Critics of the right wing of twentieth-century Protestant theology, most notably Neo-orthodoxy and more specifically the theology of Karl Barth, tend to be troubled by the central role given to what Barth calls the ‘science of dogmatics’. Their problem is twofold. (1) Dogmatics, at least in the Barthian conception of that science, appears to be exclusivist, accessible only to those who are already among the initiate, obscurantist, arrogant and even irrational. (2) Dogmatics is represented as the sole means of entry into theology: Barth uncompromisingly and aggressively rejects any other avenues. He is disdainful of philosophy, of philosophical theology, and even of ‘natural theology’ (see his treatment of Brunner in the early book, Natural Theology and his critique of Tillich in his very last book, Evangelical Theology).

The purpose of this article is to explore ways of defending the biblical basis of Paul Tillich's christology, and so to reveal some of the issues concerning the relationship between scripture and theology. ‘Christology’ is selected because it is central to Tillich's theology; ‘Tillich’ is selected because of his recorded words that students should ask ‘the systematic theologian about the biblical foundation of his statements, in the actual biblical texts as they are philologically related’.

At first sight, revolution and quietism are political opposites. This appears to be true even when both terms are taken in optimam partem. Viewed in the most favourable light, revolution is the active overthrow—in the name of freedom and justice (by what means is a question which may initially be left open)—of an oppressive and unjust system. For its part, quietism, benevolently considered, is the temporary acquiescence in an oppressive and unjust state of affairs whose wrongs will, the quietist hopes, eventually disappear.