(12:04 AM) | Dave Belcher:

Granada Conference

I am new to this site, and am not really sure how this kind of comment will be taken here, but let me say that I am just confused about this thing on so many levels; maybe you can help, Jamie. My first instinct was, "Damn, I wish I was in Granada, too"; I'm a classical guitarist, and have strong memories of being there at the Alhambra. Regardless, I realized that "liberalism" in the forms so outlined by these various "schools" doesn't seem to be the problem with the Church--*especially* in contemporary America (thus, I'm saying that I don't think your link between Europe and America works too well, Jamie). At least two out of the six "schools" Milbank outlines above have gotten a whole lot of mileage out of this notion that the Church has been captured by liberal and neo-liberal market ideology, and yet to which body do they refer? Can someone point to the corpus verum for me in North America? The precarious situation of "the political" doesn't require a politicization of the Church--as "the Duke School" and "radical orthodoxy" have led us to believe--or even to out-politicize Right-Christianity from the Left (albeit a "conservative" left), but should lead us to ask where is the Church? It should lead to a recognition that the concrete social body which makes up the Church has disappeared (merely another political body competing with others), and thus the call for a (re)politicization of this hypothetical body does not (or cannot) solve the problem, but actually makes it worse. I am not disturbed by the fact that the Archbishop of Granada has decided that this "contemporary postliberalism" is right; instead I'm just disappointed...it's the same damn thing I've been hearing over and over. When will we wake up?

All of this aside--which is extremely important to me--I am just baffled that most of the theologians involved in this conference make up these two "schools" I referred to above, and yet it is these two schools that are supposed to be giving us the answer to our "postmodern" and "postliberal" predicament. I mean does that sound presumptuous to anyone else? There's a time for critique and then there's a time for humility. I have yet to see humility from Hauerwas or radical orthodoxy--at least with regards to "liberals." I'm not a "liberal," offended by those who are out to thwart me or something...I'm asking that we might think about what it means to "love our enemies" within theological dialogue--*that* I see very little of in contemporary theological debate...because it's always just that, a fucking argument.

Furthermore, Milbank's "taxonomy" makes no sense to me whatsoever. Of course, there is the issue of what others have raised with regards to the possibility of "other" postliberals not on this list, such as Barth, but even and more importantly Frei, Lindbeck, etc. Even if “contemporary postliberals” refers to extremely recent thinkers, these last two should still be included, especially with the impact they have had on the two schools in question. But, I'm just sort of confused with the six that Milbank gives. I am extremely interested first of all how it is that the election of Pope Benedict XVI is the culmination of nouvelle theologie. While "Cardinal Ratzinger," it is true, was very close to many of these figures of the
Ressourcement (even writing the Foreword to de Lubac's Mystery of the Supernatural), the current situation of the Catholic Church seems to be extremely at odds with the project of this new theology--and Benedict shows no signs of "reform." Secondly, I am confused as to how these six schools are the progenitors of Henri de Lubac's work; especially Radical Orthodoxy and the Duke school. Actually it seems to me that the only school listed which has attempted to remain faithful to both letter and spirit of de Lubac's work is the school that represents the "theological turn in phenomenology"; and much of what is being done by these thinkers (including those not listed, like S. Breton and Lacoste) seems to be completely at odds with Radical Orthodoxy (no matter how much Milbank quotes Lacoste) and the Duke School (and I’m not sure that one could say that Hauerwas is indebted to de Lubac in any fashion whatsoever—unless it is something much more recent, and something gained through Milbank, et. al…I mention only Hauerwas here because though the figures listed under the heading “Duke school”--Dan Bell, Bill Cavanaugh, Steve Long—may have all studied with Hauerwas, they all have books in the Radical Orthodoxy series…can we say “Duke school” at all if it’s just Hauerwas? It seems a little misplaced). De Lubac has become something of a trend in contemporary theology, and like all icons, he has become misunderstood. This is already too long. Sorry.

Hope you can respond.

| permalink | Main Page