Haight's claim that Jesus is a symbol of God is the focal point of his christology (uncapitalized throughout his works). Through the genetic method of critical correlation and conversation, within the christological pluralism of New Testament christologies, Haight conveys his central message for the postmodern period that Jesus is the bearer of God's salvation by his symbolical salvific mediation of God's presence. This message can be conveyed to the postmodern culture by reinterpreting the fundamental Christian religious symbols, which should be intelligible in the cultural context in order to avoid traditionalism, fundamentalism and radical liberalism, with the ultimate goal for faith to assume the form of the culture in which it is implemented. At the same time, such reinterpretation must remain faithful to tradition and strengthen the life of the Christian community. The objective of this dissertation is to present, analyze and critically assess the meaning of religious symbols in Haight's theology, especially the identification of Jesus as God's symbol, whose divinity and humanity are expressed through his dialectical structure. Preferring Spirit christology that avoids the hypostatization of God as Word in Johannine Logos christology, in order to express God's activity in the world through the symbol of God as Spirit, Haight begins from "below" in his christology, from the existentialhistorical Jesus of Nazareth, who is accessible to all people through their experience of Him as an individual and particular human person, who mediates God's salvific presence as a religious symbol. Although Haight claims to accept Nicaea and Chalcedon, professing that Jesus was a human person with an integral human nature in whom "no less than God," divine nature was at work, his reinterpretation of the Councils significantly alters the meaning. Overemphasizing symbolism in Jesus' salvific mediation (a symbol mediates something other than itself) and its dialectical structure (so that at the same time it is possible to say that Jesus is and is not God), Haight demonstrates merely a soteriological concern without asking the ontological christological question of who Jesus is in himself and in relation to God. Haight’s attempt to answer the christological question boils down to a quantitative differentiation of God's presence to Jesus and to other people, wherein God was present to Jesus in a superlative manner. Haight clearly confirms Jesus' humanity and consubstantiality with other human persons but there is no direct affirmation of Jesus' divine nature. The separation of soteriology from christology results in christocentrism being replaced by Haight's version of theocentrism, which allows for other and equally valid salvific mediations without Christ and outside Christianity, thereby reaffirming the old deictic theory of divine mediation without the clear identification of the Word as the only one and true God.