The advent of social media, particularly videos and podcasts has certainly changed the dynamic involving exposing the general public to the academic study and results for understanding scripture and religion. The conversational approach does seem to appeal to many people who probably aren't that interested in delving into the details. I'm reminded of the work of Marcus Borg who offered more accessible content on both the critical approach to scripture and possible "reframing" of the Christian message. While there was some interest in this at the grassroots level (seekers groups) I don't think much really changed within the traditional religious space. Others like Paul Tillich also offered a more technical and complex different vision of Christianity. So, while I think Dan's work makes this content more broadly accessible, to me, after these ideas are embraced the next important question is "what now?" After all, what we see with those who have gone through the deconstruction process is significant confusion about "so what now?". Seems to me this should be foremost for scholars in this area to offer what strategies might be employed for working through things "on the other side". BTW, the question mentioned of what practitioners (priests, pastors, etc.) are to do with these academic insights is close to home for me. In the '70's I attended a Lutheran seminary for two years. I thought at the time my calling might be to become a pastor. However, after two years of studying what the best minds of the day were saying about scripture and theology from the historical-critical perspective, I realized that my views and theology were so divorced from those at the grassroots level that I left the seminary and continued my engineering career. My deconstruction and ultimate disaffiliation eventually resulted in developing my own systematic theology but the process was very complex and challenging and probably wouldn't be for most people. So, the question remains, "what's next?" for those who don't find their current tradition viable anymore but still feel the need for some type of spiritual framework to inform their lives.
Thanks for your insightful comment. I have a number of videos on this channel addressing your concerns, at least in part, like those on Tillich & Ricoeur, and the previous episode on Religious Construction, Deconstruction & Reconstruction. I also talked about some of these ideas in my convo with Aaron Simmons last April 2024. But the "what now?" or "what's next?" question is still a great question and often goes completely unaddressed in many videos or podcasts which I think is what sometimes motivates the the negative feedback to those presentations.
I think exploring the topic posed by the “what” questions would be of great interest to many people in this age of disaffiliation. Now, there have been many attempts both by professionals and on social media to address these “what’s next” questions but, in my view, they are mostly trying to salvage some semblance of a religious tradition from the attacks posed by legitimate criticisms. This might be helpful for those who have a strong desire to remain within a tradition but are they just “fixes” around the edges that don’t address the full gamut of problems in a systematic way? What if the problems stem from the fundamental tenets themselves? If that is the case then I don’t think the “solutions” will stand up over the long term when subsequent criticisms arise. Or the modifications are so extensive that the tradition itself becomes unrecognizable. While these reconstructions may be helpful to many (and I’m fine with that), it still doesn’t speak to those who are disillusioned with the traditions, in general. Perhaps there are what I call “deal-breakers” within the foundations of the major religious traditions. This was what I found in my search for some “spiritual” framework after my disaffiliation. If this is the case, then exploring the formulation and evolution of metaphysical systems in general could be useful. To do this well would require a lot of cross-discipline collaboration including philosophy, theology, psychology, sociology, culture, history, etc. So far, I have not found anything that does this. Another important issue that needs to be addressed is demographics. The needs of those “on the other side” of a religious transition are varied. Some may not care about systematic treatments while others may want something more structured. So, the dynamics of “what’s next” would need to have multiple prongs of approaches. This might end up being the process of asking fundamental worldview questions and examining the implications of answers offered. OK, I’ve rambled on enough. As you may see, this is a topic of great interest to me because I think we are in a period of history where large numbers of people feel lost in their worldview bearings. Since I’ve gone through the process of transformation, I’ve written quite a bit on these topics on my website. One example is my essay: Developing a Systematic Theology “from Scratch”
Since when is Dan a professor? Also, being an active member of the LDS church (and therefore its mission) is disgusting considers he fights against problems in Christianity (primarily evangelicalism).
Dan has been teaching online classes for a while now. From the perspective of the academic field of religion there are many expressions of Christianity so I don't understand the second part of your comment.
The advent of social media, particularly videos and podcasts has certainly changed the dynamic involving exposing the general public to the academic study and results for understanding scripture and religion. The conversational approach does seem to appeal to many people who probably aren't that interested in delving into the details. I'm reminded of the work of Marcus Borg who offered more accessible content on both the critical approach to scripture and possible "reframing" of the Christian message. While there was some interest in this at the grassroots level (seekers groups) I don't think much really changed within the traditional religious space. Others like Paul Tillich also offered a more technical and complex different vision of Christianity. So, while I think Dan's work makes this content more broadly accessible, to me, after these ideas are embraced the next important question is "what now?" After all, what we see with those who have gone through the deconstruction process is significant confusion about "so what now?". Seems to me this should be foremost for scholars in this area to offer what strategies might be employed for working through things "on the other side".
BTW, the question mentioned of what practitioners (priests, pastors, etc.) are to do with these academic insights is close to home for me. In the '70's I attended a Lutheran seminary for two years. I thought at the time my calling might be to become a pastor. However, after two years of studying what the best minds of the day were saying about scripture and theology from the historical-critical perspective, I realized that my views and theology were so divorced from those at the grassroots level that I left the seminary and continued my engineering career. My deconstruction and ultimate disaffiliation eventually resulted in developing my own systematic theology but the process was very complex and challenging and probably wouldn't be for most people. So, the question remains, "what's next?" for those who don't find their current tradition viable anymore but still feel the need for some type of spiritual framework to inform their lives.
Thanks for your insightful comment. I have a number of videos on this channel addressing your concerns, at least in part, like those on Tillich & Ricoeur, and the previous episode on Religious Construction, Deconstruction & Reconstruction. I also talked about some of these ideas in my convo with Aaron Simmons last April 2024. But the "what now?" or "what's next?" question is still a great question and often goes completely unaddressed in many videos or podcasts which I think is what sometimes motivates the the negative feedback to those presentations.
I think exploring the topic posed by the “what” questions would be of great interest to many people in this age of disaffiliation. Now, there have been many attempts both by professionals and on social media to address these “what’s next” questions but, in my view, they are mostly trying to salvage some semblance of a religious tradition from the attacks posed by legitimate criticisms. This might be helpful for those who have a strong desire to remain within a tradition but are they just “fixes” around the edges that don’t address the full gamut of problems in a systematic way? What if the problems stem from the fundamental tenets themselves? If that is the case then I don’t think the “solutions” will stand up over the long term when subsequent criticisms arise. Or the modifications are so extensive that the tradition itself becomes unrecognizable.
While these reconstructions may be helpful to many (and I’m fine with that), it still doesn’t speak to those who are disillusioned with the traditions, in general. Perhaps there are what I call “deal-breakers” within the foundations of the major religious traditions. This was what I found in my search for some “spiritual” framework after my disaffiliation. If this is the case, then exploring the formulation and evolution of metaphysical systems in general could be useful. To do this well would require a lot of cross-discipline collaboration including philosophy, theology, psychology, sociology, culture, history, etc. So far, I have not found anything that does this.
Another important issue that needs to be addressed is demographics. The needs of those “on the other side” of a religious transition are varied. Some may not care about systematic treatments while others may want something more structured. So, the dynamics of “what’s next” would need to have multiple prongs of approaches. This might end up being the process of asking fundamental worldview questions and examining the implications of answers offered.
OK, I’ve rambled on enough. As you may see, this is a topic of great interest to me because I think we are in a period of history where large numbers of people feel lost in their worldview bearings. Since I’ve gone through the process of transformation, I’ve written quite a bit on these topics on my website. One example is my essay: Developing a Systematic Theology “from Scratch”
Since when is Dan a professor? Also, being an active member of the LDS church (and therefore its mission) is disgusting considers he fights against problems in Christianity (primarily evangelicalism).
Dan has been teaching online classes for a while now. From the perspective of the academic field of religion there are many expressions of Christianity so I don't understand the second part of your comment.