In such a theology god equals freedom (not necessarily the same thing as goes on religion!)

I suppose secularism can contain religions as interfaith.  It is the framework for the survival of religions.  Will there be space for them to co-exist and flourish?

Crockett looks on radical political theology as an academic exercise.  I work in a perception of religious practice.  There is no talk of this in the book.  I wonder if I’m being too nostalgic?

It comes out of work based European experience, which I don’t normally see or read, now trans-Atlantic.  It subverts the Whiggish tradition being parallel with the inheritors of that tradition and not necessarily travelling alongside them with the same agenda.

Crockett talks about the distinction between ideology and theology in religion.  The distinction is too slippery and weaselly for me to understand as he describes it.

Can god undo godself and exist by agreement?  There is the famous quote of Nietzsche: God is dead out of pity for mankind.  God has stopped being all-powerful to be all-potential.  As the Daoists would have it: Wei wu wei, to act without acting.  If god is all-potential then future becomes advent (my word).

In the clash of civilisations the threat of capitalism on democracy is overlooked.  The end-goal of the private sector, the new oligarchs, is to become the new principalities and powers for the state.  Secularity has its own immanence: the triumph of the singularity over society.  The man of violence is the law-giver.  The hero enforces the law through his own authority.  Grace, love, justice lie outside the law.

In the end all we have is that we once were.  I find it interesting to consider that the personality is not immortal.  We exist for a period of time between conception and dissolution.  We are finite beings in time.  We live because we die.  Which brings us back to the advent event.  Maybe progress isn’t linear.  Maybe the Doctor got it right.  The plasticity of time makes it wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey.  Instead of closure, more alternatives become available to us.

This was a hard book to read, despite being so short.  There was language and meaning in it that beyond my understanding even after picking apart sentences several times.  I was hoping that this would be a manifesto for a new movement for an alternative to neoconservative thinking.  It wasn’t that.  I don’t see a post-secular society emerging in New Zealand yet.  It’s not going to be a bestseller except possibly among the pointy-headed, and there are few of those here who can think theologically.   We are too pragmatic and fearful of intellectuals.  Instead it’s an introduction, and it invites me to do further reading, and further investigation.  Could be fun.