relda,
<<he express a coherence of thought where he describes us reaching a 'truly new communal space' arrived at not through a man-made revolution but through the 'power of an ancient or primordial praxis'. In other words there is a continuing movement within history outside of our own making.>>

This, I think, in pre-postmodern language would simply mean that there is a Providence, perhaps with a pantheist flavour, acting throughout history (or a Hegelian formulation of the same, if you do not like the term Providence). That would just give another ‘model of God’, among many others, Christian or not, compatible or not with that of the ‘conventional’ Christian as you put it. For instance, where Peter and I differ is that he considers the two models - God of Abraham etc. and God of philosophers and scientists - incompatible, whereas I do not: though they are not reducible to one another, where they overlap they do not contradict each other.

Sells,
<<the doctrine of the Trinity, as expressed in the West had no hope of continuing without all kinds of logical problems that eventually led to its virtual demise.>>

This is another sentence I do not understand. The West and the East differed in ‘filioque‘ but not in the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity since at least AD 325. Neither do I understand the part on its ‘virtual demise‘: which Christian church proclaimed its demise? Otherwise I can only agree with what you wrote, and do not see how it is in conflict with the ‘natural theology’ model of God (certainly very vague and unsatisfying for a believing Christian), though, of course, it does not follow from it. This brings us again to the complementarity (not mutual exclusion): natural theology and revealed theology.

Keiran,
thank you for inadvertently supporting my point with your reference to the “AGW and the big bang fictions”: Not only faith and trust in what science tells us are compatible, but apparently also ignorance and mistrust of both the perspectives are compatible.

George,
Rather than to merely go to the self limiting 'pre-postmodern' I'd prefer the ancient Hebrew damah or the prophetic metaphor, where the known is merged with the unknown and the transcendent. The Greek logos describes but does not become this.

relda,
I prefer analytical philosophers and existentialists to postmodernists for about the same reason I prefer English to Turkish: I can understand the former but not the latter. If this is self-limiting, so be it.

On the other hand, damah, metaphor or model roughly express the same as the oriental saying about the finger the "fool" looks at (because he can access it) without realising that it points to the inaccessible moon. The rest of us do realise that the "finger" points to Something but are still limited by the direct inaccessibility of this Something. And yes, there are many "fingers" trying to point to the same "moon". Being a Christian means for me a preference (called faith) for one particular "finger", not an a priori condemnation of others.

As said before, I do not have an absolute preference for the Hebrew or the Greek way of seeing things: I admire the (Greek) God of philosophers and scientists through His creation, whereas I worship and pray to the Hebrew (and Christian) God, because I know the difference is not in Him but in our limited ways of seeing Him.

Perhaps I've made my point George, as the language we use will always be inadequate for the expression of any 'ultimate truth' - liturgy, as poetry, can but merely express this abstraction (sometimes poorly, sometimes well). As you do, and in this regard, I believe our sight is limited.

Not to condemn nor to judge is my priori is also - a condition of early Christianity, undoubtedly. Christianity began with its Hebraic roots to be eventually fused with Greek philosophy, and it is true, philosophers such as Voltaire, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and others have made insightful critiques of a repressive Christianity - the alternatives they offered did not seem all that viable.

It was really in the 3rd century where Christianity discarded its roots. Since Marcion, one can historically witness a periodically emerging religious opposition to the significant role accorded to the Old Testament in Christianity. A continuing trend cut out the Hebrew heritage, and had Christian faith and culture begin with Jesus and the Gospels.

From Constantine on there was a campaign to eliminate much of the ancient wisdom, ritual and practice (including that of the east) of the time and bring about a forced Christianity. In 529 Emperor Justinian closed down the last school of philosophy. The Church of Rome ruled for over a thousand years - the Dark Ages. This is not necessarily a total indictment of today, but a certain legacy remains. One cannot, however, ignore the mediaeval Christian mystics, such as Aquinas, Eckhart and Boehme etc. I do not count myself as anything great or clever (quite the reverse) but find my measure, in spirit, through a simple telling of the Gospel story.

There is the ambiguity in being 'truly' Christian or nominally so - those brave souls who continue to rock the boat (or is it the establishment?) in the hope of reform or restitution are to be admired. Alas, I'm not so brave.

George, sounds like you are a carbon sinner and as confused as usual but I enjoyed your little playful quip. You are correct, there is reasonable evidence that the bigbang and AGW are both anthropogenic because we can only really find them in the human mind where they are usually created from careless data acquisition and dodgy data processing. ( i.e. When you have a virtual monopoly of research funding who needs integrity?)

Peter's efforts in this article, even to a hardened non believer, are noteworthy when he says.... "The assertion that God is the agency behind the material world leads us into a morass of theological and scientific problems that continue to embarrass the Church in its attempt to speak to the world of natural science and which renders unrecognisable the God of the Bible." One may add that honest science rather than the church has become the true casualty. But a teddy, unconnected with the material universe, I'd like to see that one explained and debated more fully.

What is honest science then? If I can put it another way, good scientific knowledge is learned, by studying those things that do not fit what you expected. e.g. We want the observed details, and want to know WHY this particular data set is not conforming to the conventional theories. That is what honest science is all about ..... discovery. Real progress stems from finding new ways of acquiring information, and the results are not predictable and cannot be directed. All the people involved with the bigbang nonsense and AGW are not about DISCOVERY but are involved in an outcome directed pseudo science trying to force/fudge raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen.

relda,
It is true that it took Christianity and the Church well over a thousand years, including the so called Dark Ages, to turn the semi-savage barbarians into civilised nations that gave humanity Kant and Voltaire, Newton and Beethoven. Perhaps some other religion, or some godless replica of religion, would have achieved this faster, and without having to pass through Dark Ages. This we shall never know, because you cannot replicate situations in history, changing some circumstances, like you can in natural science, e.g. by laboratory experiments.

To speak about rocking boats is, on its own, a negativist approach. To “rock the boat" - of established Christianity or civilised West - is much easier than to work on its improvements; it is easier to rock a building (until it collapses, even if that was not the original intention) than to repair it. I would certainly more admire the repairer, reformer with an eye on what he wants to achieve, than the destroyer, revolutionary with an eye only on what he dislikes on the status quo.

The 16th century Reformation might have wanted to rock the boat of the Roman Church but fortunately it ended up creating an alternative, actually more alternatives, where also the Catholic Church can draw inspirations for its own improvements, as slowly as they might have been coming. Unfortunately, the 20th century “boat rockers” did not stop at the established churches, they went for the very civilisation that we call the West. After the disastrous Nazis and Communists came the “gentle“ boat rockers of the late sixties and seventies. These did not want to bring down the West, only to soften it up from the inside, that used to be the Christian religion. They probably did not realise that for the next generations they were leaving behind a weakened West to face the new “barbarians” - the Islamist fanatics who are after the destruction of everything we arrived at while overcoming our Dark Ages.

Otherwise thanks for your kind words on where we agree, which is not a negligible part of our respective world views.