Until now, we've had no rigorous, empirical, bedrock knowledge of deep, lasting change that is independent of theoretical schools —
no universally valid knowledge that all clinicians could use for consistently guiding real breakthroughs in their sessions.
After a sketch of the standoff between views of theology as something «objective» and views of it as something «subjective,» Wood concurs with Farley's reasons for rejecting the picture of theology as
universally valid «objective» truths and factual
knowledge.2 He also rejects another type of «objective» view of theology, represented by Hough and Cobb, which defines theology by reference to the purposes of professional church leadership (93).