Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypot20
Download by: [154.16.58.132] Date: 29 November 2017, At: 19:49
Political Theology
ISSN: 1462-317X (Print) 1743-1719 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypot20
The Realization of Harmony in a Broken World:
Reconsidering the Role of Ethics in Milbank's
Ontology of Peace
Christiane Alpers
To cite this article: Christiane Alpers (2017) The Realization of Harmony in a Broken World:
Reconsidering the Role of Ethics in Milbank's Ontology of Peace, Political Theology, 18:8, 643-659,
DOI: 10.1080/1462317X.2017.1312142
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1462317X.2017.1312142
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 10 Apr 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 197
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The Realization of Harmony in a Broken
World: Reconsidering the Role of Ethics
in Milbank’s Ontology of Peace
Christiane Alpers
Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Studies, Radboud University,
Nijmegen, Netherlands
Milbank’s Christian ontology of peace indicates a way out of the contemporary
crisis of Western democracies. Milbank argues that politics should have a posi-
tive and communitarian goal, and that contemporary liberalism fails insofar as
it is preoccupied with the limitation of evil, and insofar as it presupposes a fun-
damentally egoistic anthropology. Milbank’s alternative harmonizing vision of
reality and humankind has been criticized for preempting all too quickly a
harmony which has not yet been realized, and for thereby undermining the
crucial role of reactive ethical laws and human work for the realization of
true harmony in a world marred by a tragic dimension. Contrary to this criti-
cism, this article advances the claim that Milbank pays too little attention to
the ways in which real harmony is already being realized in the world, which
is why he presents his ontology as an ideal toward which an entire society
should work, under the guidance of ethical laws. A reading of Schillebeeckx’s
more positive reception of liberalism will serve to illustrate the political conse-
quences of a position that focuses more on the already realized harmony in
this world than on an ideal harmony.
KEYWORDS
radical orthodoxy, ontology, reactive ethics, politics, Schillebeeckx
1. Introduction
The contemporary rise of populist parties in the US as well as in many European
countries could indicate a crisis of the democratic systems in these states. People
might have lost a sense of what politics is for, and professional politicians might
have failed to offer political visions amongst which the most preferable could be
elected. In this climate, John Milbank’s theology might be celebrated as a
welcome gift. He most certainly offers us a political vision, which as a whole has
political theology, Vol. 18 No. 8, December 2017, 643–659
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, dis-
tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed,
or built upon in any way. DOI 10.1080/1462317X.2017.1312142
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
invited both critique and appraisal over the last 27 years of its emergence and devel-
opment. This article’s presentation of Milbank’s political theology as an answer to
the contemporary crisis of democracy will help to challenge some common misread-
ings of Milbank’s thought, which by one-sidedly focusing on Milbank’s (admittedly,
at times, problematic) Christian triumphalism, overlook his aim of contributing con-
structively to the whole of society’s advancement in the common good. In short, I
present Milbank’s theology as an answer to the contemporary democratic crisis,
inasmuch as he criticizes the liberal political order for failing to call on people to con-
tribute actively to democratic discussions about a common goal toward which the
whole of society could strive, with the effect that such discussions are ever more
absent from the political forum. With his ontology of peace, Milbank then reconcep-
tualizes the goal of politics as such, in order to offer a vision that allows people to be
actively involved in their society’s discussions about, and active realization of, the
common good.
1
In this article, I will mainly focus on Milbank’s contention that con-
temporary liberal politics
2
are directed against the limitation of damage, and that
such politics should be replaced by a politics that is oriented toward a society’s
growth in the truly good. According to Milbank, there exists an intrinsic link
between political liberalism and people’s unconsidered following of mainstream
trends, mass opinion, and propaganda, insofar as liberalism defines freedom
purely negatively as “unfettered choice”without any intrinsic connection to a sub-
stantial good.
3
As such, Milbank blames liberalism for its “erosion of democracy.”
4
My argument proceeds by first explaining Milbank’s claim that liberal ethics are
at odds with a Christian ontology that affirms goodness as sole origin and end of all
Being. He presents liberal ethics as arbitrarily assuming a fundamental antagonism
amongst all beings, and as therefore inhibiting a society’s real growth in goodness. It
will be explained how Milbank presents his ontology of peace as allowing for a posi-
tive orientation of politics instead of the currently prevalent reactionary model.
Second, I will introduce the objection that Milbank preempts a harmony which
has not yet been realized in this world, and thus undervalues the crucial role of
ethics and work for the attainment of the political goal of true harmony. An appro-
priate acknowledgement of some tragic dimension of the present world has been
found lacking in Milbank’s account by both Vincent Llyod and Rowan Williams.
Milbank presumably all too easily assumes that due to the ontological harmony
that is granted by God, people no longer have to work for this harmony to be
mediated in this world. Such work would necessitate the existence of ethical laws,
that is, of modes of liberal reactionary ethics, that channel people’s work toward
the harmony which has been promised to them (in and through the resurrection
of Christ). Contrary to these critiques, I will contend that far from underestimating
the role of human work under the guidance of some law for a peaceful society,
Milbank presents his own ontology as a new ethical ideal. His vehement reaction
1
Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue, 18.
2
Milbank repeatedly criticizes liberalism in the political, cultural, and economic sense of the word (Milbank and Pabst,
The Politics of Virtue,1–8), and argues that the cultural liberalism of the Left and the economic liberalism of the Right
are mutually re-enforcing each other (15). This article mainly focuses on Milbank’s deliberations about political
liberalism.
3
Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue,15–7.
4
Ibid., 55, 58.
644 CHRISTIANE ALPERS
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
against liberal ethics reveals that he interprets the contemporary situation as primar-
ily tragic, which is why he offers his ontology as imaginative ideal toward which a
society should work. Hence, far from underestimating the role of human work and
reactionary laws for the emergence of a peaceful society, Milbank, in reaction to the
liberal social order, expends a whole lifetime of work in order to advocate his ontol-
ogy as framework within which ever more harmony can be realized.
My own response builds on the thought of Edward Schillebeeckx who, as will
become apparent in the course of this article, argues from a perspective that
resembles Milbank’s ontology of peace. Nonetheless, he evaluates liberal ethics
much more positively. In the third part of this article, I reverse the criticism that
Milbank mistakenly preempts a harmony, which is yet to be realized by work
under the guidance of ethical laws. I argue that, whereas Milbank interprets
liberal ethics as a tragic threat that needs to be overcome through the guidance
of his ontology of peace, Schillebeeckx seeks to understand how liberal ethics
also mediate the harmonious reality, in whichChristiansareallowedtotrust.
Schillebeeckx’s contribution to contemporary debates in political theology is to
remind theologians that, even if the fulfillment of all merely initially, and
perhaps ambiguously, realized harmony still awaits us at the eschaton, the Chris-
tian work toward this eschatological completion must begin with discerning how
one’s surrounding society’s politics already participate in this harmony, not by
interpreting this politics as a threat against which Christian theology would
have to react. Finally, I rebut Milbank’s criticism that liberal ethics pose an obstacle
to growth in the truly good. Following Schillebeeckx, I argue that a society’s
growth in the truly good must be constantly reoriented toward the way in which
the ontological reality of harmony is concretely realized in one’s surrounding
society, including, in the case of Western societies, liberal ethics. Altogether, this
article complements the criticisms by Lloyd and Williams, arguing that Milbank
might not as much underestimate the role of work and law for the attainment of
peace as he might underestimate the importance of recognizing and celebrating
the peace that has already been attained.
2. The goal of politics: excessive growth in the truly good or
resistance against evil?
John Milbank claims that the ontological assumptions underlying liberal ethics fun-
damentally differ from those underlying Christian theological ethics. Liberal ethics
assume that all beings are at least indifferently, if not even antagonistically, posed
one against the other.
5
Liberalism is based on the “disguised naturalization of
original sin as original egotism.”
6
This means that human beings are presented as
potentially dangerous on the one hand and as fundamentally deserving protection
on the other, as can be seen at the emergence of basic and human rights in
5
This claim can first be found in Milbank’sTheology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, where Milbank argues
that secular political theory arbitrarily constructs its object, namely the secular political sphere, as “a field of pure
power”(9–13).
6
Milbank, “Liberality Versus Liberalism,”244; see also Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue,21–2, 45–6.
THE REALIZATION OF HARMONY IN A BROKEN WORLD 645
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
the Enlightenment era.
7
Liberalism thus depends on, and promotes, an understand-
ing of the human as most fundamentally an isolated individual, which then becomes
the “site of highest value.”
8
Milbank denies the assumed neutrality of this under-
standing of reality, and understands it instead as one culturally conditioned and con-
tingent ontological conjecture amongst others. Even more, Milbank interprets the
most fundamental aspects of liberal ethics as “clearly post-Christian,”which is
why he crafts an ethics that remains fully within the Christian tradition, as he under-
stands it.
9
The latter demands that humans, as well as any other beings, are thought
of as mutually complementary and as most fundamentally harmonizing with each
other.
10
According to such an ontological vision, different human beings are not
understood as competing about incommensurable individual well-beings, where
the greater well-being of one would endanger the greater well-being of others.
Instead, Milbank employs the image of the eschatological feast, for his Christian
understanding of a truly communitarian happiness, in which an individual’s happi-
ness increases the happiness of all and vice versa.
11
These two different ethics are not only different with regards to their ontological
beliefs, but they result in different orientations of a society’s politics. Liberal ethics
are directed toward the elimination of all evil. They are reactionary in the sense
that they seek to diminish the fundamental antagonism amongst all beings.
However, since this antagonism is believed to be ontological, it can only be
limited, never be cured or overcome.
12
From the perspective of Milbank’s Christian
ontology, that affirms the priority of harmony and goodness, in contrast, there is no
reason for such mistrust toward one’s fellow human beings, and no grounds for such
pessimism regarding the ultimate futility of all attempts at overcoming evil defi-
nitely.
13
Starting from the belief of an ontological harmony amongst all beings,
any Christian ethics should begin with an “absolute surrender”
14
a“total
7
Milbank, “Liberality Versus Liberalism,”243–4; Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 4; Milbank, “The Poverty of
Niebuhrianism,”236–7; Milbank, “Out of the Greenhouse,”261; Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”126, 132.
8
Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”131. Milbank criticizes secular communism, such as Marxism, for still being pre-
occupied with isolated individuals, instead of understanding individual humans in relation to their communitarian telos
(Milbank, “Liberality Versus Liberalism,”242). Milbank hints at this claim also when he explains that the equality of all
members of the Church concerns their equal admission, by grace, into the community of the Church, rather than any
equal status (Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 407). The truly communitarian telos of the Church is thus the con-
tinuous generation of new relationships (409). This criticism of liberalism’s dependence on and promotion of an under-
standing of humans as competing individuals is further elaborated in Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue. Milbank
(together with Pabst) here seeks to promote the right balance between those who are too pessimistic about the individual
and optimistic about societal structures, and those who are too optimistic about individuals and too pessimistic about
societal structures (26–7). He prefers a combination of genuine independence and cooperation to “the radicalism of mere
collectivity”(45).
9
Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 402. Milbank here counters those who interpret early Christianity as already
foreshadowing modern liberalism (403–4).
10
Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 5; Milbank, “A Christological Poetics,”129; Milbank, “Out of the Green-
house,”261. In, Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue, 37, it is argued that Machiavellian “virtue”should not
be considered as virtuous, as it depends on an antagonistic, rather than a harmonizing anthropology.
11
Milbank, Being Reconciled, 142, 151–3, 155, 161. See also, Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 418,
12
Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”144.
13
Milbank, “Can Morality Be Christian?”219–20; Milbank, Being Reconciled, 150; Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopoli-
tics,”141, 147. Milbank associates this trust in the ontological priority of goodness and harmony with the Ressurection
(125, 140, 147, 149; Milbank, Being Reconciled, 148, 151–3). He presents Paul’s deviation from a primarily reactive
law as a genuinely Christian ethical revolution (Milbank, Beyond Secular Order, 118).
14
Milbank, Being Reconciled, 154. Milbank, in that chapter, criticizes secular self-sacrificially altruistic ethics for being
wrongly concerned with controlling fortune or grace (142).
646 CHRISTIANE ALPERS
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
exposure”
15
to the ways in which this harmony is mediated in the world, that is, to
grace.
16
Milbank is careful to highlight that his trust in the ontological priority of grace
and harmony does not naively deny the existence of evil, but he parts ways with lib-
eralism, where liberalism ontologizes evil.
17
Concomitant with the Christian under-
standing of the Fall, Milbank understands evil as only the secondary intrusion into a
primordial harmonious reality.
18
Milbank accuses liberal ethics of perpetuating this
intrusion: they do not overcome evil, but they invent it in and through their reaction,
in order to legitimize themselves.
19
It is posited that humans are fundamentally
antagonistic and therefore posing a risk, which must be attenuated and restricted
by ethics.
20
On the one hand, Milbank accuses such ethics of augmenting, rather
than diminishing evil. By associating politics primarily with the policing of
threats,
21
the liberal order is not geared to diminish evil and violence, but contributes
to the development of ever more refined skills on the part of the evildoers, in order to
circumvent police sanctions.
22
On the other hand, such liberal politics do not encou-
rage people to contribute creatively to positive political goals other than the liberal
fight against evil, because people’s assent to the liberal order is primarily motivated
by fear. Everyone educated in a society in which such a liberal ontology is dominant,
is likely to obey the moral law out of fear of human violence or sanction.
23
Mere
survival is thought of as a good worth protecting by these ethics, and this is likely
to detract from alternative political questions.
24
It is no longer primarily asked
how a society arranges its particular survival in the best manner. Instead, people
are likely to grant unconsciously ever more power over the regulation of their survi-
val to the law and to those who are guarding it. This is, for example, illustrated in the
way in which people grant power to security checks as presumably the best way of
protecting them from terrorism, instead of reflecting about whether such heightened
security really ameliorates the society’s overall well-being.
25
Milbank’s first criticism of liberal ethics thus concerns the concealment of its own
contingency and perspective. These ethics make insufficiently clear that their defi-
nition of evil is related to but one human interpretation of reality, which could be
questioned and which should be offered as a topic of political debate.
26
At
15
Milbank, Being Reconciled, 147.
16
See also Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”149.
17
Milbank, Being Reconciled, 149, 153.
18
Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 416; Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”147; Milbank, “Liberality Versus
Liberalism,”243–4.
19
Milbank, “Can Morality Be Christian?”223–4; Milbank, “Liberality Versus Liberalism,”244. In this vein, Milbank
also criticizes altruism for needing other people’s sorrow and misery for its own existence (Being Reconciled, 144, 149,
154). In this vein, Milbank also argues that liberalism’s dependence on an antagonistic ontology intrinsically promotes
war (Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue,57–8).
20
Milbank, “Can Morality Be Christian?”220.
21
Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue, 31. In the same book, Milbank also refers to a liberal reduction of politics
“to little more than managerial and technocratic bureaucracy”(14).
22
Milbank, “Liberality Versus Liberalism,”244; Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”128–9.
23
Milbank, “Liberality Versus Liberalism,”243.
24
Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”140. In The Politics of Virtue, Milbank and Pabst argue that the liberal rendering
of “the naturally human”as foundational for culture is inherently complacent with the logic of capitalism, and that
capitalism as much produces natural scarcity as it depends on a fundamental belief in it (47–8).
25
For Milbank’s criticism of the USA’s response to 9–11 as primarily an augmentation of the sovereign power of the
nation state, see Milbank, “Sovereignty, Empire, Capital, and Terror,”223–41.
26
Milbank refers to the naturalization of the Hobbesian worldview.
THE REALIZATION OF HARMONY IN A BROKEN WORLD 647
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
present, people might not submit to these liberal ethics because they think of them as
beneficial to a society’s advancement in the truly good, but because they are anxious
about their survival.
27
This fear is, however, not grounded in reality itself, but in
reality as it has been interpreted by the liberal political order, and the latter’s error
is to present itself illegitimately as absolute and objective. Milbank, on the contrary,
doubts liberalism’s basic assumption that humans are naturally posed one against
the other and thus most fundamentally in need of protection from each other.
28
At the same time, Milbank does not only criticize the concealed antagonistic
ontology at the basis of liberal ethics. He also claims that an ethics which is primarily
oriented at reacting against evil could not lead to any real growth in goodness.
29
His
alternative ontology regards only all that which is good as original and ultimately
lasting. The inexhaustibility of the good is pitted against the nothingness of evil.
All that which is good continuously builds into an ever-greater whole, whereas all
evil continuously evaporates into nothing.
30
Every evil is to be overcome “out of
the sources of an ontological good prior to evil.”
31
Such an ontology would corre-
spond to a politics which is primarily oriented at growth in true goodness. Each new
political project would have to exceed the already realized good. In this way the
whole of reality continuously becomes better. Evil is in the same move, but some-
what secondarily, erased, because it finds no place in the ever growing harmony
of all that which is good.
32
Political discussions would then have to be directed at
how the already realized good can be ameliorated, not at how the persistent evil
must be fought.
3. Critical interventions
At this point, it is important to consider some recent criticisms with regard to Mil-
bank’s supposed underestimation of the role of work under a law for the attainment
of real peace. Vincent Lloyd is generally sympathetic to Milbank’s criticism that
Western liberalism presumes to make neutral claims about reality, which can
never be challenged or changed by any historical occurrence.
33
However, Lloyd dis-
agrees with Milbank at the point at which Milbank assumes that the ontological
harmony of reality would translate into a politics without law.
34
The problem is
that Milbank too easily conflates ontological harmony and concretely realized
harmony in this world.
35
Lloyd here speaks of Milbank’s“mend[ing of] the
27
Milbank, “Can Morality Be Christian?”220; Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”126.
28
Altogether my argument thus far shows that Graeme Smith’s argument is insufficiently nuanced and ultimately unjus-
tified that Milbank would reject liberalism due to his bias for “exclusivist Christianity”(Smith, “You Turn if You Want
to,”231). Quite the contrary, Milbank rejects liberalism because he conceives it as politically disadvantageous for the
entire society. Milbank’s positive openness to the prospect of a truly pluralist society is evidenced when he argues
that Christian metaphysics should be employed to “provide us with a certain area of common vision and practice,
[…], while at the same time respecting social and cultural spaces for exercised difference”(Milbank, “Sovereignty,
Empire, Capital, and Terror,”240).
29
Milbank, “Can Morality Be Christian?”223.
30
Milbank, “The Programme of Radical Orthodoxy,”44; Milbank, Being Reconciled,67–9, 74, 149.
31
Milbank, Beyond Secular Order, 119. See also Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 415–6,
32
Milbank, Being Reconciled, 74; Milbank, “Postmodern Critical Augustinianism,”339.
33
Lloyd, “Complex Space or Broken Middle,”232–3. Lloyd more particularly refers to Kant’s transcendental register.
34
Ibid., 234.
35
A similar criticism is voiced by Williams, “Saving Time,”319–20. His criticism is, however, not only directed at Mil-
bank’s political envisioning of the future but also at his historical account of the past.
648 CHRISTIANE ALPERS
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
middle.”
36
Lloyd draws on Gillian Rose who understands the middle between onto-
logical and concrete reality as a space of work.
37
People must work continuously in
order to render the concrete world identical with the real harmonious order.
Lloyd does admit that Milbank might associate ontological harmony less with dif-
ficult work than Rose because Milbank is a Christian whereas Rose is a Jew.
38
This
might explain why Milbank stresses relatively more the “already”and Rose rela-
tively more the “not yet”aspect of real harmony. Since Christians believe that the
eschaton has already arrived in the midst of history, they can legitimately assume
that the ontological harmony, in which they believe, is already realizing itself now.
Nevertheless, Lloyd criticizes Milbank’s harmonization of history overall for antici-
pating too quickly a solution to political problems, and argues that, in a not yet
entirely peaceful world, any such solution would necessitate much more debate.
39
Rowan Williams similarly criticizes Milbank for denying that living in history
means to be shaped also by privation and to partly live at the expense of each
other, because the world is marked by limitations and scarcity.
40
Like Lloyd, Wil-
liams stresses the importance of work and negotiation, in face of some inevitable
contestation, for the realization of harmony: “an authentically contingent world is
one in which you cannot guarantee the compatibility of goods. That’s what it is
to be created.”
41
Both these criticisms suggest that reactive laws are not merely per-
petuating evil’s intrusion into an otherwise harmonious reality, but that they serve a
fundamentally good purpose in a world which has not yet fully realized its harmo-
nious eschatological end.
However, my presentation of Milbank suggests that he does not deny the necessity
of political debates in order to attain a peaceful order, but he offers his ontology as
better overarching framework in which these debates could take place. The debates
should be oriented at real growth in harmony, which means that the contributions of
other parties should not be received as potential threat to one’s own position, but as
potentially expanding that which is already good within one’s own position. In this
sense, the ontological harmony is both given (as overarching framework) and an end
which is yet to be attained through work within this overarching framework.
Milbank explicitly argues that the liberal emphasis on the necessity of a social con-
tract, and people’s negotiation of how their desires and freedoms can best interact,
should not be denied.
42
Yet, the establishment of a perfect social contract should not
be understood as highest ideal of justice, but it should be understood as a means to
the yet more excellent ideal of a justice, which is not constituted through the balan-
cing of individual wills, but which is the reality in which the whole world already
participates.
43
Also, Williams acknowledges that Milbank does not deny the place for ethics
and work altogether in his ontology, but he argues that it is difficult to see how
36
Lloyd, “Complex Space or Broken Middle,”233.
37
Ibid., 234–5.
38
Ibid., 236.
39
Ibid., 239.
40
Williams, “Saving Time,”322. Williams own alternative vision, which like Lloyd’s draws heavily on Gillian Rose is
illustrated in more detail in Williams, “Between Politics and Metaphysics,”53–76.
41
Williams, “Saving Time,”322.
42
Milbank, “Liberality Versus Liberalism,”250.
43
Milbank, Beyond Secular Order, 118–19.
THE REALIZATION OF HARMONY IN A BROKEN WORLD 649
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
Milbank could effectively envision an ethics, whilst denying any tragic dimension
of reality.
44
In what follows I will argue that Milbank, far from denying all tragic
dimensions of reality, does in fact interpret the world through all too tragic a lens.
Milbank’s argument raises precisely the question why he reacts antagonistically
toward liberal ethics, thus presenting them as danger for society’sgrowthin
the truly good. I claim that, Milbank upholds his ontology as political solution
to contemporary ills, because he interprets the present situation of Western
societies primarily as tragic. In the subsequent critical comparison with Edward
Schillebeeckx’s thought it will become apparent that Milbank assumes that the
primordial reality of harmony and goodness must be protected by a truthful
humanly constructed ontology, whereas Schillebeeckx affirms the ontological pri-
ority of harmony and goodness more independently of any human conceptualiz-
ations thereof. My critical examination will begin with an explanation of
Milbank’s understanding of the role of an ontology in this regard.
4. The conceptualization of the ontological priority of harmony
and goodness
Milbank disputes the antagonistic ontology of liberalism as vehemently as he does
because he assumes that people can recognize the goodness of a concrete being
only if this being is seen in the wider context of a harmonizing ontology.
45
From
the perspective of a harmonizing overarching view of reality, the goodness of a
concretely existing being sticks out to such an extent that it surpasses the
already attained harmony amongst all beings.
46
In this way, the entire ontology
must be extended through the recognition of the particular goodness of each con-
cretely existing being. If the concretely existing being was perceived from the per-
spective of an antagonistic ontology, on the contrary, the particular goodness of
this being could not be recognized. For, recognizing goodness means to see how
the particular harmonizes with all other concretely existing beings and how it,
in this way, expands the overall harmony. Moreover, Milbank argues that trust
in the reality of harmony is most reasonable if one can trust that others also
trust this reality.
47
Thus, Milbank promises that the reality of harmony, in
which Christians trust, will be ever more mediated in history the more people
trust in it.
48
As such, Milbank offers his ontological vision as the framework
within which a whole society should work for the further realization of
harmony in a broken world.
A reading of Milbank’s proposal in light of some of Edward Schillebeeckx’s
thought can help to clarify the issue about the role of work and ethics in Milbank’s
ontology. Not unlike Milbank, Schillebeeckx presupposes the ontological priority of
goodness and harmony and the ultimate nothingness of evil.
49
He does not always
44
Williams, “Saving Time,”321, 324.
45
Milbank, “A Christological Poetics,”129; Milbank, “Out of the Greenhouse,”261; Milbank, Theology and Social
Theory, 418.
46
Milbank, Beyond Secular Order,19–50; Milbank, Being Reconciled, 71; Milbank, The Word Made Strange, 157.
47
Milbank, “Paul Versus Biopolitics,”147.
48
Ibid., 151.
650 CHRISTIANE ALPERS
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
express this conviction in metaphysical terms, but such a metaphysical outlook is
entirely consistent with Schillebeeckx’s contention that Christianity is primarily
about Christ’s proclamation of the dawn of salvation, and not primarily about
God’sjudgmentofanevilworld.
50
When interpreting Jesus’life as primarily oriented
to the positive goal of salvation, and as directed against evil only within this overall
positive outlook, Schillebeeckx is in agreement with Milbank’s argument that a predo-
minantly reactive ethics breaks with the example set by Christ, which should be deter-
minative for any Christian ethics.
51
In this sense, Schillebeeckx rejects any
ontologization of negativity or evil.
52
Moreover, Schillebeeckx also denies the pre-
sumed neutrality of liberal Enlightenment ethics and regards its deliberations as cultu-
rally conditioned and particular.
53
And yet, as I will argue, Schillebeeckx evaluates
secular liberalism more positively than Milbank, because he does not primarily con-
ceive it as a threat, but he seeks to discern how it mediates the ontological
harmony, in which, as a Christian theologian, Schillebeeckx is allowed to trust.
54
Schillebeeckx would not have denied that one’s overall conjecture about the nature
and shape of reality influences the way in which historical occurrences are perceived
and assessed.
55
From the perspective of a Christian ontology of peace, such as Mil-
bank’s, however, the point would be precisely to discern how the real harmony, in
49
Schillebeeckx does not use the term ontology, and exhibits the faith in the superiority of goodness less systematically
than Milbank. However, a close and wide reading of his oeuvre shows that the ontology explicated by Milbank is dis-
cernible in Schillebeeckx’s approach to his context. This will become apparent to some degree also in the course of this
article. Some commentators argue that, around 1966, there has been a significant turn in Schillebeeckx’s theology away
from his earlier reliance on the Flemish Thomist Dominique de Petter’s metaphysical to a more radically hermeneutical
approach to reality (Kerr, Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians,58–9). Daniel Thompson speaks of a turn on the
level of Schillebeeckx’s understanding of what constitutes an orthodox development of the Christian tradition, which
had first located this development in the sphere of doctrine and later in the sphere of human experience (Thompson,
“Schillebeeckx on the Development of Doctrine,”309). I, however, align myself with those who have argued that de
Petter’s influence on Schillebeeckx remains recognizable throughout his work, and that, moreover, particularly
Aquinas’search for knowledge of God in and through creation has been a pivotal driving force behind all of Schille-
beeckx’s writings (Kennedy, “Continuity underlying Discontinuity,”264–77; Rodenborn, Hope in Action,78–9.
Thus even Schillebeeckx observable philosophical turn from engaging more with classical metaphysics to an increasing
engagement with hermeneutics and Critical Theory, is most fundamentally influenced by his Thomistic theological
outlook (168).
50
Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 116–24.
51
Ibid., 123–4.
52
Schillebeeckx, “The New Critical Theory and Theological Hermeneutics,”105; Schillebeeckx, “The New Critical
Theory and Theological Hermeneutics,”112.
53
Schillebeeckx, “The New Critical Theory and Theological Hermeneutics,”109–10. Schillebeeckx refers here to the
Enlightenment understanding of freedom. Stven Rodenborn has recently argued that Schillebeeckx legitimized the
autonomy of the secular realm theologically (Rodenborn, Hope in Action, 15). Against this reading, I align myself
with those who understand Schillebeeckx’s theology as a challenge to the autonomy of the secular realm (Dupré,
“Experience and Interpretation,”32, 49). It has even been argued that Schillebeeckx’s criticism of secular freedom
and modern subjectivity limits his otherwise amicable engagement with modern culture (Barwasser, Theologie der
Kultur und Hermeneutik der Glaubenserfahrung, 433).
54
Schillebeeckx has been criticized for tending, in his later writings, toward a one-sided accommodation of Christianity
to the secular liberation movements he was most enthusiastic about, thereby losing the critical edge of Christian theology
which would have demanded to maintain a greater critical distance to such liberation movements (Dupré, “Experience
and Interpretation,”49–50). Also Lieve Boeve criticizes Schillebeeckx for risking to lose the theological dimension in his
later writings (Boeve, “The Sacramental Interruption of Rituals of Life,”401–6). I align myself with those who argue
that Schillebeeckx, on the whole, successfully maintained a middle path between either accommodating Christian theol-
ogy entirely to the surrounding culture or retreating into a Christian fundamentalism (Barwasser, Theologie der Kultur
und Hermeneutik der Glaubenserfahrung, 18. Stephan van Erp most explicitly defends Schillebeeckx in this regard
against the Radical Orthodox suspicion of a certain naturalization of the Christian faith (Van Erp, “The Sacrament
of the World,”128–9). In Erik Borgman’s words, according to Schillebeeckx, the truth about the world is known pre-
cisely when the world is interpreted from the perspective of God’s love and grace (Borgman, “Alle dingen nieuw,”223).
55
Schillebeeckx, Interim Report on the Books Jesus and Christ, 11.
THE REALIZATION OF HARMONY IN A BROKEN WORLD 651
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
which one is allowed to trust, is concretely mediated in one’s surrounding context. Thus,
if a Christian encounters a person who understands the world through an alternative
ontological vision, such as liberalism, the point is not to perceive this person’s ontology
as a threat, but to seek to understand how the liberal person and oneself, as a Christian,
participate in a real harmony, although holding different beliefs about the truth. If
Milbank accuses liberal appeals to emancipation and social justice for ignoring “the
relationships that provide substance to such abstract norms,”
56
he seems to suggest
that liberals first have to change their worldview before a substantial relationship
with them is possible, whereas I interpret Schillebeeckx’s approach to secular liberals
as one of entering a relationship with them that provides the substance to each one’s
otherwise abstract conceptions of a better political future.
Not to understand the two ontological visions as competing with each other about
the truth about reality is possible, insofar as Schillebeeckx posits the real harmony to
which his ontology refers primarily in the concrete world, and understands any concep-
tual talk about this harmony as truthful, albeit one step removed. The true harmony
between different beings is, then, not primarily known through probing how another
person’s conceptual utterances harmonize with one’s own. But, the harmony realizes
itself in the concrete encounter between the two people,
57
anditmustthenberetraced
conceptually how their different ontological visions should be reshaped and expanded
in order to understand the harmony that has just been realized in the concrete encoun-
ter. The concretely realized harmony surpasses the human conceptual grasp.
58
And,
thus, Christians can only claim to have truthfully expressed the concretely realized
harmony with their conceptual ontology if they are conscious that the concept is
only able to express but some aspects of the full positivity of the concrete encounter.
59
Consequently, a Christian must admit that there is also room to approach the
concretely realized harmony by the conceptual means of the antagonistic ontology
perpetuated by secular liberalism.
60
The one who assesses the encounter from the
liberal worldview should be trusted to have recognized a part of the concretely rea-
lized harmony, which the Christian could not have seen from his or her perspec-
tive.
61
In other words, from the perspective of an ontology of peace, even the
conceptual approach to reality through the lens of an antagonistic ontology
should be able to expand the vision of the way in which the ontological harmony
of peace is believed (by the Christian) to be mediated in history.
56
Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue,2.
57
Schillebeeckx here distinguishes between a noetic and a conceptual knowledge of reality (Schillebeeckx, “Towards a
Catholic Use of Hermeneutics,”8; Schillebeeckx, “What is Theology?”88; Schillebeeckx, “The Non-Conceptual Intel-
lectual Dimension in our Knowledge of God According to Aquinas,”220).
58
Schillebeeckx, “The Concept of ‘Truth,’” 198; Schillebeeckx, “The Non-Conceptual Intellectual Dimension in our
Knowledge of God According to Aquinas,”213, 216, 218, 231; Schillebeeckx, “Salvation History as the Basis of Theol-
ogy,”285; Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,”292; Schillebeeckx, “Theological Cri-
teria,”54, 56.
59
Schillebeeckx, “What is Theology?”88–9; Schillebeeckx, “The Concept of ‘Truth,’” 199; Schillebeeckx, “The Non-
Conceptual Intellectual Dimension in our Knowledge of God According to Aquinas,”213, 218.
60
Schillebeeckx, Church,8.
61
Milbank might reject the interpretation of liberalism as one worldview amongst others, as he presents liberalism as an
ideology that is parasitic to all other worldviews (Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue,14–5). Nevertheless,
Milbank assumes for himself a position somewhat outside of the all-embracing sway of liberalism’s problems, from
which he can criticize it, which renders reference to an encounter between what Milbank describes as genuine Christians
and liberals as representatives of two different worldviews legitimate.
652 CHRISTIANE ALPERS
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
This is also how Schillebeeckx’s reception of insights from liberal ethics into his
theology should be understood. Schillebeeckx exhibits the trust in the ontological
reality of harmony that Milbank refers to, and therefore seeks to understand how
his liberal contemporaries’views might harmonize with his own in new and unex-
pected ways. With regard to the liberal ethics criticized by Milbank, Schillebeeckx
understands the newly postulated human need of protection not primarily as indica-
tive of an antagonistic ontology, which would conflict with his own understanding
of reality. Schillebeeckx does not understand the liberal focus on the human need of
protection as indicator of an irredeemable individualism, but as an indicator of the
unique positivity of each particular human being.
62
When integrating this insight
into his Christian ontology, Schillebeeckx is still in agreement with Milbank in his
insistence that an ethics must not be directed primarily at limiting any damage.
Yet, instead of diverting the attention to his Christian ontology, as the framework
which supposedly alone renders a non-reactive ethics possible, Schillebeeckx seeks
to follow the positive intent of liberalism, in postulating that the positive goal of
ethics should be the appreciation of the unique positivity of each individual involved
in an ethical decision.
63
This is different from orienting an ethics at the protection of
each individual’s survival in a supposed antagonistic setting, since the appreciation
of people’s uniqueness by far surpasses questions about survival and protection.
The difference between Milbank’s and Schillebeeckx’s positions becomes clearer
when considering how each conceives of the purpose of ethical norms and laws
with respect to the question of how harmony is being realized. According to
Milbank, reactive laws and norms can only operate justly within the more funda-
mental framework of a mutual trust in harmony. For Schillebeeckx, a Christian
does not have to wait until the entire surrounding society assents to the Christian
ontology, but s/he can use the surrounding society’s ethical norms, not as absolute
standards about what counts as good action, but as directional aids for adequate
actions in a concrete situation. It is not assumed that ethical norms would ever deter-
mine the particular action that needs to be taken. Picking up the liberal ethical orien-
tation at the concrete positivity of unique persons, Schillebeeckx argues that,
primarily, an action must respond to the concrete human being with whom one is
faced.
64
This can at times demand the modification or expansion in retrospect of
the already existing ethical norm.
65
People then do not need to be protected from each other because it would be (erro-
neously) assumed that they are most fundamentally each other’s enemies. On one
level, Schillebeeckx’s expansion of a Christian ontology of peace with liberal
ethics is geared to appreciate the concrete positivity of each individual human
being beyond the, at times, limiting scope of ethical norms. And, at the same time,
62
Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 89; Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 578. Although Milbank is quick to highlight that liberalism
cannot claim to have invented “the sense of absolute worth”of every person (Milbank and Pabst, The Politics of Virtue,
30), one can acknowledge, with Schillebeeckx, that liberalism’s heightened emphasis of each human being’s uniqueness is
not necessarily a vice.
63
Schillebeeckx, “Church, Magisterium and Politics,”90–1.
64
Schillebeeckx, “The Concept of ‘Truth,’” 198; Schillebeeckx, “The Non-Conceptual Intellectual Dimension in our
Knowledge of God According to Aquinas,”213, 216, 218, 231; Schillebeeckx, “Salvation History as the Basis of Theol-
ogy,”285; Schillebeeckx, “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology,”292; Schillebeeckx, “Theological Cri-
teria,”54, 56.
65
Schillebeeckx, “Church, Magisterium and Politics,”92.
THE REALIZATION OF HARMONY IN A BROKEN WORLD 653
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
Schillebeeckx’s expansion of the Christian ontology of peace with liberal ethics is
already a manifestation of how the conceptual harmony can be extended through
attention to the way in which the ontological harmony concretely realizes itself in
the encounter between adherents to different worldviews in a particular context.
Because Schillebeeckx does not regard liberal thinkers as competitors, but as mediat-
ing the fundamental goodness of reality, he expands his own vision of reality with
the unique insights which they contribute.
This already indicates that Milbank reacts and fights against liberal ethics, not
because, as claimed by his critics, he preempts the, not yet realized harmony in
which Christians are allowed to trust. Milbank opposes liberal ethics rather
because he understands his ontology of peace as a political ideal which needs to
be achieved through the work of an entire society. For Schillebeeckx, the Christian
theological work begins not with advancing one’s ontology of peace as ideal which
renders the further realization of harmony possible, but with conceptually retracing
the ontological harmony that is being realized in one’s concrete encounter with
people of different worldviews. In what follows I will clarify how Schillebeeckx’s
alternative position relates to Milbank’s second criticism of liberal ethics, namely
that they would inhibit a society’s true growth in goodness.
5. The indestructible ontological priority of goodness as goal of
politics
Concomitant with Schillebeeckx’s focus on the concretely realized ontological
harmony and goodness in his context, for him real growth in goodness is not primar-
ily dependent on orienting political actions, by help of an ontology of peace, toward
an ideal good. Instead, he attends primarily to the already realized goodness and
harmony as that which should orient further political decisions.
66
Precisely
because only all that which is good will persist, whereas all evil will vanish, he exam-
ines how the more fundamental goodness that also supports imperfect political and
ethical outlooks, continues to overcome all evil.
67
This is not meant to brush the evil
aside and to claim that what appears as evil really is good if looked at from the right
perspective. Schillebeeckx conceives of the relationship between good and evil more
dialectically, whilst granting to the good ontological priority. Because evil does not
have its own ground of existence it dialectically reveals something about the true
goodness of reality, through the way in which it is continuously overcome.
68
Attend-
ing to how goodness overcomes evil is then, for Schillebeeckx, meant to purify
human conceptions of goodness ever again from distortions and to adjust them to
the concretely realized goodness in a broken world. In Williams’terms, Schille-
beeckx’s ontology demands of him an attention to the tragic dimensions of life in
order not to chase utopian dreams but to help a society build its projects on that
goodness which has already been realized in a broken world.
66
Schillebeeckx, Interim Report, 89; Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 578; Schillebeeckx, The Understanding of Faith, 108.
67
Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 579–80; Schillebeeckx, Church, 175. Schillebeeckx, in this vein, argues that although good and
evil are not equal ontologically, human history is a mixture of good and evil (Church, 172–3).
68
Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 582; Schillebeeckx, “Correlation between Human Question and Christian Answer,”81; Schil-
lebeeckx, Church, 30.
654 CHRISTIANE ALPERS
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
This call on Christian theologians to direct their attention to the ontologically
prior goodness despite all evil means that a Christian theologian does not need to
affirm the liberal ontology as a whole, in order to trust that it can harmonize with
the Christian ontology of peace. Instead, it can be acknowledged that both, the
liberal and the Christian ontology, are liable to perpetuate some of the present
world’s evil, and indeed an examination of where and how exactly this is the case
is indispensable –and, in this regard, Milbank’s work is of great value, even if his
critique might remain too one-sided. Yet, the Christian theologian should not
discard the liberal ontology as a whole, just because it partly perpetuates evil. The
task is rather to analyze how all that is disadvantageous or even dangerous about
this ontology is, nevertheless, supported by a prior good to which it is merely a sec-
ondary intrusion.
This approach is illustrated when Schillebeeckx interprets reactionary ethics as
indicating, in their reaction against evil, that goodness retains ontological priority
over evil. A human reaction against evil is only conceivable and possible because
goodness enjoys priority.
69
The reaction is then not an invention of evil as self-
legitimization of liberal ethics. Although the reaction is directed against a concrete
evil situation, it is grounded in a more fundamental positivity.
70
The human reaction
against the evil then reveals that present life circumstances remain below the level of
a truly humane life.
71
In this sense, any reaction against evil is always already posi-
tively directed toward the manifold diversification of the good which enjoys onto-
logical priority over the singularity of evil. The elimination of evil is then also for
Schillebeeckx not the ultimate goal of politics, but it is a means to orient oneself
at that which is truly good. Also for him, there must be, next to the elimination of
evil, discussions about a society’s further growth in the truly good.
72
For, in contrast
to the singular and destructive negativity of evil, goodness is manifold and excessive,
which is why there is a wealth of possibilities to overcome evil.
73
Following Schille-
beeckx, liberal ethics could then only be criticized if they presented their particular
reaction against evil as sole possibility and if this reaction itself was elevated to the
status of being the unique goal of politics. Milbank’s theology is valuable insofar as
he is very sensitive in detecting the latter error, but he is mistaken when he assumes
that this must lead to a wholesale rejection of such ethics. His ontology of peace
would rather demand a discernment of the precise good by which a concrete instance
of a reactionary ethics is supported and toward what precise good it is directed.
Schillebeeckx then expands his Christian ontology by means of insights from phi-
losophers associated with the liberal tradition. He uses their ethics in order to build
critically on the already realized good, which necessitates an uncovering of alliances
with evil in the past.
74
Such examination is aimed at orienting humankind toward
the truly good, in place of imaginative distortions thereof. Faith in the priority of
69
Schillebeeckx, “Secularization and Christian Belief in God,”45; Schillebeeckx, “Correlation between Human Ques-
tion and Christian Answer,”84.
70
Schillebeeckx, “Church, Magisterium and Politics,”93.
71
Ibid.
72
Schillebeeckx, “The New Critical Theory and Theological Hermeneutics,”111–12.
73
Schillebeeckx, “Theological Criteria,”58.
74
Schillebeeckx, “The New Critical Theory,”105; Schillebeeckx, Theologisch Geloofsverstaan anno 1983, 18; Schille-
beeckx, The Understanding of Faith, xxi; Schillebeeckx, “The New Critical Theory and Theological Hermeneutics,”
109–11.
THE REALIZATION OF HARMONY IN A BROKEN WORLD 655
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
all goodness manifests itself precisely in a society’s continuous willingness to inves-
tigate critically if it has been entangled in evil, because such a society can assume that
its own liability to failure will never quench the priority of the truly good.
75
Precisely
in this move, a society can show that its politics are built on the concretely realized
good, and not on its own conceptualization thereof.
76
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, I agree with Milbank that an ontology that assumes the priority of
harmony and goodness over antagonism and evil must be accompanied by a politics
which is not primarily oriented at the limitation of evil but at real growth in the
good. However, I have questioned if Milbank himself builds his theological thinking
on the harmony and goodness as it realizes itself in history at present. His under-
standing of goodness might rather be a conceptual reaction against the antagonistic
ontology of liberalism that he opposes. At this point Milbank’s own criticism of
liberal ethics can be directed against himself: By presenting the truly good as some-
thing in need of protection through a human ontology, he invents the liberal ontol-
ogy as a danger. Milbank’s theology might then resonate with some because it stirs
their fear of evil, and not because people perceive his vision as potentially leading to
growth in the truly good. Milbank would be better advised not to present his ontol-
ogy as sole cure of political problems
77
–for only evil is singular –but as one valu-
able cure amongst a whole wealth of others, all responding to the truly good. By help
of Edward Schillebeeckx’s thought it could be seen that from the perspective of a har-
monizing ontology, the political task does not consist in proving the superiority of
this ontology, but in analyzing how the true harmony, in which Christians can
trust, realizes itself in their encounter with adherents to a liberal ontology. For, dis-
regarding of how frail and erroneous an ontological conceptualization of reality
might be, it will never be able to destroy the true goodness of reality. At the same
time, an ontology of peace must continuously be reshaped in accordance with this
concretely realized positivity. For, only if built on the concretely realized goodness
can a society’s politics promise to advance in the truly good. Only then is the
primary orientation for politics not the evil which should be overcome, but the
truly good.
Contrary to those who claim that Milbank preempts a harmony which has not yet
been realized, I thus have contended that Milbank fails to shape his conceptualiz-
ation of harmony in accordance with the way in which this harmony is already rea-
lized in his context to a greater degree than he dares to trust. Milbank’s
understanding of the present situation is all too tragic, which is why he introduces
an ideal harmony as goal toward which the whole society should work. As counter-
weight to Milbank and his critics, I have introduced Edward Schillebeeckx’s
75
Schillebeeckx, Theologisch Geloofsverstaan anno 1983,18–19; Schillebeeckx, “The New Critical Theory and Theo-
logical Hermeneutics,”122. In other words, whereas Milbank has been criticized for not being able to read the history of
the church as “a history of redeemed failures”(Hughes, “The Ratio Dei and the Ambiguities of History,”659, Schille-
beeckx shows us a way of doing exactly this.
76
Schillebeeckx, “Correlation between Human Question and Christian Answer,”81.
77
For the most recent example of Milbank’s presentation of his theology as “the only genuine alternative”to liberalism,
see Milbank and Pabst, Politics of Virtue,3.
656 CHRISTIANE ALPERS
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
approach to liberalism as pointing a way forward for contemporary theologians, by
attending relatively more to the already realized harmony in one’s encounter with
people who hold different convictions to oneself, and relatively less to the work
which needs to be done in order to accomplish some conceptually imagined
harmony. At the same time, my argument also counters those who claim that Mil-
bank’s unnuanced rejection of secular philosophies and politics is grounded in his
ontology, and that a different ontology would guarantee a better, more amicable
reception of not explicitly Christian insights.
78
To the contrary, I have argued that
Edward Schillebeeckx’s approach to secular liberal thinkers corresponds more to
Milbank’s ontology of peace than Milbank’s own approach to liberalism. This
shows that Milbank’s ontology can lead to a very high esteem for secular thought,
precisely because it demands that one looks for the way in which true harmony is
realized in one’s encounter with people who pursue different ideals. The question
is thus if Milbank’s ontology is used as means to reach a better political end, or as
conceptual lens through which contemporary reality is being assessed.
Concerning the contemporary success of popularist politics in the US and many
West European countries mentioned at the beginning of this article, this would
mean that instead of following Milbank in ascribing all responsibility for the
problem to secular liberalism, and of promising to deliver democracies from their
current crisis through the employment of a Christian ontology, Christian theolo-
gians should encounter those who hold popularist political views, and attend to
the ways in which a harmony that could not have been imagined is being realized
in the concrete encounter.
ORCID
Christiane Alpers http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9986-7525
References
Barwasser, Carsten. Theologie der Kultur und Hermeneutik der Glaubenserfahrung: Zur Gottesfrage und
Glaubensverantwortung bei Edward Schillebeeckx OP. Berlin: LIT, 2010.
Boeve, Lieven. “The Sacramental Interruption of Rituals of Life.”The Heythrop Journal 44 (2003): 401–417.
Borgman, Erik. “Alle dingen nieuw: theologie uit genade.”Tijdschrift voor Theologie 52 (2012): 201–225.
Dupré, Louis. “Experience and Interpretation: A Philosophical Reflection on Schillebeeckx’Jesus and Christ.”
Theological Studies 43, no. 1 (1982): 30–51.
Hughes, Kevin L. “The Ratio Dei and the Ambiguities of History.”Modern Theology 21 (2005): 645–661.
Kennedy, Phillip. “Continuity underlying Discontinuity: Schillebeeckx’s Philosophical Background.”New
Blackfriars 70 (1989): 264–277.
Kerr, Fergus. Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.
Lloyd, Vincent. “Complex Space or Broken Middle? Milbank, Rose, and the Sharia Controversy.”Political
Theology 10, no. 2 (2009): 225–245.
Milbank, John. “Can Morality Be Christian?”Chap. 9 in The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language,
Culture, 219–232. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Milbank, John. Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon. Oxon: Routledge, 2004.
Milbank, John. Beyond Secular Order: Critique on Modern Ontology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2013.
78
For such an argument see, for example, Smith, “Pluralism and Justice,”330–47.
THE REALIZATION OF HARMONY IN A BROKEN WORLD 657
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
Milbank, John. “A Christological Poetics.”Chap. 5 in The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language, Culture,
123–144. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Milbank, John. “Liberality versus Liberalism.”Chap. 11 in The Future of Love: Essays in Political Theology,
242–263. London: SCM Press, 2009.
Milbank, John. “Out of the Greenhouse.”Chap. 11 in The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language, Culture,
257–267. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Milbank, John. “Paul versus Biopolitics.”Theory, Culture and Society 25, nos 7–8 (2008): 125-172.
Milbank, John. “Postmodern Critical Augustinianism: A Short Summa in Forty-Two Responses to Unasked
Questions.”Chap. 16 in The Future of Love: Essays in Political Theology, 337–351. London: SCM Press,
2009.
Milbank, John. “The Poverty of Niebuhrianism.”Chap. 10 in The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language,
Culture, 233–254. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.
Milbank, John. “The Programme of Radical Orthodoxy.”In Radical Orthodoxy? –A Catholic Enquiry, edited
by Laurence Paul Hemming, 33–45. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000.
Milbank, John. “Sovereignty, Empire, Capital, and Terror.”Chap. 10 in The Future of Love: Essays in Political
Theology, 223–241. London: SCM Press, 2009.
Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
Milbank, John, and Adrian Pabst. The Politics of Virtue: Post-Liberalism and the Human Future. London:
Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
Rodenborn, Steven M. Hope in Action: Subversive Eschatology in the Theology of Edward Schillebeeckx and
Johann Baptist Metz. New York: Fortress Press, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “Church, Magisterium and Politics.”Chap. 5 in God the Future of Man. Translated by
N. D. Smith. Collected Works vol. 3, 85–99. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Church: The Human Story of God. Translated by John Bowden, Collected Works vol.
10. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “The Concept of ‘Truth.’”Chap. 11 in Revelation and Theology. Translated by
N. D. Smith, Collected Works vol. 2, 189–205. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “Correlation between Human Question and Christian Answer.”Chap. 5 in The
Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and Criticism. Translated by N. D. Smith. Collected Works vol. 5,
69–88. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Interim Report on the Books Jesus and Christ. Translated by John Bowden, Collected
Works vol. 8. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Jesus: An Experiment in Christology. Translated by John Bowden, Collected Works vol.
6. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “The New Critical Theory.”Chap. 6 in The Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and
Criticism. Translated by N. D. Smith. Collected Works vol. 5, 89–107. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark,
2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “The New Critical Theory and Theological Hermeneutics.”Chap. 7 in The
Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and Criticism. Translated by N. D. Smith. Collected Works vol. 5,
109–135. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “The New Trends in Present-Day Dogmatic Theology.”Chap. 15 in Revelation and
Theology. Translated by N. D. Smith, Collected Works vol. 2, 289–320. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark,
2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “The Non-Conceptual Intellectual Dimension in our Knowledge of God According to
Aquinas.”Chap. 12 in Revelation and Theology. Translated by N. D. Smith, Collected Works vol. 2, 207–
238. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “Salvation History as the Basis of Theology: Theologia or Oikonomia?.”Chap. 14 in
Revelation and Theology. Translated by N. D. Smith, Collected Works vol. 2, 271–288. London:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “Secularization and Christian Belief in God.”Chap. 2 in God the Future of Man.
Translated by N. D. Smith. Collected Works vol. 3, 31–54. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
658 CHRISTIANE ALPERS
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “Theological Criteria.”Chap. 4 in The Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and
Criticism. Translated by N. D. Smith. Collected Works vol. 5, 41–68. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Theologisch geloofsverstaan anno 1983. Afscheidscollege gegeven op vrijdag 11 feb-
ruari 1983 door Mag. dr. Edward Schillebeeckx o.p. hoogleraar Systematische Theologie en Geschiedenis
van de Theologie, Nijmegen (januari 1958 tot 1 september 1982). Baarn: Nelissen, 1983.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. “Towards a Catholic Use of Hermeneutics.”Chap. 1 in God the Future of Man.
Translated by N. D. Smith. Collected Works vol. 3, 1–29. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Schillebeeckx, Edward, “What is Theology?.”Chap. 5 in Revelation and Theology. Translated by N. D. Smith,
Collected Works vol. 2, 65–118. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Smith, Graeme. “Pluralism and Justice: A Theological Critique of Red Toryism.”Political Theology 13, no. 3
(2012): 330–347.
Smith, Graeme. “‘You turn if you want to’: The Questions a Pragmatic Political Theology Might Ask of
Speculative Realism.”Political Theology 13, no. 2 (2012): 217–232.
Thompson, Daniel P. “Schillebeeckx on the Development of Doctrine.”Theological Studies 62 (2001): 303 –321.
Van Erp, Stephan. “The Sacrament of the World: Thinking God’s Presence Beyond Public Theology.”ET Studies
6, no. 1 (2015): 119–134.
Williams, Rowan. “Between Politics and Metaphysics: Reflections in the Wake of Gillian Rose.”Chap. 4 in
Wrestling with Angels: Conversations in Modern Theology. Edited by Mike Higton, 53–76. London: SCM
Press, 2007.
Williams, Rowan. “Saving Time: Thoughts on Practice, Patience and Vision.”New Blackfriars 73 (2007):
319–326.
Notes on contributor
Christiane Alpers is currently finishing a PhD on Edward Schillebeeckx’s Christol-
ogy and contemporary public theology at Radboud University Nijmegen (The Neth-
erlands) and KU Leuven (Belgium). Her articles have appeared in New Blackfriars,
Tijdschrift voor Theologie, ET Studies, The Heythrop Journal, Neue Zeitschrift für
Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, and Modern Theology. Together
with Stephan van Erp and Christopher Cimorelli, she is co-editor of Salvation in the
World: The Crossroads of Public Theology (London: Bloomsbury, forthcoming).
Correspondence to: Christiane Alpers. Email: c.alpers@ftr.ru.nl
THE REALIZATION OF HARMONY IN A BROKEN WORLD 659
Downloaded by [154.16.58.132] at 19:49 29 November 2017
