[But it’s not clear to me just what he thinks the “secularization thesis” refers to. And he’s certainly not alone in not believing the thesis. But it’s not clear what he means to assert by saying he doesn’t believe the thesis.
Does he mean that he doesn’t think modernization entails secularization? Well, then he has nothing to worry about; “religion”—even theism—seems alive and well in the late modern world...
So does he mean, as I suspect, that we need to shore up the “framework” that undergirds the notion of the image of God? ... Does he think that the “framework” requires a critical mass of people who believe that humans are created in the image of God? Is there a sort of covert Christendom project at work here? I honestly don’t know. At The Immanent Frame, the first of three new posts from James K.A. Smith in response to Nicholas Wolterstorff's book, Justice: Rights and Wrongs]
Such astute theorizing together with the responses when tethered to an odious Christian ontology tends to present a warped picture wrapped in a skewed frame. [TNM]