An und für sich

Adam originally encouraged me to begin this post “You all should be ashamed of yourself.” In a way, I guess I have, but in a mediated kind of way, where the brunt of the blow is deflected by benevolent narrative forces unseen.

Because, really, is it your fault, you theological bloggers, linkers, clickers, and occasional commenters, that you’ve succumbed to the pathological curiosity in all things John Milbank? A part of me — the part that is a much better blog administrator than blogger — wants to say “Yes, you are all to blame.” But another part — the part that is more curious about blogging than frustrated by it — realizes that you (well, let’s just say it, we) are doing what comes naturally. By and large, for better or worse, we tend to associate ourselves with, in mind, body & spirit, those who are, in ways that correspond to that trifecta of Being (m/b/s), people who look like us — or, barring that, who we want to look like — or, barring that, who we want others to mistake us for looking like. Are you to be blamed, then, when you eagerly pounce on every post bearing Milbank’s name in the title or subtitle, when Milbank is, in fact, the quintessential theological blogger?

For starters, like most theological bloggers, he is male. Very male, let’s say. (Apologies to the females who find his work interesting and/or clicked this or other links because of the presence of his name, but I trust you know by now that his world is peopled primarily by very white, pastey even, very manly men. They may pay respect you in the morning, I mean, footnotes, provide a blurb or two on your forthcoming book, or, if you’re especially lucky, link to your blog, but never for a moment forget that you’re in their world.) Second, there is also the hallmark of Milbank’s style, his abrasive rhetoric,  style & attitude. In fact, this is what so many people return to, when called upon to explain their undying interest in him. (E.g., “I don’t agree with what he says, but I love how he handles himself!”) They positively love how feisty he is.  He, in short, makes for good blog copy — again, not unlike a fellow blogger, in his case, an A-list theology blogger — you link to immediately, maybe even block quote. (After all, was not your blogroll practically made for abrasive, overblown, unsubstantiated assertions?) Oh, and let’s not forget his occasional deployment of online pseudonymity. No blogger is innocent of that from time to time.

In short, fellow participants in the theological blogosphere, John Milbank is one of us! He even has a group-blog, called Radical Orthodoxy; and a blogging platform, called Routledge. So, hell, feel shame if you want, but only do so because you’re reading a theology blog this very moment! This, I’ve concluded, is the true sickness. Milbank is just the oozing sore, Radical Orthodoxy the pus, that this sickness brings on from time to time.

Adam will surely have more to say about this in a post, but I just came across the following quote from Milbank which I could not help but cite here:

[T]he posturing of someone like Kotsko can only produce a wry smile in someone of my generation. This is exactly the sort of pusillanimous theology of some in the 1960s that we have long sought to escape from. Why? Because it is bad faith. If you are going to be an atheist and nihilist, then be one. Only second-raters repeat secular nostrums in a pious guise. Such theology can never possibly make any difference, by definition. It’s a kind of sad, grey, seasonal echo of last year’s genuine black. All real Christian theology, by contrast, emerges from the Church, which alone mediates the presence of the God-Man, who is the presupposition of all Christian thinking. Kotsko fears that the Church is an institution, but of course it isn’t—or isn’t primarily—as Graham Ward has well pointed out. It’s rather the continued event of the ingestion of the body of Christ. This fact provides a critical self-correction, well in excess of any outsider criticism of all the Church’s shortcomings and abuses, which I would hope to be among the first to recognize and denounce.  (Via a blogger named Thomas, who apparently believes people like our dear Adam to be confused.)

[UPDATE: If you're interested in the full context of Milbank's comments, the interview in its entirety can be found here.]

Note the delightful argument from authority — the “but of course it isn’t — as Graham Ward has well pointed out.” That, truly, is my favorite part of the quote. Followed very closely by “Only second-raters repeat secular nostrums in a pious guise.”  Come now, second-rate?  I will be friends only with people third-rate and under!  As to the criticisms: it’s funny, because it seems that, considering he is hardly a credible theologian in the conventional sense, most of Milbank’s work is ultimately committed to pious nostroms in a secular guise (note, not a “disguise,” as the role-play is all quite intentionally obvious). But when the authority to which one appeals is not to be questioned, that’s quite alright, it seems. I suppose we should expect nothing less from a person who thinks that the most radical thing one can do is submit.

(Of course, I realize that in daring to disagree with Milbank, as has been the case in basically every instance of any such disagreement with Milbank, I simply do not understand his work. Again … we should expect nothing less.)