potential universality. I was, shall I say, buzzed at the prospect of the constructive use I can make of Feuerbach as well as how evident to me it was that some of his major statements were flawed. While he could say that the greater one’s view of God is, the more humanity is deprecated, that in order to make much of God, humanity must be lowered and humiliated, I would identify such with defective Christianity but not a case for a flaw in a theological approach to Christianity. While many Christians do approach God and humanity as having mutually exclusive greatness, my reading of the Biblical text seems to confirm to me the idea that the greatness of God and the greatness of humanity correspond and rise together. The greatness of God exalts the innate nature of humanity and their fullest potential. As Schleiermacher stated in a letter to his father, “You say that the glorification of God is the end of our being, and I say the glorification of the creature; is not this in the end the same thing? Is not the Creator more and more glorified the happier and the more perfect his creatures are?” Does this mean we dissolve the concept of God into the concept of humanity? I do not think that Feuerbach has proved his point here, but merely has shown a dynamic correlation between humanity and God, which is certainly in keeping with a theistic understanding of Christianity. It is with this approach that Feuerbach excites me, for as I read Feuerbach, I do not see how humanity has projected its greatness, hopes, desires, and fears as God, but how they find their fulfillment in him.