A big, maybe lethal, problem with almost all of Christian theology, is the absolute conviction that there can be nothing new under the sun.
So that (for instance) because we have inherited an either/or dichotomy - such that knowledge or values are either subjective or objective - that must be all there is, and nothing more valid can ever be discovered or devised.
Or, there is the idea that - to be A Christian involves accepting some body of already-existing knowledge as Just True - all true, now and forever.
This blocked me from becoming a Christian for many, many years - because I had never come across any field of knowledge that was ever Just True, now and forever - or where I was expected to accept this up-front - expected to submit my judgment (now and come what may) to a large, complex, total and unalterable package.
This is what is required of a Christian convert in most churches; there is some body of statements that you expected to promise, to swear is true, to pledge obedience, to commit to behave thus...
This is difficult for a truthful person to do, and it does notfeel right to be asked to do it. It is an act of submission - and what the convert is asked to submit to claims to be divine truth - and yet it comes to us as human, all too human - and indeed it soon turns out that nobody on the inside really believes or does all of it; especially not church leaders.
Of course one can do this nonetheless, and suppress the worry that one will not be able to live up to the promises. But what is hard to suppress is the conviction that this is a bad thing to do: I mean, it is a bad thing to expect people to swear and promise to stuff that nobody really believes or acts upon - and which often does not make coherent sense.
It is maybe because I was a scientist - and a theoretical scientist - for much of my life, that I have always believed that there are indeed new concepts that may be discovered or devised, and that these revisions may be better than what existed in the past.
Something that is "true" - a theory, a monograph, a scientific paper, a field of research - is true in such a way that it is nonetheless capable of revision, or even radical reshaping - as when Newtonian Physics was true; yet gave way to Einsteinian or Quantum Physics - which was also true, and better.
This seems quite normal to me - and the weight of tradition (the great names of the past) in science does not have the same inhibiting - indeed paralysing - effect that it does in theology.
Creative science is about accepting the overall validity of tradition (its honesty, and usefulness), but that any actual science always has errors, incompleteness, and incoherences; and therefore can be - often needs to be - improved, and potentially transformed - at least in principle (although this is usually difficult).
And our guide is primarily honesty - with ourselves and with others; and honesty in the context of transcendental values; which for a Christian means (I would say) motivated-intent to live in loving harmony with divine creation, and the aspiration to salvation .
I think this is a true and healthy attitude to any functional body of claimed knowledge, any system - including theology and any particular church doctrine.
In real science, we engage with tradition and great scientists, strive to understand them - but any serious scientist regards himself as at least able to add something, to change things for the better.
And, if he is any good, and has found "his problem"; he ought to strive to make new discoveries (or reveal past neglected discoveries) - when these are needed.
For instance; nobody in 20th century biology is, or would regard would regard himself, as an equal to Darwin - or as his superior as a scientist.
But Darwin's mechanism for his theory of evolution by natural selection did not make coherent sense; because Darwin did not know about genetics.
To combine natural selection with genetics (the "Modern Synthesis") was a colossal intellectual achievement that took several decades, and involved work by several people; such as Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous), Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ernest Meyer - none of whom have a reputation as great as Darwin, and who (despite being genuinely creative and major scientists) are essentially unknown outside a group of specialists.
If the scientists of the Modern Synthesis had shared the attitude of church-serving Christians; they would have said "Darwin may be incoherent, but Who Am I to try and improve on what such a toweringly great scientist did? How can little old me possibly succeed, where Darwin failed?"
They would have given up without trying! And thereby the synthesis of Natural Selection and genetics - a theory that nowadays is understandable by innumerable normal school children (and even by most biological science majors at university) - would never have happened.
Instead, if science had been like theology; Darwin's much more partial and incoherent theories would still be taught as the best that can be known by humans.
In sum: the first and most famous of past scientific theories can be, and often have been, improved by other and later humans - even by those far less great that the originators (or not great at all); because it is so much more difficult to create a theory as Darwin (and Wallace) did, compared with being able to comprehend and improve a theory as Huxley et al did; compared with merely being able to understand and repeat a theory - like any 18 year old who has studied the theory of natural selection.
Christian theology is stuck at the level of understanding and repetition.
Well, by my reckoning; Theology consists of human theories. Theories about things like the nature of reality, the nature of God and what Jesus did; and human theories are prone to human incompleteness and error.
(Analogously, church doctrines, principles, and rules are in-effect human theories about matters such as how best to become and stay a Christian, and how best to attain salvation.)
In principle - so long as someone is honestly motivated to live in loving harmony with divine creation, and committed to salvation; then I see no reason why he needs to be a theological genius of the stature of Abelard, Scotus, Luther, or whatever is your idea of a definitive theologian.
But with theology, as does not happen in science; this matter gets mixed-up with assertions of spiritual authority of churches and church-endorsed theologians.
We are stuck at the level of repetition; because anything else is regarded as blasphemous pride - as if anyone who understands and tries to improve on the human theological theories of the likes of Paul, Boethius, Augustine, Aquinas - must be setting himself up as greater than them!
The point is that the issue at stake is - for each of us - my life in this world and my salvation.
What matters crucially is whether I am satisfied with the truth and coherence of given theology, the implicit theories of church doctrine, or whatever is important to my situation in this world.
In seeking to do better than what is inherited - or, more exactly, what current authorities interpret and assert has been inherited; I don't need to convince anybody else - than I need to satisfy myself.
I should keep striving for something better until I am honestly satisfied.
And if I later stop being satisfied with what used to satisfy me, and this is making an adverse difference; well, then I should be prepared to start striving all over again.
