The Predicament of Postmodern Theology: Radical Orthodoxy or Nihilist Textualism?

by Gavin Hyman

Gavin Hyman explores in depth two antithetical schools of postmodern theology--the "radical orthodoxy" of John Milbank and the "nihilist textualism" of Don Cupitt. Hyman critiques Milbank's influential project from a postmodern perspective, and then points out the major difficulties with Cupitt's approach. Finally, he explores the work of Mark C. Taylor and Michael de Certeau to articulate a "third way" that leads beyond the responses of both Cupitt and Milbank.

Genres: Theology, Nonfiction, Religion

212 pages, Paperback

First published April 15, 2001

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A “RIGOROUS CRITIQUE OF RADICAL ORTHODOXY” BY A POSTMODERNIST

Author Gavin Hyman wrote in the Introduction to this 2001 book, “Although many theologians have been quick to distance themselves from the radical orthodoxy enterprise, an extended and thorough critique of the project has yet to appear. It is the primary aim of this book to disrupt this absence by providing a rigorous critique of radical orthodoxy from a postmodern perspective. This perspective has something in common with the nihilist textualism of [Don] Cupitt and especially [Mark C.] Taylor… it will be seen that nihilist textualism is, in many respects, insufficiently POSTmodern. I therefore point toward a third postmodern disposition, a ‘fictional nihilism’ that is NEITHER the radical orthodoxy of John Milbank NOR the nihilist textualism of Don Cupitt. A subsidiary… aim of this book is to provide an analysis of the relationship of these two versions of postmodern theology to each other, to the postmodern condition out of which they both, in different ways, emerge, and to the philosophical epoch of modernity against which they both, in different ways, react.” (Pg. 4)

He states, “At the ‘beginning’ of a new millennium, we seem to have arrived at the ‘end’ of time… In this new world, the time of endings seems itself to end, as that which is repressed returns, that which was thought dead is resurrected, and that which was thought to have ended begins all over again. But in this strange new world, that which returns, that which is resurrected, and that which begins again is not merely a return of what went before. On the contrary, that which returns, returns DIFFERENTLY… for at the end of the world things can never be the same again. This strange new world is constitutive of our contemporary condition: the condition of postmodernity. Nowhere is this strange paradox more evident than in religion… The religion that returns is not quite the same as the religion that prevailed before.” (Pg. 1-2)

He continues, “In this new linguistic reality, Christian theology, as traditionally understood, also comes to an end… [I describe] this form of postmodern a/theology as ‘nihilist textualism.’ The other principal way in which the return of religion has manifested itself … is to be found in the recuperation of an orthodox Christian theology, a recuperation that is nevertheless profoundly informed by the insights of postmodern thought… For these thinkers, the end of modernity does not merely give rise to the textual free-for-all of postmodern nihilism… they seek to recover premodern modes of thought, in particular modes of THEOLOGICAL thought… although they seek a recovery of premodern orthodox theology, these thinkers recognize that this must be a recovery of something DIFFERENT in our contemporary condition.” (Pg. 3)

He explains, “postmodernism… is inexplicable apart from the modernity in which it is bound up… we have seen that the two radically divergent theological responses to postmodernism… are explicable only in terms of their antithetical evaluations of modernity… And yet… both Cupitt and Milbank maintain that modernity is inherently unstable, that it must deconstruct itself according to its own premises, and that it must ultimately culminate in nihilism. The divergence lies in their respective evaluation of this culmination. Nihilist textualist theology embraces postmodernism because it is the explicit culmination of modernity, whereas radical orthodox theology rejects it … embraces postmodernism only insofar as it is the overcoming of modernity.” (Pg. 52)

Later, he adds, “It may be said that the largest and most comprehensive paradigm shift in recent years has been that from the modern to the postmodern, a shift that crosses boundaries, disciplines, and cultures. Cupitt has apparently embraced this shift, but… he remains inextricably caught up in a realist/anti-realist framework that is itself bound up with modernity. Radical orthodoxy, by contrast, claims to have taken this paradigm shift to its consummation… it may well be that the distance between them is, in fact, a manifestation.” (Pg. 58)

He outlines, “If one of my principal aims in this book is to mount a critique of John Milbank’s project of radical orthodoxy from a postmodern perspective, then the preceding chapters may be regarded as a lengthy, though necessary, prelude to the task now at hand… the critique now to be undertaken… must also be informed as to why previous endeavors in this regard have ultimately failed… a modernist philosophical paradigm, framed by the antinomy between realism and anti-realism, must necessarily fail in such a task… the way is now prepared for an effective critique of the radical orthodox theology of John Milbank.” (Pg. 65)

He summarizes, “all my criticisms of Milbank’s project may be regarded as variations on a single, fundamental objection, namely, a protest against his absolute and ultimate conception of theology as metanarrative. This single objection is comprised of two constituent parts. First, I argued that such a conception of metanarrative is undesirable in its necessary effects---its dualism, violence, and mastery. Second, I argued that a metanarrative is, in any case, an inherently unsuitable concept that must ultimately deconstruct and dissolve itself… If Christian theology is being rendered and positioned in the particular way by Milbank’s theoretical metanarrative, and if the latter is itself philosophically and culturally situated and determined, then we begin to see how the very idea of an ‘absolute Christian metanarrative’ itself begins to dissolve.” (Pg. 93-94)

He concludes, “Radical orthodoxy and nihilist textualism share this sense of the impossibility of an ‘ending,’ through for each, this impossibility has quite different resonances. For nihilist textualism, the end is forever postponed or infinitely deferred… For radical orthodoxy, we are also in the middle and without an end, but only because the divine kingdom for which these thinkers wait has not yet arrived… Against radical orthodoxy, we have questioned the possibility of theology as metanarrative… we must dwell within this paradox, where the metanarrative is as unavoidable as it is impossible, and where all settlement and finality are deferred. I have suggested that the best way to negotiate this paradox is by adopting a ‘fictional nihilist’ disposition, which calls us to commit ourselves to particular narratives and traditions even though the disposition of fictional nihilism itself will preclude us from committing ourselves to them in any absolute or final way. Thus, the ‘fictional nihilist’ disposition is constituted by a DUAL MOVEMENT: by a ‘commitment to’ narratives and a ‘taking leave’ of them.” (Pg. 141-143) He adds, “That it is a ‘full’ return to theology, in the manner of radical orthodoxy, is ruled out. And yet we find that the operation of fictional nihilism is constantly being drawn back to the theological.” (Pg. 148)

This book will be of keen interest to those studying contemporary theology.

[Joseph Sverker]

This is a very interessting book which outlines the predicament of postmodern theology as the title states. It is in many ways a damaging critique of particularly Don Cupitt, but also Milbank. Yet, I’m a little disappointed by Hyman. He claims to bring something new to theology as a response to Milbank, but he simply applies de Certeau it appears to me. Furthermore, it feels simply to be caught in postmodern terminology when he takes the position of the outlaw. How, com il fau can it become. Hasn’t the outlaw exceedingly positive connotations within postmodernism. If one proclaims to take an outlaw position, how can one be wrong? And not wrong in the ontological sense of the word, but rather wrong in the fashionable sense of the word - “out”.