John Milbank: "Christianity will only recover if it seeks to rethink everything in a newly Christian way..."

John Milbank - Professor of Religion, Politics and Ethics at the University of Nottingham; Director of Center for Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham, Great Britain. John.Milbank@nottingham.ac.uk

In an interview given to our edition British theologian and philosopher John Milbank, one of the founders and leaders of inter confessional Christian intellectual movement "Radical Orthodoxy", tells about his intellectual formation, authors that influenced his thinking, as well as about his basic ideas and their connections to the Russian religious thought. He covers questions of contemporary correlations between religious and secular as well as about the place of theology and Christian apologetics in current postsecular situation. John Milbank also mentions that currently he is working on further elaboration of his ideas expounded in his work "Theology and Social Theory" (lggo). The first volume "Beyond Secular Order", which is the result of this evolution, is planned for the end of 2013; he is currently writing the second volume, which will be called "The Representation of Being and the Representation of the People".

Keywords: Christianity, secularity, radical orthodoxy, postmodernism, theology, Russian thought, Orthodoxy.

Where did you get your education and what church do you belong to?

page 285
The (now defunct) direct subsidy school is an educational institution that was funded from the private and state budget, where I was able to become a scholarship holder. After this school, I studied " modern history "(i.e., after the fall of the Roman Empire) at the University of Oxford, at Queen's College. This experience was not particularly interesting for me, until in the third year I was instilled a love of history by more diligent students, graduates without five minutes. After a short break, I studied for three years as an Anglican priest at Westcott House, Cambridge, but finally decided that I would remain a lay theologian. Since then, I have devoted my entire life to the truth of authentic Christianity. It wasn't long before I was working on my PhD in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, even though I lived in London with my wife and worked daily at the British Library, at a desk just to the left of where Karl Marx used to study. My dissertation was devoted to the thought of the eighteenth-century Neapolitan philosopher Giambattista Vico.

Why did you decide to become a professional theologian?

I think I've already answered that question. I believe that Christianity is the truth, and since I have an academic mindset, I cannot ignore what I consider to be a fundamentally true position. I think that the question of the truth of Christianity has been ignored for too long and that it cannot survive without defending this truth.

Who has influenced and still influences your theology and philosophy? Who is your favorite theologian or philosopher? What books do you read for personal inspiration and professional growth?

Looking back, I think I had a few inspirations. As a child in Gloucestershire, I was fascinated by the idea that everything has a past, the idea of myth, Plato's "ideas" (which I happened to hear about), and the Gospel of John, especially its first verses. Later, I fell in love with the works of Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams and Owen Barfield. I felt, and I don't doubt it now, that they had found out

page 286
new aspects of Christianity, a new way to restore its charm. I was also very impressed by the works of William Blake, which my father was interested in. For a long time, I could not reconcile Blake's radicalism with the conservatism of the Inklings, although now I think it is quite possible. In the late 1960s and 1970s, there was a period in my life when I was passionate about pantheism, syncretism, and esotericism. (By the way, I now think, contrary to popular belief, that esotericism has a lot to do with orthodoxy.) It wasn't until my second year at Westcott House that I became more orthodox in my views. This happened as a result of several events. First, after meeting my future wife, Alison Legg, who was an Anglo-Catholic, and second, influenced by my teacher Rowan Williams, as well as reading Gadamer (surprisingly) and von Balthazar. I have always tried to understand why natural theology needs revelation. Now I see that the third term is history, that truth is revealed in time as an event, and that history is the intermediary between nature and grace. Since it was this idea that led me to "conversion," I cannot help but view the neoscholastic two-level theory of nature and grace as a kind of heresy. For the same reason, Russian thought later became very close to me. Rowan Williams and the then rector of Westcott House, Mark Santer (now a retired bishop), encouraged me to read the patristic corpus, after which I took up Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Cusa. These authors, as well as Eriugena and Eckhart, are still very important to me. Even then, I liked Coleridge and other English metaphysical and romantic poets up to Hopkins, in addition to such Christian modernists as Eliot, Auden, and David Jones. I started writing more and more poetry myself. At the same time, my love for nouvelle theologie began - Henri de Lubac became one of my favorite contemporary theologians, along with Sergius Bulgakov. I also got acquainted with German pre-Romanticism and Romanticism: Jacobi, Hamann, Novalis, Schlegel, Helderlin, etc. After a while, Kierkegaard became central to me - but only in my own and Katherine Pickstock's reading! And no one else's! When I was young, I was strongly influenced by Dostoevsky - but only by The Idiot and The Brothers Karamazov. I find his other novels a bit boring compared to these two, but these two are really awesome, and I think

page 287
"Idiot" is usually misread. I would also like to say that my favorite novel is The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov.

Since today your books have not yet been published in Russian and all we have is just a few articles, part of a book, and a couple of interviews, can you tell us how the ideas of radical orthodoxy can be useful to Russian and Ukrainian theologians and philosophers?

I think that, like Russian thinkers, we, representatives of radical Orthodoxy, are trying to understand theology and philosophy as a single whole. We also love sophiology. Our characteristic combination of Christianity, Neo-Platonism and Romanticism is certainly in tune with the traditions of Russian thought. I personally love a lot about Russian literature, worship, art, and cinema. There has always been a certain affinity between Eastern Orthodoxy and the" high church " in Anglicanism. I think Russians will also like that radical Orthodoxists warn about the dangers of nihilism and believe that outside of Christianity, or at least outside of a religious metaphysical perspective, humanism cannot be defended in the face of a nihilistic worldview. We consistently work with the new nihilism that is postmodernism, without discounting it, and try to find arguments against it, while at the same time learning something from it.

What ideas of radical orthodoxy are important for the post-Soviet context?

I would name the following. Restoring the central meaning of the idea of" participation " in the Platonic sense. A new "reenchantment" of the world - as opposed to those who think that Christianity is on the side of those who welcome its "disenchantment". The argument that the prospect of "involvement" allows for postmodern uncertainty and at the same time does not allow for a slide into skepticism. Understanding that transcendence is needed to protect the value of matter in its sacramental aspect. As well as the emphasis on the fact that it is impossible to separate Christianity and the Christian world (Christendom),

page 288
because the incarnational perspective requires truth to be mediated both culturally and politically.

Many people still disagree that we have entered the so-called post-secular era. What arguments could you give in response?

Today, secularism has taken on extreme forms, but the same must be said for religious resistance. Secular ideologies have collapsed, and now the only thing that secularism is based on is atheism. All it has to offer is scientific "objectivity" in the sense of technological control, plus absolute and completely arbitrary freedom of choice. He does not know how to reconcile these two accents, and therefore conspires with the devil, acting as a cult of power. The result is a philosophy of liberalism that destroys the division between "left" and "right", so that everyone believes in a free market, that they have the right to welfare (and the subject of this right is depersonalized), and in absolute freedom to choose and do what they like, as long as (presumably) it doesn't harm the other person. Today, the only real opposition to this is made up of religious people who believe in reciprocity, in objective virtue, in the existence of a sure path to human prosperity, and in economic justice based on a fair distribution of basic goods. Thus, the struggle between atheism and religion becomes a concrete political battle, which concerns not only religious freedom, but is fundamentally connected with the difference between the political and economic agenda. The struggle today is between secular liberalism and religious or quasi-religious radicalism, which is in some ways conservative. This is particularly evident in the UK, but also in France.

What, in your opinion, is the main task of Christian theology and Christian apologetics today?

Today's challenge is to forget everything you've been told about being able to adapt to modern thought and secular culture. On the contrary, Christianity will only be reborn-

page 289
only if he tries to rethink everything in a Christian way: nature, natural sciences, social sciences, art, that is, everything. And also to act in a new way, it's not just about returning to the inspiration that took place in the past. We must continue to do this, but at the same time ask ourselves why tradition allowed the negative things that happened to happen to happen. That is why I am currently reading alongside Christopher Dawson (an English Catholic historian) and Ivan Ilic (a Catholic philosopher born in Croatia).

Could you open the curtain and tell us what book you're currently working on?

I have just finished the first volume of the continuation of Theology and Social Theory. This sequel will consist of two volumes under the general title "Beyond Secular Order". The first book will be published at the end of this year and will be called "The Representation of Being and the Representation of the People". I am now starting to write my second book, On Divine Government, which will focus on metaphysics, providence, history, and politics. This is something I'll be working on in the coming months. I refer a lot to George Agamben, sometimes agreeing with him, sometimes getting into an argument. He is a very gifted thinker.

Interviewed by Anatoly Denisenko

page 290

Permanent link to this publication: