Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon

Rating:
Summary: A Theology of Gift
Review: As an avid reader of theology, this is the most difficult book I have read. Those not well read in theology and philosophy should begin elsewhere. It seems that Milbank writes so that readers will have to struggle with the book nearly as much as he has obviously struggled with the issues it presents. That said, this is a very profound work that opens many avenues of research. Milbank is committed to recasting the orthodox conception of God into our "postmodern" context. Thus he works from the assumption that the classical attributes of God (omniscience, omnipotence, immutibility, etc.) are true. In this work, Milbank explores the category of "gift" as a way of understanding God's interaction in the world, specifically in terms of forgiveness. The book moves from an understanding of evil as privation, to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and finally to the church and interaction with contemporary culture. Along the way, Milbank draws heavily on the work of many theologians and philosophers. I do not agree with all that is presented in this book, but it most definately caused me to think more critically about the positions I hold.

Rating:
Summary: A Theology of Gift
Review: As an avid reader of theology, this is the most difficult book I have read. Those not well read in theology and philosophy should begin elsewhere. It seems that Milbank writes so that readers will have to struggle with the book nearly as much as he has obviously struggled with the issues it presents. That said, this is a very profound work that opens many avenues of research. Milbank is committed to recasting the orthodox conception of God into our "postmodern" context. Thus he works from the assumption that the classical attributes of God (omniscience, omnipotence, immutibility, etc.) are true. In this work, Milbank explores the category of "gift" as a way of understanding God's interaction in the world, specifically in terms of forgiveness. The book moves from an understanding of evil as privation, to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and finally to the church and interaction with contemporary culture. Along the way, Milbank draws heavily on the work of many theologians and philosophers. I do not agree with all that is presented in this book, but it most definately caused me to think more critically about the positions I hold.

Rating:
Summary: Non-rigorous, interesting ideas
Review: I read through most of Milbank's "Being Reconciled" while researching for my MA thesis which involved Paul Ricoeur, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Heidegger. Milbank, having begun the 'Radical Orthodoxy' movement with his 1990 book "Theology and Social Theory" once again has provided his mostly seminarian audience with intriguing arguments; but once you begin to read the criticism of Milbank and other RO authors, you find that they are somewhat flashy, making claims they either cannot or do not support, often by means of completely ignoring other sources and other major critics on the subject matter (see the reviews on Laurence Hemming's book "Heidegger?s Atheism: The Refusal of a Theological Voice"; Hemming is a contributor in the book "Radical Orthodoxy", he completely ignores those before him who make arguments which appear to be original with him, which they are not. Or see the reviews of C. Pickstock's "After Writing: The Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy", her understanding of Duns Scotus' conception of "being" is shoddy, to put it nicely.)

Unfortunately, as fascinating as Milbank is in this book, and as much as I want to say, "yes! your responses to Derrida, et alii are edifying in some way, but in the end I am left disappointed." Why?

I am disappointed because Milbank is not rigorous nor careful in what he claims. In chapter 2 he talks about "anti-transcendentals", a reference to the 'transcendental way' from the 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas and others, but if Milbank knew what "anti-transcendental" means in light of Aquinas (cf. Jan Aertsen's "Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: The Case for Thomas Aquinas"), he would realize that he is intimating a Manichean position (where Good and Evil are two equal and opposite entities in the world)- for a transcendental by definition transcends throughout all the Aristotelian categories, so on Milbank's account the category of substance is and can be constituted by evil or good (transcendental "bonum"). This contradicts his hope to affirm some version of the "privation theory of evil". (Milbank doesn't spend the time to help us understand his conception of "anti-trasncendentals" such as violence and evil, which is a typical thing for Milbank to do: introduce an idea, but not doing the hard rigorous work of seeing what it means.) More importantly, this idea of "anti-transcendental" lends itself to the idea that there is "subsisting evil itself", whereas the divine goodness is is "subsisting being itself" (Aquinas, ST 1.4.2.co.)--this comes to mean that Good and Evil can both be substances, and are at war with each other, each as a positive existing entity, thus we are led toward Manichaeism.

If Milbank was more careful he would see this, but he doesn't given his fervor for theologically constructive acts; it's as though he doesn't have time for this concern, for the days seem short, or, so also might a Hebrew prophet claim, perhaps the wallet is empty? I want to admire Milbank, and I do in certain respects. There is a footnote where he mentions Tolkien's profound essay, "On Faery Stories" and says he plans to write on this later, this is something I look forward to, though with fearful anticipation. Milbank is too much a Platonist, the language of "participation" comes across as a 2-way real relation (as opposed to God's intentional relation to creation, cf. Aquinas) between Creator and Creation. Milbank gives dignity to the activities of creatures, but I think he most always goes too far in his uncritical enough appreciations of the (neo/)platonic traditions in philosophical theology. As some of my friends think, RO is a fad, nearly like certain Christian sub-cultures that aim for relevance (and power) in the wider culture, though this fad-ization is one occurring in the academy. Read Milbank, but then read his critics-(such as his PhD. advisor, Nicholas Lash)-otherwise Milbank will, I think, in the end make you a bad scholar and worse, a bad theologian.

Rating:
Summary: Non-rigorous, interesting ideas
Review: I read through most of Milbank's "Being Reconciled" while researching for my MA thesis which involved Paul Ricoeur, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Heidegger. Milbank, having begun the 'Radical Orthodoxy' movement with his 1990 book "Theology and Social Theory" once again has provided his mostly seminarian audience with intriguing arguments; but once you begin to read the criticism of Milbank and other RO authors, you find that they are somewhat flashy, making claims they either cannot or do not support, often by means of completely ignoring other sources and other major critics on the subject matter (see the reviews on Laurence Hemming's book "Heidegger's Atheism: The Refusal of a Theological Voice"; Hemming is a contributor in the book "Radical Orthodoxy", he completely ignores those before him who make arguments which appear to be original with him, which they are not. Or see the reviews of C. Pickstock's "After Writing: The Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy", her understanding of Duns Scotus' conception of "being" is shoddy, to put it nicely.)

Unfortunately, as fascinating as Milbank is in this book, and as much as I want to say, "yes! your responses to Derrida, et alii are edifying in some way, but in the end I am left disappointed." Why?

I am disappointed because Milbank is not rigorous nor careful in what he claims. In chapter 2 he talks about "anti-transcendentals", a reference to the 'transcendental way' from the 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas and others, but if Milbank knew what "anti-transcendental" means in light of Aquinas (cf. Jan Aertsen's "Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: The Case for Thomas Aquinas"), he would realize that he is intimating a Manichean position (where Good and Evil are two equal and opposite entities in the world)- for a transcendental by definition transcends throughout all the Aristotelian categories, so on Milbank's account the category of substance is and can be constituted by evil or good (transcendental "bonum"). This contradicts his hope to affirm some version of the "privation theory of evil". (Milbank doesn't spend the time to help us understand his conception of "anti-trasncendentals" such as violence and evil, which is a typical thing for Milbank to do: introduce an idea, but not doing the hard rigorous work of seeing what it means.) More importantly, this idea of "anti-transcendental" lends itself to the idea that there is "subsisting evil itself", whereas the divine goodness is is "subsisting being itself" (Aquinas, ST 1.4.2.co.)--this comes to mean that Good and Evil can both be substances, and are at war with each other, each as a positive existing entity, thus we are led toward Manichaeism.

If Milbank was more careful he would see this, but he doesn't given his fervor for theologically constructive acts; it's as though he doesn't have time for this concern, for the days seem short, or, so also might a Hebrew prophet claim, perhaps the wallet is empty? I want to admire Milbank, and I do in certain respects. There is a footnote where he mentions Tolkien's profound essay, "On Faery Stories" and says he plans to write on this later, this is something I look forward to, though with fearful anticipation. Milbank is too much a Platonist, the language of "participation" comes across as a 2-way real relation (as opposed to God's intentional relation to creation, cf. Aquinas) between Creator and Creation. Milbank gives dignity to the activities of creatures, but I think he most always goes too far in his uncritical enough appreciations of the (neo/)platonic traditions in philosophical theology. As some of my friends think, RO is a fad, nearly like certain Christian sub-cultures that aim for relevance (and power) in the wider culture, though this fad-ization is one occurring in the academy. Read Milbank, but then read his critics-(such as his PhD. advisor, Nicholas Lash)-otherwise Milbank will, I think, in the end make you a bad scholar and worse, a bad theologian.

Rating:
Summary: Heavy, heavy Philosophical-Theological Study.
Review: This book is very difficult reading, at least for me, but the subject matter is so important, that its worth the effort. John Milbank opens up many insights for further study by Christian Scholars. I must admit that some of it is over my head, I had to repeatedly refer to various dictionaries, and still did not find the needed definitions for some of the words used, in the text. Still I got the gist of most of what He is saying, I think? In the chapter on the Incarnation, He goes somewhat toward an answer to the vexing question of the impossible fact that according to Christian Teaching the Human Race did Fall,despite being in communion with the perfect infinite Creator. He goes into the possibility of forgiveness being possible because God did in fact become a Human Being in Jesus Christ, linking the forgiveness offered by God through the Deified Humanity of Jesus. This also has implications for Escatalogy, in how this might prevent the Fall from happening again a second time, a sort of second impossibility. Whew!!! Like I said this is tough going for just an interested layman, My understanding of Professor Milbank's book, may be way off. I intend to reread it several times, like I said the subject matter is worth such an effort. Thanks for listening. Sincerely Richard Woodhouse. Bradford PA