No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
This article builds upon the analogical reflections of John Milbank – taking his work in a distinctly “projectionist” direction. It is argued that analogy (as Milbank understands it) allows us to talk of “projection” in theology without succumbing to Feuerbach's anthropological reductionism. In my discussion of Milbank's work, what is emphasized is the “poetic” nature of theological analogy, in which the divine and human creations intersect. God is revealed in and through the human, through the things we make. In its development of projectionist themes, Milbank's work, it is shown, demonstrates several potentials for feminist theology and philosophy of religion. In particular, his analogical vision helps to overcome any sort of dichotomy between human and divine, “projection” and “truth”. Crucially in this regard, Milbank's analogy stresses the importance, not only of our “makings”, but also of the divine initiative.
1 Kathryn Greene-McCreight states that “probably the most significant of modern influences on feminist theologies is Feuerbach's projectionist theory” (Greene-McCreight, K., “Feminist Theology and a Generous Orthodoxy”, in Scottish Journal of Theology 57:1 (2004), p. 100).Google Scholar
2 L. Irigaray, Ethique de la différance sexuelle; cited in Jantzen, G., Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998, p. 275.Google Scholar
3 A point well-made by Frankenberry, Nancy, “Feminist Approaches: Philosophy of Religion in Different Voices”, in Anderson, P. S. & Clack, B. (eds.), Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Critical Readings (London & New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 23.Google Scholar
4 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, p. 191.
5 It should be emphasised that Radical Orthodoxy is by no means a totalising vision. It is better described as a “certain theological sensibility” (Ward, G., “In the Economy of the Divine”, PNEUMA 25 (2003), p. 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Of course, the attitude of scepticism amongst feminists towards questions of ontology is perfectly reasonable, to some extent. After all, traditional arguments for the truth or falsity of fundamental metaphysical claims have sometimes excluded the desires of women and other “Others”.
7 Ernst, C., Multiple Echo: Explorations in Theology, ed. by Kerr, F. & Radcliffe, T. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1979), p. 73.Google Scholar
8 Hart, D. B., “Review Essay: After Writing”, in Pro Ecclesia IX:3 (2000), p. 367.Google Scholar
9 Milbank, J., The Word Made Strange: Theology, Language, Culture (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997), p. 44.Google Scholar
10 Ibid.
11 Pickstock, C., After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), pp. 128–129.Google Scholar
12 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 41.
13 Pickstock, After Writing, pp. 122–123.
14 Ibid., p. 122.
15 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, pp. 153, 66.
16 Milbank, J. & Pickstock, C., Truth in Aquinas (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 47.Google Scholar
17 Milbank, J., The Suspended Middle: Henri de Lubac and the Debate Concerning the Supernatural (London: SCM Press, 2005).Google Scholar
18 Milbank, J., Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford, UK & Cambridge, USA: Blackwell, 1990), p. 221.Google Scholar
19 Ibid., p. 222.
20 Milbank, J., “On ‘Thomistic Kabbalah’”, in Modern Theology 27:1 (2011), p. 151.Google Scholar
21 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 95.
22 Milbank, Suspended Middle, pp. 31, 46.
23 Long, D. S., Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), pp. 83–84.Google Scholar
24 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 97; his emphasis.
25 Ibid., p. 112
26 Ibid., p. 113.
27 Ibid.
28 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 434.
29 Ibid., p. 331; his emphasis.
30 Milbank, J., The Future of Love: Essays in Political Theology (London: SCM Press, 2009), p. 340.Google Scholar
31 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 133.
32 Milbank, J., “The Double Glory, or Paradox Versus Dialectics: On Not Quite Agreeing with Slavoj Žižek”, in Žižek, S., & Milbank, J., The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 167.Google Scholar
33 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 29.
34 Ibid., p. 74. Here, Milbank is quoting J. G. Hamann.
35 Ibid., p. 29.
36 Ibid., p. 84.
37 Ibid., p. 79.
38 Milbank, “Paradox Versus Dialectics”, p. 172; his emphasis
39 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 4.
40 Milbank, J., Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon (London & New York: Routledge, 2003), ix.Google Scholar
41 Ibid.
42 Milbank, Word Made Strange, pp. 124–125.
43 Milbank, “On ‘Thomistic Kabbalah’”, p. 163.
44 Milbank, Word Made Strange, pp. 125–126.
45 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, pp. 210–219.
46 Ibid., pp. 304–306.
47 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 130.
48 Cupitt, D., What is a Story? (London: SCM Press, 1991), p. 154.Google Scholar
49 Cupitt, D., “My Postmodern Witch”, Modern Believing 39:4 (1998), pp. 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 426.
51 Milbank & Pickstock, Truth in Aquinas, p. 23.
52 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 427; his emphasis.
53 Ibid., p. 426.
54 Milbank, Future of Love, p. 339.
55 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 111.
56 Milbank, Future of Love, p. 338.
57 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 130.
58 Milbank, Future of Love, p. 341.
59 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 306.
60 Milbank, J., “Enclaves, or Where is the Church?”, New Blackfriars 73:861 (1992), p. 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 384.
62 Ibid., 426; his emphasis.
63 Milbank, “On ‘Thomistic Kabbalah’”, p. 160.
64 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 130.
65 See O'Grady, P., “Anti-Foundationalism and Radical Orthodoxy”, New Blackfriars 81:951 (2000), p. 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66 Theological discourse, says Rowan Williams, “lacks integrity” when “it sets out to foreclose the possibility of genuine response” (Williams, R., On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), p. 5).Google Scholar For Williams, having “integrity” is being able to speak in a way which allows of answers” (ibid.).
67 “As to feminism, it is crucial that liturgical processions be led by women carrying flowers” (Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto, Thesis 22; emphasis in original).
68 Williams, R., “Saving Time: Thoughts on Practice, Patience, and Vision”, in New Blackfriars 73:861 (1992), p. 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 Ibid.
70 Jantzen, Becoming Divine, p. 12.
71 Daly, M., Beyond God the Father: Towards a Philosophy of Women's Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
72 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 181; his emphasis.
73 Ibid., p. 425.
74 Whistler, D., “The Abandoned Fiancée, or Against Subjection”, in Anderson, P. S. (ed.), New Topics in Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Contestations and Transcendence Incarnate (London & New York: Springer, 2010), p. 127.Google Scholar
75 Haynes, P., “Transcendence, Materialism, and the Re-Enchantment of Nature”, in Howie, G. & Jobling, J. (eds.), Women and the Divine: Touching Transcendence (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 56Google Scholar; my emphasis.
76 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 130.
77 Milbank, “On ‘Thomistic Kabbalah’”, pp. 157–158.
78 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 6.
79 Ibid., p. 425.
80 Long, Speaking of God, p. 309.
81 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 74; his emphasis.
82 Ibid., p. 142.
83 Milbank, “On ‘Thomistic Kabbalah’”, p. 158.
84 Rahner, K., Theological Investigations IV (London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1966), pp. 105–120.Google Scholar
85 Milbank, Being Reconciled, pp. 77–78.
86 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 218.
87 Milbank, Word Made Strange, p. 74.
88 Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, p. 425.