Read on Twitter
A switch flipped for me when I properly took on the fact that there's no almost no absolute relation between (a) different theological beliefs, and (b) theological beliefs and practice.
The fact someone believes X does not entail that they will do Y, and in many instances won't even entail that they're more likely to do Y. Just in terms of possibility, the same theological system can be held by neo-fascists and by liberationists.
This doesn't mean belief doesn't have effects. It just means that those effects can't be thought of in terms of logical functions, and must be thought of in light of so many particulars that general invectives against belief systems become largely unworkable.
(One can still talk about what ideas entail, or should entail; but the idea that this entailment carries over into life without remainder makes no sense to me. One can also talk about structures of thought and what they make possible—but this is different to belief, methinks.)
Anyway, there is a point to theology. I think it has to do with focusing on how meaning is produced and refashioned at the most fundamental levels. But it sure as shit ain't 'right belief leads to right practice,' or 'right belief rules out wrong belief.'
(ARGH, there's a complete ambiguity in the first tweet, because I wrote it too quickly. It's meant to say: 'there's (a) no absolute connection between one theological belief and another, and (b) no absolute connection between theological belief and practice' ...
... not 'there's no connection between (a) and (b).' The latter version does at least still carry the sense though, so there's no complete loss!)
