RO delivers a death blow to Correspondence Theory of Truth

With the advent of postmodernism (hyper-modernism?) evangelical theolgians and philosophers have been scrambling to defend Biblical Christianity against the evils of postmodern theory. One of the most important grounds is the theory of truth. As read by evangelicals like Douglas Groothius, postmodernists like Rorty and Derrida demand that truth be relativized in a way that is repugnant to orthodox Christians. To defend against the relativism of postmodernity (note: I don't think "postmoderns" are demanding a totaly relativity, I think evangelicals are not up on their reading enough to undertand what Derrida and Rorty are saying - nod to Charles here) Groothius and others resort back to the vaunted Correspondence Theory of Truth (CTT), the saviour of all metaphysics and meaning. But is it?

Interestingly enough, RO claims that CTT is nothing but dressed up Modernism in its highest extent, which of course is nothing other than nihilism. Are they serious? Well, what are the claims of CTT?

"Truth is located in this [mirroring of the world] correspondence.
Insofar as these things simply "are" in the world, and thus accessible and ready
to hand for any finite perceiver, it is possible for anyone to apprehend
properly the truth of the world" (Smith, 159).

Working under the RO thesis, does anyone see what is wrong with this picture? That's right, CTT is nothing more than a robust for of "univocity" of being, the Scotus idea that we can seperate being from the Triune Being, where all meaning is derived. According to RO, there is nothing that is autonomous from the Triune God, therefore there is nothing to apprehend properly as correspondence. Without God we are literally left with nothing. How does RO destroy CTT? Through Thomas Aquinas, of course.

"Correspondence or adequation for Aquinas is not a matter of mirroring
things in the world or passively registering them on an epistemological level,
in a way that leaves the things untouched. Rather; adequating is an event
which realizes or fulfills the being of things known, just as much as it
fulfills truth in the knower's mind" (Truth in Aquinas, 5).

"For Aquinas, there is a sense in which truth resides in things:
'Truth is a property of things" such that 'a thing is true if it fulfills itself
and holds itself together according to its character and goal" (Smith,
159).

Again, RO makes the claim that there is no world independent of God with which to correspond to and that things are nothing in and of themselves, they only have substance and existence "gifted" by the Creator. Corresponding to the world means corresponding to nothingness, so according to RO, CTT does not yield truth, but rather gives nothingness. "Truth, therefore, resides in things insofar as things participate in God (Smith, 159)."

RO also uses its thesis to rework the discussion of faith versus reason. Since all things find their meaning and grouding in participation with the Triune God, reason is not seperate from faith in the dualist sense most people are used to thinking in. RO smashes these dualisms of modernity, especially this one with Aquinas' view of nature versus grace.

"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 (Smith,
160)."

Reason is not an autonomous human function as opposed to faith (spuernatural function?), they are both part of the participationist model of knowing, just different in level of intensity of knowledge. "Rather, reason is a reception of light, an operation of divine illumination (Truth in Aquinas, 11)." Nothing is autonomous for RO, even reason as the ground of existence in Descartes. Reason and faith are different parts of relating to divine illumination, one being the forerunner or less sophisticated version of the other. The important thing for RO is to recognize that reason and faith are not opposites, but rather different levels along the same chain of knowing: the divine illumination of the participating mind of man with the Triune God.

Once again RO takes no prisoners in its thorough assualt on modernity and hyper-modernity. RO demands that we see ontology as participationist with the Triune God through illumination and revelation, not casting reason aside (as can be found in Karl Barth) but rather seeing reason as a part of the knowledge given us by our intimate participation with the Creator and Sustainer God: the God who demands to be called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the same breath.

Radical Orthodoxy beats the crap out of Duns Scotus

RO is not as concerned about whether or not Kant and Descartes were modernists as it is about how a Kant or Descartes could show up on the scene at all. In this way RO follows Nietzsche and Foucault in putting forth a geneology of nihilism (mainly in the work of Conor Cunningham, University of Nottingham with daddy Milbank) which looks to find out where this idea of secualr reason (the core of modernity for RO) could be found. Who is the boy with the stolen chocolate all over his face (wierd movie coming out with Johnny Depp)? None other than Duns Scotus.

RO, following the tradition of Heidegger and other continientals, asserts that it is the question of Being (and being) which threw us into the nihilism we find ourselves (note: RO does not call this postmodernity, but rather hyper-modernity because it ultimately stems from modern secualr reason transforming into nihilism. RO claims it is doing truly postmodern work because it is divorcing itself from secular reason. Interesting claims). There are two main speakers involved: Duns Scotus and St. Aquinas.

RO claims (and seems to substantiate) that modernism and hyper-modernism stems from Scotus and his seperation of being from God.

"In contrast [to RO], Scotus asserts that "to be" is predicated univocally;
that is, both the Creator and the creature exist in the same way or in the same
sense. Being, now, becomes a category that is unhooked from participation
in God and is a more neutral or abstract qualier that is applied to God and
creatures the same way" (Smith, 97).

Or again:

"Duns Scotus, when considering the universal science of metaphysics,
elevated being (ens) to a higher station over God, so that being could be
distributed to both God and His creatures" (Ibid, Philip Bond).

So Scotus makes being some independent category with which we can discuss Creator and creation. The world is all of a sudden totally automomous, because we are no longer dependent on God for our being and existence. What is RO's response to this? A robust "theological metaphysics" will do nicely:

"For Aquinas, metaphysics - as an account of being - cannot be divorced
from theological considerations" (Smith, 97).

"[Being] is "read" in entirely theological terms as the site of the
internal fracture of creatures between their own nothingness and their alien
actuality which is recieved from God..."Being" - wholesale to a first principle,
God, which is the subject of another, higher science, namely God's own" (Word
Made Strange, Milbank, 44).

So RO argues that if we follow Scotus, metaphysics naturally leads to nihilism (hyper-modernity) because without God (who is Being and gifts us with being) we are literally nothing. So RO finds that nihilism is the only other option to the Christian story, since if you remove God's Being from a discussion of creation, you have nothing left to speak of. RO purposes to get back the Thomist (and Augustinian) notion of a "theological metaphysics." Is this justified? I think it is an incredible insight, one that resonants with St. Paul ("in him we live and move and have our being", Acts 17). RO continues to push the question of where do we get off excluding the Triune God from every aspect of creation? How could we possibly find meaning if we sunder the ground of meaning Himself?

In this project to reclaim the early Church notion of "theological metaphysics" as opposed to late medieval Scotist "univocity of being" I think RO provides a very radical critique of hyper-modernism. Not only does their geneology of nihilism explain well how we got into this metaphysical mess, but they provide an excellent way to get out of it: "Seek ye the Lord." Radical indeed, but thoroughly orthodox. Bravo.

Doing A Radical Orthodoxy Dance: First Steps

So modernity is dead. What does that mean for theology, as well as the rest of life? It is the job of all theologians and serious Christians to engage with the continental philosophy and post-continental thought, bringing the Gospel to it and helping to dialogue with both. What is the approach we should take? Should be cling to modernity and put our hands over our ears screaming "It's not true, it's not true"? Should we go back to a uncritical pre-modern approach, maybe using Aquinas as our model? Both of these are options, but seem to leave things unsettled. How do we deal with postmoderns like Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault? I think the best answer resides in a movement called Radical Orthodoxy, lead by John Milbank of Nottingham.

What is Radical Orthodoxy (RO)? One of the basic claims of RO is:

"There is not a single aspect of human existence or creation that can be properly undertsood or described apart from the insights of revelation" (Smith, 70).

Or from John Milbank:

"Either the entire Christian narrative tells us how things truly are, or it does not. If it does, we have no other access to how things truly are, nor any additional means of determing the question" (Word Made Strange, 250).

Basically, RO makes a postmodern assault on what Modernity called "unaided, universal, reason." RO makes the claim that Modernity got it totally wrong because it made things that were particular universal, like morals and ethics. In good postmodern fashion, RO says that there is no "universal truth or morals" that can be know without a faith presupposition. RO is willing to sound out as many idols of universal reason as necessary to get it through to everyone that there is no such thing, it was an Enlightenment invention. RO speaks the language of continental thought and is happy to follow their program in destorying modernity and its so called metanarratives.

But RO does not go the troubling way of saying that there is no reason or true stories to tell. RO says that with a full conception of revelation (an inbreaking of the Divine among the world) we have a narrative, and it is local in the sense that it is mediated by its ministers, but it is also meant to be universal. Notice though that it will not be recognized by everyone (the liberalism the theology has been stuch with for quite sometime), but needs to be told, enacted, experienced. In this way, RO is very interesed in the sacraments and liturgy, the language of revelation throughout the Church's history.

RO makes the ridiculous claim that the Christian story is true, and that it commands attention. But it goes further. According to RO, there is no such thing as the secular. We live in a post-secular world where the Gospel must inform ever aspect of the cosmos. We can not to economics, politics, or philosophy without seeking to ground it in the Triune God and His revelation. RO is a all encompassing project which demands that we realize our faith presuppositions (postmodernism), but not as a weakness we need to apologize for, rather as our only guide in a Fallen world. Those who seek to have a "point of contact" with the world will critize the movement, but I think RO is the best step forward in a postmodern context.

So RO says we can't think outside revelation's framework and understanding, but the Triune God never intended us to do anything else.

The Beauty of the Inifinite: I

David Bentley Hart has been called "the best living American systematic theologian" by John Milbank (leader of the Radical Orthodoxy school) and his magnus opum is The Beauty of the Infinite, a "systematic theology" for the post-post-modern times we live in. I would like to chronicle my reading of this incredible text, picking out points I found particularly profound or interesting. Thus my first comment about this text:

In discussing Butlmann's de-mystification of the Christian faith, Hart makes the following comment:

"Such a scheme [Bultmann's demythologizing] can allow no real distinictions; everything that does not fit - whether it is as fabulous as the story of Eden or as complex as the story of the incarnation - is shrugger off with equal impatience, leaving nothing behind but this closed continuum of causality - and causality, manifestly, does not save." (Hart, 22-23)

"Causality, manifestly, does not save." I don't think we talk enough about the lack of future that our universe gives us without the story of God in Christ (note: God in "itself" does not mean redemption of any kind for creation, only the Christian conception brings this robust meaning). I am reminded of a lecture Sir John Polkinghorne gave discussing the destiny of the universe. Physics tells us pretty plainly that there are two possibilities: either the universe will expand until everything is so far away that it is cold and dead, or the universe will crash back in on itself in a termenbous show of fireworks. Either way, the end is not pretty (although it might be beautiful).

This is what the non-Christian story tells us, and since the majority of people in the world are not Christians, they must admit to this fate, whether they like it or not. It may be far off (billions of years), but this notion of cosmic end must inspire a real sense of nihilism or a Stoic sensibility of fate. Spirit-redemptive religions (such as Islam or Buddhism as far as I can tell) might get past this, but the idea of leaving creation behind without us has to go against every serious human instinct: we are creatures, why should we be allowed to continue without something of creation? The responsibility to creation around us must have more than a temporary significance, if we are to be eternal, there must be a continuity with creation. How do we move forward?

I think this is one place among many where the Christian story can have more power (and beauty) than any other story. For creation is not destined to die, it is not ultimitely destined for cold or hot execution. We as Christians believe that the same God who set the stars in motion is also the one to redeem them; not just our "souls" but all of creation around us. This story seems to trump both the materialist end (does anyone really think we are randomly ridding on a rock for 90 years and then it is over?) and the spiritualist end (surely we are not alone in the future, what would that even mean?). I think we as Christians should be more vocal about our future redemption, one that redeems all creation, creatures high and low, then we are at present.

Causality truly can not save, but through Jesus Christ we have been reconciled to God, and the whole world with us. Soli Deo Gloria!