Michael Dowd posted on what he calls the “New Theism” (as well as mentioning other terms). I’m not sure that I find that particular label “New Theism” helpful, since “theism” is often associated with precisely what Dowd rejects, the idea of a personal or anthropomorphic deity.
I appreciate his comparison of the movement he is trying to spearhead with those strands of Judaism which still find religious language useful, but do not treat its depictions of an anthropomorphic deity as either literally factual or binding. I’ve long suggested that there is a need for a comparable movement within contemporary Christianity, as there have been proposals along these lines in the past, but none seem to have fully gripped the imagination of significant numbers of Christians.Dowd suggests the following as the “creed” of the new movement: “Reality is our God, evidence is our scripture, and integrity is our religion.”
I’ve blogged about that creed and a previous commentary on it before. It seems to me that, especially as “Reality” is arguably synonymous with “Being,” anyone who embraces Paul Tillich’s approach to Christian theology and religious language will probably find Dowd’s way of putting things compatible with their approach.
I invite readers to share their thoughts and comments on this approach to religion. Is it where you think religion in general is heading? Is it where your own religious path is leading? Is it an approach which you find helpful or problematic, even if it isn’t one you personally embrace?