Hans Kung is a scholar and theologian of stature and I was interested to see his contribution to this debate. In essence all this is an erudite repetition of the usual arguments dismissing Scripture as culturally conditioned, and tradition as patriachally invalidated. I was hoping for insight; a new approach; a more convincing reason to embrace innnovation than jettisoning God's sovereignty. The idea that "it-can't-be-true-because-it-is-them-saying-it" is just not good enough; the hermeneutic of suspicion must also be treated with suspicion; the examination must also be examined. Frankly it is irrational to cherry-pick dogma and doctrine and present it as 'truth'; the only way this is possible is if 'truth' itself is denied as a real quality.