Steve Holmes speaks well when he say here :

"The story is told that, when he taught on Schleiermacher, Barth made it a rule that no-one was allowed to criticise in any way for the first term; until you have learnt just how attractive Schleiermacher’s theology is, you are not yet able to explain why he is wrong. Surely this is true of any theology: unless you feel the attraction, know why another generation of students was captivated, fascinated, by this theology, you have not yet understood it. and until you have understood it, you have no right and no ability to critique it."

Too true not just of Theology but even most other things. The problem however is whether the attraction of something takes you over the edge. Let us say you are trying to find the attraction of fascist philosophy from your roughly liberal standpoint. First of all you would be hard pressed unless you can really seperate your judgemental self from what you are trying to get into. Secondly if you could really seperate yourself for the time and space needed to get into something what is there to stop you from truly advocating the postion say if your circumstances were to change. Do we really adopt a position absolutely. At least my experience is that I don't.

Coming back to truly understanding something (prejudged) 'not good' as a means to going through and beyond it is taking a great risk. A part of the risk of living I guess.

Steve in the post above is talking about leading his students into a deeper engagement with theology of the 18th and 19th century which many theologians today feel is too intellectual and leads to over certainity about things one cannot be certain about in that mode, before leading his students to the attractions of 20th century theologians like Barth. What if someone today felt there was something wrong in theology today and cannot put her finger on exactly what it is?