Perspicuity refers to the clarity and “understandable-ness” of scripture.

Augustine, in his De Doctrina Christiana 2.6.7, writes:

What the scriptures are; in what way they are written; what is required in order to understand them:

But those who read them in a light-minded spirit are liable to be misled by innumerable obscurities and ambiguities, and to mistake the meaning entirely, while in some places they cannot even guess at a wrong meaning, so dense and dark is the fog that some passages are wrapped in. This is all due, I have no doubt at all, to divine providence, in order to break in pride with hard labor, and to save the intelligence from boredom, since it readily forms a low opinion of things that are too easy to work out.

To be fair, Augustine employs an allegorical hermeneutic, so nothing really means what it appears to mean .

You may or may not have realized that today is 09/09/09.

Also, 09 + 09 + 09 = 27.

Why is this significant?

Because 09/09/09 is my wonderful wife’s birthday!  And as crazy as it sounds, it’s her 27th birthday, to boot!

Happy Birthday, Hunnybunch .  I love you very much.

Here is a photo of our newly-wed-selves, back in the day:

This is a segment in my “Defining Radical Orthodoxy” series.

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.  James K.A. Smith, in his excellent book Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, helpfully highlights five common key themes to help understand the broad contours that shape the thought of Radical Orthodoxy (abbreviated as “RO”).

1) Postmodern: A critique of modernity and Liberalism.

Smith writes:

“[...] RO is a trenchant critique of modernity as a flawed, imploding project.  The key figures in RO see in modernity the institution of dualisms that are grounds for excluding the divine and the transcendent, hence modernity’s implosion, or what others have called the “end” of metaphysics. “The end of modernity,” Milbank argues, “which is not accomplished, yet continues to arrive, means the end of a single system of truth based on universal reason, which tells us what reality is like.”  Modern dualisms, such as the opposition between faith and reason, became the rules of the game in which Modern theology had to play. RO, instead of operating within those confines, questions the very rules of the game by calling into question the assumptions of modernity itself.

“[...] RO criticizes theological liberalism, which it views as accommodating theology to modernity, rather than grounding itself in revelation… RO is also a strident critic of classical political liberalism because of its assumptions regarding human nature (as in Thomas Hobbes, for instance) and its atomistic account of the social sphere.

“However, though RO is grounded in a critique of modernity, it is not antimodern. To be antimodern in the sense of Protestant fundamentalism is to be the simple negation of modernity and hence still within a modern paradigm. RO is critical of modernity in a way that seeks to circumvent its assumptions; thus, as some proponents of RO suggest, only RO is truly postmodern because it is precisely other than modern. “Hence Radical Orthodoxy, although it opposes the modern, it also seeks to save it. It espouses not the pre-modern, but an alternative version of modernity” [John Milbank].

“What this means is that Christian  theologians and theoreticians are, in a sense, empowered to call into question the foundational metaphysical, epistemological, and anthropological assumptions—or faith commitments—that undergird modernity. [...] In Milbank, for instance, this means calling into question the “ontology of violence,” which construes human intersubjective relationships as governed by power and war.  But he does more than just call this into question; he seeks to show the internal inconsistencies of such a construal.  Further, he then offers an “ontology of peace,” which considers human intersubjective relationships as grounded in a fundamental harmony.  This is confessedly and unapologetically grounded in a Christian, particularly Augustinian, metaphysics—which, of course, the modern academy claims must be excluded because it operates from a particular faith perspective.  But Milbank’s analysis has demonstrated that even these modern, supposedly “secular,” accounts of intersubjectivity are founded on particular faith perspectives.  The “fundamental shifts” that characterize modern, secular social theory—which Milbank argues are in fact simply modifications or rejections of Christian orthodoxy—are “no more rationally ‘justifiable’ than the Christian positions themselves” [Milbank].

“[...] Graham Ward’s analysis of secular utopias in the work and thought of Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier unveils the way in which their “cities of eternal aspiration”—whether Wright’s ideal community of Broadacres or Le Corbusier’s “Radiant City”—are in fact parodies of the eschatological city. As such, urban planners and architects become priests of this immanentized New Jerusalem, and city planning is, in fact, a covert natural theology. The proper response to this unveiling of the theologies at work in the secular city is a more radical and integral theological account of urban reality, particularly the nature of relationships within this city.”

I’ll followup with Smith’s remaining 4 key themes that help shape the thought of 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.”

The NYT has an interesting piece about the latest trend in high fashion: the macabre.

Rick Owens's Reimagined Biker Jacket, for $2,700

Perhaps “macabre” is too strong a word, but it definitely has a distinct “goth” feel about it.  The designer spearheading this new veritable movement sweeping the fashion scene is Los Angeles-based Rick Owens.

What’s interesting about Owens is that rather than pop-culture’s recent obsession with “goth” influencing his work and the fashion industry on the whole, it’s the polar opposite.  While the fashion industry has been reincarnating various trends from the past in recent years—such as bell-bottoms a few years ago, and now bringing the 80’s back today—Owens has been beating a steady drum for many years that has been more forward-looking and visionary than nostalgic.

Once thought of as a fashion “outsider,” on the fringe of quirky design, Owens is now in the spotlight, being copied and mimicked not only by other designers in the industry, but also popular retail outlets for the marketplace.  Zig-zagged zippers and elongated, shrunken sleeves are cropping up everywhere they can be “copied-and-pasted.”

But despite the copycats, Owens has a positive outlook.  After all, imitation is the highest form of flattery.

From New Testament scholar Michael Bird:

My name is Jose Samblanco and I live in a rural village of Peru and, most imporantly, I am the apostle to the Internet. I’m here, on-line, proclaiming to you the good news about Carlos Hernandez. Carlos Hernandez was a Peruvian peasant. He was a prophet mighty in word and deed as attested by many miraculous signs. But his own people did not recieve him. Carlos was accused of being an Al-Qaeda terrorist, he was handed over to the authorities, and was executed on the electric chair. But God did not let Carlos languish in death and decay, but Carlos has been raised by God and is now the exalted Lord of the Cosmos. I am here to tell you that Carlos was electrocuted for your sins. Furthermore, it is exclusively by faith in King Carlos that you receive the hope of redemption.

This is why we Reformed-types put so much emphasis on the regenerative work of the Spirit prior to human “saving faith” .

(I’ve also posted Mike’s illustration of a hymn to “King Carlos” as well!)

The Evangelical Theological Society made a move a couple years ago to try and oust Clark Pinnock & Co. from membership, due to them holding the unconventional position of Open Theism (“God doesn’t know the future, because the future doesn’t exist yet,” etc).  Pete Enns was forced from his professorship at Westminster Theological Seminary due to trying to reevaluate our presuppositions about the nature of the Bible, and let the Bible define itself on its own terms (redefine inerrancy).

At Calvin College, the board of trustees has recently issued a memo to the faculty that no one will be allowed to teach, write, or advocate on behalf of homosexuality.  Now, the professors are calling for a campus meeting on “academic freedom.”

Here is the problem:

To what degree can there be true “academic freedom” (and the expression of ideas) at a credal, confessional institution, that submits to the kingship of Christ?

How can one have “academic freedom” while being a slave to Christ?  I think this is a genuine dilemma, and I don’t pose this question rhetorically.

On the one hand, freedom of ideas is crucial.  Without the freedom of ideas, we wouldn’t have the Copernican Revolution, the Protestant Reformation, et al.  We need to be ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda—the church reformed, always reforming. Without this academic freedom of ideas, we lose the ability to critically evaluate conventionally held positions.

But on the other hand, the so-called freedom of ideas is explicitly prohibited in the New Testament.  We have verses everywhere commanding the upholding of sound doctrine, the condemnation of false teachers, holding fast to the truth, etc.  So when we have confessional, credal institutions (ETS, WTS, Calvin) putting prohibition on the “freedom of ideas,” it is generally in the spirit of trying to uphold sound doctrine for the Body of Christ.

So where is the solution?  How broad is “sound doctrine”?  How generous is orthodoxy?

The two examples in the introduction are important.  I am sympathetic to Pete Enns and his project, and believe he is onto something important for us to consider.  However, while I am sympathetic to the Open Theist project of similarly reevaluating our presuppositions on God, I remain unconvinced—and would not encourage the promotion of their ideas.  But in these two examples, I side with “academic freedom” on the one hand, and “upholding sound doctrine” on the other.  So what is the solution?

Of course, it’s all a matter of perspective.  One person’s heresy is another person’s orthodoxy.  Conservatives think I’m liberal because I read the Bible literarily rather than literally, while liberals think I’m conservative because I believe in the authority of the Bible and resurrection.

And going back to the situation with Calvin College on homosexuality, how do we reconcile “academic freedom” while submitting to a confessional institution?  To what degree should this “freedom” be allowed?  And more broadly, are we operating from a misdirected understanding of “freedom,” inherited from liberal democracy, rather than freedom in Christ?

How do we have “academic freedom” while being a slave to Christ?

The video of the hell-fire vicar was a big hit, so I thought I’d share this video from the same British comedy show.  This one features a new perspective on Jesus telling the parable of the Good Samaritan.

(Only watch this if you can have a good laugh at yourself and what you believe in. Many Christians more pious than I will find this deplorable. Shame on me.)

From the NY Times:

U.S. Raises Estimate for 10-Year Deficit to $9 Trillion

The Obama administration, citing an economic downturn that has been deeper than it had first thought, raised its estimate on Tuesday of the government’s deficit over the next decade to $9 trillion from $7.1 trillion.

One day while I was reading Hebrews in the ESV, the first introductory line stuck out to me:  “Long ago, at many times and in many ways…”  This seemed to ring a little bell…

“A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…”

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways…”

Eureka!

One thing led to another, and I made this video as the final result!

As Paul would say: May grace, peace, and the Force be with you, in the name of the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

(…or something like that.)