly not like the founders of those disciplines, whom Milbank rightly chastises. Nor are most of the other new social scientific colleagues I meet here and in England and on the continent.

2. Yes, social theory (and all sciences) are funded by, and rooted in, some form of theology, an idea of the ultimate, the good, etc. Yes, there is too much deference to science in the dialogue. But theology is also shaped by its context and social location, and many theologians refuse to defer at all to science. Seems we need a balance and humility on both sides.

3. We no longer can maintain foundational universal criteria for debate, but this does not entail relativism. We can engage in humbler post-foundationalist argumentation across contexts. Persuasion is a form of argument, whether one calls it that or not.

So far, on all those points, I think you and I share the same goals. We just differ on the extent to which Milbank helps us achieve them.

On #4, you misunderstood me. I definitely think of you as representing the best of the Reformed tradition. By the worst, I was referring to fundamentalists who frame things in terms of us versus them, a tendency which I also find in Milbank. I would go with Milbank a long way, as I hope you sense. It is the WAY he creates and acts within the interdisciplinary space that seems inadequate to me.

LeRon

[Mike]

I see this post remains lively! :)

Re: Duke. J. Kameron Carter is one of Milbank's students and now on the faculty of the Divinity School, and he has a book coming out called "Race as a Theological Account".

Re: Why is RO so popular in some parts of the US than [Europe]? I'm glad I re-read this question! And, having reviewed some of the conversations already, I'll take a stab at it.

RO appeals to the idealism of many folks in the USA, and forgive the caricature that follows, but it goes something like this: "If we'd just get back to the Bible, then [this or that problem would be solved] or [all of the problems that "social theories" describe and the accompanying solutions would be exposed as totally lacking]." Now, I realize, that is not the most generous of depictions. But, it does assist in exposing a longing for theological descriptions that depend upon Scripture and not upon other disciplines, i.e., social theory.

Yet: Milbank makes appeals to his readers, critics, and beyond that RO offers us a Christian theology that does justice to our readings of the Scripture without having commitments to modernity and social theories. I'm not sure-please-I'm not sure that Milbank proposes explicitly that RO would offer fulfillment of anyone's version of Christian idealism. I doubt he would.

Of course, there are tons of sideline issues weighing down our theologizing in the USA. One example would be the very topic that Carter addresses in his forthcoming text: race. How could a white person from the USA be reasonably expected to depend solely upon the Scriptures (and the associated traditions they are part of) in their readings to understand race? For that matter, the reading by anyone of any particular ethnic heritage? Some blind spots exist among the sideline issues, and perhaps those blind spots assist in sustaining the idealism among USA Christians, as well as reject any interdisciplinary readings and conversation, let alone permission to draw upon other disciplines.

I'm looking forward to Carter's book, but I'm uncertain whether RO has the wherewithal to achieve what Milbank etal has in mind for it.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Mike,

Maybe the idealism part is right, but I don't think you could link it with 'scriptual idealism'. Milbank rather engages with scripture, and certainly doesn't have an evangelical relationship with it (you know, 'if we could just be like the church in Acts.').

I would even argue that Milbank is attempting to make things more difficult than simpler. His theories of the Atonement, his understanding of the 'analogy of being' and even his interpretation of social space where he argues for 'complex space' of overlapping commitments against modernity's 'simple space' of individual=state. His collection of essays is even called "The Word Made Strange".

Milbank can be faulted for several things, but not being a naive scriptural simpleton.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

a friend just pointed me in the direction of this new book series, with definite RO sympathies. I find their vision very compelling.

LeRon, love to know how their description strikes you.

http://www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/Interventions/

[LeRon]

Hi Geoff,

The series looks fascinating! I'm beginning to wonder how helpful the tag "Radical Orthodoxy" really is... seems like there is so much that fits under this tent, and so many people define it in radically different ways... what is "orthodox" radical orthodoxy!!? ;)

Seriously, it seems to me that we may need to ask narrower questions, in one sense: is this particular author right about this, or helpful in this way? And then ask broader questions like: what general patterns do we see in RO-types that are helpful, and which worry us and why?

LeRon

[Mike]

Geoff,
Thanks for the reply. You're right: I shrunk Milbank down to something he's not, and far more than he'd appreciate!

But, getting back to LeRon's question: perhaps too many people in the US-even myself?-catch a slight draft of RO's attempt to theologize away from social theory, and feel like a cool breeze of originality in method is coming along. Idealism remains one of those contributing factors to the attraction to RO within the USA. Almost deserves the same scrutiny as RO... :) Thanks!

[Patrik]

Hi,

I'm in Finland, and have recently read Millbank and I am currently reading Hart, and I might shed some light on why "we" do not like it...

I think it has a lot to do with the strong state church tradition here, that makes secularisation look completely different than in the US. Since almost everyone in Northern Europe belongs to a Church, secularisation is happening inside the chrurch, which makes the Millbankean sollution - separation - impossible. I realize Millbank is British, but I think his arguments work better in the US where people are use in thinking in terms of "our group" and "the rest" because of the many churches that exist side by side.