Perhaps I ought to explain what this blog is about, in general. It is not about debunking anything, in particular, but is about surveying the theological left: the liberal-Christian and religious humanist and religious pluralist scenes and producing some theology about this neck of the woods. Thus it has looked at Free and Liberal Catholicism too.
It is that point where theology really is consistent with general narratives we live by today - not just intellectually but practically in terms of everyday thought. How do people think about when it rains, or how things get done, and who's in charge and why. So, from time to time it looks at economics and politics.
When it comes to history, science and social science, I'm a critical realist. These disciplines produce answers you don't want as well as answers you do. Paradigms are limited and changable, and come under difficulties of language, but they explain, and the discoveries they explain are discoveries. We might lack many discoveries, and some paradigms weaken.
This is different from the arts, where what we do we create, and different from religion, which is mythology and yet is distinct in terms of effect.
For example, the Kula ring of the Trobriand Islands is an exchange system that involves material effort and loss but also spiritual gain, and part of that gain is identifying with the other person. This is a lot of boat travel to do it, but it is religious ritual like other religious ritual. People do religious ritual for reflection, contemplation, oversight and binding. I do this. Religion, seen this way, may involve all manner of traditions and gods and the like, but religions contain combinations of the practical and the impossible to evidence supernatural. Even superstitions start with practical reasoning. The supernatural is often refined magic, magic just a built up superstition.
There are theologies remaining Christian that deal with the secular. Bonhoeffer had a go, with the busy secular Christian and an invisible God. There are theologies that ask questions, though Tillich had systematic answers. There are (non-realist?) postmodern theologies - some originating in Barth and Hans Frei with a conserving Evangelical flavour, some in Radical Orthodoxy with an Anglican Catholic flavour (living in a Church-first bubble that nonsensically calls Sociology secular theology) and some liberal in flavour (despite being anti liberal in some tone) with Mark C. Taylor, Don Cupitt and Lloyd Geering. They all recognise the different nature of ordinary reality by which people live. In effect I'm doing a postmodern theology that starts with the subjective individualism of James Martineau. It is a Unitarian approach on the anti-denominationalist side and takes seriously some liturgical conservation with an individualism, and taking these you end up with no objectivity and no subjectivity but a postmodern use of language towards doing ritual, even simple ritual.
This is my position. It is not a broad Church Christianity or some sort of moderate trade-off liberalism about Christianity. It is about what makes religion religion, and according to how we think and live today.
A view from the gallery - http://changingattitude.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GS-A-View-From-the-Gallery-75x42.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 299px) 100vw, 299px" /> When I was a ...