Intro to Post-Secular Theory: “Radical Orthodoxy”

Radical Orthodoxy is a new-ish theological “movement” of sorts, that has stormed onto the scene.  But similar to the ecclesial terms “evangelical” and “(r)emerg/ing/ent,”¹ Radical Orthodoxy can be a bit difficult to clearly articulate or define.

So what, exactly, is this “Radical Orthodoxy”?

The name is a bit of a misnomer—or a very clever double entendre.  The “Radical” is meant to be taken in its Latin sense radix, which means root or source.  But of course, anything labeled “radical” sounds very…well, radical.  And radical indeed it is, in the “extreme” sense of the word.²

James K.A. Smith, in his excellent book Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, helpfully clarifies the ambiguities.

Rather than a “movement” with well-defined boundaries or doctrines, Radical Orthodoxy is more of an ethos—or, “sensibility” as it’s called—shared between many similar thinkers across Christian traditions.  As a result, there are varying degrees of agreement and disagreement between the leading voices.

Despite this variation, Smith highlights five common key themes to help understand the broad contours that shape the thought of Radical Orthodoxy (abbreviated as “RO”).

1) Post-Modern: A critique of modernity and Liberalism.

2) Post-secular: A critique of the sacred/secular, private/public dualism.

3) Neoplatonist: A “participatory” or “incarnational” ontology of being.

4) Aesthetics: An affirmation of embodiment and materiality.

5) Kulturkritik: Cultural critique and transformation.

(After writing this up and seeing how long it is, I’ve instead decided to post it in a short series of bite-sized chunks. Stay tuned.)

____________

¹ That is, the “emerging church” movement.

² Radical Orthodoxy is also “radical” in the Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtle sense of the word.  That is to say, Radical Orthodoxy is “radical” insofar as it is “totally tubular” and “bodacious.”