philosophical, and theological discourse (see the recent work ofMichael Gillespie, Mark Lilla, or Brad Gregory for examples).

This book is an excellent introduction into not only the thought, butalso the person of Nicholas Wolterstorff. Most, but not all, of the essaysare written at the popular level and are deserving of a wide readership.As an outsider to the Reformed tradition, I was pleasantly surprised tofind in this collection not only careful insight, but also a commitment tohumility, openness, and justice. A quick survey of the popular dis-course surrounding Reformed theology, particularly in America, makesit abundantly clear that these traits are in short supply. If you arelooking for the best that the Reformed tradition has to offer the widerchurch, or are disillusioned with the few sensationalistic Reformedwriters who constantly appear in headlines, then I urge you to pick upthis book. Regardless of your theological or philosophical (I lean on theContinental side myself) commitments, you will find much worthwhilewithin these pages.

Stephen LawsonEmmanuel Christian Seminary

� � �

Capitalism as Religion? A Study of Paul Tillich’s Interpretation ofModernity, Francis Ching-Wah Yip, Harvard University Press, 2010(ISBN 978-0-674-02147-1), xvi + 220 pp., pb $22.95rirt_1088 395..525

In Capitalism as Religion? Francis Ching-Wah Yip provides an insightfulanalysis into the way that the correlational theology promulgated byPaul Tillich actually offers an answer to the questions that arise in thelate capitalist situation. Being a revised doctoral dissertation, Yip’s textis not for the faint of heart or non-academically minded. However, forthose willing to make the effort, Yip’s account offers many insights andplaces for further thinking.

The argument in Capitalism as Religion? can be broken into two parts.The first provides an analysis of the theology of Paul Tillich. Yip focuseson Tillich’s theology of culture, saying that Tillich believes religion isthe substance of culture. Yip builds on Tillich’s notion that all aspects ofhuman culture express an ultimate concern, making all inherently reli-gious. Capitalism is, thus, religious. However, Tillich uses his notion ofthe ‘demonic’ to articulate the nature of capitalism in religious terms.The demonic does not mean inherently evil, but a creative and destruc-tive structure; it places something finite as ultimate; it can only beovercome through a structure of grace instead of goodwill; and, it asks

Reviews 395

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

for a level of commitment usually reserved for the divine. Through thisnotion of the demonic, Yip proposes that Tillich’s elucidation of ‘quasi-religion’ is also appropriate since it relates to an entity that is notexplicitly religious but still gives life ultimate meaning. In fact, for Yip,quasi-religion is more appropriate to a theological critique of capital-ism. Yip, then, continues by outlining how Tillich criticizes capitalismthrough his critique of modernity. He sees modernity and the rise ofcapitalism to be essentially the same. His critique revolves aroundthe fact that both modernity and capitalism utilize ‘technical’ reasoninstead of the ontological reason used in majority of the history ofWestern philosophy. Technical reason does not offer a way of determin-ing ends, which results in means being given ultimacy, to the pointwhere ends are forgotten. Technical reason is also objectifying anddehumanizing, trying to control that which it analyzes instead ofunderstanding its own involvement. Technical reason, then, is problem-atic because it turns people and relations into objects to use and exploit.However, Yip ends this part by pointing to the fact that Tillich believesthere is room for hope through theology, mainly through theology’sability to offer a transcendent viewpoint, which undermines the tech-nical reason employed by modernity and capitalism.

This analysis points toward the second part, which is a furtheringof Tillich’s project through a critique of capitalism by using Tillich’scategory of ‘quasi-religion’. Yip begins by showing some of theshortcomings of Tillich’s theology, especially when it comes to dealingwith capitalism. This critique centers on three problems in Tillich’saccount: the first is that Tillich is quite Eurocentric, forgetting theother of capitalistic modernity; second, Tillich describes capitalismthrough a cultural-spiritual lens, neglecting the materialist-economicdimension; and, third, Tillich only describes capitalism through thecategory of the ‘demonic’ when his critique would have been betterserved by using his category of ‘quasi-religion’. As a supplement toTillich, Yip turns to the theology of Jürgen Moltmann. For Yip, Molt-mann’s theology is aware of the materialist-economic dimensions ofcapitalism while also taking into account the underside and otherof capitalistic modernity. Yip then turns to Emile Durkheim’s accountof religion to further the understanding of capitalism as religion.Durkheim understands religion in terms of sacred things, which areset apart and not questioned or engaged as well as being a center ofbeliefs and rites around which a society or culture gathers. Yip usesMoltmann and Durkheim to propose that capitalism is ultimately andquasi-religion and that, as such, the critique of capitalism must takeinto account its quasi-religious character. This opens the path for aproperly theological critique of capitalism that builds upon the corre-lational theology Tillich proposes, as explicated by Yip in the first partof the argument.

Reviews396

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

While there is much to laud in Yip’s text, I have three criticisms. Thefirst is that Yip’s argument tends to be repetitive. I imagine that this hasto do with the fact that it is a published version of his dissertation, butit still has much repetition. Second, he does not seem to take Tillich tosome of his more ‘radical’ conclusions. He is successful in offering adetailed account of Tillich’s thought but does not open this up to itsconclusions for today. For instance, while he acknowledges that Tillichembraced socialism, he does not detail how that would affect Tillich’sinteractions with today’s thought. In short, Yip does not, in the end,offer a very correlational theology. Third, while outside the specificaims of the project, I think it would have helped his argument if Yip hadgiven a practical account of how his argument may play out. He seemsto endorse a socialist perspective, but we are never told what this maylook like in our world. Even a brief sketch would have been quitehelpful and buttressed his argument. In the end, though, these criti-cisms should not keep anyone from reading and engaging Yip’s argu-ment. He offers much that is beneficial and with which theologiansshould engage.

Nathan CrawfordPlymouth, IN

Reviews 397

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.