Take a photo of a barcode or cover
ryberst 's review for:
Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason
by John Milbank
Milbank provides a new and refreshing argument with age old (but necessary) results. Christianity must cease taking its cue from the "secular science" and, rather, work within the Christian tradition itself for means of addressing the world. This was the thrust of recent theological movements such as the "Yale school" like Lindbeck and Frei, and was further popularized by Hauerwas, with Barth's rejection of liberalism being the progenitor. (Of course, Christianity has long before Barth understood this). Milbank, however, not only argues positively for Christianity working on its own terms, but also critically demonstrates that the "secular" is actually defined and traces its origin to (heretical) theological claims. Thus the modern social sciences (politics, economics, sociology, dialectics, Marxism, nihilism, etc.) are rooted not in a separate secular sphere, but in heretical (pagan/gnostic) religion. Fantastic read, although there is significantly more critical than constructive theology involved. In fact, until the last chapter, one wonders where the Christianity is in the book. But this is a necessary emphasis for Milbanks argument
Addendum: Much that has been influenced by and continues the conversation of this book - going under the name Radical Orthodoxy - is fantastic theology. However, it sometimes becomes unnecessarily dense. If theology is to serve the church it must translate into not just the thought of the church but also the life of the church. And at times I feel that RO fails simply because of the over-technical density of the works. Its critiqques are extremely important, but it would be better if they were communicated for the common people rather than require a degree in theology to understand. (I have a BA in Theology, much of this was incomprehensible to me)
Addendum: Much that has been influenced by and continues the conversation of this book - going under the name Radical Orthodoxy - is fantastic theology. However, it sometimes becomes unnecessarily dense. If theology is to serve the church it must translate into not just the thought of the church but also the life of the church. And at times I feel that RO fails simply because of the over-technical density of the works. Its critiqques are extremely important, but it would be better if they were communicated for the common people rather than require a degree in theology to understand. (I have a BA in Theology, much of this was incomprehensible to me)