My goal in this paper is to demonstrate that Milbank and Ẑiẑek's respective criticisms of Hegel's redescription of the Christian narrative are flawed because both identify Hegelian spirit as fully immanent. This misreading has enormous consequences, for it suggests that Hegel did not find a way to adequately support his project of reconciling the finite and the infinite. By contrast, I suggest that if Hegel's philosophy of religion is understood as both immanent and transcendent, or more precisely, as advancing a (...) theory of mutual immanence, the charges of nihilism and atheism cannot be upheld. (shrink)