radical-orthodoxy-temple

Latter-day Saint Radical Orthodoxy: a Manifesto

Many young believers feel the only options they have are to be rigidly dogmatic to the point of being fundamentalist or to reject the Church’s teachings in favor of progressive political doctrines and intellectualism. This statement encourages intellectual engagement with the Church of Jesus Christ in ways that are faithful and flexible instead of either rigidly dogmatic or heretical and doubting.

As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are called to hold fast to the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel in a polarized and contentious world. This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies.

On the one hand, those who replace divine instruction with secular measures of progress risk relinquishing eternal truths for misguided worldly ideas. This can lead them to declare that the Church is behind the times on moral and social issues. On the other hand, those who focus solely on conserving what we have already received are prone to conflate human tradition with eternal truth. This can lead them to condemn any form of question-asking, faithful exploration, or subsequent revelation.

Like Odysseus sailing between Scylla and Charybdis, the path of discipleship takes us through a narrow course between two spiritual monsters: unbridled progressivism and obstinate fundamentalism. Navigating these perilous waters requires “radical orthodoxy.” Radical orthodoxy is an approach to the Restored Gospel that seeks to harmonize fidelity with exploration and cultural improvement.

Radical orthodoxy is orthodox because it promotes fierce fidelity to revealed truth, the institutional Church, and the Lord’s authorized representatives, and therefore rejects the excesses of progressivism. This includes meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles regarding chastity and morality, the divinity of Christ, and the foundational claims of the Restoration—even when doing so runs contrary to popular, worldly views. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy strive to be valiant in their witness of restored truth.

The path of discipleship takes us through a narrow course between two spiritual monsters: unbridled progressivism and obstinate fundamentalism.


Radical orthodoxy is radical because it promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism. It is willing to revisit many facets of our received paradigm in order to apply the revealed doctrines and principles of the Gospel to the unique challenges of today. That includes—under the tutelage of modern prophets—a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the Gospel inherited from prior generations.

Radical orthodoxy cultivates humility and a recognition that far less is certain about many doctrinal matters than we often presume. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy are not afraid to ask questions, and they eschew dogmatism with regards to lesser controversies—even while they boldly defend faith, diligence, and conviction on matters of covenant living, revelation, doctrine, and authority. As we revisit the lines between tradition and revelation, we are careful not to dishonor the prophets of the past, undermine the projects and programs of the Church, or ignore the moral witness and counsel of living prophets and apostles.

Radical Orthodoxy embraces the following virtues:

  • Truth. We love and defend the Truth. We reject philosophies that suggest that there is no truth. We recognize, however, that without divine assistance, truth is very difficult to discern.
  • Humility. We recognize our own limitations and we are willing to question our cultural and religious presumptions in light of both sound scholarship and ongoing revelation from God.
  • Integrity. We do not believe in compartmentalizing the Gospel from our professional pursuits, politics, scholarship, social interactions, or hobbies.
  • Fidelity. We are loyal to Jesus Christ and His Restored Church and submit to His divine authority by sustaining and following the local and general leaders of the Church.
  • Seeking. We consider curiosity a virtue and desire to plumb the depths of the Gospel as well as of God’s Creation. Like Abraham, we seek to become “greater follower[s] of righteousness and to possess a greater knowledge” than we currently possess (Abraham 1:2)

    Radical orthodoxy is not a faction, nor a label intended to set forth boundaries for any particular group or organization.

  • Revelation. We affirm that the Church is guided by continuing revelation. We strive to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in all aspects of our lives, including our professional or scholarly endeavors. We recognize, however, that only those with the proper authority and stewardship can declare revelation for the Church and the world.
  • Faith. We know that Christ has already won the essential victories. We trust the Lord and His power to save us from sin and death. We also trust His ability to guide His Church and communicate His will to His appointed spokesmen, even when they are fallible.
  • Hope. We are deliberately optimistic about the Church and its role in the world. We reject negative, cynical attitudes towards the Church, its leaders, and its teachings. We avoid nitpicking and murmuring.
  • Charity. We love all of God’s children and we cultivate a soft-hearted temperament that rejects the spirit of contention towards those with different views, even while we vigorously defend the truth.

Radical orthodoxy is not a faction, nor a label intended to set forth boundaries for any particular group or organization. It is rather a rallying point, and invitation to embrace conviction and fidelity. It is also an invitation to reject fundamentalism and embrace the possibility of change, innovation, and progress in how we understand the Gospel. It is an occasion to reinforce our loyalties to the Resurrected Christ and the Church that bears His name and to strive to be “lower lights” burning as an example to others who are also navigating the treacherous waters of modern intellectual discourse.

Learn more at latterdayorthodoxy.org

Signatories

  • Nathaniel Givens (Author)
  • Jeffrey Thayne (Author)
  • J. Max Wilson (Author)
  • Valerie Hudson Cassler
  • Stephen Cranney
  • Christopher Cunningham
  • Thomas Eastmond
  • Dan Ellsworth
  • Amanda Freebairn
  • Nick Galieti
  • Edwin Gantt
  • Fiona Givens
  • Terryl Givens
  • Jonathan Green
  • Ralph Hancock
  • Jacob Hess
  • Trevor Holyoak
  • Benjamin Huff
  • Joseph Lawal
  • Ty Mansfield
  • Frank Mcintyre
  • Daniel Ortner
  • Daniel Peterson
  • Neal Rappleye
  • Jasmin Gimenez Rappleye
  • Nathan Richardson
  • Jelaire Richardson
  • Jennifer Roach
  • Hanna Seariac
  • Gerald Smith
  • Gregory L. Smith
  • Stephen Smoot
  • Richard Williams

About the authors

Nathaniel Givens

Nathaniel Givens is a writer and blogger. In addition to Public Square, he has written for Meridian, Real Clear Religion, First Things, and Square Two. He blogs at Nauvoo Neighbor, Times and Seasons, and his own blog: Difficult Run.

Jeffrey Thayne

Jeffrey Thayne blogs at ldsphilosopher.com, and is the coauthor of “Who is Truth?” He has a Ph.D. from Utah State University in Learning Sciences

J. Max Wilson

J. Max Wilson is a Latter-day Saint blogger with an educational background in literature and writing, and a professional background in technology and software engineering.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Demanding Conversations About Violence

In the weeks since the premiere of the Under the Banner of Heaven miniseries, there has been a broad consensus that the show doesn’t quite work. Its attempt to paint Latter-day Saints as promoting violence just doesn’t land. And its depiction of Latter-day Saints simply doesn’t resonate because it’s too dissimilar. This of course must come as some disappointment to critics of the Church who had hoped the series would prompt more conversations around the issues they deem problematic such as how the Church promotes violence. Into this void comes a new argument made most prominently by Taylor Petrey, but also echoed by a student columnist at the University of Utah, and now promoted on Twitter by Benjamin Park—namely, that because there has been some violence done by some Latter-day Saints who use the language of their culture in perpetrating it, Latter-day Saints should watch the series with the intent to learn how to make their Church less violent. Both Petrey and Park had previously criticized the series for its poor job in portraying Latter-day Saints, but have since shifted. We don’t want to attack the Daily Utah Chronicle piece because it’s a student article. But Petrey and Park should know better. Some of us have been on the record defending Petrey as a serious scholar, despite the fact that his conclusions don’t often derive well from the available evidence. But Petrey seems to suggest in his article that any violence that uses the language of religion must have been inspired by that religion. We understand the temptation of this point of view. What else could we blame violence on if not the culture it arose in? But Petrey’s position assumes that human beings are naturally non-violent, and only become violent as a result of their culture. This is a major assumption in the Robert Orsi essay that Petrey relies on extensively. Parks’ tweets similarly assume that any conversation about Latter-day Saints and violence must concede that the faith contributes to the violence in some way. But the causes of violence are often complicated. Because of the importance of our innate nature in creating violence, even the most peaceful society would still produce fringe examples of extreme violence. Having a Latter-day Saint who becomes violent isn’t proof that the faith contributes to that violence, even if the perpetrator uses the language of their culture in perpetuating that violence. Cultural contexts can then increase or decrease the likelihood of that emerging, but no culture has discovered how to remove it altogether. And because Under the Banner of Heaven fails to present a clear picture of what most experience as Latter-day Saint culture, it doesn’t do much to establish whether a Latter-day Saint context is more prone to cause violence than others. Those who use Latter-day Saint or another religious language and context to perpetuate violence weren’t necessarily made violent by those cultures. But rather, violent individuals will leverage anything around them to perpetrate their violence. We’re aware of many other similar examples—of abusers, for instance, who used the language of therapy to perpetuate abuse. But it would be absurd to suggest that therapeutic culture caused that abuse. Even pacifist language has been known to be used to perpetuate violence by shaming survivors into silence. An abusive person will draw upon the most powerful language available within their given cultural context and weaponize that. This is not coincidentally the conclusion made by prosecutors in the Lafferty case, that the murder was about power and relationships and that religion was merely the pretext. Does the Church of Jesus Christ disproportionately create violent offenders? We’d be interested in reading any definitive social science research on the question, but unfortunately, those promoting this point of view or hoping to have this conversation have not yet presented any. And rather than attempt to answer this question clearly itself, Under the Banner of Heaven skips the question and takes it as a given. A study of this sort could start the conversation Petrey, Parks, and the student author hope for. Instead, we get a story about a 38-year-old murder that was notable mainly for how unusual it was among the Latter-day Saint community and perpetrated by someone who had recently been kicked out of the Church for their extremist views. It should not surprise anyone that it hasn’t prompted anyone to conclude there’s a problem with violence among Latter-day Saints.