Neo-Theology: The Language of God in the Image of Man

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Biblical Theology:
Neo-theology: The Language of God in the Image of Man;
A Brief Overview of the Use of Theological Language by Paul Tillich
Submitted to Dr. Daniel Sheard
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
THEO 510-D 06
Spring 2017
Introduction to Theology
by
Robert Beanblossom
11 May 2017
ii
Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………….1
A Brief Descriptive Survey of Contemporary Theology ………………………………………2
The Enlightenment ………………………………………………………………………..3
Idealism ……………………………………………………………………………………3
Standard Liberalism ……………………………………………………………………….4
Neo-Orthodoxy ……………………………………………………………………………5
The Theology of Paul Tillich …………………………………………………………………….6
Theological Presuppositions ……………………………………………………………..7
Theology Proper …………………………………………………………………………..7
Hamartiology ……………………………………………………………………………..8
Soteriology ………………………………………………………………………………..9
Christology ………………………………………………………………………………10
Pneumatology……………………………………………………………….……………10
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….………………………11
Selected Bibliography .…………………………………………………………………………..12
1
Introduction
For many years there was one Christian theology with variations: each was a biblically
based and historically supported system of interlocking disciplines that began with the exegesis
of the Word and continued through the systemization of the data to provide sound and cohesive
doctrine: it was intelligible; required the explanation provided by exegesis and systemization;
and was Bible sourced.1 Theology is a uniquely Christian concept: there is a reasonable
expectation of it being biblically based and God centered.2 Theology has limitations, and those
limitations must coincide with the limitations of biblical revelation; logic and science have a
place, but “when logic is used to create truth . . . the theologian will be guilty of pushing his
system beyond the limits of biblical truth.”3 Dogmatic theologies, such Anababaptist, Armenian,
and Calvinist, disagree on points that are vague in the scripture,4 while agreeing on the essential
points of doctrine; diverging at the borders of interpretation, not revelation. A critical difference
exists among neo-theologians, a variety that rejects biblical values, seeking god-as-man-as-god
to replace the God of creation and His Word. Orthodox theology acknowledges that the basis of
authority is both objective and external to man, and is limited to the objective revelation of God
through his inspired Bible.5 Neo-orthodox authority, as expressed by Karl Barth, is the Word as
Christ the man, with the Bible but a fallible witness to that Word.6 Orthodox theologians, as all
Christians, must be wise stewards of the Word, presenting “sound doctrine” in season and out (2
____________________
1 J.J. Mueller, et al., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith, (Winona, MN: St. Mary’s Press, 2007), 1.
2 Ibid.
3 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999), 17-18.
4 Paul Enns, The Moody Theological Handbook, Revised and Expanded, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 589.
5 Ibid., Ryrie, 21-22.
6 Ibid., 23.
2
Tim 4:1-3). The theological language of Paul Tillich is representative of this growing group of
contemporary theologians who distort the familiar language of conservative Christian theology
in deceptive philosophical theologies that deny the God of the Bible.7
A Brief Descriptive Survey of Contemporary Theology
A body of theology began with the Enlightenment that disregards the Bible, redefines
God, and undermines faith in the Bible, miracles, and divine revelation.8 Essential elements
include a departure from the biblical foundations of orthodoxy and movement into the realm of
philosophy while retaining traditional theological and biblical terms; departing from the basic
framework of theology as “a discipline of study that seeks to understand the God revealed in the
Bible and to provide a Christian understanding of reality.”9
Friedrich Nietzsche’s declaration that “God is dead,” began something unique, not just in
theology, but in Western culture: “Ours is the first attempt in recorded history to build a culture
on the premise that God is dead.”10 Inherent in their rational subjectivity is skepticism as a
worldview; they are more philosophical than theological, dominated by human reason and
feelings: the authority of Scripture is replaced with that of man.11 John Caputo suggests the
frailty of these schools of theology: historically, each, with only rationality as a foundation,
is replaced by the next: “There are both theological (Kierkegaard) and anti-theological
(Nietzsche) motives behind the emergence of the postmodern. But no matter how you
____________________
7 Ibid., Enns, 611-613.
8 Ibid., 589-636.
9 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 3.
10 Gabriel Vahanian, The Death of God: The Culture of our Post-Christian Era, (NY: George Braziller, 1961), xiii.
11 Ibid., Enns, 583.
3
cut it, is inevitable that something that gets to be called postmodern will provide an opening for
the post-secular . . . ”12 Traditional theological language appears in new contexts and adapted
meanings that can be misleading. Biblical theologians are challenged to maintain the relevance
of traditional theological language to protect the biblical concepts expressed: “Beware of false
profits, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt
7:15).13
The Enlightenment
John Locke (1632-1704) substituted subjectivism for biblical authority. Knowledge is only
experiential, derived from sensations and developed into reflections through contemplation.
Locke was correct that the Christian is in an experiential relationship with Christ, but experience
is only part of that equation (cf. Rom 6:8). Rejecting all that “contradicted experimental reason,”
he laid a foundation for liberalism and neo-orthodoxy14 in contradiction to Scripture (cf. 2 Cor
4:18). George Berkeley (1685-1753) built upon the precept that knowledge exists only in the
mind: Scripture disagrees (cf. Acts 22:14). Not an atheist, his god was not supernatural.15 David
Hume (1711-1776) denied spiritual realities, attacked miracles, and concluded that objective
truth was unknowable.16 The Enlightenment replaced biblical foundations with rationalism.17
Idealism
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) expanded rationalism, arguing that any concept of God must
come from reason, attacking traditional “proofs for the existence of God: “Jesus as man could not
___________________
12 John D Caputo, Philosophy and Theology, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 44.
13 All Scripture from the King James Bible unless otherwise noted.
14 Ibid., Enns, 589.
16 Ibid., 590.
17 Ibid., 497.
4
be God” (John 1:1-2).18 Contrary God’s declaration, “Knowledge cannot exist apart from
rationalism . . . and empiricism.”19, For George Hegel (1770-1831), the only reality was the
mind: “everything else is an expression of the mind.”20 “All reality is an expression of the
Absolute, who is God,” a God of the mind, not Him of the Bible.21 The Psalmist said, “Be
still, and know that I am God” (Ps 46:10a). Hegel saw God in terms of a dialectic: thesis against
antithesis: “the real is rational and the rational is real.”22 He taught that the rational evolution of
Christianity was speculative philosophy.23 God, however, says He is stability, not change: “Jesus
Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). Idealistic utopianism advanced
man as Authority, deconstructing the biblical God to fit humanistic utopian theories. Global war
demonstrated again the true nature of man, destroying the utopian Idealism.
Standard Liberalism
Variations on a theme continued: individuals differed considerably, but all de-deified
God and made the Bible co-equal with other books. Freidrich Schleiermacher (1763-1834), the
“father of neo-Orthodoxy and modern liberalism,” countered rationalism with a “theology of
feeling”24 “in which the person could experience God,”25 holding with Scripture that reveals
man’s experiential knowledge of God (cf. Luke 1:1-4), but departing from orthodoxy, he
emphasized the “subjective nature of religion” that was “ethical . . . feeling an absolute
dependence (on) God-consciousness;” correctly asking, “what must I do to be saved,” but
discarding biblical tenants of salvation: sin is man isolating himself from God and other men.26
Regeneration results as man participates in the contemporary.27 Declaring that experience
____________________
18 Ibid., Enns, 590.
19 Ibid., 591.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., 593.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
5
replaces authority, he set the stage for later neo-orthodoxy to continue the rejection of
Scripture.28 Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889) sought a practical religion, rejecting the philosophical
and experiential.29 Like Nicodemus, in his preconceptions, avoided God’s plan and solution
(John 3:1-21). He rejected traditional concepts of original sin, the bodily resurrection of Christ,
and miracles as impractical, thus unimportant.30 Adolph von Harnack (1851-1930) believed that
“Christian beliefs were molded by Greek thought.” Scripture teaches that the Gospel was taken to
the Greeks, not received from them (Rom 1:16). In denying the deity of Christ and the
miraculous, he sought revelation through the “central truth or kernel” of the first-century church:
the religion of Jesus the man instead of Jesus the mythological Christ.31
Biblical, or “Higher,” criticism developed in this period. Jean Astruc (1684-1766), and
others, began an ever-increasing dissection of the biblical text, replacing historically accepted
authors and dates with an increasing variety of “scientifically derived” but undocumented
sources “uncovered” through textual studies, thus rejecting the historical accuracy of the Bible.32
Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918) the “father of the social gospel,” considered capitalism evil
and found Jesus’ love as the cure. With language and context considered, he rejected the person
and message of Jesus in favor of his social agenda rather than the whole of scriptural truth.33
World War I destroyed the idealistic dreams of Liberal Theology as the realities of
man’s behavior were demonstrated once again. Henry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969) attempted
to rescue theology after the war with his New Liberalism, called “realistic theology.”34 Rejecting
orthodoxy and intellectualism, he sought God “outside of man.” and his failures.35
Neo-orthodoxy or Dialectical Theology
The new movement was neo-Orthodoxy. Sounding like a return to orthodox values, it was a
continuation of rationalism that discarded the idealism. Soren Kierkegaard (1835-1855) refined
____________________
____________________
28 Ibid. Enns, 594.
29 Ibid., 594.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., 594-5.
32 Ibid., 595.
33 Ibid., 596.
34 Ibid., 597.
35 Ibid.
6
existential theology based upon the historicity of Christ and biblical events.36 A Christ who is
grounded in history was an improvement, but the history was narrowly interpreted and his Jesus
was caricature of the real Christ. His transcendent God was difficult to know, requiring absolute
obedience, and a subjective “leap of faith in despair” to effect an empty encounter,37 Karl Barth
“returned (theologians) to a study of the Bible,” that was not the Word of God, but a “witness” to
the Word.38 Sounding orthodox, he taught that revelation existed from God in Christ as the Holy
Spirit enabled man’s understanding. Departing from the Word, he held that revelation continues
today in individual experience. Barth extended the revisionist use of traditional theological
terms: adopting “Calvin’s terminology, but ascribing different meaning(s).”39 He held a “high
view of God,” but “retained liberal views concerning higher criticism.”40 Neo-Orthodoxy takes
the Bible more seriously than liberalism, but is fundamentally liberal theology that rejects the
deity of God and the inspiration of Scripture.41
The Theology of Paul Tillich
Paul Tillich (1886-1965), called “the theologian’s theologian,”42 acknowledged that
religion is universally human, but stated that his theology “differs from what is usually called
religion since it does not describe religion as the belief in the existence of gods or one God.”43
While he correctly stated that the Bible needs to be interpreted, his method rejected the
inspiration and authority of the Word. He claimed to “stand on the boundary between liberalism
and neo-orthodoxy,”44 where the symbols of Christianity “have no meaning whatsoever,”
because of the reality of science, yet may serve to mediate between God and man.45 He spoke as
____________________
36 Ibid., Enns, 603.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., 606.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid., 607.
41 Ibid., 603.
42 Ibid., 612.
43 Paul Tillich, The Essential Tillich: An Anthology of the Writings of Paul Tillich, “The Lost Dimension in Religion,” The Saturday Evening Post 230, 50 (June 1958): 29, 76, 78-79), ed. F. Forrester Church, (NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), 1.
44 Ibid., Enns, 612.
45 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 211.
7
a Christian, acknowledging God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit; he quoted Scripture. As he
conjoined them in theological terms, he rejected their orthodox meanings. “God is the answer to
the question implied in man’s finitude; he is the name for that which concerns man ultimately. . .
(although) this does not mean that there is a being called God.”46 The relevance of traditional
theological language, or even the plain meaning of words, is discarded in favor of relativistic
expressionism as the theologian rejects his biblical roots: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18 KJV).
Theological Presuppositions
Tillich paraphrases Paul: “To the idealists , I have become as one of themselves, to win
those who are idealists, although I am not an idealist myself” (cf. 1 Cor 9: 20).47 His
interpretation is much different than Paul’s: “The theologian uses idealism, its concepts and
methods. He becomes a Platonist to the Platonists, a Stoics to the Stoics, an Hegelian to the
Hegelians, a progressivist to the progressivists . . . but he never imposes his preferred form upon
others in the name of Christianity”48 He shuns “kerygmatic,” or unchangeable truth, in favor of
an “apologetic” method that is relativistic.49 Tillich melds orthodox theological language and
rationalism into a theology that is not what it appears to be:
Theology does not exist outside the community of those who affirm that Jesus is the Christ, outside the Church, the assembly of God. Theology is a work of the church, precisely because it is a gift of the Divine Spirit . . . Theology expresses the faith of the Church. It restates the paradoxical statement, ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ and considers all its presuppositions and implications.”50
Theology Proper
His opinion of God is a distortion of Scripture: “Luther’s God, who acts heroically and
____________________
46 Ibid., Systematic, 211.
47 Ibid., Shocking, 153.
48 Paul Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations, (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948), 120.
49 Ibid., Systematic, 6-7.
50 Ibid., Shaking, 120.
8
without rules—is He not the wasteful God who creates and destroys in order to create again?”51
Rejecting God’s communicating grace, he asks: “would you really want a God to make your
decisions for you? The Lord . . . wants you to decide for yourself.52 Rejecting the Bible as the
inspired Word of the biblical God (cf. 2 Tim 3:16), Tillich creates his own god who “does not
‘exist,’ but is a ‘power’ or ‘ground’ or ‘depth’ of being that allows beings to be.”53 Miming
aspects of the biblical God, his is omnipresent (cf. Ps 139:7-10) and is a “power,” but not a
divine Person: “God is being itself, rather than a being, there is no place to which we could flee
from God which is outside God.”54 Tillich’s “appropriation of the hermeneutical assumptions”
have spawned “a whole range of academic enterprises” that are identified as “religion,”
relegating Christianity to par with all of the world’s religions.55 This critical juncture in
conservative theology is made manifest by the integration of theology into the umbrella of
schools of religion, elevating comparative religion, anthropology, and philosophy above
theology,56 and blurring the boundaries between God and the gods, attempting to make the “word
of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things
do ye” (Mark 7:13).
Hamartiology
For Tillich, the fall of man was not a historical event (cf. Gen 3), but “a non-temporal
___________________
51 Ibid., New, 48.
52 Ibid., 119.
53 Richard Grigg, Beyond the God Delusion: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science & Religion, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 59-60.
54 Ibid., Shaking, 40.
55 Tomoko Masuzawa, Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. Taylor, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 80.
56 Thomas J. Altizer, Thomas J. J., and William Hamilton, Radical Theology and the Death of God, (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1954), 3.
9
transition from essence to existence;” a “disruption of the essential unity with God,” the god who
is a power, not a person.57 Religion is not a “special function of man’s spiritual life, but the
dimension of depth in all its functions.”58 “Estrangement” is “man’s existential situation,” yet it
“cannot replace sin,” although it needs to because of the theological misuse of the word: sin is “a
quasi-personal power which ruled this world,” but has been wrongly used to mean “deviations
from moral laws.”59 With no personal god, no absolute values, and religion itself but a “special
function,” his use of the word “sin” has no relationship with that of traditional theology (cf. Rom
5:12).
Soteriology
Salvation “is certainly not what popular imagination has made of it, escaping from hell
and being received in heaven, in what is badly called ‘the life hearafter.’”60 He states that,
contrary to an evangelical understanding, based upon the NT, “eternal life is not a continuation
of life after death. Eternal life is beyond past, present and future: we come from it, we live in
its presence, we return to it. It is never absent . . . we are mortal like every creature.”61 Salvation
without a personal god is also described in non-traditional terms by Tillich: it is found in the
“ultimate concern” of the “New Being” as seen in Christ the man because He “evidenced real
concern.”62 Tillich’s “ultimate concern” is that primary concern of man above all else that can
only be satisfied in his Christ-who-is-not-Christ, but only an idea, a concept.63 In common with
other neo-theologians, he diligently, even desperately, seeks the peace and security of salvation
offered by the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, Son of the living God, while rejecting
the absolute reality and efficacy of God, in favor of creations of his mind. We might remember
that Nietzsche, cited earlier propounding his “God is dead” philosophy, died insane, captive to
____________________
57 Ibid., Enns, 612.
58 Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture, ed. Robert C Kimball, (NY: Oxford University Press, 1959), 7-8.
59 Ibid., Systematic, Vol. 2, 44-47.
60 Paul Tillich, The Eternal Now, (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963). 114.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid., Enns, 612.
63 Ibid., Culture, 7-8.
10
his own rejection of God.64 Like Nietzsche, Tillich’s language shows an inability to escape his
own knowledge of the God-who-is, who in some inexplicable way “lighteth every man that
cometh into the world” (John 1:9). While completely rejecting the God of creation, he constantly
returns to biblical language to describe his god-who-is-not-God.
Christology
Rather profoundly, Tillich states: “The Christ had to suffer and die, because whenever the
divine appears in all Its depth, It cannot be endured by men.65 He clarifies this statement:
We long for a Christ of power. Yet if He were to come and transform us and our world, we
should have to pay the one price which we could not pay: we would have to lose our freedom,
our humanity, and our spiritual dignity.66 Jesus Christ is, to Tillich, a non-person, a “symbol of
the ‘New Being’ in which every force of estrangement trying to dissolve his unity with God has
been dissolved.”67 Like Festus, Tillich’s god has no incarnation, death, and resurrection as does
God the Son: “Moses did say this day should come: that Christ should suffer, and that he should
be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and unto the
Gentiles . . . Festus said . . . Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make the mad”
(Acts 26:22b-24).68
Pneumatology
“It is the work of the Spirit,” Tillich says, “that removes God from our sight.”69
Discussing Romans 8: 1-16, 26-27, Tillich noted that, although Paul considered words like
“spirit, flesh, sin, law, life, and death” as expressions of the “most concrete experience of his
life,” that they appear to him as philosophical abstractions.70 He concludes that the Spirit is
Christ and Christ is the Spirit, and both constitute the new reality in which a Christian
____________________
64 Ibid., Beyond, vi.
65 Ibid., Shaking, 147.
66 Ibid., 148.
67 Ibid., Enns, 612.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid., Eternal, 88.
70 Ibid., Shaking, 132.
11
participates. Sounding quite orthodox, he states that, “To be a Christian means to have the Spirit,
and any description of Christianity must be a description of the manifestation of the Spirit.71
His explanation clarifies his non-orthodox assumptions: “in speaking of our spirit, he (Paul)
acknowledges the creativity of man, his similarity to God Who is Spirit, his ability to be free
himself, and to liberate all nature, from the vanity and the bondage of corruption by his own
liberation.”72
Conclusion
Paul Tillich is representative of an enigma within the theological community: the non-
Christian theologian who uses the title and language of orthodox theology while departing from
biblical values, establishing man as the ultimate Source. Acknowledging the Bible as the
“original document about the events on which Christianity is based,” he rejects it as the sole
Source.73 His desire to address the concerns of modern society is commendable. His rejection of
Scripture leaves him nothing but his own mind to solve his world’s problems resulting in an
inevitable distortion of God’s message. While clinging to the title “theology,” his work is a
parody. Erickson, expanding his definition of Christian theology, said that it is:
the discipline that strives to give a coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith, based primarily on the Scriptures, placed in the context of culture in general, worded in contemporary idiom, and related to the issues of life: it is biblical; it is systematic; it is related to issues of culture and learning; it is contemporary; it is practical.74
Tillich, as other philosophical theologians, fails the first requirement. Making the Bible
irrelevant, he sought freedom from the person of the God “I AM” in his nebulous concept of the
god, “I am,” but to no avail: self was but a poor reflection, and proved no less a taskmaster than
the God he would escape. He was confined by the limitations of language: even replacing the
plain meaning of words with his own, he could never escape the reality of the God who gave
mankind language. His theology was systematic. Tillich presented his arguments logically and
____________________
71 Ibid., Shaking, 132.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid., Systematic Vol. 1, 34-40.
74 Ibid., Erickson, 8.
12
plainly. It was said that he was hard to read.75 Yet his work has a captivating quality,
engendering appreciation at one phrase, and anger at another. He did not write to be loved or
even appreciated: he was driven. He was alone in a crowd; accompanied by Nietzsche, Locke,
Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Barth, and so many more. More will follow. He
addressed contemporary culture and education at the expense of a diminished view of God
and His Word, relying upon contemporary culture,76 as interpreted by individual experience.77
In the spirit of the Enlightenment and its theological offspring, he addressed the man-
centric now, creating theology to fit his concept of experience and science. His theology was not
realistic. Given the reality of God and the certainty of eternity, his path led followers away from
“the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
His “ultimate concern” displaces God:78 it is but a reiteration with variations of Nietzsche
and the various neo-theologies since; his was only a moment in the ongoing quest for any-god-
but-God. His theological language is superficially traditional, but radically non-orthodox. He,
and his contemporaries, use the language of conventional theology to describe their new,
acceptable god; a god who loves everyone, condemns no one, and lets well-enough alone. His
god is rather superfluous since biblical concepts of eternity, sin, and salvation do not exist in real
terms. His theology, well intentioned, carefully conceived and crafted, failing to provide the
necessary elements for man to know and interact with his God; certainly not to find salvation in
the blood of the Lamb.
“Unbelievers can write and study theology, but a believer has a dimension and
perspective on the truth of God that no unbeliever can have. The deep things of the Spirit are
taught by the Spirit, whom the unbeliever does not have” (1 Cor 2:10-16).79 Sound biblical
teaching includes warnings of spurious and dangerous diversions from His truth (Matt 24:11-12).
Orthodox theologians and teachers must be bold and careful in their proclamation of the Word.
____________________
75 Ibid., Essential, xi.
76 Ibid., Systematic Vol. 1, 36-38.
77 Ibid., 40-46.
78 Ibid., 238-39.
79 Ibid., Ryrie, 18.
13
Selected Bibliography
Altizer, Thomas J. and William Hamilton. Radical Theology and the Death of God. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1954.
Balmer, Randall, and Lauren F. Winner. Protestantism in America. NY: Columbia University Press, 2002.
Bouma, Jeremy. “The Gospel According to Paul Tillich; On the Human Condition,” Theology, 24 August 2011: 1, accessed 10 April 2017, http://www.jeremybouma.com/the-gospel-according-to-paul-tillich-on-the-human-condition-sin-2/.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: 1996.
Caputo, John D. Philosophy and Theology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology, Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Grigg, Richard. Beyond the God Delusion: How Radical Theology Harmonizes Science & Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.
Hyman, Gavin. The Predicament of Postmodern Theology: Radical Orthodoxy or Nihilist Textualism? Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Masuzawa, Tomoko. Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. Taylor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998).
Mueller, S.J., et al. Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding Christian Faith. Winona, MN: St. Mary’s Press, 2007.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Radical Monotheism and Western Culture: With Supplementary Essays. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, Trans. Helen Zimmerman. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1997.
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Colorado Springs, CO: 1981.
Tillich, Paul. The Essential Tillich: An Anthology of the Writings of Paul Tillich, ed. F. Forrester Church. NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.
___. The Eternal Now. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963.
___. The New Being. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955.
___. The Shaking of the Foundations. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948.
___. Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 & 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.
___. Theology of Culture, ed. Robert C Kimball. NY: Oxford University Press, 1959.
Van Buren, Paul M. The Secular Meaning of the Gospel. NY: The Macmillan Company, 1963.
Vahanian, Gabriel. The Death of God: The Culture of our Post-Christian Era. NY: George Braziller, 1961