Radical Incoherence

[Kishkumen]

Through my Facebook network of “friends” I was made aware of an interesting manifesto written and signed from a viewpoint that seems partly apologetic in nature. The title, perhaps borrowed from theologian John Milbank, is misleading: Radical Orthodoxy.

See https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/?fbclid ... pxhit63d3w

Quotes will be useful for discussion:

As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to hold fast to the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel in a polarized and contentious world. This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies.

On the one hand, those who replace divine instruction with secular measures of progress risk relinquishing eternal truths for misguided worldly ideas. This can lead them to declare that the Church is behind the times on moral and social issues. On the other hand, those who focus solely on conserving what we have already received are prone to conflate human tradition with eternal truth. This can lead them to condemn any form of question-asking, faithful exploration, or subsequent revelation.

Like Odysseus sailing between Scylla and Charybdis, the path of discipleship takes us through a narrow course between two spiritual monsters: unbridled progressivism and obstinate fundamentalism. Navigating these perilous waters requires radical orthodoxy. Radical orthodoxy is an approach to the Restored Gospel that seeks to harmonize fidelity with exploration and cultural improvement.

Radical orthodoxy is orthodox because it promotes fierce fidelity to revealed truth, the institutional Church, and the Lord’s authorized representatives, and therefore rejects the excesses of progressivism. This includes meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles regarding chastity and morality, the divinity of Christ, and the foundational claims of the Restoration—even when doing so runs contrary to popular, worldly views. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy strive to be valiant in their witness of restored truth.

Radical orthodoxy is radical because it promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism. It is willing to revisit many facets of our received paradigm in order to apply the revealed doctrines and principles of the Gospel to the unique challenges of today. That includes—under the tutelage of modern prophets—a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the Gospel inherited from prior generations.

Radical orthodoxy cultivates humility and a recognition that far less is certain about many doctrinal matters than we often presume. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy are not afraid to ask questions, and they eschew dogmatism with regards to lesser controversies—even while they boldly defend faith, diligence, and conviction on matters of covenant living, revelation, doctrine, and authority. As we revisit the lines between tradition and revelation, we are careful not to dishonor the prophets of the past, undermine the projects and programs of the church, or ignore the moral witness and counsel of living prophets and apostles.

*****

Radical orthodoxy is not a faction, nor a label intended to set forth boundaries for any particular group or organization. It is rather a rallying point, and invitation to embrace conviction and fidelity. It is also an invitation to reject fundamentalism and embrace the possibility of change, innovation, and progress in how we understand the Gospel. It is an occasion to reinforce our loyalties to the Resurrected Christ and the Church that bears His name, and to strive to be “lower lights” burning as an example to others who are also navigating the treacherous waters of modern intellectual discourse.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Radical obstinence.

[mentalgymnast]

Through my Facebook network of “friends” I was made aware of an interesting manifesto written and signed from a viewpoint that seems partly apologetic in nature. The title, perhaps borrowed from theologian John Milbank, is misleading: Radical Orthodoxy.

See https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/?fbclid ... pxhit63d3w

Quotes will be useful for discussion:

As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to hold fast to the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel in a polarized and contentious world. This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies.

On the one hand, those who replace divine instruction with secular measures of progress risk relinquishing eternal truths for misguided worldly ideas. This can lead them to declare that the Church is behind the times on moral and social issues. On the other hand, those who focus solely on conserving what we have already received are prone to conflate human tradition with eternal truth. This can lead them to condemn any form of question-asking, faithful exploration, or subsequent revelation.

Like Odysseus sailing between Scylla and Charybdis, the path of discipleship takes us through a narrow course between two spiritual monsters: unbridled progressivism and obstinate fundamentalism. Navigating these perilous waters requires radical orthodoxy. Radical orthodoxy is an approach to the Restored Gospel that seeks to harmonize fidelity with exploration and cultural improvement.

Radical orthodoxy is orthodox because it promotes fierce fidelity to revealed truth, the institutional Church, and the Lord’s authorized representatives, and therefore rejects the excesses of progressivism. This includes meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles regarding chastity and morality, the divinity of Christ, and the foundational claims of the Restoration—even when doing so runs contrary to popular, worldly views. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy strive to be valiant in their witness of restored truth.

Radical orthodoxy is radical because it promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism. It is willing to revisit many facets of our received paradigm in order to apply the revealed doctrines and principles of the Gospel to the unique challenges of today. That includes—under the tutelage of modern prophets—a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the Gospel inherited from prior generations.

Radical orthodoxy cultivates humility and a recognition that far less is certain about many doctrinal matters than we often presume. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy are not afraid to ask questions, and they eschew dogmatism with regards to lesser controversies—even while they boldly defend faith, diligence, and conviction on matters of covenant living, revelation, doctrine, and authority. As we revisit the lines between tradition and revelation, we are careful not to dishonor the prophets of the past, undermine the projects and programs of the church, or ignore the moral witness and counsel of living prophets and apostles.

*****

Radical orthodoxy is not a faction, nor a label intended to set forth boundaries for any particular group or organization. It is rather a rallying point, and invitation to embrace conviction and fidelity. It is also an invitation to reject fundamentalism and embrace the possibility of change, innovation, and progress in how we understand the Gospel. It is an occasion to reinforce our loyalties to the Resurrected Christ and the Church that bears His name, and to strive to be “lower lights” burning as an example to others who are also navigating the treacherous waters of modern intellectual discourse.

Why do you think the title is misleading?

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

Right away, I am struck by what constitutes “orthodoxy” and qualifies as “radical.” Orthodox is defined as much by obedience to authority as anything, and that has little to do with the literal meaning of the word orthodox. “Radical,” according to Milbank’s usage, means to return to the roots. Here radical means that it “promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism.”

What all that adds up to is unclear.

Perhaps “we are willing to talk about lots of deep stuff so long as we do not rock the ecclesiastical boat?”

I can imagine what radical orthodoxy might look like in Mormonism, but this is not it. It would be to return to the roots of the faith as they were revealed to Joseph Smith according to our best historical and textual investigations. It would not be some vague fealty to free-wheeling discussion so long as the Brethren approve.

Personally, I am past sick of the ecclesiolatry that obtrudes into all of these efforts. The Church this; the Church that. The Church is salvation. The Church is God. We are obedient to the Church. The Church is true. All must be authorized by the Church leaders and Churchy, Churching Churchness in Churchitude. Church. Amen. Because Church.

Here’s my radical orthodoxy: forget the church. Jesus did not found one. The Gospel is true; the church is a legal fiction. Get over it.

[Gadianton]

Interesting find, Reverend.

I'm reminded of the story of Goldilocks and the three bears. It sounds like a reasonable call to arms to reject eating porridge that's either too hot or too cold, until realizing that while nobody disagrees in principle, everyone will disagree in practice.

Recall, years and years ago, Rush Limbaugh would insist that he was middle-of-the-road.

So, yes, it's dumb.

But what is his platform?

Certainly, it wasn't to await the prophets and apostles clarification on what they should do as Mormons. And I can't say I don't sympathize with them getting antsy. While the fund grows, the vitality of Sainthood withers.

I think you are probably right:

“we are willing to talk about lots of deep stuff so long as we do not rock the ecclesiastical boat?”

Apologetics would probably work. Sunday School teachings are banal, but the intellectual history and justification of our banal teachings could be more interesting.

[canpakes]

What all that adds up to is unclear.

Perhaps “we are willing to talk about lots of deep stuff so long as we do not rock the ecclesiastical boat?”

Yours is a good summation.

If this is the proposition -

Radical orthodoxy is radical because it promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism.

... and this is the claim ...

Those who embrace radical orthodoxy are not afraid to ask questions, and they eschew dogmatism with regards to lesser controversies—

... yet, in the end, the ‘radical orthodox’ member must still do the following -

we are careful not to dishonor the prophets of the past, undermine the projects and programs of the church, or ignore the moral witness and counsel of living prophets and apostles.

... then a member is still left idling in the ‘obstinateness of fundamentalism’, aside from any hushed conversations with close friends that won’t make it to the Bishop’s ears.

What sort of dogmatism does the author believe will be eschewed with regard to any lesser controversies, let alone larger social issues?

Maybe I’m just missing the author’s nuance here because it’s late, but the argument doesn’t seem convincing.

[IHAQ]

I get the distinct impression it's a warning shot being fired across the bows of the FP and Q12. It's as if the signatories of this "rallying point" are unconvinced by the ability of Church Leadership to protect the integrity of Church orthodoxy and have decided to take matters into their own hands. It's a dangerous "first punch" that Church Leaders would do well to take seriously.

[Physics Guy]

At least it sounds as though these people are willing to distinguish more and less important beliefs. They're committed to some core of last-ditch beliefs but they're willing to modify other beliefs that are more peripheral.

Or at least they say they are willing to modify these. This is the kind of thing that can be only cosmetic; perhaps the only beliefs that are really allowed to change are trivial things that shouldn't even count as beliefs in the first place.

If they're being honest, though, then this seems like a better alternative to the kind of hair-trigger fundamentalism for which every last jot and tittle of the law counts as an unchallengeable core belief because everything hangs on the perfect inerrancy of the Scriptures, or something.

Sure, you can change some little unimportant detail and remain secure in the core. But the landscape has changed. An outer border has moved and issues that were once closer to core are now nearer peripheral. They'll come up for debate. Once you're willing to examine any beliefs carefully, and seriously consider that they might be wrong, you're on a slippery slope towards outright reasonableness.

Perhaps a really defensible core will emerge in the long run but it's hard for me to believe that it will happen to coincide with what the Mormon leadership says. So this "Radical Orthodoxy" movement seems to me to be wishful thinking: the middle road that it seeks likely does not exist.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for all of the great comments guys. In the morning light, what this looks to me is like putting a pair of groovy sunglasses on a bust of Gordon B. Hinckley. Wow! Cool dude! The Church is, like, true maaaannnnn! Take that you polygamists and librulz! We are, like, totes radical! We follow the leaders of the Church, maaannnnn! Do what they say. But you can't handle that! You get all knotted up in the Journal of Discourses or Sunstone. I'll just sit here and read my correlated manual and the latest post on Millennial Star, knowing that my leaders feel my support to their authoritayyyy!

Sorry. I just don't get it. Radical Orthodoxy. Whhaaaa???

Now, I am sure there is a lot of thought and good intention behind this. Among the signatories you find lots of brilliant and decent people. They undertook to do this out of a real desire to help. In that, I commend them. But I really wish they had given more thought to naming this thing or that they had done a better job of justifying their choice in some way. I really am not a fan of the "words mean whatever I say they mean" school of rhetoric.

Also, I am less than sympathetic toward their ecclesiolatry. That may be a little strong, but from my point of view that is what this is.

[Physics Guy]

So, Kwaku for grown-ups?