Samuel Shearn

Fifty years after his death in 1965 the essays in this collection return to Paul Tillich to investigate his theology and its legacy, with a focus on contemporary British scholarship. Originating in a conference held in Oxford in 2014, the book contains 16 original contributions from a mixture of junior and more established scholars, most of whom have a connection to Britain. The contributions are diverse, but four themes emerge throughout the volume. Several essays are concerning with a characterisation of Tillich's theology. In dialogue with recent emphases on the radical Tillich, some essays suggest a more conservative estimation of Tillich's theology, rooted in the Idealist and classical Christian platonic traditions, whilst in constant engagement with changing existential situations. Secondly, and perhaps reflecting the context of religious diversity and theories of religious pluralism in Britain, many essays engage Tillich's approach to non-Christian religions. Thirdly, some essays address the importance of existentialist philosophy for Tillich, notably via an engagement with Sartre. Finally, a number of essays take up the diagnostic potential of Tillich's theology as a resource for engaging contemporary challenges.

In this paper I first sketch out the field of Christian theological responses to Nietzsche with special reference to Merold Westphal and Giles Fraser. This forms the backdrop for my analysis of Taylor. I argue Taylor characterizes Nietzsche as deeply insightful but peculiarly inhuman and employs Nietzsche in his apologetic strategy to highlight the need for strong moral sources for the demands of humanism. I claim that Taylor also makes theological responses to Nietzsche. Taylor holds out hope that a vision of the divine affirmation of the world provides the best sustenance for life together in the 21st century. Yet he concedes the continuing strength of Nietzsche’s critique and insight for Christianity. In the concluding part of my essay I offer reflections on the contribution Taylor’s response to Nietzsche makes to Christian theology, with recourse to the parable of the prodigal son.

In this essay, moral anti-theodicy is characterized as opposition to the trivialization of suffering, defined as the reinterpretation of horrendous evils in a way the sufferer cannot accept. Ambitious theodicy (which claim goods emerge from specific evils) is deemed always to trivialize horrendous evils and, because there is no specific theoretical context, also harm sufferers. Moral anti-theodicy is susceptible to two main criticisms. First, it is over-demanding as a moral position. Second, anti-theodicist opposition to least ambitious theodicies, which portray God's decision to create as an scenario, requires a moral commitment to philosophical pessimism. Thus anti-theodicists should not be quick to take the moral high ground. However, this should not encourage theodicists, since theodicies may well be self-defeating in so far as they attempt to provide comfort