｢대학과 선교｣ | 제35집: 269-298

A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and

John Caputo’s Weak Theology for a
Postmodern Generation

이성호( 명지전문대, 조직신학)

【국문초록】

기독교 대학은 다원화, 세속화라는 포스트모던 시대를 세례 받은 청년들

에게 기독교 가치로 교육해야 하는 도전적 과제를 가지고 있다. 이 과제를
위해 본 논문은 포스트모던 신학 – 특별히 급진적 정통주의와 존 카푸토의
약함의 신학 – 을 비판적으로 검토하고, 기독교 대학의 선교 현장에 적용해
보고자 한다. 급진적 정통주의는 세속적 근대주의와 허무주의적 포스트모더
니즘의 대안으로 참여적 존재론의 특징을 가진 ‘탈세속성’과 기독교 전통의
회복을 주장한다. 반면, 포스트모던 철학의 탈구축적 전략을 수용하는 ‘급진
적 해석학에
’ 근거한 약한 신학은 이데올로기를 제거한 종교의 가능성을 논
하고 역설적으로 세상의 어떤 권력보다 강한 ‘하나님의 약함’을 주장한다.
이 역설은 십자가 사건을 통해 일어난다. 물론, 이 두 신학에게 약점도 있다.
급진적 정통주의는 모더니즘과 세속주의를 모호하게 구분하고 근대 이전에
대한 지나친 낭만주의적 판단을 한다. 약함의 신학은 전통적 종교 형식 없는
종교경험의 가능성과 예수의 신성 문제에 대한 명확한 해답을 주지 않고
있다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 이 두 가지의 포스트모던 신학은 학생들의 전통
기독교 예배 경험, 포스트모던적 관점으로 기독교 개론 수업하기, 새로운
종교성과 초월성 제시 등으로 대학교 선교 현장에 응용될 수 있다.
270 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

주제어: 포스트모던 신학, 급진적 정통주의 신학, 탈-세속성, 약함의 신학,

급진적 해석학, 대학교 선교
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 271

I. Introduction

Theology always reflects the times, because it has to make an

apology for Christianity and serve the church community in the midst
of a specific context, and one that is dominated by a specific world
view. It is therefore necessary to determine what kind of an age the-
ology finds itself in, in order to effect a meaningful theology. How
then might we describe the present day?
The usual understanding is that, in terms of our ways of thought,
levels of socioeconomic and cultural life, and the development of sci-
ence and technology, we live in a postmodern age. In his article,
“The Christian University in Postmodern Times, ” Young-Han Kim ex-
plains the characteristic features of postmodernity as follows. The first
point has to do with the social nature and power of knowledge. In
postmodernity, the usefulness of knowledge is determined by social
groups, which possess, produce, and distribute knowledge.1) The
second feature is a deconstruction of universal truths and values.
Unlike modernity, that operated by a “massive system of knowledge”
and a “meta narrative,” in postmodern times there is “multi-reason
and varied difference,” while the uncertainty about information
increases. Knowledge is fragmented without having any universal
agreement about it.2) Thirdly, postmodern times augment the
“openness and variety that lead various cultures and thoughts in the
globe to mutual interactions.” Although this openness and variety

1) 김영한, “포스트모던 시대의 기독교대학,” 󰡔대학과 선교󰡕 4 (2002), 101-102.

2) Ibid., 103.
272 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

built up the information age and has contributed to the democra-

tization of access to knowledge, Kim properly points out a weak
point in this openness, i.e., that postmodernity does not allow for
standards of truth and value.3)
The social grouping that has the fastest and the most sensitive ac-
commodation to the spirit of the new age is the younger generation.
The youth of the present day can thus be called a postmodern
generation. In Korean society, the social space where most young
people are active is the university or college. Thus the field of the
university or college might be the front-line for Christian apologetics
and Christian mission in the postmodern age. Yet the conditions for
Christian evangelization are becoming worse in universities and
colleges. As Kim indicates in the same article, Christian universities
and colleges, which have been influenced by the pluralism and secu-
larization of postmodern times, face crises of identity as they go
through the weakening of the establishment and the curtailment of
Christian education.4) Typical other features of the postmodern age
are the decrease in people’s concern for religion and the increase in
alternative activities, such as social media, hobbies, sports, and social
activities, which replace the meaning and spirituality in life that was
formerly provided by traditional religions. These trends are evident in
college communities.
The important task for the Christian university is thus to deliver

3) Ibid., 104.
4) Ibid., 108-110.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 273

Christian truth and to practice Christian education to students as a

postmodern generation who live in such conditions. There can be
various methods of doing this: e.g., cultural, educational, and social
psychological. However, a more important concern is how Christian
truths and values are to be reconstructed in the postmodern age.
Preliminary work in this reconstruction is to review postmodern the-
ologies which reflect the spirit of postmodernity and use this review
to creatively reconstruct Christian theology. As part of such prelimi-
nary work, this article attempts a critical evaluation of the theological
methods of two kinds of postmodern theologies –Radical Orthodoxy
and Caputo’s weak theology. At the end of the article, I briefly sug-
gest how these two postmodern theologies might be applied in the
field of campus ministry.

II. Radical Orthodoxy

Radical Orthodoxy is a recent theological movement aimed at re-

viving Christian traditions—especially the patristic and medieval tradi-
tions—for the postmodern context. Leading scholars of the movement
are John Milbank, Graham Ward, and Catherine Pickstock. Yet what
does “Radical Orthodoxy” mean? At first, it might remind us of the
Neo-Orthodox theology that is named after the theology of Karl
Barth. In other words, it could be thought that Radical Orthodoxy is a
movement to radicalize Barth’s theological project. However, the first
274 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

meaning of “radical” in the dictionary is not “progressive” or

“extreme,” but “basic,” that is, “of, relating to, or proceeding from a
root.”5) From this meaning, Radical Orthodoxy is a return to the fun-
damental sources of Christianity, and their reinterpretation for a con-
temporary context.6) Yet is this not a common feature of all theolo-
gies? Does not every theology strive to appeal to both the Christian
tradition and its own context? What then are the distinctive features
of Radical Orthodoxy that make it different from other theologies?
These differences can be found in three constitutive aspects.

1. Post-secularity versus Modern Secularism

Radical Orthodoxy sees contemporary society as distorted and

perverted by secularism, and more particularly, because of the
Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is seen as a “prejudice against
prejudice.”7) Even though Enlightenment thinkers attempted to over-
come and escape from medieval thought, concepts, customs, and so
on, they ultimately built up another prejudice. Radical Orthodoxy re-
jects a view that secularism emerged naturally from “the ruins of me-

5) Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical (Accessed

October 10, 2017)
6) John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward, Radical Orthodoxy: A New
Theology (London; New York: Routledge, 1999), 2. Unlike Barthian theology, Radical
Orthodoxy refuses the dualism of reason and revelation. It takes a strategy of being
“more mediating, but less accommodating.” The meaning of “radicality” is “a return
to patristic and medieval reason” in order to rethink the tradition through a “criticism
of modern society, culture, politics, art, science, and philosophy.”
7) James K. A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 32.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 275

diaeval consensus.” Rather, “the secular view holds its own assump-
tions and prejudices concerning human society and nature which are
no more objective or justifiable than those of the ancient and medie-
val philosophers and theologians.”8) In his famous book, Theology and
Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason , in which he ambitiously argues
that the social sciences have been produced by modern secularism
and its ontology of violence, Milbank writes as follows about the rela-
tionship between secularism and desacralization:

The secular as a domain had to be instituted or imagined, both in

theory and in practice. This institution is not correctly grasped in mere-
ly negative terms as a desacralization. It belongs to the received wis-
dom of sociology to interpret Christianity as itself an agent of sacral-
ization, yet this thesis is totally bound up with one-sided negativity of
the notion of desacralizing; a metaphor of the removal of the super-
fluous and additional to leave a residue of the human, the natural and
the self-sufficient.9)

Interestingly, Radical Orthodoxy critically considers modern theol-

ogy to be related to the Enlightenment, because it attempts to explain
Christianity in secular terms. This fault is attributed in particular to
apologetic theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr,
Paul Tillich, and David Tracy.10)

8) Simon Oliver, “Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: From Participation to Late

Modernity,” in The Radical Orthodoxy Reader, ed. Simon Oliver and John Milbank
(London; New York: Routledge, 2009), 6.
9) John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK;
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006), 9.
276 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

Radical Orthodoxy thus criticizes modern secularity and

“eliminates a significant distinction between the secular and the sa-
cred, thus undoing the very notion of secular reason.”11) Moreover, it
challenges the belief that only secular disciplines have objectivity and
considers this belief to be just a “myth of secularity.” Instead, Radical
Orthodoxy “seeks to foster the kind of confessional pluralism…in
which, ultimately, everyone is a confessional theorist”12) and let the
gospel confront secular values, avoiding “dialogue” with secular
studies.13)

2. Participatory Ontology against Nihilistic Postmodernism

Radical Orthodoxy criticizes not only modernity, secularity, and

liberalism, but also nihilistic postmodernism. At the same time,
Radical Orthodoxy itself reflects postmodern contexts and accepts the
positive aspects of postmodernism. According to Milbank,
“Christianity can, should, embrace the differential flux” and “is open
to difference.”14)
However, Christian difference is different from the secular post-
modernism which Radical Orthodoxy considers nihilistic. Christians
“belong to one eternal city ruled by Christ” and to a harmonious com-

10) Smith, 33, 35

11) Ibid., 73.
12) Ibid., 74.
13) Ibid., 69.
14) John Milbank, “Postmodern Critical Augustinianism: A Short Summa in Forty-Two
Responses to Unasked Questions,” in The Radical Orthodoxy Reader, ed. Simon Oliver
and John Milbank (London; New York: Routledge, 2009), 51.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 277

munity, characterized not by indifference, but by inter-relationships

that have an almost musical concord.15) Moreover, Radical Orthodoxy
assumes that there is “a deep continuity between the modern and
(supposedly) postmodern, when postmodern thinkers such as
Derrida, Deleuze, and Foucault “replay and play out the ontology of
modernity” and, like modern thinkers, throw away transcendence and
stick to immanence.16) Radical Orthodoxy criticizes the fact that, “like
modern philosophers, most postmodern thinkers cannot find their
way back to their roots to remember them.”17)
As Milbank emphasizes above, Christianity is a community in
Christ, with a methodological concept, i.e., a “participatory ontology,”
for overcoming nihilistic postmodernism. Authentic postmodernity
can be acquired through participation in the tradition and ultimately
in God. In a participatory ontology, “the immanent and material is
suspended from the transcendent and immaterial” and “[e]very sphere
of creation…participates in the primal gift of the Creator.”18) This par-
ticipatory ontology leads to renewed understanding of materials, lit-
urgy, aesthetics, and even politics. Materials are revalued in light of

15) Ibid., 51-52.

16) Oliver, 92-93. cf. John Milbank, The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language, Culture,
(Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 1-2. In this book, Milbank
attempts to revitalize the discourse of divine logos and traditional themes such as
“God and Creation, God the Son, the Incarnation, the Holy Spirit, Christian life and
Christian society,” while criticizing post-Kantian modern philosophy and theology
which, Milbank considers, has a deep connection with nihilistic postmodernism.
17) D. Stephen Long, “Radical Orthodoxy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern
Theology, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2003), 129.
18) Smith, 75.
278 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

transcendence. Liturgy and aesthetics can be sacred and embodied

means of participating in community, in Christ, and in God.
Participatory relationship with God can result in social, political, and
economical transformation, to the point where this transformation can
have a “left-wing political connotation,” with possible echoes of so-
cialist or Marxist thought. Smith, however, calls this “socialism by
grace,” which is not to be confused with secular socialism.19)

3. Back to the Premodern Christian Tradition

In order to attain post-secularity and a participatory ontology,

Radical Orthodoxy paradoxically goes back to the premodern
Christian tradition. One of the reasons is that Radical Orthodoxy’s
theological vision “seeks to retrieve the deep theological resources of
the Christian tradition – particularly premodern resources in the fa-
thers and medievals – to let them speak to postmodernism.”20)
Augustine is one of the most valuable thinkers in the Christian tradi-
tion for Radical Orthodoxy. The importance of Augustine is proven
by the fact that several of Radical Orthodoxy’s theologians have pub-
lished different versions of Augustine’s City of God (Milbank’s Theology
and Social Theory and Ward’s Cities of God).21) Milbank summarizes the
project of Radical Orthodoxy as “Postmodern Critical Augustinianism.”22)

19) Ibid., 76-80.

20) Ibid., 68.
21) Ibid., 46. cf. Graham Ward, Cities of God (London; New York: Routledge, 2000).
22) Milbank, “Postmodern Critical Augustinianism: A Short Summa in Forty-Two
Responses to Unasked Questions,” 49-61.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 279

Their attempt to retrieve tradition is not limited to Augustine,

however. Aquinas and Neoplatonism also play an important role in
shaping Radical Orthodoxy, because on the one hand, Aquinas’ re-
jection of autonomous nature helps to break the dualism of modern-
ity, and on the other, Neoplatonism is an important intellectual source
which influenced both Augustine and Aquinas.23)
On the grounds that we need to return to the premodern tradition
and rediscover its values, the Radical Orthodoxy group has published
various studies of the Christian tradition. For example, Michael Hanby
shows that Augustine did not separate divine activity from the human
will, and that the true self of humans is derived from a true vision of
the cosmos.24) In his article, “Friendship: St Anselm, Theoria and the
Convolution,”25) David Moss suggests that Anselm’s “friendship” has
very similar characteristics as the postmodern concept of “otherness,”
because it means an intimate relationship and infinite responsibility.
As a final example, through an exploration of the history of music in
her article, “Music: Soul, City and Cosmos after Augustine,” Catherine
Pickstock laments that music lost its cosmic vision and harmony after
the Renaissance period, and that in Augustine, it retained its harmony
of a cosmic and aesthetic vision, and was even able to hold a political

23) Smith, 47-48.

24) Michael Hanby, “Desire: Augustine Beyond Western Subjectivity,” in Radical
Orthodoxy: A New Theology, ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward
(London; New York: Routledge, 1999), 109-126.
25) David Moss, “Friendship: St Anselm, Theoria and the Convolution,” in Radical
Orthodoxy: A New Theology, ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward
(London; New York: Routledge, 1999), 127-142.
280 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

implication.26)
In sum, the proponents of Radical Orthodoxy believe that re-
newed interpretations of the premodern tradition of Christianity can
help the church to overcome the challenges of secularism and nihil-
ism, and can provide theological and spiritual sources appropriate for
today’s postmodern context.

III. John Caputo’s Weak Theology

As a professor of philosophy at Villanova University, John Caputo

is one of the leading scholars in the discourse of postmodern
theology. In particular, Caputo questions the modern concept of God
through late Heidegger and post-Heideggerian thinkers, such as
Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas, and embraces the discussion
of the “death of God,” arguing that it is useful for overcoming on-
to-theology. However, unlike other scholars of deconstructive theol-
ogy, such as Thomas Altizer, Don Cupitt, and Mark Taylor, Caputo
does not attempt to dissolve theology into “atheologies and mystical
nihilisms.” Rather, for Caputo, “the overcoming of metaphysics opens
again the God question and…the scriptural question concerning the
coming of the kingdom.”27) Thus, Caputo has been considered a de-

26) Catherine Pickstock, “Music: Soul, City and Cosmos after Augustine,” in Radical
Orthodoxy: A New Theology, ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward
(London; New York: Routledge, 1999), 243-277.
27) Graham Ward, “Deconstructive Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern
Theology, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 281

constructive theologian28) who avoids nihilism and relativism.29) In

order to sketch Caputo’s weak theology, this section will explicate his
method and some key concepts in his theology.

1. Radical Hermeneutics

Caputo proposes his philosophical and theological method in

Radical Hermeneutics. As we can surmise from this methodological de -
scription, Caputo does not discard the study of hermeneutics, even
though he follows the strategies of deconstructive philosophy, which
deconstructs the metaphysics and logocentrism that have dominated
the intellectual history of the West. Caputo considers hermeneutics
“an attempt to stick with the original difficulty of life.”30) Because her-
meneutics shows that metaphysics no longer stands upon a solid and
indestructible foundation, radical hermeneutics can be called the “end
of philosophy.”31) Caputo thus follows a philosophical line from
Kierkegaard through Husserl, Nietzsche and Heidegger, to Derrida, in
which hermeneutics is increasingly radicalized. Of these, Derrida radi-
calizes hermeneutics in the most extreme manner with his decon-
structive hermeneutics.32) Caputo states, “With deconstruction, her-

Press, 2003), 83.

28) John D. Caputo, “The Poetics of the Impossible and the Kingdom of God,” in The
Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. Graham Ward (Oxford; Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 469.
29) John D. Caputo, Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction, and the Hermeneutic
Project, Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 1987), 6.
30) Ibid., 1.
31) Ibid., 3.
282 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

meneutics loses its innocence and in so doing becomes even more

faithful to the appointed way.... Difference is very good at making
things difficult.”33) He continues that “this hermeneutics exposes to us
the ruptures and gaps, let us say, the textuality and difference, which
inhabits everything we think, and do, and hope for.” With decon-
structive criticism, which is a necessary step for radical hermeneutics,
Caputo wants to liberate the play from metaphysics.34) However,
Caputo has no intention of taking radical hermeneutics into nihilism,
subjectivism, and dehumanization.35) Moreover, in his recent meth-
odological work, More Radical Hermeneutics, Caputo argues that “the
necessity of interpretation” is driven by Derrida’s term, “the absolute
36)
secret” and “the passion of non-knowing.” In radical hermeneutics,
we need to acknowledge that we are not only impure with historical,
political, social, religious, and sexual saturation, but that we are also
open to the future of God. Caputo claims, “So, with Meister Eckhart, I
pray God to rid me of ‘God, that is, not in order to dance on the
grave of the dead of God, but to keep the future open including the
future of God with us.”37)

32) Ibid., 3-4.

33) Ibid., 5.
34) Ibid., 97.
35) Ibid., 6, 97.
36) John D. Caputo, More Radical Hermeneutics: On Not Knowing Who We Are, Studies in
Continental Thought (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000), 3.
37) Ibid., 11.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 283

2. Religion without Religion

On the basis of radical hermeneutics, Caputo explores the possi-

bility of a postmodern religion through an examination of Derrida’s
religiosity. Going against the common assumption that Derrida is an
atheist who might be anti-religious, Caputo shows that Derrida’s reli-
gious discourse and language are valuable, and can be used in theo-
logical reflection. Caputo describes Derrida’s religiosity as follows:

He has his whole life long been “hoping sighing dreaming” over the
arrival of something “wholly other,” tout autre, praying and weeping
over, waiting and longing for, calling upon and being called by some-
thing to come. Day and night Derrida has been dreaming, expecting,
not the possible, not the eternal, but the impossible.38)

For Caputo, Derrida is “an atheist who has his own God, and who
loves the name of God, loves that ‘event’ and what ‘takes place’ or
eventuates in that good name.”39) Thus, “Deconstruction is not out to
undo God or deny faith, or to mock science or make nonsense out of
literature.”40) Rather, it is “a passion for trespassing the horizons of
possibility”41) and “a passion and a prayer for the impossible.”42)

38) John D. Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion, The
Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 1997), xviii.
39) Ibid., 4.
40) Ibid., 5.
41) Ibid., xix.
42) Ibid., xx.
284 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

Caputo considers religion “a pact with the impossible, a covenant

with the unrepresentable, a promise made by the tout autre with its
people.”43)
Likewise, whereas all the metaphysical concepts of God and in-
stitutional religion can be deconstructed, Caputo, who practices a de-
constructive theology with the help of Derrida’s thought, still attempts
to explain God, who cannot be captured in metaphysical concepts,
with terms such as “the impossible” or “the event.” With these terms,
Caputo says, God is inaccessible, incalculable, non-deconstructible,
and irreducible.44) However, following the characteristics of Derrida’s
religion,45) God can be understood in futuristic and eschatological
terms – as promise, covenant, and messiah.46) God is coming, but be-
cause God has not come yet, he is impossible to access and grasp.
Thus it seems that Caputo thinks that religion without ontotheo-

43) Ibid.
44) John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo, After the Death of God, ed. Jeffrey W. Robbins,
Insurrections (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 48, 51.
45) Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion, xxiv. Caputo
describes the characteristics of Derrida’s religion: “…Derrida’s religion is more
prophetic than apophatic, more in touch with Jewish prophets than with Christian
Neoplatonists, more messianic and more eschatological than mystical. His writing is
more inscribed by the promise, by circumcision, and by the mark of father Abraham
than by mystical transports, more like Amos and Isaiah than Pseudo-Dionysius,
moved more by prophetico-ethico-political aspiration than by aspiring to be one
with the One.” Caputo provides a similar analysis of Derrida’s religion by comparing
Derrida with Marion in a roundtable meeting between Derrida and postmodern
theologians that discussed the gift and God at Villanova University in 1997. John D.
Caputo, “Apostles of the Impossible,” in God, the Gift, and Postmodernism, ed. John D.
Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999),
200.
46) Caputo and Vattimo, After the Death of God, 52.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 285

logical, metaphysical and institutional religion is possible through a

deconstructive and messianic re-appropriation.

3. The Weakness of God

In the meantime, Caputo pays attention to stories in the Bible that

represent the impossible in ordinary life. These are stories which con-
cern “the kingdom of God.” In this kingdom, the first is the last and
the last is the first. Marginal people, such as the disabled, the leper,
and tax collectors are chosen as citizens. God makes the higher
ashamed through the lower. The single sheep is more valuable than
ninety nine other sheep. The kingdom of God, which is full of these
paradoxes, is called “sacred anarchy.”47) Caputo suggests a hypoth-
esis for God from these paradoxes that involves the “weakness of
God.” On this point, Caputo depends on the Apostle Paul:

Paul spells out the way this weakness jolts the world: God chose the
foolish ones in the world to shame the wise, and what is weak to
shame the strong, and what is the low down in the world, the ones
who ‘are not’ (ta me onta), to shame the men of ousia, men of sub-
stance, the powers that be. The ‘weakness of God,’ Paul says, is stron-
ger than human strength (I Cor. 1:25).48)

Furthermore, for Caputo, Jesus on the Cross is the most crucial ex-
ample of “the weakness of God.” Jesus was humiliated, tortured, and

47) Ibid., 61.

48) Ibid., 62.
286 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

killed on the Cross because he freely chose not to practice his divine
power. Instead Jesus chose powerlessness and forgiveness.49)
Likewise, the kingdom of God in the New Testament is full of mes-
sianic and paradoxical events. Those events show that God is “the
power of powerlessness or of something ‘unconditional without sov-
ereignty,’ of a ‘weak force.’” Caputo insists, “The majesty or glory of
the name of God does not lie in the power of a strong force but in
something ‘unconditional,’ undeconstructible, but without an army,
without actual force real or physical power.”50) We can find that the
stories of the kingdom of God on which Caputo concentrates are situ-
ated in the eschatological context. Thus, Caputo understands God in
terms not of an ontotheological and metaphysical paradigm, but in a
messianic strategy of deconstruction under the influence of Derrida’s
philosophy.

IV. Critical Reflections

As this paper has reviewed Radical Orthodoxy and Caputo’s weak

theology in terms of their key concepts and methods, the two differ-
ent theologies show us there is variety in postmodern theological
discourse. These two theologies are allied in pursuing the decon-
struction of the modern paradigm of theology and in reformulating
theology for a postmodern context. However, they are different in

49) Ibid., 62-63.

50) Ibid., 64.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 287

many aspects. First, their interpretations of the postmodern age differ

significantly. Radical Orthodoxy finds the problems of modernity in
secularism, which has lost the harmonious values and views of the
premodern age. Postmodern nihilism is then seen as an extension of
modernity and modern secularism. For Radical Orthodoxy, Derrida is
a nihilist.
In contrast, and using Derrida’s analysis, Caputo questions all of
metaphysics and ontotheology in the intellectual history of the West.
Caputo thinks that premodern thinkers such as Augustine and
Aquinas also need to be deconstructed, because they too were under
the influence of ontotheological metaphysics. For Caputo, Derrida is
not a nihilist but a prophet who helps deconstruct ontotheological el-
ements in traditional theology and who evokes the real God beyond
the god contaminated by metaphysical concepts.
These two postmodern theological camps are also distinctive in
their goals and directions. While Radical Orthodoxy goes back to pre -
modern sources, Caputo’s weak theology is always open to the
future. For Radical Orthodoxy, God has fully revealed himself in his-
tory, especially in premodern times, even if the revelation has not
fully unfolded. For Caputo, the coming of God has not yet arrived.
I will now offer some reflections on these two theological move-
ments individually. First, Radical Orthodoxy makes a significant con-
tribution to postmodern theological discourse when it reevaluates and
re-appropriates Christian traditions in light of the postmodern
context. It particularly makes Augustine and Aquinas alive again in
288 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

the contemporary world. Moreover, Radical Orthodoxy shows that

Christian traditions and theology can be a possible alternative to this
postmodern age, which is still under the crisis of modernity. This
could be an important contribution to public theology. At the same
time, I have some criticisms of Radical Orthodoxy. First, Radical
Orthodoxy seems to identify modernism with secularism without
careful consideration. Even though modernism and secularism are
closely interrelated, the relationship is so complex that it needs to be
qualified. Many modern thinkers never lose the sense of divinity. For
examples, Rene Descartes founded the certainty of the human mind
and body upon the certain existence of God.51) Kant also points to
the existence of God in the realm of ethics.52) The problem is not a
loss of religiosity, but the separation of the religious from the secular
worlds, and this separation has contributed to modern secularization.
This relates to my second critique: Radical Orthodoxy deals with
secular disciplines too negatively as part of blame modern problems
on secularism. Yet can’t we overcome the problems of modernity
with the help of secular studies? If this is impossible, then we have to
confess that God’s grace is limited only to theological disciplines. This
betrays a basic Christian assumption that God is the Creator of the en-
tire universe. I am curious whether Radical Orthodoxy has the in-
tention to separate secular disciplines from theology, even though it

51) Alan Jean Nelson, A Companion to Rationalism, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy 8

(Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 32.
52) William F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy, 2nd
ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002), 338.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 289

argues that its methodology does not reflect a dualism between the
sacred and the secular.
Finally, while Radical Orthodoxy finds some hopeful visions for
postmodern theology in the premodern traditions, such as those of
Augustine or Aquinas, it seems not to practice similar critiques, which
it directs toward modernity, on the traditional thinkers. Even though
premodern thought and society had many positive aspects and val-
ues, such as the harmony Milbank points to, we should not forget
that modern thought and society emerged out of criticism of and an
attempt to escape from premodernity. We need to acknowledge that
premodern thought and society also had systematic colonization, op-
pression, and prejudices about class, sex, gender, race, and so on.53)
For his part Caputo also makes a constructive contribution to phil-
osophical theology and the philosophy of religion. Caputo does not
simply regard Derrida as an atheist. Rather, Derrida is an atheist for
God. Although Derrida himself rejects any idea that his philosophy
can be identified with negative theology, his philosophy can never-
theless be discussed provisionally in a frame of negative theology,
since Derrida’s philosophy can be seen as a method to inhibit efforts
to idolize metaphysical concepts of God. Moreover, according to
Caputo’s interpretation, Derrida has Jewish, apocalyptic, and eschato-
logical tendencies. These tendencies seem to give us enough space to

53) Rosemary Radford Ruether and Marion Grau, Interpreting the Postmodern: Responses To
“Radical Orthodoxy” (New York: T&T Clark, 2006). This book provide s varied
critiques of Radical Orthodoxy from liberation, feminist, and postcolonial
theologians.
290 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

compare Derrida’s philosophy and Caputo’s theology to eschato-

logical theologies such as those of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart
Pannenberg.54)
I want to ask two questions of Caputo. First, is it possible for reli-
gion to exist without concretely religious behavior and embodied par-
ticipation? Even though an institutionalized religion can and should
be deconstructed in light of the impossible future, we cannot experi-
ence and touch God (or God’s coming) without religious practices
such as prayer, reading scripture, liturgy, and sacrament, as Radical
orthodoxy emphasizes. Second, when Caputo illustrates the event of
the Cross as the most significant example of the weakness of God,
this seems to fit well with the description of the human nature of
Christ. But how can weak theology explain the divinity of Christ?
How can it explain the relationship between God and the world in
terms of the Incarnation? If God incarnates in this world, we need to
acknowledge that God’s coming is already achieved through the in-
carnation, in spite of the fact that it is not complete and consummated.
This goes against Derrida’s conviction that the impossible has not yet
arrived.

54) Michael J. Scanlon, “A Deconstruction of Religion: On Derrida and Rahner,” in God,

the Gift, and Postmodernism, ed. John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon (Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press, 1999), 227. Michael J. Scanlon attempts an interesting
comparison between Derrida and Karl Rahner in terms of their eschatological,
prophetic, and apocalyptic forms. He writes, “It is this apocalyptic (or ‘impossible’)
future that Derrida and Rahner both embrace, Derrida in the name of
Deconstruction, Rahner in the name of Christian hope. For Rahner, God is the
‘Absolute Future,’ and Derrida’s desertified religion requires the same impossible
future.”
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 291

V. Applying Postmodern Theology to Campus

Ministry

As noted above, responses of theology to postmodern conditions

vary widely. Radical Orthodoxy deliberates on how to recover the
value of traditional Christianity, especially from premodern times,
while it criticizes the secularism and nihilism of the postmodern age.
In contrast, Caputo’s weak theology attempts to suggest a religiosity
fit for the postmodern age through a positive reception of the decon-
structive strategy of postmodern philosophy, although he wants to
avoid falling into nihilism or relativism.
How might these postmodern theologies be applied to a campus
ministry? It is evident that a specific theological position cannot de-
termine the whole framework of Christian mission, or the whole con-
tent of Christian education. In addition, postmodern theologies are
greatly varied because of the pluralism of postmodernity. I have re-
viewed just two of them, and the task of reconstructing Christian
truths and values and applying the results to the context of the uni-
versity and college would be a long term and systematic project. Even
though we have to postpone this project as a future task, I shall at-
tempt to present here some ideas how one might apply some part of
these two theologies to campus ministry.
Firstly, Radical Orthodoxy shows that even in the postmodern age,
there is a possibility for reviving Christianity, which young people
now increasingly consider to be outdated and unappealing. This the-
292 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

ology also reminds us that it is necessary to make some effort to seek

Christian traditions, which could be compatible with postmodern sen-
sitivities, from the long history of Christianity. In particular, the partic-
ipatory ontology of Radical Orthodoxy might be in harmony with
contemporary values such as participation and communication.
Christianity’s traditional rituals, such as Holy Communion, never leave
worshippers as a passive audience, for example. In this respect, a
chaplain might provide newness to participants in a chapel if he/she
sometimes practices a traditional ritual such as Communion or at-
tempts to represent the worship of biblical or medieval times. Such
symbols and participation might appeal to the postmodern
generation. For this task, a chaplain might invite clergy from other
denominations, such as Lutheran or Episcopal churches, which have
retained traditional forms of liturgy and ask them to represent tradi-
tional worship in the campus chapel.
Secondly, we can learn from deconstructive strategies what
Caputo’s weak theology is attempting to deconstruct. The object of
deconstruction is neither Christian faith nor God. Rather, what needs
to be deconstructed is metaphysics and the ideologies that enclose
our faith and prevent us from encountering the real God. These con-
crete ideologies include the following: essentialism, androcentrism,
white supremacy, anthropocentrism, and so on. It can be said that
these have dominated not only the West, but also Korean society, as
influenced by modernity. The Christian message and values that will
be delivered to the postmodern generation should be transmitted af-
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 293

ter cracking the shells of those ideologies. For example, one may be
cautious when teaching the Old Testament in a class such as
Introduction to Christianity, because the historical background of the
Old Testament assumes a patriarchal society. When an instructor
teaches about a Bible character living in polygamy, such as Abraham
or Jacob, he or she wants to lead students not to think that the main
message of the Bible supports patriarchy. Instead, when an instructor
shows that the core teaching flowing through the Bible upholds post-
modern values, such as equality, human rights, human emancipation,
protection of the weak, respect of life, and so on, the Christian mes-
sage and its values can be approached and internalized by the post-
modern generation.
Thirdly, both Radical Orthodoxy and weak theology talk about a
new religiosity and transcendence in the postmodern age. Radical
Orthodoxy’s criticism of postmodern phenomena such as seculariza-
tion and “dereligionization” could be useful in a campus ministry. A
chaplain might discuss with students the disordered worldview and
ethics that can originate from secularization, nihilism, and relativism.
For its part, in the abjection of the Cross, Caputo’s weak theology
presents students with a model of God compatible with the post-
modern age. Wholly humble, Jesus is a God who loves the weak as
much as he sacrifices his life for them. Likewise, even though Jesus
seems to be the weakest human, in Jesus one can find a God who is
stronger than any other power.
Therefore, religiosity and transcendence, which is newly in-
294 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

terpreted for the postmodern age, can provide a gospel of hope and
comfort for young people as the postmodern generation suffers under
pressures of competence and power on many levels.
I believe that this review can help us discern the distinctiveness
and characteristics of both of these postmodern theologies, even as
they seem to cooperate with each other in deconstructing the modern
world and contextualizing theology for the postmodern world. I also
expect that other postmodern theologies can similarly be reviewed
and applied to the context of campus ministry.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 295

Bibliography

김영한. “포스트모던 시대의 기독교대학.” 󰡔대학과 선교󰡕 4 (2002), 100-121.

Caputo, John D. Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction, and the Hermeneutic
Project. Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 1987.
　　　. The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion. The Indiana
Series in the Philosophy of Religion. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,
1997.
　　　. “Apostles of the Impossible.” In God, the Gift, and Postmodernism, ed. John D.
Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999.
　　　. More Radical Hermeneutics: On Not Knowing Who We Are. Studies in Continental
Thought. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000.
　　　. “The Poetics of the Impossible and the Kingdom of God.” In The Blackwell
Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. Graham Ward. Oxford, UK; Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
Caputo, John D., and Gianni Vattimo. After the Death of God. Insurrections, ed. Jeffrey W.
Robbins. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
Hanby, Michael. “Desire: Augustine Beyond Western Subjectivity.” In Radical Orthodoxy: A
New Theology, ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward. London;
New York: Routledge, 1999.
Lawhead, William F. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy.
2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002.
Long, D. Stephen. “Radical Orthodoxy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern
Theology, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
Milbank, John. The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language, Culture. Oxford, UK;
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.
———. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK;
296 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006.

　　　. “Postmodern Critical Augustinianism: A Short Summa in Forty-Two Responses to
Unasked Questions.” In The Radical Orthodoxy Reader, ed. Simon Oliver and
John Milbank. London; New York: Routledge, 2009.
Milbank, John, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward. Radical Orthodoxy: A New
Theology. London; New York: Routledge, 1999.
Moss, David. “Friendship: St Anselm, Theoria and the Convolution.” In Radical Orthodoxy:
A New Theology, ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward.
London; New York: Routledge, 1999.
Nelson, Alan Jean. A Companion to Rationalism. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy 8.
Malden, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2005.
Oliver, Simon. “Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: From Participation to Late Modernity.” In
The Radical Orthodoxy Reader, ed. Simon Oliver and John Milbank. London; New
York: Routledge, 2009.
Pickstock, Catherine. “Music: Soul, City and Cosmos after Augustine.” In Radical
Orthodoxy: A New Theology, ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham
Ward. London; New York: Routledge, 1999.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford, and Marion Grau. Interpreting the Postmodern: Responses To
“Radical Orthodoxy.” New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
Scanlon, Michael J. “A Deconstruction of Religion: On Derrida and Rahner.” In God, the
Gift, and Postmodernism, ed. John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon,.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Smith, James K. A. Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.
Ward, Graham. Cities of God. London; New York: Routledge, 2000.
　　　. “Deconstructive Theology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern
Theology, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
 A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s Weak Theology for
a Postmodern Generation | 이성호 297

【 ABSTRACT 】

A Critical Review of Radical Orthodoxy and John Caputo’s

Weak Theology for a Postmodern Generation

Sungho LEE(Visiting Professor, Chaplain, Myongji College)

Christian universities and colleges have the challenging task of educating

the postmodern generation in Christian values. In support of that task, this
article critically reviews Radical Orthodoxy and John D. Caputo’s weak theol-
ogy and applies them to the context of Christian campus ministry. On the
one hand, radical Orthodoxy argues for a post-secularity characterized by partic-
ipatory ontology and retrieval of the Christian tradition as an alternative to
secular modernism and nihilistic postmodernism. On the other hand, weak
theology is grounded on radical hermeneutics which accepts deconstructive strat-
egies from postmodern philosophy. In this method, weak theology discusses
the possibility of religion without ideologies and argues that the weakness of God
is paradoxically stronger than any other power. This paradox occurs through
the Cross event. Both positions have weak points. Radical Orthodoxy vague-
ly distinguishes secularism from modernism and has an excessively romantic
view of premodern times. Weak theology does not provide a clear answer to
the possibility of having religious experiences without religious rituals or the
deity of Jesus. Nevertheless, these two postmodern theologies can be ap-
plied to campus ministry in the following ways: through students’ experi-
ences of traditional worship, introductory classes of Christianity from a post-
modern perspective, and through a presentation of the new religiosity and
transcendence of the postmodern age.
298 ｢대학과 선교｣ 제35집(2017)

Key Words: Postmodern Theology, Radical Orthodoxy, Post-Secularity, Weak

Theology, Radical Hermeneutics, Campus Ministry

논문접수일: 2017. 10. 27. 논문심사일: 2017. 11. 24. 게재확정일: 2017. 12. 12.