A Response to James KA Smith

PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Volume 25, No. 1, Spring 2003 In the Economy of the Divine: AResponse to James K. A. Smith Graham Ward I wish to organize my response to Professor Smith’s article with respect to three topics: his analysis of the history of Radical Orthodoxy ,his analysis of the ve emphases evident in the theology of Radical Orthodoxy , and his argument for a rapprochement between this theology and that of Pentecostalism . My response is not some counterattack on behalf nor defense of Radical Orthodoxy, partly because there is no substantive RO position as such to defend or with which to attack. I recognize Smith’s account of RO and I believe, given the way he outlines Pentecostal theology, that a productive conversation is possible. My remarks, then, con- stitute more of a commentary upon, and sometimes a correction of points raised in, Professor Smith’s text. But I must begin by saying there is some- thing de trop or maybe just ironic about Professor Smith’s argument— for his most recent book is to be published in the Radical Orthodoxy series next year. With regards to the history of RO, I would like to take issue with two points in the article. First, the view that John Milbank’s Theology and Social Theory “became the manifesto for an agenda described as ‘Radical Orthodoxy.’” There are two common misconceptions expressed here. One is that John Milbank is the founder of the “movement” and the other is that the Introduction to the volume of essays entitled Radical Orthodoxy constituted a manifesto for this movement. Let me put aside for later the question of whether RO is a movement at all, and draw attention to some historical facts. The idea for the book series was developed jointly between John and me, after I was asked by a publisher to think about editing a series for his theology list. I approached John about the possibilities of joint edi- torship on a series that aimed to provide a forum for a number of theologians engaging in social, political, and critical theory and metaphysics, on the basis of tradition-based reasoning. These theologians included Rowan Willliams, Fergus Kerr, and Nicholas Lash in Britain; Stanley Hauerwas, David Burrell and Peter Ochs, in the States—each of whose work had been important, in different ways and to different degrees, for the shaping of our own projects. There was no doubt that Theology and Social Theory had been important in giving expression to this refusal to ©2003 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden pp. 115–120 PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Volume 25, No. 1, Srping 2003 conduct a theological enquiry on a secular basis. But Theology and Social Theory was not a foundational document when John and I came to write the proposal for the series we would edit. (Catherine Pickstock was asked to join the editorial team later, when the series had already been accepted by Routledge.) Many of the “themes” later outlined by Smith, for exam- ple, are evident in most of the theologians named above, most particu- larly the critique of modernity and liberalism. My own doctoral work conducted under Williams, Kerr, and Lash, examined the theology of Karl Barth. So while appreciative of the powerful theological critique of Theology and Social Theory and while acknowledging my agreement with many of the positions outlined, the series was not dened in terms of John Milbank’s early theology. Secondly, and this too is partly an historical matter, the “Introduction” to the opening volume in the series, Radical Orthodoxy: ANew Theology , was written as a commentary upon the essays contained in that volume. In pointing up the distinctiveness of those contributions for contemporary theology, the “Introduction” placed the essays in a series of com- parative and contrasting contexts: the implosion of secularism, some postmodern thought, Barthian neo-orthodoxy, postliberalism, and nouvelle theologie. By doing this, certain shared emphases became evident both among contributors and with respect to contemporary theology. The “Introduction” articulated some of those emphases. The “Introduction” was not announcing a cultural program for theological action as such; in fact, the editors rarely meet now—we are so dispersed. It was, however, a conscious act of enunciation. By that I mean that the tone of the “Introduction” was polemical; it was asking for further engagement in the way Karl Barth’s second edition of Der Romanbrief asked for further engagement. To understand the signicance of this by now infamous “tone” (con dent? arrogant? measured?), it is necessary to recollect the important critique of secular reasoning that all the essays in that collec- tion share. For centuries now secular reasoning has dened public truth. The critique of such reasoning, then, must contend with this hold on public opinion and seek to produce spaces in which its own contribution to public debates can be heard. One source of the misconception of RO among fel- low Christian theologians has been that the “Introduction” was setting up a new and better Christian theology than anything else on offer. This misconception arises because it is assumed that the volume is addressed to other Christian theologians in order to point up their deciencies. But that assumption is wrong. That rst volume is not primarily addressed to Christian theologians but to the imploding world of secular reasoning with 116.

Load more