Bryant finds the obsession with critique to be counterproductive, in that it never makes the leap into the thing in itself (TII). Hence he thinks we need to "believe a little, to affirm a little, and to commit a little." He is adamant though that unlike theology this is not through a transcendent realm. And interestingly, he finds that critique in general, divorced from the TII, is stuck in the epistemic fallacy. While he doesn't then specifically apply this to theology, we might do so as well, as he did heretofore with sin. For it seems the epistemic fallacy is what in fact provides the tool by which we can go in the opposite direction of a transcendent realm with direct access.
How then do we "believe a little" without the epistemic fallacy and its resultant no/full access dichotomy? We've said plenty about this in the many pages of the IPS OOO thread, so catch up on reading it if you have yet to date. The answer(s) lies therein. (It's only 88 pages now, with 1136 posts.)