Out-Narrating Competing Worldviews

"By taking us to the level of ground-motive or mythos, RO takes us to the site of incommensurability, where the rules of the game differ from mythos to mythos. Thus, the strategy cannot be one of demonstration but rather one of narration – or, more specifically, out-narration. If one is going to oppose the mythos of nihilism and original violence, ‘One’s only resort at this juncture, other than mystical despair, is to return to the demonstration that nihilism, as an ontology, is also no more than a mythos. To counter it, one cannot resuscitate liberal humanism, but one can try to put forward an alternative mythos, equally unfounded, but nonetheless embodying an ‘ontology of peace' ' (TST, 279). "

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, P. 181

Fallenness of Reason; Apologetics Can't Provide Proof

"Thus, Paul advocates a mode of public engagement that rests not on demonstration but on proclamation, not on neutral universal logos but on a particular, scandalous kerygma (1 Cor. 2:1-5). The neutral, autonomous reason that would have to underwrite a project of demonstration has been forfeited by the fall. An important consequence follows: The project of apologetics - especially 'classical apologetics' - must be seen as an illegitimate project, illegitimate not because of its goal of witness or proclamation but because of its mode. Even if one suggests that only the 'preambles of faith' (such as the existence of God, the necessity of objective moral standards, etc.) can be demonstrated by appeal to a universal, autonomous reason, one has failed to grasp the scope and ubiquity of the fall. One is unwittingly guarding a sphere of creation that is untouched by sin."

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 180

Levels of Theological Reflection

"The way to understand this - and this is what Milbank is after - is that theology1 should position all theoretical reflection, including philosophy. To put this slightly differently, theology1 should function as queen of the sciences but is not itself a science (as is theology2). What, then, is the relationship between theology1 and theology2? Dooyeweerd fails to appreciate the degree to which the biblical ground-motive and Christian confession are informed by theology2, even if the biblical ground-motive is not itself theology2. The creeds and confessions of the church - take uncontroversial examples such as the Apostles' or Nicene creeds - are pistically qualified claims of pre- and supra-theoretical confession and practice, but they are the fruit of theological1 reflection that has been appropriated and 'ratified' by the church as articulating its fundamental confession. Theology2, therefore, ought to be undertaken in the service of the church, and when it is fruitful, it will inform the church's confession articulated in theology1. "

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 178

Revelation as Direct and Non-Propositional

"In particular, he [Dooyeweerd] seems to eschew the mediation of revelation via language and tradition, thus allowing him to suggest that the revelation of the biblical motive can be communicated 'directly' to consciousness. Therefore, he faults the tradition for consistently 'confusing theoretical Christian theology with the true knowledge of God and true self-knowledge' (ITWT, 80-81).

The fact that this 'religious presupposition' (ITWT, 87) is not propositional (as Dooyeweerd rightly emphasizes) does not mean that it is not contentful or substantive. The content of this confession - as embodied, for instance, in the Apostles' or Nicene Creed - has traditionally been understood as theological in some sense. "

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 175

Theology as First Order, Supra-Theoretical

"According to Dooyeweerd, we must not confuse theology as a second-order discipline of theoretical reflection with the biblical ground-motive or religious commitment, which is pre-theoretical (or supra-theoretical). Insofar as theology is understood as the special science of the pistic aspect, RO's project of positioning all other sciences in relation to theology would, in fact, amount to absolutizing one of the aspects of creation over the others - resulting in making theology (and/or the pistic aspect) an idol. The result would be a kind of theological reductionism akin to a naturalistic reductionism that reduces all the other aspects to the biotic."

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 173

Redemption Requires Truth and Means to Receive

"One finds basically the same point [of noting the corruption of the depravity of the mind by sin] in Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments: To come to know the truth, the learner (disciple) must receive from the Teacher (God) not only the content of the truth but also the very condition for receiving it."

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 165-66

Quasi-Natural Theology

"I have some suspicions of late, Milbank - under the rubric of universalism - is rehabilitating a quasi-natural theology. This would stem from the fact that, even if he recognizes the noetic effects of sin (it is not clear that he does), for him, grace seems to be universally shed abroad in such a way that these effects are undone for all humanity. (BR, 106) "

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 165

Intercepting God's Knowledge

" 'In knowing a tree...we are catching it on its way back to God' (TA, 12)"

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 159

Existence in Grace as Matter of Degree

"For Milbank and Pickstock, the distinction between nature and grace is not one of kind but of degree, in particular, the degree of intensity of participation in the divine. Therefore, it is not the case that nature is an autonomous in-itself to which a relationship to the divine is super-added; rather, nature is always already graced in the sense that it participates in the Creator (BR, 115). It is only insofar as it depends; its being is essentially a gift. Correlatively, insofar as reason is to faith as nature is to grace, the relation (and distinction) must be understood in the same sense: Reason is not an autonomous operation of a pure nature that supernatural faith supplements. Rather, reason is a reception of light, an operation of divine illumination (TA, 11)."

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 160

Assumptions of Secular Philosophy

"The question, therefore, is not whether theology presupposes a philosophy but rather what philosophy is will work from: Will Christian theology 'seek its philosophical foundations in a Christian philosophy, ruled and reformed by the central biblical basic-motive,' or will it 'take them from the traditional scholastic or modern humanist philosophy?' (ITWT, 107)" p.153

" 'It is vain illusion,' Dooyeweerd remarks, 'to imagine that the notions borrowed from such a [so-called autonomous] philosophy could be utilized by the theologian in a purely formal sense. They involve a material content which is indissolubly bound to the total theoretical view of experience and of reality' (ITWT, 105-106)." p.154

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy

Correlating to the Secular Assumes its Precedence

"What all these forms of correlationist theology retain is a dualism between reason and revelation: Reason, the domain of the sciences, is conceded as an autonomous sphere that revelation either supplements (liberation theology) or overwhelms (Marion, Barth). In either case, the autonomy of theoretical thought goes unchallenged."

James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 150

Postmodernity as Opportunity for Church

"Milbank suggests that there is an 'inevitable, if wary, affinity, which must exist between Christianity and postmodernity' (BR, 196). This affinity is neither an identification of the two nor an accommodation of one to the other but rather the discernment of an opportunity afforded by the contemporary situation. Postmodernity's critique of modern epistemologies may represent a chink in modernity's armor that provides both an opportunity to launch an internal critique of modernity and occasion for the church to be alerted to its complicity with modernity."


James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 141