Re: [asa] Random and design

Thanks for the link Janice, it's a good (though a bit critical) summary.
Dick -- RO identifies, I think, an important problem in contemporary
theology: contemporary theology is largely captive to modernity. Liberal
theology accomodates modernity by ceding "solid" truth to science and
reserving "personal" truth for faith. Conservative theology (particularly
evangelicalism) accomodates modernity by cabining theology in the language
and categories of modernity: "all truth is God's truth" tends to mean
"theological truth is entirely subject to the empirical truth-tests of
modernity." Either way, the truth claims of the Christian faith are
compromised.

RO sees that the postmodern critique of modernity has some merit, but
recognizes that postmodernism presents a story of violence: truth is what
the dominant group makes it. RO turns that narrative on its head, and
suggests that Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross makes possible a new
narrative: by virtue of Christ's sacrifice, the Church proclaims truth that
is now peaceful and not violent. Against the will-to-power of the world's
truth claims, the Christian community represents an exclusive set of truth
claims grounded not in human power, but in the sacrifice of Christ.

Why does this matter outside Boston (actually outside Cambridge, England,
where RO's center of gravity lies)? Maybe in some ways it doesn't, but all
ideas have consequences. RO has implications for how the Church worships,
how we represent ourselves to the world, how we read scripture, and I think
how we conceive of "science."

George -- interesting thoughts, but I don't see all that much difference
between what you're saying and what RO is doing. Maybe I haven't read
deeply enough yet, but Milbank et al. do seem to ground their project in the
cross, particularly in the implications of the atonement for social theory.
What they are saying is exactly that we need to construct epistemology and
social theory starting with the atonement, and they find in neoplatonism and
the Augustinian tradition important resources with which to construct a
holistic theology starting with that premise of radical peace rather than
dialectical violence.

Actually, here's where I would see a difference: I don't think RO would
"let science be science," so to speak, by carving out a naturalistic sphere
for science in which it could operate more or less autonomously. That seems
more "radical" (better neoplatonist sort of term: more unified) than a
cross-centered approach that doesn't seem to penetrate any of the epistemic
assumptions or claims of a separate sphere of science.

On 11/24/06, Richard Fischer <dickfischer@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> For those of us not qualified to join Mensa, what does this mean? And
> would anybody south or west of Boston care?
>
> "Christian theology counters the Nietzschean nihilism of foundational
> violence (in the language Radical Orthodoxy borrows from postmodernism) by
> advancing a participatory framework, an analogical poetics, a *semiosis*of peace, a metanarrative that does not require the postulate of original
> violence. Put more simply, Radical Orthodoxy hopes to recover Neoplatonic
> metaphysics as an explanation for the glue that holds the world together.
> Something can be what it is—a unit of semantic identity or meaning, a
> person, a social practice—and at the same time depend upon and reach toward
> something else. Or more strongly, something is real only in and through this
> constitutive dependence and fecundity. For the Neoplatonist, you, or I, or
> the value of my moral acts, or the meaning of this essay, *are* as
> emanating from and returning to the One."
>
> Would anybody care to join "Neanderthal orhodoxy"? That's for us retards
> who are just dumb enough to think that when we read the Bible we actually
> understand what the writer intended to convey via comprehensible language.
> We could start a movement.
>
> ~Dick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
> *To:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; George Murphy<gmurphy@raex.com>
> *Cc:* Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> ; asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 24, 2006 12:06 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Random and design
>
>
> At 10:48 PM 11/23/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> George (and others), are you familiar with the Radical Orthodoxy
> movement? It seems to me that the way in which RO reappropriates Augustine
> and Aquinas is quite helpful.
>
>
> @ Yes. It's been around for several years. It does seem to be an
> interesting approach, and may eventually turn out to be helpful. Right now,
> I'm watching from a distance. :) R. R. Reno in First things gives a pretty
> good overview along with his opinion of it. ~ Janice
>
> The Radical Orthodoxy Project - R. R. Reno
> Copyright (c) 2000 First Things 100 (February 2000): 37-44.
> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0002/articles/reno.html
>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.