This may seem like just a tease, because the current condition of the resource I will mention is that it has been recently hacked and trashed by a vandal. But it is on the way to restoration, and the live blogging conversation there continues.

Prof Carl Raschke and others have an online journal called Journal of Cultural and Religious Theory. It is the most sophisticaled interfaith exchange I know of, even better than that at the celebrated universities with theological schools. So far as I know, its appeal remains limited to those who respect the cutting edge work currently underway in the classic European traditions.

I am convinced that it will only take another generation or maybe two before such scholarship provides or provokes a shared foundation for serious religious inquiry. Philosophers are willing to talk to theologians, now that philosophy has realized the hollowness in reverence for science. Analytic philosophers are willing to listen to Continental philosophers and vice versa. It is tough to popularize such conversations, but they have been underway now for at least 50 years. I first discovered Raschke in 1979. I’m still trying to catch up. Now, all we need is to keep ourselves from blowing us all up or burning us all up.

In my dotage, I have gained a new respect for institutions. After having drifted away for a time, I am indebted to those who keep the wheels turning. My best realization is that each new generation must be taught the lessons of our civilization’s history. So we need institutions to do it over and over again. And the job gets harder, as there are more of us to teach and more to teach us.

In his comments after his presentation, Gustav Niehbur shared the remark that even the Southern Baptists are shrinking in membership. That is also my impression of the mainline Protestant congregations in my community. The support of institutions by a declining membership in hard times makes for problems, to be sure, but these are the best of times for intellectually informed inquirers.

We are in the midst of the greatest explosion of global scholarly investigation in the history of our civilization. Currently the volume of information is almost overwhelming. To my ancient ears, however, it is full of confirmation of what I learned as a near-birthright UU. So we need to hang in there.

Yes, the Dawkins and Hitchens types are persuading many that religion is the problem, in the same way Reagan convinced many that government is the problem. What keeps me involved in the discussion is to see if what I have learned and come to believe can hold up against their skepticism. To my satisfaction, so far, so good.

So we need to keep our eyes on the prize. And I am looking foward to my own, now middle-aged parenting kids, drifting back to the institution also. Theirs will not be easy times. So long as our leaders keep getting better in doing their job, we will be up to the times.

I have done the same, and generally speaking that has been the principle growth strategy for Unitarian Universalism (and Unitarianism before that, as well as, to a certain extent, Universalism). Recently, though, it has occurred to me that this strategy is not working for us — we are shrinking as a percentage of total population.

I’m not sure that Harris-Lacewell has any answers, but I’m coming to think that we need another strategy besides preaching to cultured despisers of religion. In any case, I found Harris-Lacewell to be thought-provoking — and I, like you, look forward to hearing from her when she completes her studies at Union.

The equal worth of individuals is less a traditional Christian message than it is a social covenant that grew out of the Enlightenment. In fact, affirmation that God loves us all is heretical. Look at what his fellow early church fathers did with Origen’s approximation of universal salvation; they burned his books.

So then is the faith behind our self-evident truths sacred or secular? The speaker’s ascription of it to her religious roots can be deemed wishful thinking.

I spend time online defending religion to the current generation of “cultured despisers.” The evidence they see is that organized religion has a history of disposing of “others.” I attempt to distinguish between mature religion and simple-minded religion. So long as Ms. Harris-Lacewell preaches to the choir, all may seem well. In our nihilistic world, something more may be required.

So, y’no — stuff happens. Immediacy gets traded for accuracy. For the person at the keyboard, the whole thing is a 45-minute exercise in high-intensity caffeinated reporting jazz anyway.

What you’re getting is, almost literally, my reporter’s notes with cleaned-up spelling. When I write the straight story tomorrow, I’ll have access to videos and transcripts, and can make the quotes perfect. I expect we’ll find that my paraphrasing on the “power” stuff was a lamer version of what she actually said.

One never “has faith.” One only has faith in something or someone. To have faith that a fair and equal world is possible is a worthy trust and difficult commitment. Also, if she uses references to “power” as reported here, I point out that it is strength, not power, that “keeps us going.” I leave power to the politicians and the engineers. The strength to endure remains the fruit of mature religion.

And to nit-pick just a bit, “The Selma to Montgomery marches were three marches in 1965,” (Wiki) not 1963.