The name ‘radical orthodoxy’ was chosen in opposition to certain strands of so-called radical theology, for example those of Bishop John Shelby Spong. Such forms of radical theology asserted a highly liberal version of Christian faith where certain doctrines, for example, the incarnation of God in Christ and the Trinity were denied in an attempt to respond to modernity. In contrast to this, radical orthodoxy attempted to show how, in fact, the orthodox interpretation of Christian faith (as given primarily in the ecumenical creeds) was in fact the more radical response to contemporary issues, both rigorous and intellectually sustainable.

Hey guys. I would totally agree on Rob’s indictment of the pharmaceutical co’s. And also on the existential bit. My personal experience(s) was chemically related, but that was certainly not the only thing happening there; it was an intricate web of so many things psychological, social, physiological, and definitely spiritual. In a funny way, it was a beautiful thing that happened to me.

But I feel like what you’re saying Anna is perfectly the point; when we consider “abnormal psychology” isn’t that a way of bracketing or labeling something deeply profound happening in someone? I think of Jesus’ encounters with the tormented, oppressed, possessed. He didn’t just write them off as “crazy.”

That’s why Balthasar hit such a nerve w/ me; he’s just challenging us young scholars to tap into the theological riches out there for contemporary implications; I haven’t thought deeply yet about what the passion incarnated in us who suffer psychologically means… but that’s a dissertation right there that I’m guessing very few have tackled yet.

If we take Balth’s approach, Patristic theo is applicable to a host of contemporary issues – stuff I think about like affirmative action, or psychological disorder, or the dark night of the soul, or race relations, or hierarchical ecclesiology, or missional church, ad nauseum.