argues that RO uses theology to mean theology^1. See Smith, Introducing
Radical Orthodoxy , 177–179.- Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy , 96–99.
- Thomas Williams offers a contrary position that univocity is true and that
equivocation or analogy leads to unintelligibility and apophaticism. See
Thomas Williams, “The Doctrine of Univocity Is True and Salutary,”
Modern Theology 21, no. 4 (2005): 575–585. - John Milbank, “‘Postmodern Critical Augustinianism’: a Short Summa in
Forty Two Responses to Unasked Questions,” Modern Theology 7, no. 3
(1991): 225. - Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, 144–147. Like Smith, Roy Clouser
offers a Dooyeweerdian account of fundamental religious commitments.
See Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the
Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2005), 17–41. - Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy , 143. This is also a Heideggerian
methodology, which inverses the priority of epistemology with the funda-
mental priority of ontology. See Charles B. Guignon, Heidegger and the
Problem of Knowledge (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983). - Milbank, Ward, and Pickstock, “Introduction: Suspending the Material,”
3. - This is not to assert that everything is holy. The sense in which the term
“sacred” is utilized is to link its originality in the transcendent. - However, participatory ontology need not be a Platonic ontology. Smith
provides a valuable corrective to RO participatory ontology with the bibli-
cal doctrines of creation, incarnation, and the resurrection that truly affi rm
the goodness of embodiment. Without these Christian elements, argues
Smith, a Platonic participatory ontology cannot sustain, at end, the affi r-
mation of embodiment. Moreover, he argues that RO’s “new” Plato can-
not be sustained by the wider Platonic corpus that ultimately sees the body
as a temporal entity that plays, at best, a positive but ultimately remedial
role. See James K.A. Smith, “Will the Real Plato Please Stand Up?
Participation Versus Incarnation,” in Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed
Tradition: Creation, Covenant, and Participation , ed. James K.A. Smith
and James H. Olthuis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 61–72.
Also, see Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy , 197–204. - James Κ.A. Smith, “What Hath Cambridge To Do With Azusa Street?:
Radical Orthodoxy and Pentescostal Theology in Conversation,” Pneuma
25:1 (2003): 97–114. Smith’s RO projects with Reformed theology and
Pentecostalism point to the ecumenical nature of RO as a sensibility. - Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom
(Cleveland: CPT Press, 2010). Specifi cally, orthopathos is the integral
138 Y. SHIN