In reviewing Joseph McLelland's Prometheus Rebound for the Dalhousie Review, I praised this thoughtful work for the dignity of its apologetic, the breadth of it scholarship (both as intellectual history and literary criticism), and the plausibility of one of its central historical theses. However, I also indicated that I am not convinced McLelland has provided us with satisfactory guidelines as to how to exploit his key historical insight. I observed that he has been somewhat presumptuous, for the brief and rather vague theological and philosophical comments he ends the volume with do not go far enough toward establishing what the proper alternative is to viewing the Christian God in the way the Promethean-postulatory atheists do. Whatever their limitations, Promethean atheists have quite consistently had good reason to believe that, for the most part, Christians and other theists have been motivated by a conception of God that is neither sufficiently clear, nor sufficiently morally efficacious. In drawing our attention to poetic phrases from such modem luminaries as Barth, Tillich, Macquarrie, Hartshorne and Moltmann, McLelland does point us in a certain direction, but he seems in the end to undervalue the complexity of the theodicy problem as well as the magnitude of the evils that critics of Christian conceptions of God have reasonably associated with those conceptions. McLelland undoubtedly knows that the historical, critical aspects of