• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Radical Orthodoxy

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I've been Reading a little about this relatively New theological movement.

It's more or less the idea started by John Milbank and is the idea that theology should be the primary discipline though which the rest of the world is seen, i.e. it's not theology and then seperately economics or sociology or whatever, it's first theology and then economics and sociology and so on as disciplines subservient to theology.

It's also the idea that Orthodox Christianity has very radical implications, specifically in the modern context of the modern/liberal/market secular orthodoxy, and that taking orthodox christianity seriously has real world political implications.

It goes against the liberal theology that reads theology within the context of modern liberalism submits theology to that.

Out of radical orthodoxy (in the UK), you get the very interesting "red tory" movement, a political movement taking conservatism and seperating it from the market-fundementalism that has taken it over since the 1980s and once again taking the social-justice Message of Christianity seriously, but falling into the liberal trap of mixing social-justice with modern liberalism, the same way unfortunately conservatism has falling into the trap of adopting a neo-liberal market fundementalism.

Now that's just one (and for me one of the most interesting) implications of the Radical Orthodoxy.

Another is the rejection of critiquing religion from the standpoint of the secular Sciences when those Sciences presuppose naturalism, when you understand that theology (be it Christian, or naturalistic) cannot be seperated from everything else you see that critiquing religion from a naturalistic standpoint is like critiquing a german poem using an English grammer book ... I just doesn't work.

 
As an Orthodox Christian, I have no idea what that guy is talking about.

I listened to him ,I don't know what... how he got those ideas. What he's referring to. The main 3 points about Orthodoxy are these:

a) It places emphasis on the afterlife more-so than the other main christian faiths. It's kinda what the focus is on.

b) It's been traditionally fragmented. So there is no central Orthodox authority. There is a a "pope" called a patriarch, for every country or assembly of countries. So there is no unified "papacy". Also, traditionally, before secular democracy came to exist in countries, the church has always been subservient to the state. As in, it has always been supportive of the government and in some countries, at times, it's been the protector of the people against the ruling powers. This is usually the case in SE Europe at times when the Ottomans ruled here. So what this means, for Orthodox church in America, there is a patriarch there (TEH PATRIARCHY AARRRGH <- feminists :p) who is entirely onto itself. For the Orthodox church in the UK it's a patriarch for the UK, entirely onto itself. The on e in Romania is again, 1 patriarch and 1 church, entirely onto itself. For Russia the same, for Bulgaria the same, etc. The one exception is Russia whom the Russian Orthodox Church whose patriarch is patriarch of the orthodox religion in all the countries that were once part of the USSR. So he is patriarch of the Orthodox church of each baltic state, Moldavia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan, etc. You get the idea. But everywhere else, it's basically 1 orthodox patriarch as the leader of 1 orthodox church in 1 country.

c) The main differences in terms of doctrine is that we don't have a purgatory, we drink out of the same cup when we do communion (so bread and wine are mixed) and depending on the country, calendars differ. So for instance, Romanian Orthodox Church (and I think the Greek one too, but don't hold me on this to be 100% true)is on the same calendar as the rest of the world, but the slavic world is on the Justinian calendar when it comes to religious celebrations.


So... I don't know what he's talking about. If this is orthodoxy as practiced in the UK, fine... you know... I'm not a UK orthodox practitioner, I have no idea what's what there... maybe they put the emphasis on something else as opposed to how orthodox churches usually roll in eastern europe (except for Russia because Russia is special)... so you know, that's that.

Generally speaking the only point of "radicalism" that could exist within the Orthodox Church is the point that the church is usually supportive of the state. So therefore, from the chruchs' perspective, the dialogue goes like this:
Secular citizenry: We want separation between church and state.
Church: Cool.
Secular citizenry: So you won't bud around and try and wiggle yourself into the affairs of the land?
Church: LoL, no.
Secular citizenry: Then what?
Church: We will do what we always did.
Secular citizenry: So basically, get on good terms with the leadership and say what a great job they're doing, therefore loosely being part of the political propaganda machine?
Church: Yep.
Secular citizenry: Regardless of who is in charge. So one day you could be tooting the horn of political party X who is in power all the way to the end of the elections and if political party Y wins, the very next day you'll start praising them?
Church: How dare you? Of course not. We would never do such a thing. We have principles. We will wait until the next election season.
 
Last edited:
As an Orthodox Christian, I have no idea what that guy is talking about.

I listened to him ,I don't know what... how he got those ideas. What he's referring to. The main 3 points about Orthodoxy are these:

a) It places emphasis on the afterlife more-so than the other main christian faiths. It's kinda what the focus is on.

b) It's been traditionally fragmented. So there is no central Orthodox authority. There is a a "pope" called a patriarch, for every country or assembly of countries. So there is no unified "papacy". Also, traditionally, before secular democracy came to exist in countries, the church has always been subservient to the state. As in, it has always been supportive of the government and in some countries, at times, it's been the protector of the people against the ruling powers. This is usually the case in SE Europe at times when the Ottomans ruled here. So what this means, for Orthodox church in America, there is a patriarch there (TEH PATRIARCHY AARRRGH <- feminists :p) who is entirely onto itself. For the Orthodox church in the UK it's a patriarch for the UK, entirely onto itself. The on e in Romania is again, 1 patriarch and 1 church, entirely onto itself. For Russia the same, for Bulgaria the same, etc. The one exception is Russia whom the Russian Orthodox Church whose patriarch is patriarch of the orthodox religion in all the countries that were once part of the USSR. So he is patriarch of the Orthodox church of each baltic state, Moldavia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan, etc. You get the idea. But everywhere else, it's basically 1 orthodox patriarch as the leader of 1 orthodox church in 1 country.

c) The main differences in terms of doctrine is that we don't have a purgatory, we drink out of the same cup when we do communion (so bread and wine are mixed) and depending on the country, calendars differ. So for instance, Romanian Orthodox Church (and I think the Greek one too, but don't hold me on this to be 100% true)is on the same calendar as the rest of the world, but the slavic world is on the Justinian calendar when it comes to religious celebrations.


So... I don't know what he's talking about. If this is orthodoxy as practiced in the UK, fine... you know... I'm not a UK orthodox practitioner, I have no idea what's what there... maybe they put the emphasis on something else as opposed to how orthodox churches usually roll in eastern europe (except for Russia because Russia is special)... so you know, that's that.

Generally speaking the only point of "radicalism" that could exist within the Orthodox Church is the point that the church is usually supportive of the state. So therefore, from the chruchs' perspective, the dialogue goes like this:
Secular citizenry: We want separation between church and state.
Church: Cool.
Secular citizenry: So you won't bud around and try and wiggle yourself into the affairs of the land?
Church: LoL, no.
Secular citizenry: Then what?
Church: We will do what we always did.
Secular citizenry: So basically, get on good terms with the leadership and say what a great job they're doing, therefore loosely being part of the political propaganda machine?
Church: Yep.
Secular citizenry: Regardless of who is in charge. So one day you could be tooting the horn of political party X who is in power all the way to the end of the elections and if political party Y wins, the very next day you'll start praising them?
Church: How dare you? Of course not. We would never do such a thing. We have principles. We will wait until the next election season.

I think you miss understand.

orthodox not in the sense of eastern orthodox or oriental orthodox.

Orthodox in the sense of traditional Christian creedal belief, i.e. as opposed to liberal christianity, or Unitarian/Jehovahs witness/mormon or whatever.

John Milbank himself is Anglican, and Radical orthodoxy comes from the Anglican tradition.
 
I think you miss understand.

orthodox not in the sense of eastern orthodox or oriental orthodox.

Orthodox in the sense of traditional Christian creedal belief, i.e. as opposed to liberal christianity, or Unitarian/Jehovahs witness/mormon or whatever.

John Milbank himself is Anglican, and Radical orthodoxy comes from the Anglican tradition.

The guy is talking about that, yes, good, but you said this:
It's also the idea that Orthodox Christianity has very radical implications, specifically in the modern context of the modern/liberal/market secular orthodoxy, and that taking orthodox christianity seriously has real world political implications.

So I listened to him through the prism of what you said in your OP. And he said as how he was brought up a methodist and then how he started his education and found a rebirth and all that jazz and how life became less stale after that. Fine. But that's completely missing the point of what you said and what he said.

You can't take the term Orthodoxy and throw it into a religious discussion thread like that and say that it's nothing to do with the Orthodox religion. There is no such thing as "eastern orthodox" or "oriental orthodox". yes, I know wikipedia says there is ,but there isn't. There is Orthodoxy as it exists in each country.


My commentary was to say that I can't understand waht the guy is talking about when he says that stuff and then proceeded to make a commentary on orthodox christianity. Because I wanna set the record straight and not have confusion.
 
The guy is talking about that, yes, good, but you said this:


So I listened to him through the prism of what you said in your OP. And he said as how he was brought up a methodist and then how he started his education and found a rebirth and all that jazz and how life became less stale after that. Fine. But that's completely missing the point of what you said and what he said.

You can't take the term Orthodoxy and throw it into a religious discussion thread like that and say that it's nothing to do with the Orthodox religion. There is no such thing as "eastern orthodox" or "oriental orthodox". yes, I know wikipedia says there is ,but there isn't. There is Orthodoxy as it exists in each country.


My commentary was to say that I can't understand waht the guy is talking about when he says that stuff and then proceeded to make a commentary on orthodox christianity. Because I wanna set the record straight and not have confusion.

Ok, sorry about the missunderstanding, I should have been more Clear in distinguishing the way I use the Word "orthodox" or "orthodoxy."

The video is really just John Milbank giving a tiny introduction or history, I don't know if you've read about the radical orthodoxy movement, or what it says, but that's what I'm interested in, the theological movement itself and it's implications.

I'd say one thing that has come out of it is the Church of Englands recent move to out compete pay day loan Places out of buisiness, by setting up a not for profit loan alternative, as a way to fight for social-justice but on their own terms.
 
I've been Reading a little about this relatively New theological movement.

It's more or less the idea started by John Milbank and is the idea that theology should be the primary discipline though which the rest of the world is seen, i.e. it's not theology and then seperately economics or sociology or whatever, it's first theology and then economics and sociology and so on as disciplines subservient to theology.

It's also the idea that Orthodox Christianity has very radical implications, specifically in the modern context of the modern/liberal/market secular orthodoxy, and that taking orthodox christianity seriously has real world political implications.

It goes against the liberal theology that reads theology within the context of modern liberalism submits theology to that.

Out of radical orthodoxy (in the UK), you get the very interesting "red tory" movement, a political movement taking conservatism and seperating it from the market-fundementalism that has taken it over since the 1980s and once again taking the social-justice Message of Christianity seriously, but falling into the liberal trap of mixing social-justice with modern liberalism, the same way unfortunately conservatism has falling into the trap of adopting a neo-liberal market fundementalism.

Now that's just one (and for me one of the most interesting) implications of the Radical Orthodoxy.

Another is the rejection of critiquing religion from the standpoint of the secular Sciences when those Sciences presuppose naturalism, when you understand that theology (be it Christian, or naturalistic) cannot be seperated from everything else you see that critiquing religion from a naturalistic standpoint is like critiquing a german poem using an English grammer book ... I just doesn't work.



So put simply, the Anglicans are working their way back to Catholic teaching?
 
Have you been on the Anglican website lately?

No .... Let me be carefuly here .... I'm not an Anglican, nor do I really have any respect for what parts of the Anglican Church is doing now, which is basically cow towing to liberal-secular modernists.

That being said, a lot of interesting theology is coming from Anglicans these days.

Anyway, what are they doing ...?
 
No .... Let me be carefuly here .... I'm not an Anglican, nor do I really have any respect for what parts of the Anglican Church is doing now, which is basically cow towing to liberal-secular modernists.

That being said, a lot of interesting theology is coming from Anglicans these days.

Anyway, what are they doing ...?

The Anglican Church under the Abp of Canterbury is anything but "radically orthodox". Whole diocese of Anglicans have been breaking away from Canterbury for about 15 years because of their heterodox positions, and starting their own jurisdictions. There are tons of continuing Anglican churches, many of them very orthodox. They don't even use the 1979 BCP because they say it waters down Anglican beliefs - Peter Toon wrote a whole book about it.

That said, you have no idea just how interesting orthodox Anglican theology - and I don't mean Canterbury - is these days.
 
So put simply, the Anglicans are working their way back to Catholic teaching?

Some Anglicans are. I myself am an Oxford Movement Anglican.
 
Last edited:
The Anglican Church under the Abp of Canterbury is anything but "radically orthodox". Whole diocese of Anglicans have been breaking away from Canterbury for about 15 years because of their heterodox positions, and starting their own jurisdictions. There are tons of continuing Anglican churches, many of them very orthodox. They don't even use the 1979 BCP because they say it waters down Anglican beliefs - Peter Toon wrote a whole book about it.

That said, you have no idea just how interesting orthodox Anglican theology - and I don't mean Canterbury - is these days.

So what do you think about the Whole Radical Orthodox movement?
 
So what do you think about the Whole Radical Orthodox movement?

I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other. This is new to me, which is surprising, my Bishop usually points these kind of things out to me. I don't have the software to be able to watch the video on this computer but I will watch it and comment as soon as I have seen it.
 
I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other. This is new to me. I don't have the software to be able to watch the video on this computer but I will watch it and comment as soon as I have seen it.

To be honest the video doesn't tell you that much, it's just a little intro to John Milbanks thought. I would look it up seperately, since you're an anglican, and into the more conservative anglican tradition, this might be very interesting to you.
 
To be honest the video doesn't tell you that much, it's just a little intro to John Milbanks thought. I would look it up seperately, since you're an anglican, and into the more conservative anglican tradition, this might be very interesting to you.

He has a book out on Amazon. It sounds interesting, but 40 skins for a paperback is kinda pricey. What the reviews basically say is that today's social sciences have tried to mythologize the Church and push it to the side. He returns the favor by mythologizing social science.

I'd like to read it but I will have to see if I can borrow it.
 
He has a book out on Amazon. It sounds interesting, but 40 skins for a paperback is kinda pricey. What the reviews basically say is that today's social sciences have tried to mythologize the Church and push it to the side. He returns the favor by mythologizing social science.

I'd like to read it but I will have to see if I can borrow it.

You should, I'm telling you from what I've seen Radical Orthodoxy is going to be a big thing in theology, I already see People grappling With it from Eastern Orthodox Christians, to Protestants, and others, it's even started effecting politics in the UK, With the Growth of Red Toryism.
 
You should, I'm telling you from what I've seen Radical Orthodoxy is going to be a big thing in theology, I already see People grappling With it from Eastern Orthodox Christians, to Protestants, and others, it's even started effecting politics in the UK, With the Growth of Red Toryism.

I wish I had time to read as much as I want. I would be interested in reading this, but there's just too many books ahead of it on my reading list. Also, I think getting into this type of postmodernist thought is likely to take me down a rabbit hole of continental philosophy research that would wind up consuming me for the next two years. So...thanks but no thanks.
 
I wish I had time to read as much as I want. I would be interested in reading this, but there's just too many books ahead of it on my reading list.

No kidding. If I stopped buying books tomorrow I would be set for about two years.
 
You should, I'm telling you from what I've seen Radical Orthodoxy is going to be a big thing in theology, I already see People grappling With it from Eastern Orthodox Christians, to Protestants, and others, it's even started effecting politics in the UK, With the Growth of Red Toryism.

Why don't you read it and give us a report?
 
As an Orthodox Christian, I have no idea what that guy is talking about.

I listened to him ,I don't know what... how he got those ideas. What he's referring to. The main 3 points about Orthodoxy are these:

a) It places emphasis on the afterlife more-so than the other main christian faiths. It's kinda what the focus is on.

Isn't the reward in the after life what every believer is striving for?

How can it place emphasis on the afterlife more-so than the main Christian faith? In what way?
 
I wish I had time to read as much as I want. I would be interested in reading this, but there's just too many books ahead of it on my reading list. Also, I think getting into this type of postmodernist thought is likely to take me down a rabbit hole of continental philosophy research that would wind up consuming me for the next two years. So...thanks but no thanks.

Believe me, it's not post-modernism at all, it draws from post-modern thought (in it's critique of modernity), but it isn't at all post-modernism.
 
Back
Top Bottom