T
Tristan
Guest
This is a thread where the philosophical framework for my Christian beliefs is explained...so I won't actually be going much into what my beliefs are, and instead into what they are founded on. You could say it's about the basis for my theology. It will be long, but I hope it will make clearer where my progressive beliefs come from. Please keep in mind that this is philosophy, so the arguments are filled with logic and reason, and this is meant to justify scripture and the existence of God.
Before I even get started, I'm going to declare that I am a proponent of what is called Radical Orthodoxy (RO). If you'd like to do research for whatever reason, running a search of that name will give you information about what I support.
I'm going to borrow heavily from a particular article that I believe does an excellent job of detailing the basis for Radical Orthodoxy. I'll just do it in friendlier terms. Source
Different from the secular, postmodern way of thinking, RO rests on a different foundational assumption about what we can call "the glue that holds the world together." It is Augustine’s vision of heavenly peace, made effective in the dynamic and binding power of divine purpose, that shapes RO's reflections, not Nietzsche’s violence wrought by an omnipotent will–to–power.
Let me illustrate the Nietzschean postulate that governs postmodernism. Consider this piece of "glue that holds our world together": "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman." One of the important postmodern assertions is that such a claim is contingent. What makes "marriage" mean "union of a man and a woman" is the fact that dictionaries define the words that way, not some underlying essence of "marriage" or an enduring "natural law." Dictionary definitions do not rest on an essential set of immediate truths. This piece of "glue," like all other pieces, is an arbitrary act of will. Dictionaries, and the law courts, define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and our lives are shaped accordingly. The glue is sticky, and postmodern theory is all about explaining just how the glue retains its force. Words have determinate meaning, and therefore retain influence in our lives, argues postmodern theory, because their meanings are enforced by the exercise of power...hence the "will-to-power".
Words, and stable meanings, are forged out of the endless flux of language. A blow of violence must be struck—"Marriage means this and not that." The problem is that a single blow never settles the matter, so we must deploy constant reinforcement to keep meanings stable. We hold our world together through a perpetual battle against the tendency of our ways of talking and thinking and acting to disperse into alternative possibilities.
This is actually true of many Christians as well, and the issue is that this plays right into the hands of nonbelievers, because by accepting the fundamental violence, we are on their terms, and the descent into nihilism and lack of meaning is swift and ultimately fatal for us. That perspective is the reason that Christians are thought of so poorly by the most intelligent and well educated of nonbelievers. The path doesn't leave room for a God. Let's explore this for a moment.
So out of this central claim of violence comes the brutally political nature of a postmodern moral agenda. If power defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, then power can change that definition. With enough redirection of power, they assume that marriage can come to mean the union of any two persons. A blow was struck in one direction; a blow can be struck in another. The arbitrary violence of conventional meanings is met by the new violence of postmodern revision. Everything is about violence. All of us with our different doctrines and beliefs are all fighting each other blow by blow. We're fighting with nonbelievers. We're fighting with other religious groups. There is a constant violence, and this is a serious problem for Christians.
This is where RO is so brilliant. Instead of having to debate on their terms, instead we demonstrate how it's unnecessary to believe in a fundamental violence. In fact it's not even preferable. I've found holes in materialism and nihilism (which I've detailed in another thread). RO fills these perfectly.
"For theology, and theology alone, difference remains as real difference, since it is not subordinate to immanent univocal process or the fate of a necessary repression."-John Milbank
In easier terms, what Milbank is saying is that 'meaning' doesn't have to be fixed and certain. The process by which there is "difference" (between different 'things') is through theology, and ONLY theology.
For example, we can study the history of marriage and observe that Christianity changed its meaning by assimilating the relation of men and women to the relation of Jesus Christ and the Church. Yet we don't need to conclude that such a change resulted from a contest of power. Things can be understood and inhabited across change and difference without submission to power and dominion. The will-to-power isn't necessary.
At the core of RO is a participatory framework, a metanarrative that doesn't 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 and at the same time depend upon and reach toward something else. Or more strongly, something is real only in and through this dependence. For the Neoplatonist, you, or I, or the value of my moral acts, are as emanating from and returning to the One. God.
RO treats the world as a differentiated realm of beings and events knit together, not in spite of or against the discrete identities of things, but in harmonious order and toward a common purpose.
This is absolutely vital. There is no conflict or need for violence. Everything is interconnected and working toward God's purpose. My beliefs and your beliefs might be different, but no matter what they are, they work for God's purpose. That isn't to say that there is no right or wrong, but more that regardless of who is right or wrong, God's teleological purpose...his ultimate will is fulfilled.
Before I even get started, I'm going to declare that I am a proponent of what is called Radical Orthodoxy (RO). If you'd like to do research for whatever reason, running a search of that name will give you information about what I support.
I'm going to borrow heavily from a particular article that I believe does an excellent job of detailing the basis for Radical Orthodoxy. I'll just do it in friendlier terms. Source
Different from the secular, postmodern way of thinking, RO rests on a different foundational assumption about what we can call "the glue that holds the world together." It is Augustine’s vision of heavenly peace, made effective in the dynamic and binding power of divine purpose, that shapes RO's reflections, not Nietzsche’s violence wrought by an omnipotent will–to–power.
Let me illustrate the Nietzschean postulate that governs postmodernism. Consider this piece of "glue that holds our world together": "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman." One of the important postmodern assertions is that such a claim is contingent. What makes "marriage" mean "union of a man and a woman" is the fact that dictionaries define the words that way, not some underlying essence of "marriage" or an enduring "natural law." Dictionary definitions do not rest on an essential set of immediate truths. This piece of "glue," like all other pieces, is an arbitrary act of will. Dictionaries, and the law courts, define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and our lives are shaped accordingly. The glue is sticky, and postmodern theory is all about explaining just how the glue retains its force. Words have determinate meaning, and therefore retain influence in our lives, argues postmodern theory, because their meanings are enforced by the exercise of power...hence the "will-to-power".
Words, and stable meanings, are forged out of the endless flux of language. A blow of violence must be struck—"Marriage means this and not that." The problem is that a single blow never settles the matter, so we must deploy constant reinforcement to keep meanings stable. We hold our world together through a perpetual battle against the tendency of our ways of talking and thinking and acting to disperse into alternative possibilities.
This is actually true of many Christians as well, and the issue is that this plays right into the hands of nonbelievers, because by accepting the fundamental violence, we are on their terms, and the descent into nihilism and lack of meaning is swift and ultimately fatal for us. That perspective is the reason that Christians are thought of so poorly by the most intelligent and well educated of nonbelievers. The path doesn't leave room for a God. Let's explore this for a moment.
So out of this central claim of violence comes the brutally political nature of a postmodern moral agenda. If power defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, then power can change that definition. With enough redirection of power, they assume that marriage can come to mean the union of any two persons. A blow was struck in one direction; a blow can be struck in another. The arbitrary violence of conventional meanings is met by the new violence of postmodern revision. Everything is about violence. All of us with our different doctrines and beliefs are all fighting each other blow by blow. We're fighting with nonbelievers. We're fighting with other religious groups. There is a constant violence, and this is a serious problem for Christians.
This is where RO is so brilliant. Instead of having to debate on their terms, instead we demonstrate how it's unnecessary to believe in a fundamental violence. In fact it's not even preferable. I've found holes in materialism and nihilism (which I've detailed in another thread). RO fills these perfectly.
"For theology, and theology alone, difference remains as real difference, since it is not subordinate to immanent univocal process or the fate of a necessary repression."-John Milbank
In easier terms, what Milbank is saying is that 'meaning' doesn't have to be fixed and certain. The process by which there is "difference" (between different 'things') is through theology, and ONLY theology.
For example, we can study the history of marriage and observe that Christianity changed its meaning by assimilating the relation of men and women to the relation of Jesus Christ and the Church. Yet we don't need to conclude that such a change resulted from a contest of power. Things can be understood and inhabited across change and difference without submission to power and dominion. The will-to-power isn't necessary.
At the core of RO is a participatory framework, a metanarrative that doesn't 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 and at the same time depend upon and reach toward something else. Or more strongly, something is real only in and through this dependence. For the Neoplatonist, you, or I, or the value of my moral acts, are as emanating from and returning to the One. God.
RO treats the world as a differentiated realm of beings and events knit together, not in spite of or against the discrete identities of things, but in harmonious order and toward a common purpose.
This is absolutely vital. There is no conflict or need for violence. Everything is interconnected and working toward God's purpose. My beliefs and your beliefs might be different, but no matter what they are, they work for God's purpose. That isn't to say that there is no right or wrong, but more that regardless of who is right or wrong, God's teleological purpose...his ultimate will is fulfilled.
