Talk:Radical Orthodoxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Anglicanism Portal Radical Orthodoxy is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

[edit] Not well read

alex -- Whoever wrote this clearly hasn't read enough! Radical Orthodoxy has a great deal of engagement with sciences and very much with the arts. Graham Ward has written extensively on cinema!

simon -- The article is almost entirely unreferenced. It fails to engage with criticisms of RO. It makes inaccurate generalisations (it is, for example, simply untrue that 'Catholic theologies are usually subsequent to liturgical practices'. There is a great deal of pluralism within Catholic theology regarding the proper relationship between liturgy and academic theology). The tone is not that of a neutral point of view; we are told that RO 'sets its face against barbarism in politics, in the arts and especially in the churches', and we learn that 'Claims that Radical Orthodoxy is unintelligible can often be interpreted as unwillingness to undergo [re-education in French theology and philosophy]'. It seems not to occur to the author that prima facie obscurity on the part of some contemporary Francophone philosophers might be a product of their lack of conceptual precision, rather than of the chauvinism of their readers.

alex -- is that the simon author of Philosophy, God and Motion? Anyway, I'll try and re-write this whole section and get someone (eg Milbank or Conor Cunningham) to look over it and check it for accuracy. Good times.

Shouldn't this go under "Radical Orthodoxy" with both words capitalized? Orpheus42 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biased

It's got to be said, this is a terrible article. It needs thorough revising. Currently it does not go through RO systematically. It contains no citations of some obvious quotations. It blurs the differences between Milbank, Ward, Tavistock. It rightly points out that its "membership" is limited to a few theologians, but it does not explain RO's influence more widely. It seems unable to separate positive and negative views of the "2nd renaissance" claims made for RO, and the academic-racialism of "Swiss, French, Germanic" is crude and clearly polemical: it could frankly be binned. It ends up being almost as vague and inconsistend as RO itself sometimes appears. It clearly quotes from some book-jacket blurbs (or Milbank sound-bites) for some of the catchier phrases, which generally lack substance or critique. It should be perfectly possible to make a wiki-page that gives an adequate account of the RO phenomenon in which some of its claims can be debated, but it ain't happening here yet...

[edit] Unclear and unhelpful

This article provides no useful information to anyone not already versed in the buzzwords. There is a string of references and no actual running text or summary of the topic. Parodie 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)