For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life Jar my sake will Jrnd it. Matthew 16:25 The "Identity-Involvement Dilemma" Ever since the bankruptcy of traditional institutions and classical ideologies, liberal humanism has become the dominant way of thinking in the public domain. Widely regarded as a "neutral" option, its validity is hardly ever questioned. The liberal worldview is considered to be a generally accepted basis to which religious views could be added. In

more »

... situation of religious freedom and pluralism, no particular religion is allowed to make universal claims about the shape of society. Such a claim is the privilege of liberal humanism only. Consequently, theology seems to be shunned in contemporary public debate. Roughly speaking, theologians may be said to respond in two different ways. Both ways somehow accept the supremacy of the liberal paradigm. Within this paradigm, theologians either try to reformulate, stretch and knead their own beliefs in such a way that they become acceptable for and could be brought into the public debate, or they accept the definite withdrawal from public life and are bent upon sustaining the "holy remnant." In William C. Placher's Unapologetic Theology (1989), these two ways are labelled as "revisionist" (e.g. David Tracy) and "postliberal" (e.g. George Lindbeck). Placher himself notices that this division is in fact an oversimplification. He admits that "there is a considerable range of opinion within each position, and it is possible to have more in common with some on the 'other side' than with some on 'one's own side.' "1