In the Economy of the Divine: A Response to James K. A. Smith (original) (raw)

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, constitute 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 something de trop or maybe just ironic about Professor Smith's argumentfor 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 editorship 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