James K.A. Smith on What is Radical Orthodoxy?

So what exactly is Radical Orthodoxy? People ask me this question from time-to-time when I tell them that this movement is of interest for my academic work. It is my task here to utilise the excellent James K.A. Smith’s account in his work Introducing Radical Orthodoxy. This will take more than one post, so you’ll have to come back for more.

Smith begins by describing the basic theological antithesis that provides the backdrop to RO: the Tubigen school vs. Karl Barth’s Basel.

‘We could associate Tubingen with the center of the classic liberal theological project that could be described as “correlationist”. Here the agenda is to correlate the claims of Christian revelation with the structure of a given culture or politico-economic system such that both, in some sense, function as a normative source for the theological project. Classic representatives would include Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, and, more recently, David Tracey.’

It is worth noting that Friedrich Schleiermacher is usually included in this list of names, but since Graham Ward (a key figure of RO) wants to read him in a different light, Smith does not include it. Liberation theology is a part of this correlationist project because it adopts secular sociological conclusions from Marxism; in fact, wherever the social sciences are trusted and utilised in a non-critical manner there the correlationist project is underway. John Howard Yoder (a critic of Tubingen) describes its consensus: ‘it is by studying the realities around us, not by hearing a proclamation from God, that we discern the right.’

On the other hand, Karl Barth’s project was ‘revelationist…eschewing any notion of a neutral or secular “point of contact” between the gospel and public or sociopolitical structures, proclaiming instead a revealed gospel that subverted cultural givens’. Barth’s theology saw heaven as crashing down into earth in Christ, opening the doors of perception but only through revelation, with no possibility of theological truth anywhere else. Barth’s theology was taken up by postliberal theologians such as Hans Frei and George Linbeck, and later by such figures as Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder.

According to Smith, all of these theologians ‘deeply resisted the correlational and Constantinian projects of modern theology, and..emphasize the practices of being the church, informed by a narrative of Scripture, constituting an alternative community and a peculiar people…Behind this is a trenchant rejection of the Enlightenment value of autonomy both in epistemology (as in secular foundationalism) and politics (with the idolization of rights).’

 And so the major confrontation of the theological scene of the 20th century is sketched: roughly speaking, liberalism vs. Barth and all who followed him. (This, incidentally, is why Barth is so important and so highly to be praised, even if one does not accept everything for which he stood.)

A final thought on this is that it seems to me that these divisions within the Anglican Church creates a fundamental impasse between those who are correlationist and who believe that the church basically needs to support Western culture in pursuit of its various values – tolerance, freedom, equality, and so on – and those who are not correlationist and who believe that the gospel in some sense should confront the culture and bring it to conviction for its godlessness. How much common ground can there be between these two positions when their fundamental assumptions about theology and the mission of the church are so different? 

2 thoughts on “James K.A. Smith on What is Radical Orthodoxy?

  1. Comment time! Firstly, I love “This will take more than one post, so you’ll have to come back for more.” #hooked

    I would love to read Smith on them: Matt recommended some RO to read and I’ve not gotten round to it. Mind you, I’ve had some interesting brushes with them via some Kevin Vanhoozer I’ve been reading (The Drama of Doctrine). He’s been engaging with George Lindbeck’s ‘Cultural Linguistic’ approach to doctrine, which I think a lot of RO people appreciate or at least parallel in their own thinking. They’re all about “the practices of being the church, informed by a narrative of Scripture…” I’ve loved Vanhoozer: he’s had much to say on the value but also limitations of a basically-ethnographic account of doctrine (which is what it ends up being if Christian truth is borne out only in the context of the Church’s life), and even of theology that takes narrative as its main working model.

    Your point on the C of E implications: hmmm. I suppose you’re right. My only prevarication is that ‘liberals’ are often very good at confronting some aspects of culture, perhaps in a way the more theologically conservative don’t. This raises the question: if we are correlationists, which cultural values should we basically support?

    That said, I’m not a correlationist. I appreciate your take on Barth. I’m so ignorant when it comes to Barth! Hopefully I get to read a bit next year.

    Thanks chap- stimulating as ever.

  2. Thank you very much for your comment Niv. And for your encouragement as to the value of my posts on this subject.

    I think that an intro like Smith’s (or one of the other ones out there) is extremely helpful and should probably be read before delving into the source literature on the whole. Much of the literature is very hard at first, and I at least find it very helpful to have a conceptual framework already in place before attempting it. That said, Ward and Oliver, for example, are far easier than Pickstock and especially Milbank, who I do find quite frustrating at times.

    I think that, if liberals are good at confronting aspects of the culture, then this can only be in a subsidiary concern because the root issue is the mission of the church: is it to work with the culture in order to make it better? Or is to call an essentually religious and pagan culture to repentance and faith in Christ? This will come across more clealy as I do more posts. Which aspects of liberal thought are good at confronting the culture in your opinion?

    On Barth, my view is that one doesn’t need to read swathes in order to get the gist. It’s all about the radical separation between reason and revelation as applied to theology. Matt leant me Dogmatics in Outline, which is short and easy to read (and which I’ve never given back).

Please make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s